Microsoft has agreed to make changes to Vista in response to a complaint by Google alleging that Vista’s inbuilt search functionality competed unfairly with Google Desktop Search.
According to a NY Times report, Google’s complaint was made confidentially in line with rules established as part of a previous settlement over anti-competitive behaviour by Microsoft. The settlement between state prosecutors, the Justice Department and Microsoft will avert the prospect of litigation over the matter.
The changes Microsoft will make to Vista have not yet been made public.
It’s an interesting case. Microsoft has a long history of anti-competitive behaviour however in recent years the company has been a far better corporate citizen, in large part due to the terms imposed on it by previous settlements. On the surface it seems a little strange that Microsoft could be in this position; Vista’s search capabilities really do nothing more than deliver decent search functionality out of the box for Windows. Search functionality has been available in some form or another in ever version of Windows since Windows 95, the difference being that previously those search capabilities have been substandard compared to offerings from Google and Yahoo with their own respective desktop search programs. Whatever the actual details of the case may be (and we may never know) it’s a win for Google. For Microsoft, questions remain: is this simply a case of Microsoft waiting to fight another day, or is the company now seriously spooked by both the threat of anti-competitive litigation and Google? It’s certainly very un-Microsoft like to simply settle without a fight.
Back to the Netscape days…
Roy
http://www.magentocommerce.com
Yeap, Microsoft made Google desksearch into Netscape application. :/
The world’s most powerful company is Microsoft.
Like you stated, Microsoft don’t normally give in so easily. Was the unfair competition claim so blatantly obvious that if taken to court, Microsoft would have lost?
It does seem a little unfair that Microsoft is not able to include desktop search in its OS but Apple does (and I suppose every flavor of Linux). I find these endless restrictions to be a little worrisome… you may not like Microsoft, but put yourself in the position of product manager for Windows. Your focus can no longer be on creating the best product for consumers… anything of real value you put in the OS will immediately be challenged in court. And then, when it comes out, the world complains that there’s ‘nothing new in Vista’.
If you’d checked Techmeme before posting this, you’d have seen a link to the Seattle P.I.:
http://blog.sea...ives/116906.asp
…which was updated at 7:10 PM PST with a link to this PDF:
http://blog.sea...t_Final_JSR.pdf
…with an outline of the changes:
___________
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. 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.
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.
________________________
Damn, that was difficult.
Yeah, that’s unfair. Besides, the new search engine implemented in Vista to find files and stuff is just a normal part of any modern operating system (See Tiger and Leopard). The fact that it indexes files doesn’t matter.
And for IE 7, it’s a Microsoft product, so they can put Live Search as a default search engine if they want to. The only imperative they have is to give user the possibility to select whatever search engine they want. And Microsoft did this and make it easy.
Remember, in some beta versions of Vista, google was the default engine of IE 7 :p
What I do not full understand about Googles complaint is that it IS possible to provide a Desktop Search enhancement to Vista.
See X1 Desktop search (which I personally find superior to both Microsofts and Googles effort).
So the complaint might be about the way that the desktop search might be invoked (e.g. from the shell). Even there I am suspicious, since Google can provide the same level integration that they did with Windows XP. Which works ok.
I have the sense that Google is crying foul simply because they can, and Microsoft caves, simply because they want to avoid bad publicity.
But how come microsoft give in without fight..probably stakes are lower..
>> But how come microsoft give in without fight..probably stakes are lower..
Yeah, really strange.
Especially when you consider that the Justice Department sided with Microsoft.
Maybe Microsoft has nothing really to loose. But give Google a finger and it’ll take your arm.
Who think Microsoft have a chance to win if they fight in court? I think so.
I think it’s probably just that Microsoft didn’t think it was worth fighting in court. Like you said, after all the anti-trust litigation, they’re not really itching for a fight.
Seems like a bit of a pointless move by Google, though. I’ve never used the Vista search features (I’ve been running Vista since January), and I still won’t just because Google started bitching about them.
Well isn’t google the hypocrite…. buy a new computer these days an guess what….google spam toolbar and default search behavior is likely preinstalled.
What’s wrong with Google?
Most people want an engine to search their files within the operating system. And I don’t see how Vista, by design, can prevent Google Desktop from working correctly. Maybe they just suck in Windows programming!
Its a strange day when Google looks like the bully and Microsoft looks like the victims. maybe this is a turning point for both companies. I am actually pulling for Microsoft to win a battle here or there now.
The big issue with Microsoft being forced to adhere to a certain openness is because Microsoft holds the position everyone is afraid off.. the monopoly spot. Microsoft’s Windows OS is so widely used that the only way for Google (or anyone else for that matter) to reach the masses is to have an equal change as Microsoft.
If Microsoft wanted it they could provide people with 100% MS software machines and as far as the general usage apps go, everyone’d be happy, totally eliminating the opportunity for a fair market for say StarOffice, Google Apps, Google Desktop search, and so forth.. Google is fastly becoming the main adversary of MS simply due to the fact that they’re so big.. any other company would (and has, look at the virusscanner producers) voice the same complaints if they had the same sizable loss as Google will have if Google stuff doesn’t get used anymore.
I think those of you who think that Google’s complaint is ‘unfair’ are missing the point. Google isn’t complaining that Microsoft created a desktop search engine, or even that Microsoft made their desktop search engine the default in Vista. Like Netscape (and others), Google is complaining that Microsoft makes it very difficult (if not impossible) for a typical end user to effectively replace the search component in Vista with a third-party application.
This sort of behavior is called “bundling” and is prohibited by the Sherman Antitrust Act. Microsoft’s position is typically something along the lines of “but we need to tightly integrate such-and-such or else Windows will not work.” As a software developer, I think that’s a load of crap. Microsoft might not have the best software development practices in the world, but I highly doubt that a file search feature is tightly integrated with the underlying operating system. The only reason Microsoft could have for making the search component hard to replace is to keep Google and others from developing third-party apps, and that’s unfair.
There was a time where Google was good and fresh, but now I am starting to worry about those guys, they suddenly take on the likes of Microsoft. Like you guys said, Microsoft is still the world’s most powerful company! What the hell is Google thinking? I mean come on! Google needs the windows platform to be able to exist! And now, biting the hand that feeds it!
I think the reason that Microsoft did not load there guns, was that they might be preoccupied with some sort of other problem. We must realize that Google is getting bigger and bigger, one of the days we will be using Google Windows. Just Imagine That!
Keep Well
Francois
Not loading the gun might be seen as a sign of weakness and that’s not good for Microsoft’s reputation.
Vista’s Instant Search could be turned off. It wasn’t highly intuitive, but it was possible. I’m just waiting for every “Search” company to integrate their way to search in the built-in version and machines start exhibiting problems related to search. Guess who will be blamed by the uninformed masses.
Vista’ instant search works perfectly fine and I personally won’t be replacing it with whatever half-baked program comes out of the woodwork.
I just find it amazing no one ever complained about Apple’s built-in search feature not being replaceable, but as soon as Microsoft gets their desktop search right, they swarm.
“Don’t be evil” is surely falling by the wayside as they march towards replacing every function possible in your OS and fill it with ads.
Google’s desktop search doesn’t really provide much value, like the rest of their recent crop of ‘pseudo-applications’.
They must need the publicity to ‘try’ and put Microsoft in a ‘bad light’ about applications, since they don’t really have any applications of real value (compared to Microsoft) to offer.
They own lots of servers, ‘think’ they “own” our search data, and get paid by advertisers from ‘there’ measurements of user activity.
Their advertising revenue stream has ‘topped out’ and they are frantically searching for something to supplement it.
Their few/feeble applications put forth to date seem to be all the have they have to offer stock holders, unless they mean to continue trying to get favorable results from frivilous litigation.
Stupid decision. Not stupid of Google to try, and in my opinion fits with their recent do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do attitudes. They aren’t evil, just annoying.
Wow, only three grammatical errors. Did you know that Microsoft Word offers a spelling & grammatical checker? Try it sometime, eh?
Microsoft Being Calm has showed its class and culture. Even though the Justice Team is Behind them they have opted to remain calm. but one thing google has to know is Microsoft is a maestro in IT field and cannot convince itself because of just a search Engine Company.
Hmm..really interesting..wait and see..Microsoft will not give up the issue..
Google has become the Microsoft of old…. the big bad bully throwing it’s weight around, and demanding changes when it feels threatened, rather than simply build a better product people would use.
The Anti-Microsoft movement has been gaining pace and strength for years and years, and now it’s finally coming to fruition – although people are now starting to realise they have pushed it too far. Well done everyone, congratulations for helping to cripple the worlds most successful and innovative company!
I’m no MS fanboy, for sure. However I do realise when something has been turned into a crusade and people have now jumped on this. Google have now exploited the anti MS feeling, hijacked it and turn it around to their advantage.
Don’t complain when Google is watching everything you do because YOU put them there! The status quo must be maintained, the balance – and it’s now out of balance.
It’s not pointless, there mega $$$ in search/data mining….
Why is it unfair?
Microsoft IS in the habit of muscling in on anywhere it can see a dollar or a way to kill a competing product simply by inclusion. They’ve done it with OEM & still doit. What’s more damaging, is they giveaway the product to begin with then once there’s significant interest they have you, but it’s too late for the poor soles that depend on that for income.
ie… Browser, Remote Desktop(Citrix MetaFrame),Remote Help(VNC & etc), MultiMedia, Firewall, Instant Messaging, E-Mail, Mobile Phones, WinTel Products, blah, blah, blah…
I bet you WERE using another search engine(ala google,altavista,dogpile.. etc) until Vista Live Search came out, because it simply did not exist.
If YOU developed a Product, then an OS Mfr came along with something that for the most part circumvents that Product merely by its existence, I bet you’d be pissed?
eg. You develop Software Product X, then an OS Mfr sees $$$ so Embeds that functionality into the OS; clearly it WILL affect your sales due to ‘it’s already there’ syndrome, as most people will simply use what’s there, unless they are knowledgable enough to do otherwise, of which is ONLY a small percentage, Netscape was the main source of Browser until M$ duped SpyGalss then
embedded the rebranded Browser into Windows as IE with ‘ it’s part of the OS & can’t be removed’ bulls$&t, (there’s a sign of stupidity already, embed an application into the core of the OS). How many people bitch & hate the security problems of IE but still insist on using it? LOTS, it’s there, it’s pushing proprietry NON-standards, but people still use it!!
When was the last time you heard of someone installing a firewall on windows??
To my knowledge it has been some time, and I bet 3rd party Windows Firewall sales have all but died for example..why?, it’s there, SpyWare, M$ claim they were ‘not interested, just looking’ but what a surprise, Defender exists.
Antivirus is comming in typical M$ ‘just looking’ guise, without a doubt. That is NOT good for the likes of(no particular order) McAfee, Symantic,AntiVir, AVG….
People are lazy and continue to put up with ‘what’s already here’, becasue, as I hear from many businesses, regulary, ‘everyone is, and we want to be compatible’. One person upgrades their ‘Office’ which forces everyone else to do the same, as “by default” it’s not backward compatible, unless you know how, most don’t.
So when M$ software is finally the basis for your CAR and it(OS) crashes dead, or requires S/W bugfix or compolsary Update before you can drive it again, I’ll laugh, hopefully, because I’ll be too old to drive.
Here’s a saying which is not mine….bu tI love
Just because MS-Window’s holds 90% of the market doesn’t mean it’s superior.
Remember 90% of all animals are insects.
PS Flame Away
Bear Said:
“When was the last time you heard of someone installing a firewall on windows?? To my knowledge it has been some time, and I bet 3rd party Windows Firewall sales have all but died for example..why?, it’s there, SpyWare, M$ claim they were ‘not interested, just looking’ but what a surprise, Defender exists.”
My Response:
Yeah, I hate it when I don’t have to go out and pay $$$$ for additional third party add-ons.
It kills me that the same people who complain about a $100.00 copy of Windows also complain when it is no longer necessary to spend $40 on a browser, $40 on a firewall, $40 on a spyware program – and $20.00 a year for a subscription to each one to get the updates.
Why exactly wouldn’t I want all that stuff integrated into my OS and free?
Hating a company just because they are big and give you tons of free stuff doesn’t make sense. You’ve got to come up with something more substantial than “I hate free stuff”.
As for Norton, McAfee & Friends have you tried to buy any of their crap lately? Everything is a suite, horribly over priced, and subscription based. Well excuse me for not wanting to blow $20.00 a year on a subscription (I’ve got 4 computers – so it would cost me $80.00) When I install that stuff on my extended family’s computers it is endless headaches. I was so glad when they upgraded to XP and most of that was just handled by Microsoft.
Fine with me if you want to blow all that extra dough on being a ‘rebel’.
You, your Saab, and your ponytail have a nice day now.
Bear, that cracks me up.
“Microsoft IS in the habit of muscling in on anywhere it can see a dollar or a way to kill a competing product simply by inclusion. They’ve done it with OEM & still doit. What’s more damaging, is they giveaway the product to begin with then once there’s significant interest they have you, but it’s too late for the poor soles that depend on that for income.”
Isn’t this what Open Source is all about? Removing or crippling the ability for a software developer to sell the products they write, and even forcing them to create a consulting arm to generate revenue?
I’d rather get all I can in my OS before looking for alternatives. Microsoft adds all kinds of goodies, but all at a limited level of usefulness. That’s where the 3rd parties should focus – the gap between what’s good enough, and what’s great.
I’m more annoyed that every time my JVM tells me there’s an update, the default is to install the damned Google toolbar as well, and I have to do a custom install every time. I’ve worked with MS products for years, and have some level of trust for what they do. I do NOT want Google crap on my machine, ever.
Google is the next problem… mark my words.
People are still acusing M$ of doing what Google is doing.
When all those people had their SSNs cached by Google because the county (Johnson county, NC) Google refused to flush the cache – even though the fact was published in the newspapers all around here.
M$ has done some crazy $y1+, but it wouldn’t do something like that… not even before the lawsuits IMO.
If y`all would stop hating the (becoming insignificant) M$ so much, you might notice the problem who is emerging.
Correction tomy post above:
because the county _screwed up_
and I misspelled the county name too (johnston county, NC)
shouldn’t post before my morning coffee is finished
This is simply a case of Microsoft waiting to fight another day.
The charges leveled by Google were sensationalist crap in the first place. The changes that Microsoft has apparently agreed to cost it very little.
I have to be honest. After many years of watching Microsoft throw its weight around, Google is now looking like the 300 pound bully. I don’t know what happened to their “Don’t Be Evil” philosophy, but it appears to have been thrown under the bus sometime in the past couple of years. I no longer trust Google as far as I could throw them.
Seems basically – MS – is going to fight another day / possibly a bigger battle.
– They don’t loose much – by having – google search desktop – instead of
Start> Search > etc …
– besides branding.
It’s smell blood in the water time… now all any company has to do is complain the Microsoft is doing it again. Microsoft did what any company would have done when there isn’t a truly viable competitor around… fill in the gaps, that is what they have done and will keep doing.
Now for technology there isn’t anything new under the sun that is going to point out or say that ‘this’ is unique… so, all vendors that release competitive software (categories) could possible complain that the other guy is stiffling their income potential. The easiest one to pull this on is Microsoft since they been beat up by the courts.
*sigh*
Guys, it’s a legitimate complaint. Microsoft made the internal file search in Vista difficult to replace with a customer’s choice for default. It’s *exactly* the same scenario that brought about the antitrust legislation in the first place (Microsoft making it difficult for the end user to choose their own default web browser).
It’s not that Vista’s search can’t be turned off, it’s that it’s difficult to *replace*. And by “difficult”, you have to realize that most end users consider any system configuration beyond “pushing a button” to be difficult (or at least daunting). The fact that you could change default search behavior by going into regedit and adjusting keys, might as well say it was impossible for 80% of consumers.
Antitrust isn’t anything new. It’d be the same thing if an automobile manufacturer produced a car in which you couldn’t replace the radio with your own choice. Or a home builder produced a home that could only use one specific refrigerator. It would give an unfair market advantage to the one product (brand and model) that they *could* use, leaving no room for competition.
What the courts decided in the Microsoft litigation in the past several years, basically, is that Windows has become so ubiquitous that it’s now looked at like an infrastructure. And the infrastructure must accommodate third-parties who want to hang their hat (and business) on producing value-add services for that infrastructure.
Some of you stated that you like that Microsoft offers firewalls, etc, because it means you don’t have to buy these third-party offerings. And that’s fine. It’s all about choice. I choose to use third-party apps because I think they’re superior. Not because I think Microsoft is bad, or that Microsoft is crap… I just think Microsoft has it’s hands in too many things that their individual offerings like firewalls and IM will never be “best of breed”. And the evaluations I’ve read and done prove that out. (”When’s the last time anyone heard of someone installing a firewall on Windows?”… just did it yesterday, in fact… one of the *very* first things we do when we build up a machine for our company is to disable the built-in Windows firewall and install a third-party offering).
And the reason that Microsoft didn’t “fight” Google’s complaint, in my opinion, is that Microsoft knew full well that Vista’s search violated the anti-trust rules even when they were developing it (they *had* to). But they figured if they could get it out there for a year or so so people had to use it, before having to “patch” it to comply with the rules, people would become used to using it and begin to prefer it over other solutions (or at least prefer it to the prospect of installing something else). I’m sure Microsoft expected Google’s complaint from the very first day Vista hit the shelves (and before). The fact that it came *this* many months after product release, I think, Microsoft feels is a “victory”. And the changes that were dictated by the resolution of Google’s complaint were most likely already in the product roadmap for SP1 anyway.
Google is the 300 pound gorilla, that “do no evil’ crap, was great publicity for when they were the underdog. But now that they are on top and had their IPO, they must do everything in their power to keep increasing their revenue. Otherwise their google stock will become stagnant
Here’s an idea for microsoft…they can add as many “default apps” as they want desktop search, browser, email client wmplayer etc just make it “completely uninstallable” so that if the user wants to install 3rd party apps he can do so and uninstall the microsoft app to save space.
Meh — very good point!! I agree with all of that. Never really thought of it that way but, there it is. We are getting these things for free (even if security concerns have been voiced about IE, etc.), which is a lot better than the other subscription-based firewalls and antivirus programs.
So what if people are lazy with what someone called “already there syndrome” (or something like that)? It’s cost free, hassle free, and download free as it is.
People who (i) have slow Internet connections and download speeds (ii) live on a relatively small salary and therefore cannot afford these stupid subscriptions, or (iii) are not very computer literate — will all be welcoming Microsoft’s software, I am sure.
(i) Why download a third-party software app when you can get it on the disc (or pre-installed onto the computer) when you buy Windows?
(ii) Why bother paying for things that you can get for free, and that are guaranteed to be compatible — and if there are problems the software engineers have direct links with the OS engineers [same company], so that a patch can be distributed. And then, the patches can be applied automatically as part of Windows’ automatic update function!
(iii) Also, as there are many people who are not very computer literate (i.e. the rest of my family
.. especially the parents who are still “new” to computers), it is highly likely that things like Norton anti-virus will become very, very annoying. How many of you have experienced the end of a trial period or paid subscription to Norton (or any other subscription-based program)? Annoying pop-ups about upgrading never seem to go away, and those who have never used Add/Remove Programs before will not know any way to uninstall the app and get rid of them.
I, personally, use AVG Free Anti-Virus (not the rest of its products, which are subscription-based). Otherwise, I use the firewall and Windows Defender built into Vista.
If I used XP, I would still download Defender from the website — as it doesn’t come preinstalled but is still free for legitimate Windows users & has the added bonus of near-full compatibility.
I wouldn’t say I am a Microsoft supporter, especially as at times I do have my criticisms about the way they operate. On this issue, I do support Microsoft though — especially in the way they decided to allow 3rd-party desktop search apps in SP1 (thanks Michael Griffiths for that post and the links; very interesting to read).
I take Microsoft’s decision not as a loss to the likes of Google, but as a victory. They have shown that they still have the power to include/exclude whatever software apps they want in their OS (at no additional cost). It was their decision to include the third-party search app functionality in their next service pack, and they were simply prompted [not pressured] into it by Google. It seems likely that they would have won if the case had been taken to court.
Comments welcome.
For OEM especially, I guess M$ is the big and best service provider. A third party search engine support like Google can be the next best way of using the computing resources in distributed environment offering more features/$.
Well, its up to M$ how it influence Google to get involved; I think, it’s a puzzle to M$! Will Google show interest to make profit? I don’t think so.
Abid.
Its show weakness of Microsoft ?
still Microsoft is the world’s most powerful company ?
Come take a look at the power Google is gathering. $200 discount for TechCrunch. Use this code “crunch” from this link http://www.webg...ser/myspace.php.
Hang on, hang on…
What is difficult about writing a software that tweaks the registry and sets up a file or draws a button?
What is difficult to replace with an installer packaged up?
Look behind the curtain and you will see why MS is giving this one away.
What is realy the point in downloading and installing 3rd party apps that take up twice the space and use more resources then is needed?
if it does not deliver better results , Does Not improve performance over what was originaly paid for , Does Not use less resources and take up less space then whats the point?
I’ve tryed most of the 3rd party search engins meaning search apps you have to download and add to windows and have so far been less then impressed and allways finding my way to the the remove programs in the control pannel because the apps have to many annoying functions like overflowing sale adds ,pop ups to things ive never wanted to look up just to fight my way to things im wanting to look up .
Companys may be able to use the racoon method on most but it just dont appeal to me .
Just because its shines in the sun light ,nice color , and looks or acts cool for a short time…more then not ive found a very short time on the acts cool part, if it Does Not Do what i need im just not buying and if other companys cant keep up then whos fault is that realy ? and when did it become ok to hold back progress if those companys cant keep up isnt it time to just step aside and let those who can do the job ?
Is’nt anyone getting tired of getting 3rd rate craftsman ship for their money? oh boy look at that this company gets mad cause this other guy gave you a better product now their in trouble for it , since they took the money you spent on their product and made the product better for you they are in trouble what kinda crap is that?
if they are so concerned over this Google should build its own stand alone browser and let everyone choose for themselves netscape has its own why does Google not? so whats next we doing away with car washes so everyone will have an equal amount of dirt on their car?
I agree with AL.
Here we go again……. giant vs giant who would win the competition this time ? One side i still love microsoft products (i have been brainwashed by all Microsoft slogan etc) and the other side i see another opportunity to explore non microsoft even a free one from Google. Because the winner has not been determined, i will support both of them for this moment.
@16 – Francois
“What the hell is Google thinking? I mean come on! Google needs the windows platform to be able to exist! And now, biting the hand that feeds it!”
Google doesn’t need Windows. If Google needs any one thing, it’s Linux.
“We must realize that Google is getting bigger and bigger, one of the days we will be using Google Windows. Just Imagine That!”
That will only happen if Microsoft open sources Windows, which is unlikely. However Google are working on a modified version of Ubuntu Linux, Goobuntu. – http://www.ther..._desktop_linux/
Also this isn’t comparable to Linux. With Linux you can change anything you want, for example I can replace Gnome with KDE, Firefox with Konqueror and so on. As for desktop search there are quite a few programs: strigi, Beagle, Tracker, Recoll and Pinot, plus more I might not know about. Microsoft could even add their own desktop search if they wanted.
The problem isn’t Microsoft adding features to Windows, the problem is Microsoft adding features which can not be replaced by other programs. IE is a prime example, I would love to replace it with Firefox but it’s not possible.
Well.. Google and to microsoft.. its called competeing! IMAGINE THAT BUISNESS BUTTING HEADS! LOOKIE THERE WOOOOOOWIE! Jeeze man Cant we all just get along this non-sense has been dragging on for so long and in the end its just going to end up making microsoft users have to wait through ANOTHER LONNGGG AND BORINNNNGGG update I mean honestly Just Saddle up and deal with it When Burger King came out with the whooper you didnt see McDonalds getting annoyed.
Typo error mean whopper*
I’m surprised people haven’t talked about the fact that there are so many problems with Vista being un-backwards compatible. Even with the programs set to be executed with the functionality of Windows XP, the programs refuse to work and have often been known to have the .dll’s declared incompatible. Isn’t the idea to provide a better operating system for a computer instead of demanding that software companies make changes to their existing products to fit an O.S.?
IBM’s OS2 didn’t work that way.