Microsoft putting the beats on Google

[Warrior]

"Microsoft will introduce a  search engine better than Google in six months in the United States and Britain followed by Europe, its European president said on Wednesday. "What we're saying is that in six months' time we'll be more relevant in the U.S. market place than Google," said Neil Holloway, Microsoft president for Europe, Middle East and Africa. That timing would presumably coincide more or less with the launch of Vista."

Source: Slashdot

I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt. Would be nice to see google get owned by Microsoft. Then we (Microsoft and I) are one step closer to world domination.

[iago]

Technically, since you're a hobby programmer, you'll be one step further from world domination.  Google actually supports hobbiests (eg, Summer of Code contest). 

But in any case, like all Microsoft stuff, I'll have to see it to believe it.  I don't put it past Microsoft to make stuff up.  They've already "improved" their search engine once, and there was no spectacular insurrection. 

[Warrior]

Technically, since you're a hobby programmer, you'll be one step further from world domination.  Google actually supports hobbiests (eg, Summer of Code contest). 

Not for long, I don't intend to stay as a hobby programmer. So I am investing in world domination.

But in any case, like all Microsoft stuff, I'll have to see it to believe it.  I don't put it past Microsoft to make stuff up.  They've already "improved" their search engine once, and there was no spectacular insurrection. 

If it uses the technology in Vista then it will be badass.

[MyndFyre]

If it uses the technology in Vista then it will be badass.

The technology in the Vista search isn't that spectacular, I hate to break it to you.  It's a relational database.  Nothing special.  Google's crawling and indexing technology is top-notch, which is why they dominate the market.

[Warrior]

If it uses the technology in Vista then it will be badass.

The technology in the Vista search isn't that spectacular, I hate to break it to you.  It's a relational database.  Nothing special.  Google's crawling and indexing technology is top-notch, which is why they dominate the market.

Erm, I meant Longhorn. Specificly talking about WinFS technologies.

[MyndFyre]

Erm, I meant Longhorn. Specificly talking about WinFS technologies.

Me too.

[Warrior]

The technoligies in Windows Vista (As of Febuary CTP) are NTFS with a index db.

WinFS is faster than anything I've seen, and when it was in the longhorn alphas had no problem.
The WinFS beta1 crap they released is aimed more torward developers however.

Google doesn't work too differently from this approach.

[iago]

Microsoft has clearly invented the revolutionary new technology of relational databases.  That's what they do, you know. 

[Warrior]

They never said that, I don't doubt however they can implement it better than anyone else. A technology is only as good as it's implmentation. Else it's just a bunch of ideas on paper. Additionally, try doing posting something a little more structured than sarcastic remarks.

[Sidoh]

The technoligies in Windows Vista (As of Febuary CTP) are NTFS with a index db.

An index database is a relational database.  They've been around for a long time.  They were invented by the IBM Almaden Research Center (Right by Quik/Ergot -- I went there last summer!) in the 70's or 80's, if I'm not mistaken.  They've been in practical, efficient use for a long time.  Take a look:

Page created in 0.639 seconds with 15 queries.

A MySQL database is a relational database.  Executing 15 queries in a database that's probably about 7 MB in size is a very noteworthy task.  It's been done before -- many, many times before.

WinFS is faster than anything I've seen, and when it was in the longhorn alphas had no problem.
The WinFS beta1 crap they released is aimed more torward developers however.

I'm glad it's fast.  They probably actually spent some good time picking a decent search algorithm.  I'm glad.

Google doesn't work too differently from this approach.

How do you know?  Google completes complicated queries (it gathers more information from your query than you might expect) in fractions of a second.  Their index is much, much bigger than any local filesystem is going to be.  From those points, I'd say that Google has Vista's indexing system beat hands down.

Plus, google has to crawl the web for its data.  Vista just writes to a table as it goes.

They never said that, I don't doubt however they can implement it better than anyone else. A technology is only as good as it's implmentation. Else it's just a bunch of ideas on paper. Additionally, try doing posting something a little more structured than sarcastic remarks.

It's already been implemented in several applications that already do what they do amazingly well (Oracle, [My]SQL, Google, etc).  iago's right.  There's nothing revolutionary about this.  Microsoft's just finally implementing it.

[Warrior]

The technoligies in Windows Vista (As of Febuary CTP) are NTFS with a index db.

An index database is a relational database.  They've been around for a long time.  They were invented by the IBM Almaden Research Center (Right by Quik/Ergot -- I went there last summer!) in the 70's or 80's, if I'm not mistaken.  They've been in practical, efficient use for a long time.  Take a look:

Page created in 0.639 seconds with 15 queries.

A MySQL database is a relational database.  Executing 15 queries in a database that's probably about 7 MB in size is a very noteworthy task.  It's been done before -- many, many times before.

Never said they weren't? I was stating how it differed from WinFS which offers things like a TFS built ontop of MSSQL and other misc things. It's their stab at implementing a DBFS and it's going pretty well

Google doesn't work too differently from this approach.

How do you know?  Google completes complicated queries (it gathers more information from your query than you might expect) in fractions of a second.  Their index is much, much bigger than any local filesystem is going to be.  From those points, I'd say that Google has Vista's indexing system beat hands down.

Plus, google has to crawl the web for its data.  Vista just writes to a table as it goes.

It's the same in concept, I never said use it out of the box, they are building on the searching technology however.

They never said that, I don't doubt however they can implement it better than anyone else. A technology is only as good as it's implmentation. Else it's just a bunch of ideas on paper. Additionally, try doing posting something a little more structured than sarcastic remarks.

It's already been implemented in several applications that already do what they do amazingly well (Oracle, [My]SQL, Google, etc).  iago's right.  There's nothing revolutionary about this.  Microsoft's just finally implementing it.

I never said they would revolutionize anything, however when MS does implement it I have no doubt it can probably outperform many of the existing implementations. Face it they're Microsoft and they have the world at their hands as a resource. If they want something really bad they will pump a couple million into it and get it done. It's power.
iago's right at what you said, of course what you said isn't what I said.

[Sidoh]

Never said they weren't? I was stating how it differed from WinFS which offers things like a TFS built ontop of MSSQL and other misc things. It's their stab at implementing a DBFS and it's going pretty well

All filesystems are a database.  That's the entire purpose of a filesystem.  They're just creating a relational database for searching purposes (as I'm sure you're aware).  This is nothing new.

It's the same in concept, I never said use it out of the box, they are building on the searching technology however.

How so?  How's it better than Google?  I'll believe it when I see it.  If they say it's better than Google, they better test it with the same amount of data Google has to search through, otherwise they're full of crap.

I never said they would revolutionize anything, however when MS does implement it I have no doubt it can probably outperform many of the existing implementations. Face it they're Microsoft and they have the world at their hands as a resource. If they want something really bad they will pump a couple million into it and get it done. It's power.
iago's right at what you said, of course what you said isn't what I said.

They're not going to beat Google.  That's Steve Ballmer talking out of his ass because he's jealous of how fast Google has progressed.  Google is amazing.  See this article:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/microsoft-ceo-im-going-to-fing-kill-google/2005/09/03/1125302772214.html

[iago]

Additionally, try doing posting something a little more structured than sarcastic remarks.

I tried that, but it doesn't seem to work when we're talking about Microsoft.  So now I'm trying it this way, which seems to work quite well. 

[Warrior]

Never said they weren't? I was stating how it differed from WinFS which offers things like a TFS built ontop of MSSQL and other misc things. It's their stab at implementing a DBFS and it's going pretty well

All filesystems are a database.  That's the entire purpose of a filesystem.  They're just creating a relational database for searching purposes (as I'm sure you're aware).  This is nothing new.

DBFS means a query structured FS. That isn't something found in many OSes. It's an SQLish layer ontop of the FS. The difference between that and WinFS is great. You should watch on Transactional Filesystem and Searching in WinFS, both videos on Channel9

It's the same in concept, I never said use it out of the box, they are building on the searching technology however.

How so?  How's it better than Google?  I'll believe it when I see it.  If they say it's better than Google, they better test it with the same amount of data Google has to search through, otherwise they're full of crap.

I'm sure they will, I'd be interested in seeing this. I never said it was better than google, I said I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. MS has surprised us before, maybe they will do it again.

I never said they would revolutionize anything, however when MS does implement it I have no doubt it can probably outperform many of the existing implementations. Face it they're Microsoft and they have the world at their hands as a resource. If they want something really bad they will pump a couple million into it and get it done. It's power.
iago's right at what you said, of course what you said isn't what I said.

They're not going to beat Google.  That's Steve Ballmer talking out of his ass because he's jealous of how fast Google has progressed.  Google is amazing.  See this article:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/microsoft-ceo-im-going-to-fing-kill-google/2005/09/03/1125302772214.html

We'll see when the benchmark comes in.

[trust]

 I doubt they'll do much that will create a drastic change. Google is just so simple, and not bogged down by graphics, etc. It's pretty much revolutionized searching, so much that it's become a verb. I doubt the majority of people will switch from Google to MSN simply because of the way our neurological pathways work. People are pretty much in the "habit" of using Google, and it would take effort to type in search.msn.com or whatever.