|

|
User Controls
|
New User
|
Login
|
Edit/View My Profile
|

|

|

|
ActiveMac
|
Articles
|
Forums
|
Links
|
News
|
News Search
|
Reviews
|

|

|

|
News Centers
|
Windows/Microsoft
|
DVD
|
ActiveHardware
|
Xbox
|
MaINTosh
|
News Search
|

|

|

|
ANet Chats
|
The Lobby
|
Special Events Room
|
Developer's Lounge
|
XBox Chat
|

|

|

|
FAQ's
|
Windows 98/98 SE
|
Windows 2000
|
Windows Me
|
Windows "Whistler" XP
|
Windows CE
|
Internet Explorer 6
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Xbox
|
DirectX
|
DVD's
|

|

|

|
TopTechTips
|
Registry Tips
|
Windows 95/98
|
Windows 2000
|
Internet Explorer 4
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Windows NT Tips
|
Program Tips
|
Easter Eggs
|
Hardware
|
DVD
|

|

|

|
Latest Reviews
|
Applications
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002
|

|
Hardware
|
Intel Personal Audio Player
3000
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse
Explorer
|

|

|

|
Site News/Info
|
About This Site
|
Affiliates
|
ANet Forums
|
Contact Us
|
Default Home Page
|
Link To Us
|
Links
|
Member Pages
|
Site Search
|
Awards
|

