Google sez Vista Search discourages, hurts consumers

C'mon Google, you can't seriously be upset that you can't get your search engine integrated into every piece of software known to man, right? Actually, it appears that the search giant can indeed bust out the whiner card on occasion, and it has apparently done just that in regard to the Vista Search that's built into Microsoft's latest OS. Reportedly, Google accused Microsoft of "designing Vista to discourage users from running its indexing and search software," and a company spokesman even went so far as to claim that Redmond's current approach "violates its agreement with the government and hurts consumers." Google's gripes start to grow legs when you consider just how difficult it is to actually disable or modify Vista's ingrained search tactics, and while Microsoft has supposedly stated that it is "committed to going the extra mile to resolve this issue," there doesn't look to be any timetables set for giving users the ability to choose just yet.

[Thanks, Dinraj P.]

[Daivd @ Jun 11th 2007 12:18PM]

Look, I love to hate on Microsoft as much as the next guy... but this seems a little unfair. I mean you can't shut off spotlight in OSX and google's not complaining... i know, i know 5% marketshare. but still...

[weg @ Jun 11th 2007 12:27PM]

You CAN deactivate Spotlight: http://www.phasenoise.co.uk/2006/12/12/disable-spotlight-indexing-on-a-certain-drive/

[Molly C @ Jun 11th 2007 12:42PM]

weg, from what I read at the slashdot thread concerning this issue, you can disable Vista's search in multiple ways:
1. You can select which directories are indexed; therefore by deslecting all of them, you effectively disable the entire thing.
2. You can turn off the Windows Indexing Service using the apprpriate control panel.

Also, apparently, apps themselves can turn off the indexing service programmatically, so Google's installer could do this (the app doing this has to be running as admin, but that's common for installers anyway).

Note that I don't use Vista, I'm merely reporting what multiple people have stated at slashdot (and the slashdot thread mostly supports Microsoft; considering that slashdot hates Microsoft and worships Google, that's quite telling).

[Jeff @ Jun 11th 2007 12:46PM]

"I mean you can't shut off spotlight in OSX and google's not complaining... i know, i know 5% marketshare. but still..."

Well, 5% market share and not a convicted monopolist under court orders to behave a certain way. That's the important part.

Look, I think desktop search apps of any kind - be it spotlight, Vista search, or Google Desktop - are all ridiculous. I turn them *all* off, because the performance I gain when searching is more than made up for on the other end with the performance I lose doing everything else. And "everything else" is what I'm doing 99.9% of the time.

But the issue isn't whether or not Google's whining. The issue is whether or not MS is acting in accordance with the judgment against them that's supposed to govern their conduct. They're obligated to open their system up to competitors' software, and while I don't recall the specifics, part of that means not installing any of these types of apps by "default" - you're supposed to need to explicitly choose if you want to use MS's desktop search vs. your own desktop search. Or "none of the above", which would be my choice.

[Martin Newham @ Jun 11th 2007 2:50PM]

@Jeff

" ---8

[Andy @ Jun 11th 2007 12:18PM]

Is this in the same vein as the European suits that ended up with MS having to make IE and Media Player not installed by default or removable?
This seems like a legit concern, and I would like an easy way to disable indexing in Vista, not because I want to use Google, but because I don't want it hogging more resources than it already does.

[Jon @ Jun 11th 2007 12:19PM]

I turn off indexing on any XP and Vista machine I can get my hands on. It just slows down the computer too much and creates harddrive thrashing. Why I would want to voluntarily install another indexing software by Google?

[chadow @ Jun 11th 2007 12:23PM]

I find it hard to even take this article seriously.

[Ken @ Jun 11th 2007 12:35PM]

If WinFS ever made it to the table, we'd be seeing this advertised as much as Spotlight in OSX was. Being able to search in your OS based on criteria isn't the sole domain of Google... sorry. I use "find" and "which" in Linux, Spotlight in OSX, and Search in Vista. None of which are Google products.

This isn't a big deal.

[BoxOfSnoo @ Jun 11th 2007 12:40PM]

Is this seriously the search interface in Vista? I get all confused trying to figure out where to look... and I don't think turning off the "Advanced Search" pane would help much.

[PeterF @ Jun 11th 2007 12:45PM]

It actually would

[BoxOfSnoo @ Jun 11th 2007 12:51PM]

So it turns off the "Show only" toolbar, the toolbar above the results, the bizarre "Folders" and "Favorite Links" panes that take up 75% of the window?

[mike @ Jun 11th 2007 12:52PM]

Not a big deal, no one bought Vista anyway

[Mark Kent @ Jun 11th 2007 12:59PM]

I bought Vista. I also find the search function works well (although sometimes wish it would open a full results window by default).

[anthony @ Jun 11th 2007 1:15PM]

are you retarded? What do you call "20 million copies of Windows Vista were sold globally in February 2007" for it's first month launch? and its june already so what do you call the tens of millions of people with vista already? nonexistant?

go back to your mac

[mike @ Jun 11th 2007 1:15PM]

According to WWDC, "Vista sold tens of dozens of copies"

*sigh

[anonymous @ Jun 11th 2007 4:30PM]

and that is only because they count a copy sold even if it was pre-installed on a machine that was bought with the intent to wipe and install a different OS on it.

MS forced the markets to only carry one line of their product and then used that as a means to up their bean count. To get a more realistic count, they need to now poll all those buyers and see how many are still using it. It wouldn't surprise me to see 40-50% had been removed or downgraded.

[Ian @ Jun 11th 2007 12:49PM]

No, that isn't the search interface. The search interface comes up when you hit the windows key. It's a box you type text into. Can you type text into a box? The box is even labeled "Start Search." It works quite well.

As to Google: bite me Google. I don't need your search on my desktop. Call the whaaaambulance and join the likes of Trumpet Sockets in the dustbin of irrelevancy.

[BoxOfSnoo @ Jun 11th 2007 1:07PM]

Sounds much better, that's all I wanted to know. Thanks for the bonus sarcasm.

And apparently I can type text into a box, see?

[PA @ Jun 11th 2007 1:10PM]

MS at it's best! since they can't produce quality first, every subtitle marketing and programming tactics are used to harm the competition and make U buy inferior products!

[MarvinK @ Jun 11th 2007 9:00PM]

Frankly, it's hard to feel sorry for Google, at all, on desktop searching. Nobody likes the Google Desktop or Google toolbar being packaged with other applications--but it hasn't stopped Google from doing it, either. The other issue with Google Desktop is some of the scary features like "Search Across Computers."

If Google didn't belive in packaging search with other products, they should immediately stop packaging their crap with HP and Dell computers--and with Java & Flash. After all, that's probably going to discourage consumers from looking for other solutions, too. Practice what you preach, Google. Don't be evil.

[roach @ Jun 11th 2007 1:34PM]

Screw google. Make your own OS!

[Revrant2394 @ Jun 11th 2007 2:50PM]

Don't say that! Esh.

[Andir3.0 @ Jun 11th 2007 1:38PM]

@anthony: "20 million copies of Windows Vista" To OEMs, yeah. It's like saying sold/shipped in this other fun battle going on called the console war. Microsoft includes all the "mandatory" licenses sold to OEMs in the sales records.

[Russell @ Jun 11th 2007 1:56PM]

Google's Desktop search is the new spyware of the internets... God it sucks.

[Drew @ Jun 11th 2007 2:03PM]

For the love of god people. Talk about can't win. If Microsoft did NOT include an indexed search , half the world would be shouting that they're falling behind Apple. The search CAN be disabled by several GUI based means. How is this more difficult or less appropriate than OSX's shell commands? Google is being a whiny bitch.

[Jon @ Jun 11th 2007 2:08PM]

You mean 5% of the world... ;)

[Evan @ Jun 11th 2007 2:05PM]

Why do I want Google Search on my computer? Oh yeah thats right, I don't. This feature is an integral part of OSX and quite frankly us MS folks deserve the same thing in our OS. What is next? Microsoft circumventing the Google Start Menu, the Google Explorer, and who knows what else? If google wants to be a player in the software realm they should stop shoving google toolbar down everyone's throats when you install virtually any web based application and think about inventing something... you know... NEW!

I do like Google a lot, but this is a bit ridiculous. Grow up kids.

[Kory @ Jun 11th 2007 2:17PM]

"If google wants to be a player in the software realm they should... think about inventing something... you know... NEW!"

http://labs.google.com/

[Evan @ Jun 11th 2007 2:32PM]

You do realize that link you sent is virtually all web-based search and has nothing to do with software for your computer. The software I saw while scrolling down was mostly emulating software already available: widgets, photo organizer for Linux etc. etc. etc.

My point stands. Develop something NEW if you want to be a player in software. The last Google software I downloaded was a few years ago... Google Map, which is an awesome app that I really hadn't seen before. So maybe, NEW and COOL would be appropriate.

[Chris Moroz @ Jun 11th 2007 2:09PM]

I'm all for letting people get their software on Windows anyway they want, and maybe I just don't know all the ins and outs of making Google Desktop Vista compatible, but it seems to me that Microsoft was trying to make Vista better at searching - and that's a good thing. Why do they have to make everything open for everyone else? It's their software. I don't think people can cry monopoly anymore. With the abundance of open source and paid offerings for everything, there's no lack of alternatives, just lack of public knowledge. Why should Microsoft be penalized for other companies inabilities to publicize their alternatives?

Just my $0.02.

[Chris in NY @ Jun 11th 2007 2:12PM]

"no one bought Vista anyway" , well I just did on my new Thinkpad t61 and so did TENS OF MILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE, either with upgrades or factory install. Dude, get off this post and go jerk off again to Steve Jobs' picture.

[tekdroid @ Jun 11th 2007 2:17PM]

Microsoft would never hurt a competitor competing fairly and squarely. The best technology always has a chance to win and rises to the top in 100% of cases.
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+behind+$12+million+payment+to+Opera/2100-1032_3-5218163.html

That said, Google Desktop Search & Toolbars are evil.

[iSeptimus @ Jun 11th 2007 2:30PM]

Google says 'WAAAHHHHHHH'.

I dislike Google more and more when they pull this pathetic s**t.

[Andir3.0 @ Jun 11th 2007 2:55PM]

Something new? Like a "window" based UI with icons (Xerox/Apple)? Or how about a HTML web browser (Mozila/IE), or how about a multimedia web presentation software using images, sound, and video (Flash/Silverlight), how about ClearType (Apple again in 1976)... Yeah, Microsoft is high on the list of innovators... In fact, there's an ongoing debate on what exactly Microsoft has innovated in. So far, Microsoft Bob and talking Clippy! Yay, Microsoft!

http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/innovation.shtml

[michael @ Jun 11th 2007 3:36PM]

Dude. Seriously, what's with that? If you're the least bit a Microsoft lover, or at least open-minded, you'll know that they have made tons of great stuff. I don't see how Mozilla came first until 2003. IE has been here much longer. Considering that Firefox is just version 2, and IE is at 7. Have you even seen Silverlight? Have you seen the demos? I think it's a great alternative to flash. It's about time someone did something. Apple has ClearType? I'm not sure if anybody could even notice. Nor have I heard anyone say this. Clippy? Is that the best you can do?

Come on. I think with some of the stuff that you say, Microsoft just improves it, adds some of their own features, and makes it better. That's how companies advance and move on. They take in the stuff that people 'want' and even add some new capabilities. That's how it works. Not with your tired sense of Microsoft sucks.

[anonymous @ Jun 11th 2007 4:34PM]

versions don't indicate longevity, They only indicate updates have occurred. I will admit that the updates that have occurred with the 2 and soon to be 3 versions of Firefox have been much more useful than the past 6 versions of IE. IE is just now incorporating a lot of the functions that the competing browsers have had for some time.

[Andir3.0 @ Jun 11th 2007 9:03PM]

@micheal: IE was after Mozilla. Firefox was not the first Mozilla based browser. My post was directed at someone above stating Google hasn't created anything new, but they claim Microsoft has. I posted that stating that only two things were ever "innovated" by Microsoft. The rest of their business is built on stealing, buying out, or abusing their monopoly and integrating it into their OS.

[Tapekx @ Jun 12th 2007 8:49PM]

Very cool comment. Most folks don't have the long time perspective to get the point you made, which is entirely true. Google is really inovating around their core "mission" which is to index and make available the worlds info. Effectively, all they want to be is the worlds best middleman....

[Karim @ Jun 11th 2007 2:58PM]

Windows has had a search feature since, what, Windows 95? Which is when Sergey and Larry were still drinking cheap beer at Stanford?

Google didn't have a problem with Windows' built-in "Find" feature in Windows 95, 98, Me, 2000, or XP.

Until, of course, in Vista, it started to work faster and better than Google Desktop Search.

So NOW it's a problem. Now that Windows' built-in search works great, it's "anticompetitive" and an abuse of "monopoly power." Ironic how actually having to compete causes accusations of anticompetitive behavior.

Maybe not "being evil" is aiming too high for Google these days? Maybe they should just aim for not being f--kin' WHINERS.

[Chuckles McGee @ Jun 11th 2007 7:06PM]

I second that. Google desktop search was quite the shiz when it was released. Really, it could take more than 10 minutes to find your silly document with XP's search- Google desktop was so much better. But now that Vista's out, Google can't hold a candle to that anymore. Google ought to stop whining and use that energy to make itself better.

[Mark @ Jun 11th 2007 4:18PM]

Like everybody else has said, you can turn off Vista's built-in search quite easily. Oh and it's there in XP too, and Windows 2000, 2003, etc. Cry more, Google. The indexing isn't that bad, either, because it runs in the background. I LIKE being able to search for files and emails from within my OS.

So once again: ITS EASY TO TURN OFF VISTA'S SEARCH:

net stop "windows search"

You can also disable the service so it doesn't start up again ever, though I can't imagine why I'd want to.

[Ron @ Jun 12th 2007 9:05AM]

"Dude. Seriously, what's with that? If you're the least bit a Microsoft lover, or at least open-minded, you'll know that they have made tons of great stuff. I don't see how Mozilla came first until 2003. IE has been here much longer. Considering that Firefox is just version 2, and IE is at 7."

Some history for you: Mozilla is based on the original Netscape code which predates Internet Explorer. Firefox is only the latest browser built on it.

When Internet Explorer came out, Netscape was a much better browser. Internet Explorer came bundled free with Windows. At the time, people said "Oh you can just ignore it and use Netscape." The problem is that average users wer too lazy or didn't know enough to go get Netscape, so Netscape lost the browser wars.

Now people will be too lazy or won't know enough to turn off Micro$oft's search and all the competitors will gradually die.

As far as version numbers go, I thing Netscape is up to version 9. Does that make it better than IE7 or Firefox 2? No, of course not. The version numbers don't have any relation to each other across products. Autocad gave up on version numbers in the 20's and switched to dates. The current version is 2008. Does that make it better than Norton 2007 because the number is bigger?

[Christian @ Jun 11th 2007 3:38PM]

I haven't done search feature of vista at all since I'm so organized with my files. I never have to find a file to replace in the registry system or anything else of that matter so search function for me has yet to see the light. Even though I see what Google wants to do, I still don't want Google searching within my PC. I only want them searching online on the internet. I can't quite trust 3rd party as an internal searcher. I feel like they might take more processing power, though I think some don't or won't take much.

[Christian @ Jun 11th 2007 3:40PM]

One thing I forgot to mention, I only use search in my system if it's a computer from work since I have to back track some files sent by coworkers or need to search within the closed network. But even then it's XP and I use M$ search than Google cuz of my security (insecurity) issues.

[michael @ Jun 11th 2007 3:43PM]

Do we want Google to run on our desktops? Has anybody heard of accusations that Google is tapping to much in our private info? Like Google indexes the stuff you search on your IP address and uses the stuff you search as a way to bring up relevant ads to you. Google does tons of stuff like that. There's even rumors that Google works with the U.S. government (as in the C.I.A.). Google on my desktop doesn't make me feel safe at all. If they know my photos and documents, I mean that's all just scary.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAx-6nHEWbE)

Vista desktop search rocks. I've used it, and it works pretty well. It's very relevant to my searches. I have no problems with it. It's kind of stupid to complain about that. Google has it's stuff, Microsoft does it's stuff. Built-in OS search was bound to come, and Microsoft implemented them very well. So there's really nothing to talk about here.

[Chris @ Jun 11th 2007 4:56PM]

I think google should put search box for yahoo, msn search engine at www.google.com.
google.com monopolized many people's starting page and I think it's unfair for msn and yahoo for not having their search box at google.com
Also, igoogle.com should also be able to show e-mails from hotmail and yahoo mail too.

[Fred @ Jun 12th 2007 5:00PM]

Very funny, and I agree 100%. It's ridiculous that Google provides 75% of all searches. Their search engine is no better than MSN Search or Yahoo Search, and yet they are able to corner the market on search (advertising). Google should not be allowed to pay publishers to have their search engine on 3rd party websites. Realistically, how many people would support Google, if they weren't being paid through the AdSense program? To be fair, maybe Microsoft should be allowed to pay users each time they conduct a VistaSearch. It shouldn't cost MS more than a penny per million searches to have all the fickle Google supporters jump ship and start promoting MS.

[barnz2k @ Jun 11th 2007 11:37PM]

comeon google...

Vista users - does the indexing thing make folders incredibly slow like it does in OSX? Id rather wait an extra 30seconds when i rarely need to search something, opposed to the CONSTANT slowness of folders in OSX. Which i assume is because its always trying to bloody index.. And no refresh button?! wtf?

[JD @ Jun 12th 2007 4:22PM]

Since I've upgraded to vista, the HD is being hit a LOT. However, I didn't notice any speed gain when I killed the indexing service. Just my 2 cents. I'm also running it on a relatively punchy computer, so I can't speak for more mainstream systems, but I haven't heard many complaints.