Comments on: Google complains against search in Vista

By: Vajid

Vajid — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:56:50 +0000

Goobuntu? Goo in my local language means shit lol.. so shitbuntu.. lol fuck google

By: iamnothere

iamnothere — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:38:45 +0000

The Register writes, “Google has confirmed it is working on a desktop linux project called Goobuntu” (the name being a mix of Google and Ubuntu). I’ll be waiting for confirmation from Google first.
http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2006-01-31-n47.html

By: what

what — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:28:42 +0000

fuck google fuck google fuck google

By: fghf

fghf — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:58:33 +0000

Boo, Microsoft’s business is not whatever they want it to be. If they break rules then they can be forced to change their business. You can’t uninstall all the bits of Windows that you don’t want. Also, a company could sell you a computer that included av and firewall, and everything else that you want, without all those components being made by Microsoft.

By: Rexamillion

Rexamillion — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:59:51 +0000

Granted Microsoft can do what they want with their operating system their still money hungry pigs…I’m really pissed with them right now about my defective Xbox 360 I only had it for 2 month and already the red ring of death….Microsoft knows about the mass defective Xbox’s but never issued a recall…

By: nayab9

nayab9 — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:01:01 +0000

google should make their own OS, i’d jump on that bandwagon in 2 seconds flat

By: Boo

Boo — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:45:07 +0000

Fghf, your position makes no sense. Microsoft’s business is what Microsoft decides its business it, not what you imagine it must be. Besides, you clearly have no idea how casual users think. I spent almost six months sitting without a firewall when I bought my first computer, simply not knowing a thing about computer security. By providing embedded firewall and antivirus services, Microsoft (or any OS manufacturer, for that matter) ensures at least some level of protection for its customers. Same goes with the indexing feature: most people expect useful tools like that to be included with the OS by default. And as I said, as long as you can disable/uninstall elements you don’t like, I don’t see any problem at all with Microsoft including all sorts of crap with their OS installations.

By: garryb

garryb — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:18:34 +0000

comone google jsut acting stoopid they want ms to run their business and their os by there way lol ms will kick their asss.

By: fghf

fghf — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:04:18 +0000

Oh and security…it’s Microsoft’s business to make their OS stable and free of security loopholes that can be easily exploited, but it’s not their business to make security software built in to the OS.

By: fghf

fghf — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:01:37 +0000

All elements that are not ‘the OS’ should be able to be provided by a competitor. Word processor, defrag, paint, media player, browser, all of these and more. Microsoft uses various means to make sure that if you want to use a competitors product you have to bloat your PC with two versions of everything. Google should be slapped for their anti-competitive bs too.

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:59:24 +0000

I always hate Microsoft, but this is ridiculous. How dare an operating system implement a search box to search your own computer!!! Fucking idiots.

By: wtfbshax

wtfbshax — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:48:07 +0000

Google is really starting to get annoying with their “We own Search” bullshit attitude. The people own search. They can use whatever the fuck they want to search with whether it is a magnifying glass or a flashlight. Yes microsoft is fucked also, but two wrongs don’t make a right…

By: Boo

Boo — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:33:19 +0000

I have to admit, I have not made my switch to Vista just yet. However, I wonder if running both Vista’s and Google’s indexing tools simultaneously will create any difficulties for an average user. I expect the strain on the system will not be noticeable at all, and those of us who won’t accept such inefficient redundancy probably belong to the category of users who already know how to access MMC, UAC, and other built-in administrative tools, or at least know how to google for an applicable tutorial on the subject. One other question I would like to ask is are there any core differences between the engines? If Microsoft’s built-in tool works as well, or at least nearly as well as Google’s alternative, what’s the point of having this choice? Just like the abovementioned notepad/minesweeper example, Google’s claims also lack any apparent rational basis in them and seem to be build upon nothing but greed, pure and simple.

By: Marcus

Marcus — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:14:32 +0000

Symantec and McAfee complained about Vista’s approach towards securing the kernel (just skip the debate on if it would be effective or not). That’s just wrong. Who the heck does Microsoft think they are trying to include security from the ground up. They should deliberately leave holes in the OS because otherwise it threatens Symantec’s and McAfee’s business model!

If MS made it so that it was troublesome to operate Google Desktop, they would have a very legit complaint .. but Google’s point is that it’s hard to disable Vista Search (have to call it something). If Google Desktop is a superior product, it will exist on it’s own merits.

Talon, search functionality is a core functionality of almost every popular OS out there. The “desktop search” is just an evolution of it (Explorer search -> Vista Search, MAC’s Finder -> Spotlight, etc). Since Spotlight is integrated with MAC OS, isn’t this the same arguement as a desktop search for Vista? Also, Google does have a MAC OS version of desktop (”For Apple, Spotlight basically does what Google Desktop Search does in terms of indexing, so there’s little/no chance that Google would even venture this way.”)

While I agree Microsoft should, and did (again, save the debate on if it was hard enough) get slapped for doing “Monopolistic practices” by forcing unreasonable contract/licenses onto vendors (i.e, forcing them to pay per computer manufactured, regardless if MS OS is installed or not .. not selling certain MS software unless they purchase the OS as well .. ‘tying’ MS software to the OS at a discount, etc), complaining that something they do is anti-competitive because it will impact upon your current business practice is just another example of ’shotgun lawyerism’.

What’s next? WebShots complaining because Windows allows you to select your background and screen saver, DisKeeper shouting about the OS having a defrag utility or maybe Mozilla griping around Outlook Express being installed — all with the mantra of “That’s not supposed to be part of what an OS does!” .. or maybe they should do what they already do … build a better mousetrap and compete on the merits of your application.

By: mr p

mr p — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:04:53 +0000

everyone is anti-this and that,

how many of you are running some version of windows…

well im running windows 2000 for as long as i can..

google are realy starting to piss me off.

there is an anti-google campaign, http://www.information-revolution.org/ which is linked to http://www.ask.com which was originally http://www.askjeeves.com, back in the day, when google was just another search that was competing with yahoo and msn search, but now….

when i speak to clients on the phone and advise them to goto a website, they type the address into google search, if that isnt taking over the internet then what it is.

now google want to help me keep track of what i browse not to mention their interests in dna databasing the world.

well….

fuck ms and fuck google.

now im going to use my opera with built in google search on my win2k machine.

pfft eh