IBM’s OS2 didn’t work that way.

“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.theregister.co.uk/2.....top_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.

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.

still Microsoft is the world’s most powerful company ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

- They don’t loose much - by having - google search desktop - instead of

Start> Search > etc …

- besides branding.

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.

because the county _screwed up_

and I misspelled the county name too (johnston county, NC)

shouldn’t post before my morning coffee is finished

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.

“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.

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.