Print 58 comment(s) - last by Clienthes.. on Jun 22 at 5:46 AM

Microsoft and Google were able to reach a compromise over desktop search feature

The battle between Google and Microsoft rose to a new level after Google accused Microsoft of unfairly shutting companies out of Vista.  In a complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice last December, Google claimed a Vista search feature violated Microsoft's anti-trust agreement with the U.S. government.  

The Vista feature is hard for users to disable and reportedly hinders the performance of Google's software with Microsoft's latest operating system, according to the complaint.  Microsoft chief executive officer Steve Ballmer recently described Google's complaint as "baseless."  

"We continue to comply with the consent decree we signed with the U.S. government in recognition to the findings around our position with windows," Ballmer said in response to the accusations.

Google's complaint occurred several days after Microsoft pressured regulators to investigate Google's acquisition of DoubleClick.

Even though the complaint was officially rejected by the U.S. Justice Department, several states were ready to support Google's position.  In the deal made with the DOJ and Google, Microsoft agrees to modify Vista so that third-party software is able to properly run on the operating system.  The change will be added to a Service Pack that will be available to users before the end of 2007.

The addition to the SP will allow users to choose a default desktop search provider, allowing the software to no longer be "slowed" by Microsoft.

"This agreement, while not perfect, is a positive step toward greater competition in the software industry," said Jerry Brown, California Attorney General.

While the companies were able to come to agreement, the case is not yet fully settled.  A judge next week will make an official ruling as to whether or not the deal between Microsoft and DOJ is fair to both parties.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Murst on 6/20/2007 5:23:38 PM , Rating: 5
Usually I'd be against MS bundling stuff... but this is an OLD feature of windows (at least since win2k). They just simply made it better. Google never complained about the search when it was horrible... but now that its actually good, all of the sudden MS is doing evil once again.

MS should not be prevented from making improvements to their software. Its like Norton taking MS to court because MS made windows more secure.

Also, the search feature is fairly easy to disable, and no different than any other service that runs in the OS. Why shouldn't MS have to put shortcuts in the start menu to disable every other service running on the OS? Oh yeah, google doesn't make a world wide web publishing service *yet*.

RE: stupid
By michal1980 on 6/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: stupid
By MPE on 6/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: stupid
By michal1980 on 6/20/2007 6:13:21 PM , Rating: 3
me? anti big buisness. LOL. noooo.

i'm just not a fan of google. esspically when I see alot of people thinking that google is somehow a more ethical/nicer company then companies like microsoft or sony, or walmart

somehow google still has a small biz image...

And personally.. And it is just me, I'm always amazed that they make as much money as the do... after all most of google is just a very glorified billboard full of ad's.

RE: stupid
By OblivionMage on 6/20/2007 6:43:19 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, google has managed to get the image of the helpfull paladin, roaming the lands doing not but good deeds. While Microsoft is the evil dragon, burning down cities lest the civilians rise up against them and side with the Mighty 'apple' cult!

RE: stupid
By Proteusza on 6/21/2007 7:39:55 AM , Rating: 2
Having just read about the rules for licensing Vista, I can safely say MS is still being a dragon.

I'm not allowed to transfer an OEM OS to another computer, okay fine. irritating if I want to change motherboards because MS will in all likelihood decide I owe them more money (when have they said no to extra revenue?).

The problem comes when I look at the option of buying the retail version. 3 times the price for one transfer. Its cheaper to buy two OEM copies. If it was an unlimited number of transfers (as it should be), then that would be okay? but one? That is just MS repackaging Vista and asking for 3 times the price, just stupid.

RE: stupid
By Spivonious on 6/21/2007 10:00:06 AM , Rating: 2
Last I heard, it was one before you had to call them to reactivate. If that's anything like XP then you won't have any problems reactivating.

RE: stupid
By bhieb on 6/21/2007 11:07:43 AM , Rating: 2
So don't buy it. This is like everything else in life. If the cost is not worth the benefit don't buy it! A Windows OS is not a life necessity (aka food, water, shelter). If you don't like it do use it.

FYI.. I did the calculation and I don't use it. It is a fine OS, but it is just much not better than XP.

RE: stupid
By bhieb on 6/21/2007 11:08:45 AM , Rating: 2
If you don't like it do use it.