|

|

|
Credits
©1997/2004, Active Network. All
Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by
Designer Dream. Content
written by the Active Network team. Please click
here for full terms of
use and restrictions or read our
Privacy Statement.
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Time:
13:15 EST/18:15 GMT | News Source:
CMP |
Posted By: Todd Richardson |
Partners first heard whispers about Longhorn, the innovative next-generation of Windows with a completely new kernel, way back in 2002 or earlier. It was supposed to be in beta in 2003. Didn't happen. This year, Microsoft finally 'fessed up about its Longhorn travails, and in the process unveiled some significant technical compromises it would make to get the operating system out the door for its official release date of late 2006 (for the client) and late 2007 (for the server).
The compromise in question is the decision to take Longhorn to market sans its most heralded, new feature, WinFS (Windows File System). WinFS is a unified file system that would sport innovative search capabilities that make retrieving an array of desktop system file types much simpler. Apparently, developing WinFS is anything but simple, however, and certainly not easy enough to do by the first release of Longhorn. To soften the blow, Microsoft has promised to deliver two other key Longhorn components, the Web services/communications subsystem Indigo and the graphics subsystem Avalon, in the first iteration of the OS. In addition to that, Indigo and Avalon will also be released as individual components for use on existing Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 machines. The intent is to let developers and integrators at least get started with some elements of the technology, and it's a decision that many partners have applauded.
|
|
#1 By
143 (68.74.56.126)
at
12/30/2004 2:13:32 PM
|
It's like XP on steroids :D
|
#2 By
1896 (68.153.171.248)
at
12/30/2004 3:44:35 PM
|
I don't know what the RTM version of Longhorn will be but both the two releases available right now are much more than XP on steroids.
|
#3 By
415 (68.54.28.118)
at
12/30/2004 7:09:13 PM
|
That's what I was thinking, fritzly. These fuks haven't even used the alpha builds and they want to pass judgement on it. There's new features in everything from Task Scheduler (which I can't wait for) to the Start menu and it will be well worth the wait and the upgrade.
|
#4 By
12071 (203.217.26.160)
at
12/30/2004 8:21:50 PM
|
#3 Wow!!! An updated Task Scheduler AND a new Start Menu!!! I'm really hoping for an updated version of Solitare and Minesweeper!!! Surely you could have mentioned a few slightly more important new features than a change to the Start Menu!!!
|
#5 By
11888 (64.230.65.172)
at
12/30/2004 8:36:00 PM
|
I'm all tingly at the thought of a new calculator.
|
#6 By
37 (24.183.41.60)
at
12/31/2004 7:47:38 AM
|
#4 Read Paul Thurrot's review then if you want to see the extensive new features.
|
#7 By
415 (68.54.28.118)
at
12/31/2004 11:28:59 AM
|
kabuti, my point is that people look a new Windows release and don't see how much of a new release it actually is, or how much new software they're actually getting. Microsoft has reworked and/or enhanced many essential but not high profile features of Windows, and they get no credit for it.
I remember the time leading up to Windows XP when all the media and morons where telling people that XP wasn't a worthwhile upgrade over Windows 2000 Pro. That couldn't have been farther from the truth. For some people, features like Remote Dektop, all the new command line tools, yes even the Start menu enhancements, would have been major motivating factors if the media would have just dug a little deeper.
|
#8 By
12071 (203.217.26.160)
at
12/31/2004 7:31:59 PM
|
#6 No offence but Mr Thurrot is a bigger MS zealot than just about everyone on this site put together. The crap that he writes at times is utterly amazing, just like his latest load of FUD where he started complaining that Google Desktop Search is crap compared to MSN Desktop Search. His reasoning was that Google managed to write their Desktop Search within 2 months, whereas it took MS a lot longer, and that Google's Desktop Search is a beta. I guess through those MS supplied glasses he wears he somehow didn't see that MSN Desktop Search was beta too!
I know of the new features that have been promised for Longhorn, which is why I posted my sarcastic (maybe it wasn't obvious enough) message that IronCladLou chose to mention the Task Scheduler and the Start Menu. They wouldn't be in the top 6 new features that I would have been boasting about if I was trying to sell the idea.
|
#9 By
665 (24.17.246.233)
at
12/31/2004 9:49:15 PM
|
Chris (#8), I don't mean to fan the flame wars, but the feature set on Google's search is pretty sparce compared to MSN's. Of course, as you mentioned, they are both in beta. I thought they both worked great for actually searching, but when it came to features MSN really whopped Google. I also dislike that I have to be connected to the web to use Google's desktop search. That said, the final products should be interesting, since I'm sure Google won't just sit around.
|
#10 By
12071 (203.217.26.160)
at
1/1/2005 6:33:31 AM
|
#9 I wasn't trying to start a flame war, I was just using that story as an example of why I, like many, consider Mr Thurrot a joke. His MS supplied glasses seem to have been superglued to his head. So I wasn't comparing the feature set of Google vs MSN, I was just demonstrating the FUD that comes out of Mr Thurrot. His soap box on which he preaches the Microsoft line is getting a little big for him.
"but when it came to features MSN really whopped Google."
Apart from the ability to search PDF's and index network drives, what does MSN Desktop Search provide you that Google does not?
"I also dislike that I have to be connected to the web to use Google's desktop search"
You don't need to be connected to the web - you can be, but you don't need to be. Perhaps you are confusing this with the fact that Google Desktop Search is basically a mini web server that runs on your local pc. That is something that many people don't like.
I personally have tried both at home and I've been running Google Desktop Search at work ever since it was released and I like them both. Being able to search all my emails in Outlook in a second or two is invaluable! If that was the only feature provided then I'd be happy - the ability to search any other types of files is just a bonus. So I'm behind as many competitors as possible in this area!
#10 Todd was comparing Google's and MSN's Desktop Searches, not the main search engines themselves.
|
#11 By
665 (24.17.246.233)
at
1/1/2005 8:22:06 PM
|
I like that in MSN's search, it can search as I type (with the Desktop Bar, which I'm not particularly fond it, but it is a cool feature for some). I like how I can sort by Title, Author, Date, Size, Type and Folder. MSN allows you to narrow down your search better and it indexes many more files (over 15,000 on my main computer). Ultimately, though, it comes down to results and I have found that both do a fine job. I also like that MSN has right click support, so I can play media files right from the page, or I can open the containing folder... Google may have some of this too, but I don't know what because it's been a while since I used it.
