RSSVista SP1 to Remove 'Search-MS' as Default Protocol
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published September 12, 2007, 4:15 PM
In a Knowledgebase advisory to developers today, Microsoft is urging developers for Windows Vista who intend for their programs to run under Service Pack 1 not to assume the default search protocol being used by the system is Microsoft's. This after over a year in which Microsoft spokespersons have maintained, under a rain of criticism from search competitor Google, that Vista's and Internet Explorer 7's search facilities were already manufacturer-agnostic.
"If you develop an application that is meant to use or meant to build upon a specific desktop search application, you should not depend only on the search protocol," reads KB941946, released today. "Because many applications may own the search protocol, you cannot guarantee that the targeted desktop search application owns the search protocol at any time. Instead, use a private search protocol that is defined by the targeted desktop search application."
The article goes on to reassure developers that the search-ms protocol will still be present in Vista, and that Windows Explorer and Windows Search Explorer can still be interacted with by means of this protocol. So it doesn't mean the plugs are all pulled. But users will soon be able to choose the search protocol they want to be associated with a particular program, by means of a utility that will be added to the Control Panel in Vista SP1.
Microsoft took the unusual step of publishing this article today, referring to a build of the operating system that isn't publicly available even in beta form. Vista's openness to competitive search protocols has been a bone of contention with Google, which has recently drawn lawmakers' and regulators' attention to the problem.
This move comes just one month after Microsoft's Windows Search product manager Arvind Mishra published a white paper (XPS available here) that characterizes Windows Search as a pervasive product in Vista that impacts the default search engine in IE7, the File Open dialog boxes in Windows applications, and even how network file managers communicate with Vista remotely. While it clearly positioned Windows Search as a competitive product, as opposed to something customers would be getting with Windows whether they like it or not, it also boldly stated that one of its key advantages over alternatives customers may be considering was its very, very close ties to the operating system.
"The performance benefit of having the search tool be a platform-level component cannot be overstated," Mishra wrote. "First, the index is very close to the file system, which means it receives notification of data changes faster than previous versions of the Windows Search technology, like that in Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Now, with WDS 3.01 and Windows Vista, users can expect fast, accurate and up-to-date results every time they search. Another problem with the older Windows Search offerings was overall index performance. The index was not up-to-date and was frequently not used during searches. It would often force users to endure lengthy crawl-based searches of the PC. With WDS 3.01 and Windows Vista, an enormous amount of work has gone into index performance - so much so that the service drives all basic navigation and views in Windows Vista."
In a sidebar, Mishra advised customers considering an investment in a document management system to ask the vendor whether it's designed to integrate with Windows Search.
Today's revelation from Microsoft's Knowledgebase indicates that while customers may be told Windows Search's close relationship with Windows and Office may be its key advantage, it can no longer hold onto that advantage in the face of very close scrutiny from lawmakers. It should not come as a coincidence that the European Court of First Instance's decision on Microsoft's competitive conduct on that continent over the past few years, is scheduled to be handed down on Monday.
Totally disagree with MS decision. Why the hell MS suppose to support third-party more than native tools? Does Google promote MS this way? Absolutely no. Hungry Google try to put they search in every hole in you PC, if you like it go ahead but i don't.
Score: 0
|MS has monopoly status. That in itself is not a problem and is perfectly legal. Locking out competitors when you have a monopoly IS illegal. Only difference this time is MS is making a move before the start getting fined.
In the end, it's all about consumer choice. Many people are stuck with Windows, because it IS a monopoly and the alternatives are just not viable (for whatever reason). The right to choose what applications go on the system should remain the consumer's, not Microsoft's.
Score: 0
|My question is how does Vista search qualify as locking out competitors?
Windows had search prior to Vista, they even had indexing. No-one whined about it.
The index is available to *any* program that wants to utilize it. Want it to display the windows search results on a Google page with Google results? Go ahead. The hooks are there.
In the end, it's all about consumer choice.
...where do I go if I want search hooked into the OS so it performs decently? Again, looks like I'll be putting off SP1 as long as I can.
I'm not going to argue the monopoly issue. Too many people simply don't understand it. Best left up to the feds (not that they've proven themselves any better, but at least they get paid to argue it, I don't)..
Score: 0
|Okay, so if I actually use Vista search today, and *like* the way it performs, am I going to be forced to *not* install SP1 because they are now going to cave to Google and break it?
&$*^!
Score: 0
|So with mac spotlight(searchlight? streetlamp? ilamp? whatever its called) isn't it also closer to the file system and any other search will run slower?
Score: 0
|I hope not. I am hoping that SP1 upgrades will assume the MS default and allow it to be "swapped out" for others as the user chooses.
I get the impression that MS is just saying that the protocol shouldn't be hard coded so that other engines can disable the MS protocol.
Score: 0
|"urgting"
First line.
Sort it.
Score: 0
|Hey, at least he closed the link tag. :p
Score: 0
|Gezhundheit.
Thanks, Paul. Sorted.
-SFt3
Score: 0
|Microsoft Windows featuring Internet Explorer all over again
Score: 0
|obscure, much?
Score: 0
|Remember how there was the whole monopoly s***fest about IE being exclusively bundled with Windows?
Score: 0
|Remember that day I was, like, over there?
Score: 0
|Remember the day when everything you said made absolutely zero sense?
MS has not been a monopoly since XP came out, Linux and Mac have existed for quite some time but you cannot put mac on a pc, so not MS fault. Linux at the time was nowhere near consumer friendly, it has since come a long way but still its not there.
This has nothing to do with IE, Windows included a search feature, you can turn it off or add your own. Apparently, google was not satisfied enough so MS changed it where it will most likely be terrible since they had to go mess with it.
Score: 0
|way?
Score: 0
|Microsoft not being a monopoly is such a joke.. do you really believe it ? Considering that Linus Torvalds with Linux/GNU has been the Bill Gates' trojan horse to destroy OS/2 competition and kill off the commercial Unixes market over the years while Steve Jobs really sold Apple to Microsoft instead of being a competitor ... Microsoft is the Vole everyone nowadays refer to it but not in the nice way of it...
Score: 0
|He/she is referring to the Netscape cry-fest about browser monopolization.
Score: 0
|there is no OS but MS and Steve Jobs is its prophet...?
Score: 0
|Considering that Linus Torvalds with Linux/GNU has been the Bill Gates' trojan horse to destroy OS/2 competition and kill off the commercial Unixes market
Steve Jobs really sold Apple to Microsoft
I am trying *real* hard to not believe you're a complete moron, but you aren't making it easy...
Score: 0
|k lets examine your faults...
mo·nop·o·ly /m??n?p?li/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[muh-nop-uh-lee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -lies.
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly. (No One is forced to use Windows, there are other options and have been for quite some time.)
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government. (this isn't true either as MS has been found not guilty but they are still keeping watch over them in case they do break which is absurd)
3. the exclusive possession or control of something. (Mac, Linux, BYOP)
4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service. (MS doesn't have sole control of anything anymore name one program that you have to use by MS)
5. a company or group that has such control. (Read above)
6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller. (again there is more then one seller not MS fault that Mac software will not work on a standard PC and not MS fault that Linux is still too complicated for joe average)
7. (initial capital letter) a board game in which a player attempts to gain a monopoly of real estate by advancing around the board and purchasing property, acquiring capital by collecting rent from other players whose pieces land on that property (This one I could agree with as MS does buy other companies, but so does AOL, Yahoo, Google etcetc)
Sold Apple to MS?? ROFL thats why every commercial by Apple slaps windows in the face.
Do you see "dead" people?
Score: 0
|terminalx, pretty much all those points reinforces the fact that Microsoft IS a monopoly. They can fix the prices for their OS, they DO have exclusive rights to HUGE amounts of software available, they DO have exclusive possession and control of much of the market, etc, etc.
You only need one example to prove it, really: any current computer game. It's DX-based = MS only. Like as not, your hardware drivers are not fully supported under anything but MS Windows. The game has not been written for anything but MS Windows.
Now while that's not Microsoft's fault - it DOES give them monopoly control. They cannot use that monopoly control to engage in anti-competitive behaviour like locking the search provider hook-ins. It's illegal - and consider yourself lucky it is.
Score: 0
|They never locked the search to begin with, you can use google, aol or whatever other search program you would like with Vista.
Actually, again you are wrong as a lot of games can be run on Apple, again not MS fault as there is no demand for it, its not profitable.
Again hardware drivers can be used for it, and you can run games in the wine environment, so again as its not profitable its still not their fault.
What about Logic, what about Final Cut? Wheres the Linux version and Windows version?
Lets play your game, look at Sony and Xbox360 who is selling more? Xbox360 so they must be trying to get a monopoly too as no one is developing games for the Sony. It can be looked at anyway you want the fact remains the search feature was never blocking out competitors, all this is going to do is make it easier to choose someone else.
100 bucks for an OS is not expensive, sorry. Most everyday users could survive on the oem version and most everyday users buy a new pc not a new version of windows.
Score: 0
|