Should be "don't use it"

RE: stupid
By mindless1 on 6/21/2007 12:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, you are wrong. In today's society it is not an option whether to run a computing platform that supports certain software. "Today" you might get by running that software on Win2k/XP, but eventually you will not.

So it is not a "choice", unless you consider it in the same realm in even more basic aspects of life, extending the argument by the same logic we could claim that having electricity and running water is a "choice"

RE: stupid
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 5:54:29 PM , Rating: 2
What - are you suggesting that running Windows is essential to life?!? You must have a pretty low opinion about the viability of OS-X and Linux. I personally didn't think they were that bad.

Sorry, but the choice to run apps that require Windows is still a choice, just like buying a car that uses gasoline forces me buy fuel from time to time.

RE: stupid
By MonkeyPaw on 6/20/2007 5:31:55 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, and it's funny how Firefox defaults to Google on it's search engine. In fact, Live isn't even an immediate option, you must add it on your own. Oh yeah, and what do Google's programs default to for their search engine? Does anyone expect to have Google's programs use a different search engine?

It's one thing if MS doesn't let you change them from defaults, but it's no harder than changing it in FF. To that, I say Meh.

RE: stupid
By Yawgm0th on 6/21/2007 1:06:35 AM , Rating: 2
Firefox is an open-source freeware product owned and developed by the Mozilla Foundation, which is an entity entirely separate from Google Inc. Windows Vista is a software product developed and owned by Microsoft Corp. Firefox and Google is in no way analogous to Vista's search and Microsoft.

Live is not a default option in Firefox for two very good reasons:
1. Live search sucks, hard.
2. Internet Explorer, also owned by Microsoft Corporation, is Firefox's chief competitor; Mozilla is best off not aiding Microsoft in anyway unless it somehow helps Mozilla. Since, as mentioned, Live search sucks, adding it as a default option in Firefox wouldn't help Mozilla.

Microsoft could have done a better job with implementing the search features in Vista, but there's nothing anti-competitive about it. It just takes time and effort to program it to shut off automatically when another program replaces it, and doing so in no way helps Microsoft. This is simply a cheap shot in the Google - Microsoft war. It's certainly not a valid complaint on the part of Google.

RE: stupid
By Aikouka on 6/21/2007 8:28:29 AM , Rating: 3
But it is good to note that Mozilla has "ties" with Google.

But a windfall came in the form of a royalty contract with Google, which, like the other search companies, is always competing for better placement on browsers. Under the agreement, the Google search page is the default home page when a user first installs Firefox, and is the default in the search bar. In the last two years, the deal has brought in more than $100 million.

Source: (NY Times)

RE: stupid
By bhieb on 6/21/2007 11:02:20 AM , Rating: 1
Internet Explorer, also owned by Microsoft Corporation, is Firefox's chief competitor; Mozilla is best off not aiding Microsoft in anyway unless it somehow helps Mozilla.

So it is ok for Mozilla to do this (just because it is free), but not MS? It is in MS best interest not to let Firefox run at all, but they do.

Absurd MS bashing!

RE: stupid
By michael2k on 6/21/2007 12:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
They let Firefox run, at all, because they were fined and convicted of abuse of their monopoly the last time they killed it.

RE: stupid
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 5:57:41 PM , Rating: 1
LOL, the apps I write run on Windows just fine without anybody at Microsoft "letting" me write or run them.

In fact, Microsoft goes out of their way to encourage me to write apps for Windows by giving me excellent API documentation and cheap, powerful development tools. Writing apps for Windows is much easier than any other OS.

You guys in the anti-MS crowd really should work together to develop some ideas that actually make sense.

RE: stupid
By creathir on 6/20/2007 5:37:23 PM , Rating: 1

Why are they being so weak on this issue? They have EVERY right to make whatever feature they want. Period. People do not have to upgrade. Do not have to use the OS. Do not HAVE to install it. Google is no better than Netscape at this point in my opinion. I am looking forward to the day when Wallstreet WAKES up and realizes this company is just another bubble waiting to burst...

- Creathir

RE: stupid
By Samus on 6/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: stupid
By Locutus465 on 6/20/2007 5:56:05 PM , Rating: 2
More accuratly microsoft is starting off in a weaker position and has much more to lose...