As for having to be connected to the web for Google's engine to work, that might just be my stupidity... I remember geting an error page when I tried to start it up without being connected to the web, but that might be because of something I did. I knew about it running on its own server, and that doesn't really bother me (though I'd perfer it didn't). Anyway, Paul T. does lean towards MS's side, but he does blast them fairly regularly when they do dumb stuff.
|
#12 By
12071 (203.217.26.160)
at
1/2/2005 8:43:46 AM
|
#13 "Nowhere did he say Google's search tool was "crap"."
Let's go through this one again as you seem to have no long term memory, and a love for people who spread FUD. http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/msn_toolbar_suite_preview.asp
1. "Google released a buggy Google Desktop Search beta just two months after the company heard about Microsoft's plans."
Here Mr FUD phrases his words in such a way as to suggest that Google couldn't have possible though up an idea like Desktop Search on their own. It wasn't until Microsoft told the world of their plan that Google quickly got started on creating their own Desktop Search application.
2. "you can also search both the Web and local files simultaneously (a feature first announced for Longhorn)"
Here Mr FUD once again suggest that Google is incapable with coming up with ideas on it's own and only added the ability to search both your desktop and the web after hearing about Microsoft's plans. Where would Google be without all of it's ideas coming from Microsoft?
3. "The most notable feature of Google Desktop Search, so far, has been its widely-publicized security bugs."
Mr FUD didn't use the word crap, instead he phrased it in a more politically correct sort of way by saying most notable. Here is a link to the definition of notable incase you need it: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=notable.
4. "consider that competitors such as Apple and Google tried to preempt Microsoft by announcing similar features, and yet were both unable to deliver final versions before Microsoft simply shipped the MSN Toolbar Suite."
Consider that Mr FUD now also suggests that Apple can't come up with any ideas on it's own either, that they too rely on Microsoft's announcements so that they can quickly get started on writing similar applications. Also consider that whilst neither Apple nor Google have delivered a final version... neither has Microsoft!!! So what he really meant to say there is that both Apple and Google managed to release beta versions before Microsoft released their beta version!
5. "And like other index-based search tools (including those coming next year from Apple and Google),"
Mr FUD obviously forgot that Google's tool has been available for several months before Microsoft released their tool - but I guess http://desktop.google.com/ doesn't exist, it's not coming until next year according to Mr FUD!
So yes, Mr Thurrot is guilty of spreading FUD, just like you!
"Isn't that enough? Why would you not want to search pdfs or network shares?"
I simply asked for a list of additional features other than those two. I'd prefer my Desktop Search application to be able to search through as many different file types as possible! The network share search wouldn't be any good to me (I'd hate to imagine the size of the index file for some of my work's network drives), but the inclusion of such a feature may prove valuable to some so it should be included if it's easy enough to do.
"On top of that, the MSN toolbar..."
JPEG, GIF, BMP, MP3 etc... Doesn't it only search the filename and not any metadata that may be included in the files themselves just like Google? i.e.
http://beta.search.msn.com/docs/toolbar.aspx?t=MSNTbar_CONC_WhatKindOfFilesCanIFind.htm
"You can search for keywords in the titles of music, image, and video files, as well as program executable files."
#14 "It didn't actually seem like sarcasm."
As I said, and I'll repeat it again as this time around you might read it:
"Surely you could have mentioned a few slightly more important new features than a change to the Start Menu!!!"
|
#13 By
12071 (203.217.26.160)
at
1/2/2005 8:51:56 AM
|
#12 I meant to reply to your message first, but Parkkker's more fun =) The sorting capabilities on the search results is a handy feature, and I do hope that Google add it in. I think that initially they tried to reuse as much of their web interface as possible. As for the number of files that you can index, I didn't think either app had any limits set (aside from harddisk space for the index file(s)) as my work pc has over 160,000 items indexed (which includes all the files on my C: drive and far far far too many emails! etc). As I said, the more competitors in this area the easier my life will be. The next tool that would be beneficial is if someone wrote an index file conversion tool so that you can switch between MSN, Google, Yahoo etc Desktop Search without having to re-index everything.
|
#14 By
37 (24.183.41.60)
at
1/2/2005 10:41:05 AM
|
Chris, as for Thurrot's review of Longhorn, you can set is MS Bias aside and just look at the screenshots that he covers. For each feature he has a screenshot, so he is providing FACT, not FUD as far as his review of Longhorn goes. In fact, he has the most extensive review of Longhorn on the entire web (from what I have seen so far).
|
#15 By
12071 (203.217.26.160)
at
1/3/2005 3:02:24 AM
|
#17 Mr Thurrott's review of the MSN Desktop Search also included plenty of screenshots, list of features etc which are all FACTS. But that didn't stop him from including the additional FUD as I have pointed out which wasn't required to get his point across.
#18 "I stand by my statement that nowhere did he say Google's search tool was "crap"."
Good for you! It's always good to stick to your views and opinions regardless of any other information that may come your way.
"In fact, Thurrots article is the opposite of FUD."
Please stop passing off your half assed opinions as facts. When you can respond to the 5 points mentioned above in a mature way (i.e. one where you stop insulting people and respond directly), then we can continue this discussion. If that task is too difficult for you, then let's save both of us some time.
"And that, above all, is what p*sses you off."
I don't get emotional about what someone I don't know chooses to write, I just take into regard Mr Thurrott's position when reading his articles.
"lying about articles"
Lying about articles huh... Come again? I linked to the article, I linked to the official MSN FAQ and I even linked to an online dictionary to show all my sources... and that's your definition of lying. Like I said, go back to school and learn something.
"hate directed at Microsoft (and the US)"
Hate is a very strong word, I don't hate Microsoft nor the US. But unlike you, I know that you can be patriotic/love/like something yet still criticise aspects of it. It's all part of living in a free democracy. Unfortunately some people (like yourself, O'Reilly etc.) in the US have forgotten that, and instead believe that it's unpatriotic to question the actions of your government! One more time, go back to school and learn something.
|
|
|
 |
|