| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
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 |
 |
Microsoft to reportedly alter Vista in response to Google complaint | |
|
||
| Time: 00:07 EST/05:07 GMT | News Source: WinBeta | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. has agreed to modify its new Vista operating system in response to complaints that its desktop search function puts Google Inc. and other potential competitors at a disadvantage, a source familiar with the case told Reuters on Tuesday. The Justice Department and Microsoft are expected to provide details of the proposed changes in a joint report filed in federal court later on Tuesday, the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The source provided no details on what changes Microsoft had agreed to make. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 331 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:55:47 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2459 (69.22.113.215) at 6/20/2007 3:01:13 AM |
|
Joint Status Report on Microsoft's Compliance with the Final Judgments - June 26, 2007 (.PDF file, 56 KB, 27 pages)
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/download/legal/SettlementProceedings/06-26-07StatusReport.pdf Page 8: The agreement contains three primary features: First, Microsoft will create a mechanism for end users and OEMs to select a default program to handle desktop search. ISVs will be able to register their desktop search products for this default, in the same way that ISVs can register third-party web browsers and media players as the default in Windows today. Second, the default desktop search program will be launched whenever Windows launches a new top-level window to provide search results. This will include an existing location on the Start menu that a user can select to display additional search results in a new window. Windows Vista also includes search boxes located in the upper-right hand corner of various windows in the operating system, such as all the windows used to explore the files on the computer — often called “Explorer” windows — and the Control Panel. In these windows, when the user enters a query Vista will continue to display the search results using the internal Vista desktop search functionality. Microsoft has agreed, however, to add a link that, if clicked, will launch the default desktop search program and display search results from that program. Third, Microsoft will inform ISVs, OEMs, and end users that the desktop search index in Vista is designed to run in the background and cede precedence over computing resources to any other software product, including third-party desktop search products and their respective search indices. Microsoft will emphasize that there is no technical reason why OEMs and end users cannot, if they choose to, install additional desktop search products on their system, even if those products maintain separate indices from that operated by Windows. In addition, Microsoft will provide technical information that will enable other desktop search companies also to design their products to optimize their priorities on the computer and minimize any impact on performance. It was unnecessary for Plaintiffs to reach a joint resolution of the question whether desktop search is a new Microsoft Middleware Product under the Final Judgments. Specifically, Plaintiffs did not agree on whether desktop search in Vista constitutes “any functionality,” under Section VI.K.2, “that is first licensed, distributed or sold by Microsoft after the entry of this Final Judgment” (emphasis added).2 While Windows included search functionality in prior versions, in Vista — the first version of Windows launched after entry of the Final Judgment — the search function is improved in several respects. For example, Vista turns on the index by default, increases the file-types searched, adds search boxes throughout the operating system, and improves the selection, display, and use of results. The Plaintiffs were not able to agree whether these and other enhancements to existing desktop search functionality merely upgrade existing functionality or instead convert desktop search into functionality first licensed after entry of the Final Judgment. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs were able to work together to obtain Microsoft’s agreement as described above. |
| #2 By 2459 (69.22.113.215) at 6/20/2007 3:01:38 AM |
|
Other changes (unspecified in this document) coming to XP SP3, WLM 8.5, and other products.
Page 24: In addition, Microsoft has agreed to make changes to Windows XP, two Middleware Products, and Windows Live Messenger. The Windows Live Messenger changes have been delivered in the Windows Live Messenger 8.5 beta and will be included in the public release. Changes for Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player will be made available to users in August 2007 and Microsoft is discussing with the TC the delivery mechanism for those changes. The Windows XP changes will be incorporated into Service Pack 3 for Windows XP. The changes to the code will be available for review by the TC this summer. The changes made available to the TC for its review will remain in the final release of Service Pack 3 for Windows XP. |
| #3 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 6/20/2007 11:42:47 AM |
|
WTF?!?!? "Yes, that taste in your mouth is vomit."
"Google" what an appropriately sounding name - with the slightest change in the way one positions one's tongue when the word is annunciated, a gagging sound may be produced - increasingly experienced as an involuntary reaction to the very thought of the growing idiocracy the company represents to me. |
| #4 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/20/2007 12:40:58 PM |
|
Of course MS would make these changes. After all, Microsoft's middle names are 'choice' and 'interoperability'.
One nugget in this story of interest is how a top antitrust lawyer at the DoJ was a former MS lawyer. Interesting. And when the various state attorneys went to him to talk about antitrust action against MS, he tried to discourage them. Interesting. |
| #5 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 6/20/2007 12:50:39 PM |
|
Paul Thurrott, on his winsupersite provided an analysis, http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_google_changes.asp], which reflects, "Barnett was formerly employed by the law firm Covington & Burling, which represented Microsoft during its US antitrust settlement. Barnett says that he did not participate personally in that settlement, though he did represent Microsoft in other matters. Furthermore, Barnett says he was cleared by DOJ ethics officials to work on the Microsoft decree at the agency. But this revelation was never made to the US states, which were shocked when they were privately petitioned to ignore the Google matter."
"gewgal" - there is is again, and it isn't acid reflux. gewgal...gewgal...gewgal... |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/20/2007 1:21:06 PM |
| #5: I'm not sure what your issue is with Google as you've never been clear on that. If MS used the law to further its own ends (as it does regularly), you would laud them for smart business. But when Google does it, you want to barf?? Sounds a tad like a double standard. Good thing that the law is there to protect the people against a voracious, predatory monopolist that doesn't just want all of the pie to itself, but all of the surrounding pies, cakes and cookies too. |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/20/2007 1:45:22 PM |
|
Interesting analysis from Groklaw:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200706201321583 Now, I've never used the desktop search in Vista (or any OS for that matter) as I know where my files are. But to make Desktop Search so that you cannot disable it is bizarre, to say the least. You can turn off all kinds of vital services in Windows, but not Desktop Search... nope, doesn't pass the smell test to me. MS is targeting Google in the search market, and their new OS contains a search feature you can't disable. Suspicious. |
| #8 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 6/20/2007 1:57:28 PM |
|
Windows Search - the friendly name for Search Indexer.exe /Embedding [located in /windows/system32 is a service, which may be stopped and set to disabled from the services snap-in within Windows Vista.
If it is stopped/disabled, Explorer will not be able to display virtual folder views of items, and search in Explorer will fall back to item-by-item slow search [as with XP]. "But to make Desktop Search so that you cannot disable it is bizarre, to say the least. You can turn off all kinds of vital services in Windows, but not Desktop Search... nope, doesn't pass the smell test to me. MS is targeting Google in the search market, and their new OS contains a search feature you can't disable. Suspicious." does not accurately characterize the ability to disable Windows Search in Vista. One of the benefits of "Instant Search" in Winows Vista is to create, save and re-use complex search strings, which makes easier the aggregation of items from many locations on a computer - which would be faster than finding the items separately and aggregating them manually. While not necessary, the search features in Widnows Vista may make the computer easier to use for many people. |
| #9 By 8556 (12.207.97.148) at 6/20/2007 2:00:49 PM |
| Google makes one hell of a web search engine, but not for the desktop. |
| #10 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/20/2007 2:19:17 PM |
|
#8: I'm sure Vista Search is wonderful, but why can't you disable it, especially since it's not a critical feature? This reminds me of their old antitrust dodge with IE where they claimed it was impossible to separate IE from the OS -- until someone showed them how to do it. Not that MS didn't know; they were lying and hoping nobody could call them on it. Too bad someone did, as it made MS look like liars, or boneheads for not knowing what the heck was going on inside Windows.
I must admit that MS seems to be moving in the right direction in general. In the good old days, MS would do something anticompetitive, and then petulantly thumb their nose at everyone, courts included, until they got the slap-down and were forced to make changes. These days, they still try anticompetitive moves, but respond much better when the threat of the slap-down appears. |
| #11 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 6/20/2007 2:57:36 PM |
|
#10, You can disable it - as I said. Open the services snap-in, find Windows Search - righ-click it, click properites and use the drop down to select "Disabled"
|
| #12 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/20/2007 3:50:20 PM |
| #11: Are you talking about the same search thing Google is? The complaint says that you cannot stop the MS widget from running or consuming resources. Why would they say that if it was provably false? |
| #13 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 6/20/2007 4:25:01 PM |
|
#12, If one stops and disables the Windows Search Service as I have described, it stops the process, Search Indexer.exe, and the consumption of resources with it.
If gewgal's DTS were installed and running, its resource use would not compete with the stopped windows service. "Most simply, yes, I am speaking to that which Google refers." This post was edited by lketchum on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 16:26. |
| #14 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 6/20/2007 6:25:47 PM |
|
#7 Only idiots believe anything they read on Groklaw.
There are 3 methods. "The fasted way is to simply disable the Windows Search service. Run Services (just type “Services” at the Start Search bar), right click on the Windows Search service and select “Properties”. Then choose “Disabled” for the start type. Afterwards, you have to stop this service by right clicking on it and selecting “Stop”. " http://4sysops.com/?p=457 I personally love how quickly you can find files or filter files in a folder. Got a folder with 10,000 files in it and you only want to see a few that have the name June in them? Type *June* in the Search box. In less than a second you are only viewing those you want to. |
| #15 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/21/2007 10:03:34 AM |
|
#13: From Ars Technica:
"Google did not elaborate on its expectations, although they are not difficult to piece together. Google had argued that it should be possible to disable Vista's search entirely, and Microsoft has not accommodated this demand. Search still runs, and OEMs and third-party software companies have not been given a way to schedule or disable it." MS has said that there is no need to disable it as it will run as a low-priority thread. Both of these statements lead me to believe that the search feature in Vista (the one they're talking about if there are more than one) cannot be disabled. |
| #16 By 32132 (66.183.202.89) at 6/21/2007 10:29:54 AM |
|
#15 You've never used Vista. I have no problem turning off the service coffee girl. Maybe someday you'll run Vista and you too can try it out.
Google lies on a regular basis. They're motto of "Don't get caught being Evil" is kind of disgusting. |
| #17 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 6/21/2007 11:02:57 AM |
|
#16, The definition of what is evil seems to have changed and changes according to what works for modern Americans <largely>. I am deeply troubled by this.
"All things should be free - they can be ad supported - and people will block the ads" "DRM is bad, bad, bad.... evil businesses.... PHK DRM.... - truth is, people just want to steal content." "Good enough is good enough - people aspire less, and 128 k is just dandy - so long as it's an MP3 and it can be stolen." "I don't care about Google scanning my mail.... it's free, like Duh?" "Just use Limewire.... - try it kid and I'll use that new laptop for target practice AND kick your a** up around your ears as I jerk a knot through your a**" "Oral sex isn't sex, right? - yes, it is and, no, the way you're seeing things, sex isn't intimacy." "Google is good, great and wonderful - Microsoft is bad, cuz that Apple kid says so...." "It's not the terrorists fault - call em what you like... they are still the sworn enemies of my country and need kill'in" "Software isn't property - thell that to the families of the people that write it." "School sucks - then shag your backside to a place where kids CAN'T go to school at all!" "There is no God - right... and pure chance succeeded millions of times... once for each species on the planet - if so, then please, apply that same dumb luck to any game of chance split the lotto with me." It isn't Google. It's us. We changed what evil means in our society and do so according to what works for us in any given moment. Right now, it's Google and free mail, calendaring, and other less capable tools. I'd rather shoot myself in the head [twice] than give up the richness I enjoy in the connected services made possible by Microsoft software [Exchange, Outlook RPC over HTTPS, Direct Push in Windows Mobile, and Office hooks to all of it and collab spaces in WSS/SPS, etc... I beg all, above all, "Aspire" - do what is hard because it is hard and the doing of it seems impossible. Do it not for money or riches, but to sate the unrelenting bastard in the mirror - he isn't going any place, any time soon. end of rant. Good enough IS NOT good enough. If cattle could think, they would think good enough is good enough. We are human and meant to aspire. |
| #18 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 6/21/2007 11:52:52 AM |
|
Engineers leaving Google. In disgust now that their company is just all about ads and lying about Microsoft?
"Two more high-level Google engineers have left the Googleplex — this time to join well-known venture capital firm Benchmark Capital. Bret Taylor (left) and Jim Norris (right), two of the masterminds behind Google Maps and several other Google products, have joined the firm as “Entrepreneurs in Residence.”" http://venturebeat.com/2007/06/20/two-top-google-engineers-leave-to-benchmark-capital/ |
| #19 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/21/2007 12:18:27 PM |
| So all this kerfuffle, with antitrust complaints that the states attorneys feel is valid, could have all been avoided by MS saying "Turn it off under Services". Hmm, I guess both Google and Microsoft are idiots. Google for not figuring this out by themselves, and MS for not knowing their own OS well enough to tell Google that (and embarrass Google in the process). Makes perfect sense to me. |
| #20 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 6/21/2007 12:44:00 PM |
|
#19, No. This is about people believing and repeating what they want to be so - for whatever their reasons are.
You've been told exactly how to disable the Windows Search service in Vista a couple of times now - a few by myself and again by NotParker. So please, run Vista, do as we suggest and then post. I mean, we've been objective enough to run *nix in both test and production environments - so for the sake of objectivity, try what has been suggested here - you'll find what we have said to be factual, consistent and easy to do. |
| #21 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/21/2007 1:09:19 PM |
| #20: I agree that you've told me several times, and yet Google still doesn't hear you. Remember that I'm not the one making claims, just trying to understand them in the face of opposing testimony. Google claims that you can't turn it off, and MS does not refute that. But you say you can. Since I no longer have Vista installed, I can't test it -- nor would I want to as I don't care THAT much about this issue. So, at the moment, I'm trying to reconcile the disconnect between what Google, MS, and you are saying. |
| #22 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 6/21/2007 2:23:11 PM |
|
#21, The only thing worse than the bunk being said about Windows Vista, is all the great stuff in it that they are not saying. As I have communicated here many times, the press does not seem to have actually used the new OS.
Google obviously has a position that centers around this: They want to stay between the user and whatever the user searches for - regardless of where - Internet, desktop, or network. Google fears that if people use Vista, they will not use Google's Desktop Search, which is not as good; not as fast, and not as well integrated as Vista's instant search. Google wants to pressure Microsoft into allowing their product to replace Microsoft's - and to allow OEM's with whom they have leverage, to designate Google's Desktop Search as the default on OEM systems based upon Windows Vista. In support of this position, Google is working to resurrect the anti-trust energy levied against Microsoft in 99/2000. To the extent that it can, Google will try to assert that which is not true - namely, that Windows Vista's Instant Search cannot be turned off - when of course, it can - as I and others have demonstrated. Microsoft has said, "No problem" we'll enable that for Google, others and the OEM's - knowing that most people will like the Vista Instant Search better - because it is better. So Microsoft is being compliant and more than fair and parallel to half truths and transparent efforts to be all things "search" Google looks bad - because their behavior in this case is bad. That's my arm chair analysis. |
| #23 By 15406 (74.104.251.89) at 6/21/2007 8:59:00 PM |
| #22: Even if MS allows the user to change the default internal search widget, they should terminate their own widget unless the widget is also critical for some other system service(s). In that event, too bad for Google. MS would have to come up with a compelling case as to why it must always be on though. |
| #24 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 6/22/2007 9:25:27 AM |
|
#23, Surely you know how to look at services on a Windows machine and check for dependencies...
In case you do not, or have not, the answer is no, disabling the search service does nothing to harm other Vista functions - less those changes I have listed previously [reverting back to item by item search and the loss of virtual folders in the context of search (e.g., saved searches, etc...)]. By the way, Google's argument that the presence of Windows Instant Search, as it is properly called, degrades performance of a PC when Google Desktop Search is installed, is very weak - and borders on being seen as nutty - the presence of multiple engines, each maintaining their own indicies, would of course slow a machine - any machine. Google simply wants to position itself over our shoulders and expose us to its data harvesting, mining and segmentation analysis. Google wants to profile users continuously, sell both the raw data and various forms of analyzed product and forever monitor every click we make. People need to wake up and take responsibility for securing their own privacy. Personally, I'd like to roll up the ECPA and ram it straight up Google's corporate ass. |
| #25 By 85848 (24.122.6.20) at 9/18/2007 5:21:54 PM |
| With this prices and the stuff I need to buy for school I am on the edge of being hungry while attending school for the whole year!!!! <a href=http://cooltop.info/>Home Loans Poor Credit</a> |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 331 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:55:47 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
