![]() I hate redundancy, and a competing product would have to be by orders of magnitude better for me to install a duplicate. Not that the Vista version is better: it doesn’t have to be. A personal side-note: in the meantime I have opportunistically bought a Vista PC ( not a pleasant experience), and since this beast has Vista Search built-in, I decided to NOT install Copernic Desktop Search. In short, Google does not have a case here. Now that Microsoft finally pulled their act together, and Vista has good, built-in search, let’s not complain about the operating system finally doing what it should have been doing in the first place. The fact is, for two decades Microsoft has failed to deliver this capability miserably and that opened up an opportunity for others, be it Google, Yahoo, or my personal favorite, Copernic. Being able to retrieve whatever I myself placed on my hard disk should be a fundamental feature of the computer – and that means the Operating System. Here’s the problem: there really should not be a product named Desktop Search. siding with Microsoft (the sky is falling, the sky is falling!). While I’m clearly no fan of Vista (and Microsoft, for that matter), in this case I found myself on the ‘wrong side’ – i.e. Microsoft’s hardwiring of its own desktop search product into Windows Vista violates the final judgment in this case. This was largely due to Google’s claim that: ![]() Desktop Search Bundled with Vistaīack in June Microsoft agreed to make changes to the way it bundles Search with Vista. Windows Desktop Search continues to stir controversy, in several ways. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |