|
It was when they integrated IE into Windows Explorer (I think it was IE 4) and made it impossible to remove.
|
|
|
|
|
MatrixCoder wrote: Last time I heard they were on 0.2b.
Interesting. Any link you can share on the same?
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I'm not sure where I got 0.2b. But here's the news link: Google Goes Desktop Linux
Trinity: Neo... nobody has ever done this before.
Neo: That's why it's going to work.
|
|
|
|
|
MatrixCoder wrote: They've gotten in trouble before by making Internet Explorer the only browser you can use in Windows
As mentioned, that never happened. They made it the default (as in it shipped with it), but there has never been anything preventing you from running your own instead.
|
|
|
|
|
Fred_Smith wrote: Microsoft can do what they like with their own product.
Damn straight!
Of course, the products they sell to us are another matter... 
----
Yes, but can you blame them for doing so if that's the only legal way they can hire programmers they want at the rate they can afford?-- Nish on sketchy hiring practices
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote: Damn straight!
Of course, the products they sell to us are another matter...
That and I feel too many choices only wreck havoc with the OS itself. Different search implementations, expotential customer problems...
Also, no one complained for Apple building in its own search into OS X, so why is google targeting Microsoft? 
|
|
|
|
|
Recently read microsoft research paper found at http://research.microsoft.com/research/pubs/view.aspx?type=Technical%20Report&id=1095[^]
In it they state among other things that 85% of diagnosed 'blue screens of death' are due to faulty hardware drivers. Drivers over write parts of the OS kernel, Microsoft can't test properly or even run decent optimizations on their source because they don't know which dll will be loaded at run time and call which functions. Quite funny too, MS researchers even admit that Windows is slow compared to linux, Mac etc, for IPC, process creation, total supportable threads etc.
Anyways, the proposed solution: every process isolated and static. All code is then known at compile time, if you need to access a dll start it as a separate process and have it independantly managed. No shared memory either, so you don't have to worry about one program overwriting another. If you want to only have one copy of the data, you can change the process that owns the data with ~0 cost (roughly 1000 cycles regardless of the size of the memory)
As for the IE integrated bit, what about MS wanting to ensure that there was a browser on each deployment so things like Visual Studio can use html help pages. If you let the user uninstall the browser, they'd get really annoyed the first time the OS tells them they have to install a browser to continue. Sure they could have made it so that you'd have to swap one browser for another, but bottom line, they have rightly or wrongly there own extensions in IE, and they couldn't ensure that a 3rd party app would maintain compatiblity with the features needed by the OS.
|
|
|
|
|
Right on. This reminds me of when Sun sued MS because the they were not shipping a JVM with Windows, while at the same time insisting that Microsoft not make Windows integrate with IE, so it would be easier to use Netscape! So let me get this straight: "I have to put your product in my product, but I can't make my product work well with my other product..."
But fortunately we have the nanny-state politicians who can step in to protect us poor stupid consumers, most of whom would not know a JVM from a frozen chicken.
|
|
|
|
|
beep wrote: us poor stupid consumers, most of whom would not know a JVM from a frozen chicken.
 5.
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker
My Blog - My Photos - ScrewTurn Wiki
|
|
|
|
|
You've been quoted 
I think I'm going to call my next project "Chuck Norris". It's a sure way to guarantee it's unbreakable.
• • •
But fortunately we have the nanny-state politicians who can step in to protect us poor stupid consumers, most of whom would not know a JVM from a frozen chicken. Bruce Pierson
|
|
|
|
|
Geez, thanks Dave. I'll be expecting to see it as an entry in Bartlett's any day now...
|
|
|
|
|
beep wrote: Right on. This reminds me of when Sun sued MS because the they were not shipping a JVM with Windows, while at the same time insisting that Microsoft not make Windows integrate with IE, so it would be easier to use Netscape! So let me get this straight: "I have to put your product in my product, but I can't make my product work well with my other product..."
But fortunately we have the nanny-state politicians who can step in to protect us poor stupid consumers, most of whom would not know a JVM from a frozen chicken.
minimice wrote: Also, no one complained for Apple building in its own search into OS X, so why is google targeting Microsoft?
Thats because Apple are not in a monopoly position, if google or apple ever become in the monopoly position then they to would be subject to the same rules.
|
|
|
|
|
Stone Free wrote: Thats because Apple are not in a monopoly position, if google or apple ever become in the monopoly position then they to would be subject to the same rules
I suppose companies that create solitaire should start getting together and sueing microsoft too? It's their product and they can decide whatever they want to include in it. Whether or not users use it is entirely up to them.
|
|
|
|
|
if (((google + search) != MONOPOLY_POSITION) || ((apple + mp3_players) != MONOPOLY_POSITION))
{
me += hat_for_dinner;
}
|
|
|
|
|
ewasjdgb wrote: if (((google + search) != MONOPOLY_POSITION) || ((apple + mp3_players) != MONOPOLY_POSITION))
{
me += hat_for_dinner;
}
Oh, man, I was just thinking the same thing, but this puts it so much more succinctly than I could have. Isn't C# wonderful?
if (!ms.Contains(google))
govt.Charge(new Penalty("We like some monopolies, but not others."));
|
|
|
|
|
i dun like installing too much 3rd party softwares
|
|
|
|
|
I totally agree! If you hate Microsoft go with Sun or Mac.
Deeply integrated applications will become standard, so, if you are deploying your product to a Vista platform, you should rely that the search facility is there and you can execute it from within your app.
On the second hand, allowing competitors to deploy their own packages should be permitted.
Make it simple, as simple as possible, but not simpler.
|
|
|
|
|
I do search maybe once in a year, so i turned all indexing in background off and really, don't care if there MS code, that will index, or Google code. I don't use search ^^
|
|
|
|
|
ok, all this indexing stuff just got me tired, so i make one by my self (indexing app), it took about two and half hours to index all my files, and using a simple Jet database I use it every time i need to find something, but updates has to be done manually, but it is a little compare to what the other indexing application does to the performance of the system.
|
|
|
|
|
Galito wrote: but it is a little compare to what the other indexing application does to the performance of the system.
Not had any performance issues with Copernic.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
If you do not need to run a CPU eating indexing service for just refreshing every bit of data changed on your local disks, it might be a better solution to use such an app which updates its database manually. I someday developed a simple CD/DVD indexing application for my personal use [source can be downloaded from http://code.google.com/p/cdsnapshot/downloads/list], it is simple and has some bugs, but I use it regularly and it is enough for me.
Using your idea I think I can change it so that it can index local hard drives too and if I do this, it might be a great fast-find-app for myself.
-- modified at 0:59 Wednesday 27th June, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
Galito wrote: simple Jet database
Indegenous stuff?
|
|
|
|
|
Whether this is a good idea or not depends on the way it's done. I see two basic possibilities:
1. Replace the UI or UI implementation:
Google could be allowed to replace the Explorer's search field with their own. Alternatively, Microsoft could provide interfaces that Google could implement, which would be called by the Explorer when the user wants to trigger a search.
But this would only allow to use two different backends for the UI. If an application tried to use Microsoft's desktop search API, it would still get Microsoft's implementation.
2. Allow 3rd parties to implement Microsoft's desktop search interfaces:
In this scenario, other companies could implement the COM interfaces that Microsoft defined for the desktop search. If any application tries to use the desktop search, it will then get the currently 'active' implementation.
In my opinion, scenario 1 is acceptable. Scenario 2, however, is completely unacceptable, since differences in the behaviour of two different implementations are guaranteed. This would lead to 'bugs' in applications which are hard to track down; software vendors would have to test with many different implementations, which would increase development costs.
- Rolf
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I don't know was the best answer for me.
The reason for this is that I disable this crap as it never works the way I want and it for the most part gets in my way. A few months ago I accidentally agreed to add Microsoft desktop search to my XP install as part of an Office upgrade thinking it would fix the horribly broken built in XP pro search. This was a huge mistake as now the default search only works if the folder is indexed. I do not want it to spend time churning through and indexing all my network connections so my search has became even more of a pain to use. I tried Google desktop about 1 year ago and uninstalled it after about a week as it took way too much of my system resources. You would think a dual processor machine with 2GB of memory would be enough to search for my files...
I now find myself using cygwin find and grep to search my files as it is much less painful.
John
|
|
|
|
|
John M. Drescher wrote: I guess I don't know was the best answer for me.
That was exactly how I felt! In fact, I clicked on yes, then realized I don't really care but "yes" would have been the choice in principle, but I ended up clicking I don't care.
Marc
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
