Google Desktop Search Versus Vista Desktop Search
- 7
- Add a Comment
- No Related Post
Is Google just being unreasonable or instead, do they have a valid point regarding an application slow down when Google Desktop Search is installed on a Vista box? Personally, I would say it is just the nature of the new OS. See, Vista already has a program running that does this - thus rendering Google’s option unneeded on the Vista OS.
Oh yeah, this is not good for Google as they would no longer be able to index your desktop contents. Yes, I realize that they do not cataloging your information or anything like this, but I still believe that is more access to my desktop than I am comfortable with. Especially since their TOS can change at anytime for any reason.
But I digress, Google is ticked at Microsoft because they feel “wronged” in some fashion. So Microsoft has apparently agreed to provide them with the needed code to prove that Google simply needs to update their work, in order to make it more compatible with Vista itself.
What do you think is happening here? Has Microsoft crossed a line here? Or instead, are we merely seeing paranoid behavior presented by Google instead? Hit the comments section - you be the judge.
[tags]Vista,desktop search[/tags]
7 Comments
Mike Nelson
June 20th, 2007
at 12:20am
Google has no business knowing what is on my desktop! Period!
PeteB
June 20th, 2007
at 4:42am
MS has a long history of dubious if not actually anti-competitive actions to software developers.
The first version of Wordperfect For Windows had a painfully slow screen refresh compared to MS Word; when asked, the WP developers said that analysing Word, it used undocumented Windows routines but that WP couldn’t use them in case they disappeared from the next release of Windows.
Also, Windows 3.11 wouldn’t run on DR-DOS until Digital Research released a patch.
I’m sure there are other examples too.
At the same time, Google should have had long enough with beta versions of Vista to fix any problems (unless this wasn’t a problem in the beta…).
Randy Allen
June 20th, 2007
at 6:00am
Quote from Matt - “Vista already has a program running that does this - thus rendering Google’s option unneeded on the Vista OS.”
Come on, Matt, that’s like saying, “Windows already has Internet Explorer, so you don’t need Firefox.” It’s about choice, not about whether or not MS has it built into Vista. Of course MS products embedded in Windows run better, they coded the OS and the program. They know all the shortcuts and have all the hooks. It’s the same old story. MS does it so we won’t want to use anything but MS products. This is what the lawsuits and anti-trust violations are all about. Nothing has changed, nor will it ever.
Joe F.
June 20th, 2007
at 7:27am
I personally don’t like having my system indexed at all. So it takes an extra 5-10 seconds to find something on a regular search…big deal.
BUT in the world of MS Office 7 requiring Desktop Search for several features….Unless MS codes to use Google Desktop Search, we will have to have MS Desktop Search.
At least in Google Desktop Search, its easier to control what gets indexed. In MS, you almost need to hack the registry!!!!
Ohhh…and about the TOS….MS changes its TOS as much as any other software company….not just Google.
Rick Hogan
June 20th, 2007
at 3:44pm
I’m really not out to defend Microsoft here, but I think we’ve reached a point where MS just can’t win.
If they don’t have a feature in Windows, people will complain that Windows lacks that feature.
If they do add a feature, people who made/sold software to add that feature to Windows will complain that MS is unfairly trying to drive them out of business.
Either way, MS gets accused of doing something wrong.
Rick
P J Thomas
June 20th, 2007
at 7:57pm
I spent about 30 minutes fighting a Dell laptop w/ Vista on it. If MS tried to give me Vista, I’d get mad!
Maybe Google should fix their software so it won’t work on Vista at all.
I know I’m being hateful, but I’m really fed up with MS!
Chris A.
October 28th, 2007
at 7:39pm
Ok, this is rediculous. If I got this all straight, now Google is doing what Microsoft usually does: trying to be the only one. Now usually I DO NOT back Microsoft, cuz im getting fed up with some of their crap too, but this time I have to. If there was a way to build in that function while they were creating a new version of Windows anyway, why should they stop plans just because Google already had a version out there? Thats like saying “Well, theres a word processor program out there already, guess we cant make another one.” This is dumb.