RE: stupid
By sdoorex on 6/20/2007 5:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe Microsoft no longer wishes to look like the bad guy in everyone's eyes. Microsoft gets raged for the smallest of problems, but they do have some big problems as well, and everything they do that is good is credited to someone else. Maybe for once they are agreeing just to put the issue to rest and not look evil. Plus, if Microsoft felt like fighting this they could, and probably win, because of all the resources they have.

RE: stupid
By michael2k on 6/20/2007 7:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot the part where they were convicted of abusing a monopoly. That changes things, somewhat. A refresher, if you want:
1) Have a monopoly (90%+ Windows)
2) Abuse a monopoly (Bully Compaq for bundling Netscape)
3) Caught abusing a monopoly (Compaq and Netscape testify)
4) Punished for abusing a monopoly (DOJ uses Sherman Act)
5) Have to abide by terms of conviction (Special behavior on Microsoft's side)

They do NOT have every right to make whatever feature they want. It's apt you bring up Netscape; that was one of the companies Microsoft helped terminate through their behavior. It is also fair to bring up that Netscape failed to release a competitive product, so they have themselves to blame too.

BUT, and this is why you see this behavior now, Google can use their past history against them in order to prevent Microsoft from axing Google. Google still has to make a better product (else no one would install/bundle them, no one would visit their web site, etc), but Microsoft can't just bully Google out of the equation either.

RE: stupid
By Spivonious on 6/21/2007 10:08:28 AM , Rating: 2
Does Google have a better product here? Sure Google Desktop is great for XP, but the Vista search is vastly improved. I think MS doesn't want people just automatically installing Google before trying out the Windows solution.

Also, since the MS search can be disabled, they are not "bullying" Google at all. Google is whining because there product broke in the new OS. See also Symantec, McAfee.

RE: stupid
By michael2k on 6/21/2007 10:21:04 AM , Rating: 3
The flip side is true too:
Does Microsoft have a better product here? Sure Vista search is vastly improved, but a lot of people who use Google Desktop for XP will want to use it in Vista too. I think Google doesn't want people just automatically using Vista search without having the equal opportunity to use Google Desktop.

Also since the Microsoft Search can't be "replaced" by Google Desktop, Google has to compete for resources on your computer. Google is complaining because Microsoft hasn't cleanly allowed for competing products in their OS.

As an example... you can use IE, FireFox, or Safari for your web browser. You can use Thunderbird, Windows Mail or Eudora for your email.

Can you choose from Vista Search or Google Search on your desktop? Not yet.

RE: stupid
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 11:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
Can you choose from Vista Search or Google Search on your desktop? Not yet.

That's not true - you can run either, or even both. The complaint that google has is that when both run at the same time, the performance suffers. That is because their software is too stupid to detect that the Vista search service is running and offer to stop it for the user.

I also think it is pretty presumptive of you to assume that the entire OS should be architected in such a way that any OS component can be easily replaced, and given "equal opportunity" as you say. That is a load of crap. If a company wants to develop a deeply integrated app, they should to do it the old fashioned way - they should work hard to make it work. But instead they whine to the USDOJ that their job is too hard - give me a break.

RE: stupid
By mindless1 on 6/21/2007 12:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
It has nothing whatsoever to do with which is "better" in your subjective opinion, and the idea about what MS wants or doesn't, in forcing others to "try out the windows solution" is yet again a sign of abusing monopoly powers if/when it is not what the customers want to do.

RE: stupid
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 6:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree. I think the vast majority of Windows users will simply appreciate the benefit of the improved, built-in search, and will see it as a normal improvement in the OS, i.e., part of the value of upgrading to Vista. And I think this is exactly how Microsoft intended it.

Frankly I have little sympathy for companies trying to make a living out of selling or giving away crappy little utilities that try to replace built-in OS features, just so they can insert their ads into my desktop experience.

Any argument that Microsoft intentionally is trying to lock out other desktop search utilities doesn't seem to be supported by the information that is publicly known. Just because they didn't expect and plan for google to hook in their search tool doesn't mean they intentionally tried to exclude it, either. This is expecially evident when the issue at hand seems to be performance of the two search tools running concurrently. It's not like Microsoft wrote code to specifically disallow google's program from working.

RE: stupid
By nerdtalker on 6/20/2007 7:43:29 PM , Rating: 4
What's ironic here is that Microsoft's search feature is (essentially) based on apple's.

Apple has had "spotlight" integrated tightly, very tightly with the OS, with no API for google or other devs to do the same thing, and yet they're not the target of anti-trust after anti-trust settlement.

Is that really fair? Is that really equal? I think Microsoft making it so easy to change the default search service in IE7 is already generous. What more does Google want? Desktop search pre-installed? At least Vista doesn't take all my confidential filenames, META data, tags, and indexable PDFs and throw it all up on the internet, then hide it behind an obscure privacy policy.

RE: stupid
By mindless1 on 6/21/2007 12:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
Actually no, you can't make a valid claim that merely doing a "search" somehow magically extends to this level. All semi-modern OS allow doing a search but that does not change the fact that when all is said and done an OS is meant as a platform to run OTHER software, not a way to prevent competitors from having their software used.

It's real simple, either break up the MS monopoly or force them to support the software anyone wants to use. By the way, this is exactly why monopolies are such a bad thing, that they don't force the developer to support the demands of customers in order to stay competitive. Right now that might seem a minor thing (if it doesn't effect you, personally), but left unchecked it becomes more and more problematic until it does effect you, too.

RE: stupid
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 11:39:09 PM , Rating: 1
I think you're way off in your assessment of Microsoft and of Windows. You are basically claiming that Microsoft is being complacent and forcing users to not be able to run certain software, but actually nothing could be further from the truth.

In reality, Microsoft fully recognizes the threat posed by alternative operating systems in the desktop space, especially Linux and OS-X. This is even more apparent in the server OS space, where Microsoft has nothing close to a monopoly. Because of this, you see very agressive development of new features and functionality into Windows that users are demanding.

For example, what is the #1 universal complaint about Windows? Security. What is the #1 area where they worked in Vista? Security. You think that is just a coincidence?

Even though Microsoft is a dominant player, they fully recognize that there are tons of companies out there, big and small, trying to eat their lunch. Because of Microsoft's breadth, it competes with what would seem to be every software company out there, and it is clear from their actions that it it keeps them on their toes.

RE: stupid
By RW on 6/21/2007 2:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
No one should have the right to tell Microsoft how to alter/modify their software because is their product and they can do whatever they want it with it.
What if someday Microsoft chose not to produce any OS anymore what would happen then people will start suing them for what reason ?

Anyway if Microsoft is attacked in such way they should react the same and attack others in the same way.
I have an idea that's worth billions on how Microsoft should respond to Google attacks that will blow away Google.
If anybody from Microsoft wants to know this idea they should contact me at

RE: stupid
By michael2k on 6/21/2007 3:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
1) The DoJ has the right to tell Microsoft what to do with their software because:
A) Microsoft was convicted of abusing their monopoly
B) Part of their settlement/punishment was government oversight

Just like a criminal has less rights, due to their criminal record, than a non-criminal.

RE: stupid
By RW on 6/21/2007 3:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
michael2k you're more than wrong.

If my company produce a product I have the right to sell it at whatever price I want it whether or not I'm the only company that produce it, clear as that.

What rights has the consumer ? The only rights the consumer has are the right to buy or not to buy my products.

Nobody stops other companies to develop similar products that they can sell at whatever price they want it to sell them, if the people will not buy them that's their problem.

BTW DOJ have no rights to tell a company what to do or not, in the case they do it thats just an abusive act that opposes to the 1st amendament.

RE: stupid
By michael2k on 6/21/2007 8:42:45 PM , Rating: 2
1st amendment only applies to people. Microsoft is not a person.
Microsoft is not arguing about price; there is no price to desktop search, so that is irrelevant.
Consumers have the right to buy or not buy a product: Exactly right!

And that means the consumer has the right to replace Microsoft Vista Search with Google Desktop.

You have made my argument for me.

RE: stupid
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 6:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with the above poster that you're wrong, but for different reasons. Microsoft is not a "criminal" with restricted rights as you suggest. Instead, the situation is that Microsoft does have a monopoly in desktop operating systems, and therefore, they have to be very careful to not violate anti-trust law with respect to that monopoly.

In other words, the fact that they have a monopoly is not a problem in the eyes of the law. And the DOJ is helping to make sure that Microsoft doesn't overstep what is possible under the law, given that Microsoft does have that monopoly.

But the rights and restrictions are exactly the same as any other company having a monopoly. It has nothing to do with their "criminal record" LOL.

RE: stupid
By RW on 6/22/2007 4:53:56 AM , Rating: 1
michael2k first of all you're fucking stupid

even if 1st amendment would only applies to people, Microsoft is a company driven by peoples actions inside the company so every chose taken by this company is a chose taken by a person of which rights are guaranteed by 1st amendment.
So indirectly 1st amendment guarantees Microsoft rights to do whatever they want with their products.

Windows is a software product of Microsoft, you may name it or not OS by definition but in the end it's a software product that can contain absolutely whatever the company want's to put in it.
If the license of this software product tells you u don't have the right to modify or alter parts of it cause if u do it u don't have the right to use it, that means u don't have the right to replace Vista Search with Google Search simple as that.

It's not unreasonable
By ciparis on 6/20/2007 5:46:46 PM , Rating: 2
Some posters are being short-sighted about this.

Vista's search is very aggressive about indexing your content effectively. This is the same thing Google's search app has to do. Having both of these separate systems trying to do the same thing at the same time (one of which you don't even intend to use) slows things down significantly more than if similar tasks were being done sequentially - especially in systems with slower hard drives. The initial user experience can be very negatively impacted, with both Vista and Google's service trying to build your initial index. Google Desktop Search reviews have already reflected this.

Google asked for the ability for users to be able to turn this feature off if they want to use someone else's search. I think that is a reasonable request.

RE: It's not unreasonable
By Murst on 6/20/2007 5:57:06 PM , Rating: 3
1. Left click the MS Logo in the lower left of the screen (Previously this was the start button).

2. Type in "services" in the start search bar.

3. Left click on "Windows Search."

4. Left click on "Stop this service".

Its not rocket science. If you want to install a different indexing service, chances are that these steps are trivial to you.

RE: It's not unreasonable
By TomZ on 6/20/2007 6:03:17 PM , Rating: 3
Furthermore, it is simple to programmatically stop and reconfigure services, so there is no reason that Google's software couldn't shut that down (after being polite and asking the user of course).

I kind of get the impression that this is a simple engineering problem to solve that instead got moved into the PR/legal/business space to be solved.

RE: It's not unreasonable
By hr824 on 6/20/2007 7:27:24 PM , Rating: 4
The people that read this forum certanly know what a window service is and how to disable them myself included. How about your mom ,dad, sister, brother, uncle, wife, and 90% of the rest of the population that has no clue that window services even exist?

RE: It's not unreasonable
By Visual on 6/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: It's not unreasonable
By AndreasM on 6/21/2007 6:01:21 AM , Rating: 2

I thought Vista was supposed to have better security, yet some installer app can disable/enable services? Great.

RE: It's not unreasonable
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 8:33:07 AM , Rating: 2
Vista allows applications to make such settings changes, but only after the OS prompts the user for their permission. With previous versions, any application was basically free to touch any and all settings without the user being aware.

RE: It's not unreasonable
By xti on 6/21/2007 12:06:39 PM , Rating: 1
why don't you read before posting?
the installer for google's app can easily do this for your mom, dad, sister and other retarded relatives.

best. post. ever. Guy in the cube next to me was like...'whats so funny?'.

No upgrade to this service pack
By hobbes7869 on 6/20/2007 7:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
I fully intend to skip this upgrade or what ever they are calling it these days. I never thought google search was good when I ran it on XP, and why would i add ever add that crapware to my vista machine, which frankly has no issues with it now. Runs fine, searches fine. I will skip this upgrade. Sadly, most novice users have auto update on and will upgrade and while it does not change anything unless directed to, it seems like, to me, that even downloading it is somehow supporting google.

RE: No upgrade to this service pack
By danz32 on 6/20/2007 7:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
I think its going to be more like IE7 search box, it defaults to Windows with the option to download others.

I hate the way companies get away with this now. First Norton, then Adobe, and now Google..."MS is evil, let our products do their job!"

RE: No upgrade to this service pack
By friedrice19 on 6/20/2007 11:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
The IE7 search box is default for Google search on my Vista comp. I don't see why Google should be complaining.

By crystal clear on 6/21/2007 6:28:36 AM , Rating: 2

"Add Search Providers to Internet Explorer 7"

RE: No upgrade to this service pack
By 13Gigatons on 6/21/2007 1:04:54 AM , Rating: 2
Your comment is stupid and poorly thought out. You will have the choice to use Vista Desktop Search or some other Desktop Search.

If you like Vista Desktop Search then continue to use it but don't condemn the rest of use to mediocre.


PS: I find all the desktop search indexers kinda lacking.

By Clienthes on 6/22/2007 5:46:49 AM , Rating: 2
In this circumstance, you already had those things.

All this did was cost MS money developing code to do something that Google should have developed code to do.

This cost will be passed on to us, the consumers, the next time MS releases a new version of Windows.

Now read the original document
By crystal clear on 6/21/2007 7:06:52 AM , Rating: 6
Here is the original - read it & draw you own conclusions.

It long & very detailed-


pages 8,9,10 & more

Plaintiffs are collectively satisfied that this agreement will resolve any issues
the complaint may raise under the Final Judgments, provided that Microsoft implements it as
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
2 If this “first licensed” requirement is met, such functionality may be a new Microsoft
Middleware Product if three specific criteria set forth in Section VI.K.2.b are satisfied. All of
the Plaintiffs concluded those criteria were likely met in the present case, despite Microsoft’s
arguments that desktop search fails two of the three requirements.
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
Microsoft will deliver the required changes in Service Pack 1 of Windows Vista, which
Microsoft currently anticipates will be available in beta form by the end of the year.
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.

By crystal clear on 6/21/2007 7:13:11 AM , Rating: 3

Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)
Next Court Deadline:
June 26, 2007 Status Conference

By crystal clear on 6/22/2007 2:08:49 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry for those typing errors !Did not preview the comment.

Vista Search Sucks !
By 13Gigatons on 6/20/2007 5:51:12 PM , Rating: 1
I'm I the only one who thinks that Vista Search pretty much sucks?

I like the frontend but the backend is just lousy.

1. It takes days to index all your files and it can only do this when the cpu is idle.

2. You can't index just filenames and right away at full throttle.

3. The dialog box is a pain in butt and poorly designed.

I hope Microsoft allows us to remove the backend and use someone else software which has better features.

RE: Vista Search Sucks !
By Locutus465 on 6/20/2007 5:58:38 PM , Rating: 2
I think over all it's pretty decent, at least for most peoples searching needs. The only area where it falls totally flat on it's face for me is when I need to search source code or something... In these cases I find my self using grep...

RE: Vista Search Sucks !
By JonnyBlaze on 6/20/2007 6:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
Google desktop search is the worst search product ever. I had to reinstall it countless times and it would always end up not working. I forget the exact error but it sucks.

RE: Vista Search Sucks !
By ChronoReverse on 6/20/2007 7:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
Depends how many files you have. It doesn't take days for me.

Also, you can certainly force it to do all the indexing NOW if you wanted. Start => Index => [enter]

What are those changes ?
By crystal clear on 6/21/2007 6:56:13 AM , Rating: 3
This will give you more information about what to expect.

We contacted Microsoft for the skinny on the changes, and this is what the company had to share with us. There are three major changes being made to Vista via Service Pack 1, which the company says is expected in beta form by the close of the year.

According to Microsoft's filing with the DOJ, the company "will create a mechanism for end users and OEMs to select a default program to handle desktop search." OEMs will be able to register their desktop search products for this default. Default doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means, however.

According to the document, "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" (emphasis added). Microsoft here is splitting the difference, somewhat, as the company will retain Vista's built-in search results in the upper right hand corner search box present on most explorer windows. The document explains, "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." So, even with the default changed, Vista's service will still run and will still provide results in some search locations by default, although switching to another search system should be quite easy. In this way, Microsoft looks to be moving their search-box approach to IE7 into Explorer itself, for IE7 also allows easy drop-down search changes.

Finally, Microsoft says 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 says that it will educate users and OEMs (and, it would appear, Google), 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."

"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki