decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The Microsoft-DOJ Joint Status Report on Google's Complaint - Updated
Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 01:56 PM EDT

I thought you might like to read the section about Google in the June 19, 2007 Microsoft-Department of Justice Joint Status Report on Microsoft's Compliance with the Final Judgments instead of just hearing others describe it.

This is a proposed solution satisfactory to the parties. However, that doesn't mean that Google or even the court, for that matter, will necessarily agree that these terms are sufficient. In fact, Google has already indicated that it doesn't think they are. And there are some legal questions left unresolved. So, in order for you to understand the issues, I'm reproducing those sections. One glaring issue is that you can't turn Microsoft's desktop search engine off, even if you want to use Google instead.

My own Alice-in-Wonderland reaction is to ask, is Microsoft staying up nights trying to think up ways to annoy and harass customers? Or is it just a side effect of other goals? Who in the world would want to use something like that, a resource-depleting application you can't turn off? I'm really puzzled, being a Linux girl. To each his own, of course, but I really can't imagine finding that acceptable. I do use Apple's MacOSX too, but I turn off widgets and Spotlight precisely because they are always running. I hate them. And I can turn them off, even if Apple won't show me how.

ITWire's Stan Beer notes that Vista desktop search still remains switched on:

Faced with another antitrust action, Microsoft has agreed to open up Vista to allow other desktop search providers easier access to the operating system. However, one can understand Google's sentiments when it claims that the Microsoft concessions are a step in the right direction but do not go far enough.

The fact is Microsoft still won't allow its desktop search to be completely switched off. There will be links and a place on the Start Menu for Google and other desktop search tools but the Microsoft tool will remain firmly and uselessly in place, sucking away valuable computing resources.

Therefore if you put Google Desktop Search up, under the current "concessions" made by Microsoft, the system's performance will suffer because you have two search indexing engines running. And if you happen to be using Microsoft's new operating system, the one thing you simply can't afford to suffer is performance. As most of us well know by now, Vista is a memory hog.

This might, presumably, encourage OEMs and users to give up on Google and just use Microsoft's search engine since it's already running and can't be removed. However, Microsoft's position, in the report, is that its search engine works in the background and cedes precedence to any other program running:

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. 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.

Microsoft has offered, as you see, to help with documentation to tweak performance, but it doesn't say, to my reading, that there will be no effect on performance, only that they'll help you minimize the effect. Here's a good overview, in addition to the ones we've already posted in News Picks:

In response to claims that Vista's "Instant Search" slows competing products, Microsoft agreed to give competitors technical information to help optimize performance.

Microsoft said it expects the changes to be implemented in its first service pack for Vista, putting to rest speculation among Microsoft watchers that the company would do away with its practice of catchall software upgrades. The software maker plans to release an early version of Service Pack 1 by the end of the year.

"We're pleased we were able to reach an agreement with all the states and the Justice Department that addresses their concerns so that everyone can move forward," Microsoft's Smith said in a statement.

Update: Todd Bishop has Google's statement as to what else it would like:

Google issued this statement tonight from its chief legal officer, David Drummond, after Microsoft and antitrust regulators announced an agreement to make changes to Windows Vista in response to Google's concerns about the Microsoft operating system's built-in desktop search tool:
"Microsoft's current approach to Vista desktop search clearly violates the consent decree and limits consumer choice. We are pleased that as a result of Google's request that the consent decree be enforced, the Department of Justice and state Attorneys General have required Microsoft to make changes to Vista. These remedies are a step in the right direction, but they should be improved further to give consumers greater access to alternate desktop search providers."

Asked for more details about what the company would like to see, a Google spokesman said Microsoft should give users a choice of desktop search engines from all search access points on the desktop, and make it easier to disable Windows Vista's desktop search index.

And California's attorney general put out a press release:

Under the proposed solution, Microsoft will provide users and Original Equipment Manufacturers, such as HP or Dell, with greater flexibility to choose and access competing desktop search products. Microsoft has promised to deliver the required changes in a beta Service Pack 1 of Windows Vista, which Microsoft currently anticipates will be available by the end of the year.

The attorney general announced the agreement in conjunction with Microsoft, the United States Department of Justice and Plaintiffs in the New York Group (including New York, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin) and the California Group (including California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah, and the District of Columbia). The changes resolve complaints lodged against Microsoft under the California Group’s Final Judgment from November 2002.

With all those attorneys general signing off on the compromise, as ComputerWorld's Gregg Keizer points out in his article, it's not clear how Google will now get more, but this is a bit more detail on what they see as the problem:

According to reports last week, Google accused Microsoft of making it difficult for users to disable Vista's integrated indexing and search. If a second desktop search application was installed, the computer would slow down as two competing indexers churned through the hard drive, Google said. The Mountain View, Calif. search giant also complained that Microsoft's search was the only tool allowed to generate results in Vista's search bars, which appear in several places, including the Start menu, in the Windows Explorer file manager and in the Control Panels main display.

In the joint status settlement report issued Tuesday, the DOJ and state attorneys general said that Microsoft must modify Vista so users and OEMs can select a default search tool for producing results in the Start menu. Other search bars, however, will continue to rely on Vista's own search and indexing program, and must only provide users with a link to the default search engine.

So Microsoft's search is still favored:

The agreement doesn't cover "Explorer" search windows found in operating system window panes. These will remain tied to Vista's internal search, though Microsoft plans to add a link to such windows that will launch the default desktop search program.

That articles says Microsoft says it hasn't read the Google complaint but still called it "without merit" in the status report. And here's the proposal, so you can evaluate it yourself:

*******************************

Complaint Regarding Desktop Search

Plaintiffs have previously reported that they were investigating a middleware-related complaint. This complaint, filed by Google, relates to the desktop search functionality in Windows Vista that enables users to search for files located on their computer. This desktop search functionality in Vista, referred to as "Instant Search" in Microsoft's promotional materials, allows users to enter a search query into a text box and receive a list of results from the user's hard drive that contain the search term, either in the name of the file or program, in the full text of the file, or in the keywords associated with that file. The desktop search functionality relies on an index that is updated whenever files on the computer change. The use of an index enables the quick return of search results, as Windows can run the search query against the index and obtain the results, rather than having to search every file on the computer for the search term every time the user conducts a search.

Google's complaint contends that desktop search in Windows Vista is a new "Microsoft Middleware Product" under the Final Judgments. The complaint contends that Microsoft has violated the Final Judgment by failing to adhere to the requirements of Section III.C and Section III.H as it pertains to this new Microsoft Middleware Product.

After completing their investigation of the complaint, Plaintiffs worked together to reach an agreement by Microsoft with the goal of promoting user and OEM choice for desktop search in Windows Vista. 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 promised.

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 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.

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....

5. The "Desktop Search Complaint"

Late last year, the Plaintiffs told Microsoft that Google had filed a complaint relating to the desktop search capabilities in Windows Vista. (Desktop search makes it easy for users to find and sort files and programs on their computers.) Microsoft has worked cooperatively with the Plaintiffs to answer their questions and has provided detailed documentary and technical information to the Plaintiffs and their technical experts. Microsoft believes that Google's complaint is without merit. Nevertheless, Microsoft worked with the Plaintiffs in a spirit of cooperation to resolve any issues the complaint may raise under the Final Judgments. Microsoft has committed to make the changes described in the Plaintiffs' section of this report in Service Pack 1 for Windows Vista. Microsoft anticipates that beta code will be available by the end of the year.


  


The Microsoft-DOJ Joint Status Report on Google's Complaint - Updated | 177 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here!
Authored by: Just_Bri_Thanks on Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 02:09 PM EDT
And please include the nature of the malfunction in the title of your comment.

---
Bri. Just Bri. Thank you.
(With a long i sound.)
Without qualification, certification,
exception, or (hopefully) bias.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: Just_Bri_Thanks on Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 02:11 PM EDT
Please follow the instructions found in red to make your links clickable.

---
Bri. Just Bri. Thank you.
(With a long i sound.)
Without qualification, certification,
exception, or (hopefully) bias.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not relevant
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 02:16 PM EDT
Yeah, Microsoft search runs at the lowest priority level. That might actually
matter if Windows' multi-tasking was worth anything.

My experience is that if I have a background process running, and Windows has
one running, the system can become almost completely unresponsive. (I haven't
tried Vista, so I don't know if this is still a problem there.)

So, unless they've managed to fix the multi-tasking with Vista, a
lowest-priority process can still unacceptably degrade your system. And, in the
best case, it still eats memory.

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

Air Supply
Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 02:22 PM EDT
It's a good thing, isn't it, that Google doesn't depend on desktop search to support its business.

Oh, wait -- that's right: the only competition standing are those who don't depend in desktop revenue. Isn't that curious?

[ Reply to This | # ]

New Prioritization Features in Vista
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 02:23 PM EDT
Older versions of Windows could only prioritize CPU access. Therefore, an I/O or
memory intensive application could monopolize the system anyway.

The new Vista kernal includes memory and I/O prioritization.

This is the ONLY new feature in Vista that I like. Not enough to want to put up
with all the other cruftyness though!

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Microsoft-DOJ Joint Status Report on Google's Complaint
Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 02:28 PM EDT

Someone needs to attach Microsoft's own COM documentation showing what Microsoft claims is the correct way to provide and use things like browser and desktop-search-engine functionality. One of the examples explicitly showed how to completely remove one component and replace it with an equivalent one without clients being any the wiser. Accompany it with a request that Microsoft justify why it cannot simply follow it's own documented and recommended methods for doing things.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Effect on battery life?
Authored by: bb5ch39t on Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 02:49 PM EDT
Even if MS's search indexer is running at a "low priority", it would
seem to me that it would definitely have an impact on my laptop's battery
run-time.

Once again, MS is trying to tie an application into the OS in order to kill off
a competitor. The fact that this action also upsets some users is just not
important to MS.

Hum, if OOo really takes off, I wonder if MS will say that MS Office is now
included in Vista Ultimate (with an increase in price, of course).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Minimal performance impact
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 02:50 PM EDT
Since the indexing service only runs when the index needs updating I fail to see
why it would impact performance most of the time. Given that, why should I care
if it runs all the time?

Also, since desktop search has been part of Windows for a long time (Windows
95?), albeit never with Vista's speed, why is Google grousing now? Sounds a bit
like the EU's complaint about WMP...

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Microsoft-Advantage...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 02:57 PM EDT
Having run and developed under windows for many years the idea that MS would
yield to a competing product is almost unconceivable. I was there when MS
released a version of Win3.1 that worked with DRDOS then on the next Beta
detected and inserted a failure, then in the compiler wars they slowed down
Boreland compiled products or caused then to appear unstable, even today if you
start a non-MS application, wait a second and start an MS app the MS app will be
up first! It is my firm belief that the MS OS not only plays an uneven field but
hampers known competing products. So when Google raises the red flag it is more
than a paranoid response. I also believe that is why MS will never risk patent
case where they might be forced to reveal their code.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Disabling Windows Search
Authored by: Bacon Bits on Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 03:00 PM EDT
I know of three ways to disable Windows Search:

1. Go to Control Panel --> Indexing Options. Remove all entries. The engine
will still run, but it won't be doing anything.

2. Disable indexing on a drive or folder in the Drive Properties or Folder
Properties. Right-click the item, choose Properties, and uncheck the
"index drive" or click Advanced and uncheck indexing there.

3. The best method is just to disable the service. Go into Computer Management
or Service Management and stop the Windows Search service and set the start type
to Disabled.

Why exactly can't Google just do #3? It's the same solution as ye olde
Messenger service!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Desktop Search
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 03:02 PM EDT
How many people actually use automated desktop search apps?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Microsoft-DOJ Joint Status Report on Google's Complaint
Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 03:08 PM EDT
Anyone remember the Netscape lawsuit, re IE bundling? MS claimed the browser was
part of the operating system and sure enough, in the next version of Windows it
was! As a result, Windows is extremely vulnerable to malware that enters via
bugs in IE. Embedding IE in the OS is also extremely bad software engineering
for exactly that reason, among many others. I don't ever recall seeing another
OS that required the browser to be part of the OS. Konquerer on the KDE desktop
seems to do well enough.

How soon before we see new malware that takes advantage of the MS search
engine?




---
Let me know if you don't receive this message.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Microsoft-DOJ Joint Status Report on Google's Complaint
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 03:08 PM EDT
I would like to know why they aren't being fined - this is a blatant disregard
for the doj and their ruling that they are an illegal monopoly and is the whole
netscape thing all over.

this is typical microsoft just shrugging their shoulders to their customers,
competition, and LAW-ENFORCEMENT. i say make them pay for the next year for our
troops in iraq and afghanistan. and for each additional violation that happen
to come up (cough cough) make them pay two years for each violation.

when will this insanity stop.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Spotlight Doesn't Run Constantly, and what about Be, Inc?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 03:17 PM EDT
In the normal case, spotlight doesn't (and isn't meant to) run constantly.

Given a local disk, and external or network indexing turned off, spotlight
should only update its index when you write (save) a file, an operating that
adds little overhead (you're already writing to the disk, what's writing a
little
more going to hurt?).

If you're just doing day to day tasks, you shouldn't see any decreased
performance with Spotlight on local disks. Its still not as quick as BeOS's
searches were (R.I.P. Be), but the implementation is extremely intelligent.

And on a complete tangent:

BTW, are there any documents available regardign Be, Inc.'s litigation with
Microsoft? BeOS was (and still is) years ahead of other operating systems,
and it was sad when they closed their doors. Be's demise was one of the
reasons I started looking for alternatives to Microsoft products. It would be
interesting to see if Microsoft is still up to the same tricks they pulled (and

unfortunately settled), with Be.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS claim is a smokescreen
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 04:03 PM EDT

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

It has been known since the 1970s that a big, low-priority process can cause a multitasking operating system to thrash (spend nearly all its time swapping processes between disk and memory). It has nothing to do with how efficient the multitasking algorithm is. It just has to do with memory contention. Microsoft must know this.

The reason is as follows. The low-priority process is usually ready to run. So when other processes are momentarily suspended (for input or output), the low-priority process is the only thing that can run, so the OS starts to swap it in. While it's doing that, other processes become ready, but they usually can't run because the swapper is an OS process, with higher priority than apps. As soon as the swapper finishes, the OS notices that a higher priority app is ready so it starts to swap the low-priority process out again ...

... rinse, repeat ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Microsoft-DOJ Joint Status Report on Google's Complaint
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 08:46 PM EDT
[blockquote] 1. Insist he stops using it for his business? Beep, wrong answer, breach of GPL to enforce terms outside the GPL.[/blockquote]

First of all they aren't saying that. I think it's pretty obvious that what they are saying is they will not provide support if he uses it for his business. That is not a breach of the GPL. Second, they can't prevent him from using it wherever he wants and that's clearly not what they are doing. What they are saying is they won't "sell" him one with Ubuntu if it is intended to be used for business. That certainly is NOT a breach of the GPL because they haven't even distributed any code. You are trying to twist it into something it is not.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Good Software design is when all the components work together
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2007 @ 11:27 PM EDT
Steve Ballmer has already said, during his deposiiton in their US antitrust
case, that he thinks good softwear design is not about making components
interchangeable, but about making them all interdependent. That way
proprietary lock-in occurs and results in more software sales. It is therefore
likely that the search facility was designed in this way from the start and I
honestly believe that it is now quite difficult for Microsoft to turn it off.

[ Reply to This | # ]

All this proves is ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 01:14 AM EDT
.. how stupid, lame, crooked, or just plain incompetent the techno weenies at
DoJ and judge providing "oversight" (har!) really are. I've come to
expect wishy-washy from the judge but was hoping state AG's hadn't sold out: so
much for that - the real racketeers are probably the AG's. Actually, I almost
hope they are all crooks, because if this level of "expertise" is the
best the legal profession can offer then God help us all. At least if they're
paid off there is some reason for the level of stupidity the report
demonstrates. Because otherwise they're actually buying the Microsoft bilge
water!

[ Reply to This | # ]

I could care less about whether Google is satisfied.
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 04:03 AM EDT
This is not about justice: this is about the law. My first point; no versions of
any operating system except Vista depend on the search function to operate. I
assume from this that Microsoft have made the search function to be this way
deliberately and for no legal, technical reason.

No company should integrate a feature in their product that is not removable and
which is not essential to operation and which inhibits competition by
alternative features produced by other companies (or solutions produced by
anybody). Such actions are not inherently unlawful.

This action is an illegal act when the company holds a monopoly in the product
concerned. Microsoft have committed this illegal act for a number of products
and features and have been found guilty of doing so for some of them. The well
known example is an internet browser, but address book and email client are
equally long standing examples. The media player can be removed, but is
anticompetitively bundled.

Microsoft were being monitored to ensure they committed no further illegal abuse
of their monopoly. The monitoring authority have had a further, serious abuse
brought to their attention and this overlooks the anti-competitive bundling of
antivirus software. The previous remedies (later dropped) included the splitting
of the business into separate divisions. However, this remedy would not address
the abuse of the operating system monopoly part of the business. Since the
original orders have failed to prevent subsequent, identical offences the only
remaining option is to prevent the company from selling the product at the
centre of the offence.

The only arguments against this that I can see are political and economic and
not legal arguments.

---
Regards
Ian Al

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Monitoring? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 04:18 PM EDT
ie netscape all over again The Microsoft-DOJ Joint Status Report on Google's Complaint - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 07:56 AM EDT
Sounds to me like they've built the indexing in at the lowest levels, and can't
unhook it, the same way that they've clunked in IE and now I believe Office
programs. For example in XP, when I do a search, it tries to install MS Office
stuff. Since I didn't install it in the first place, it now asks for a key,
which I didn't buy, and I have to cancel out of it, then continue.

It's fine and dandy to re-use code. But when the result is to try and force you
to use something you don't want, then its a piece of excrement.

It will take years and lots of bucks for them to back it out, so they figure it
is easier to fickle their way around having to do that.

When you open my computer on XP, and you are connected to a network, the silly
machine wastes it's time searching the network, before allowing you to select
for example the C drive. (That stupid flashlight thing.)

Contrast to Linux where if a drive is available and it is mounted, then you get
it, no delay with Linux. (Ubuntu for example.)

The problem with Vista is the mind set and philosophy that was followed to
developed it.

Lots of features that allow content providers to make money. Eye candy on a
very expensive toy that some people try to use for business
purposes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PJ in another posting suggested we try Vista, then tell her. You can put Vista
on my machine when you pry the computer from my cold dead hands!

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Microsoft-DOJ Joint Status Report on Google's Complaint - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 08:08 AM EDT
%^%^*$*&^)(U*

Vista turns on the index by default, increases the file-types searched

Excuse my foreign language of preference. You mean this piece of ...whatever...
is always going to be accessing my disk drive every time I do anything? Have
you ever used the search on XP? You get a list of files. You open one up, and
automatically the search starts updating the list, changing whats displayed
becuase it creates a link with that file name.

I don't care if it is only a background task ceding precedence to all other
programs. It is an utter silly ridiculous stupid thoughtless decision to make
it default!
What were the idiot designers thinking when they decided to foist this piece of
asininity on the poor user? And to waste even more disk space in an
continuously updated index?

*******CRUD*******

[ Reply to This | # ]

How is this different from modifying the FAT
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 09:28 AM EDT
The only description of the indexing system that I have found
is here. So people feel free to add details.

Given that linux has had updatedb/locate for years, I do not see what the
difficulty is.

Second if anything this sounds more like an inefficient way of implementing
file search. Every operating system in existence today has a index of the file
system, it's called the FAT ( or some variation thereof ). These are simply
additional indices that are probably best implemented in the fat.

On any Windows OS post Win95 and NT3, there are hooks for
OS system calls. Any user can implement an indexing system simply by using the
hooks for create file,delete file and
rename file. No back ground process needed.

For Microsoft it is even easier. Implement your extra indices into the existing
file system, you don't have to add
hooks, simply rewrite the functions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Microsoft-DOJ Joint Status Report on Google's Complaint - Updated
Authored by: hamstring on Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 01:06 PM EDT
Microsoft believes that customers have opinions only when Microsoft provides
them.

Sadly, soooo many businesses are duped into thinking that M$ is their only
option. I really wish that Linux could advertise... I miss the old IBM Linux
commercials.

Maybe after the SCO lawsuit is over IBM will be running new commercials? I
assume that the suit is what stopped them in the first place.

---
# echo "Mjdsptpgu Svdlt" | tr [b-z] [a-y]
# IANAL and do not like Monopoly

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Microsoft-DOJ Joint Status Report on Google's Complaint - Updated
Authored by: Yossarian on Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 04:06 PM EDT
Microsoft will crash google, just like it crashed netscape;
the only question is what illegal means will be used.

IMO the real issue is to prepare for the day after google
will lose. Had we had firefox in the netscape days we
could block IE monopoly. We need a new open source
tool to compete with Microsoft search.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What does Vista do with the indexing data?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 04:56 AM EDT
If the indexing can't be removed (why?),
maybe the data is used (partly?) when "phoning home".

Just think DRM, RIAA, etc.

I may sound paraniod, but after Sony et al, I wonder.

CCS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thomas Barnett memo - Conflict of Interest?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 06:10 AM EDT

Check out this NYTimes article: Microsoft Finds Legal Defender in Justice Dept. There are interesting tidbits about the Google complaint with regards to Barnett, a top antitrust official. First, he used to work at a law firm representing MSFT in antitrust cases. While he was eventually cleared for COI by ethics people, his recent action has been unusual:

Mr. Barnett’s memo dismissing Google’s claims, sent to state attorneys general around the nation, alarmed many of them, they and other lawyers from five states said. Some state officials said they believed that Google’s complaint had merit. They also said that they could not recall receiving a request by any head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division to drop any inquiry.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Still doesn't make sense
Authored by: weicco on Saturday, June 23 2007 @ 10:14 AM EDT

I really don't understand this. Here's an overview of Windows Search and Indexing Service. Related Topics section has links to documents describing how to interact with the search. It has even code samples. I've written desktop search of my own on top of Windows Search (or whatever it was called) on XP. I'm going to try to port it to Vista when I have time.

Here's information about how to interact with services and Service Manager. How to install, delete, start and stop a service. I've written many services myself and interacted with other services a lot of times. This API is available for installer programs.

If they are worried about user's or OEM's not able to, or don't know how, to disable Windows Search, they sure can write a program to do it. I'm not sure if this can even be done via ActiveX component.

If they want somekind of tool which user can use to switch between indexers and/or front ends, heck, I can write one for a little monetary compensation. Well only if my current employer allows me to.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )