Microsoft putting the beats on Google

[Sidoh]

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

You mean the allocation table is designed to be searched?  That's already the case in every single existing filesystem.  If it wasn't, simple tasks like changing directories would be a difficult task.  They're indexing filesystem information into a higher level database, it's already been done.  I'm not saying Vista isn't going to be great, I'm just saying this isn't much of a "kick-ass" feature.

sidoh@deepthought:~$ time locate php.ini > results && cat results
warning: locate: warning: database /var/lib/slocate/slocate.db' is more than 8 d
ays old

real    0m1.011s
user    0m0.110s
sys     0m0.050s
/etc/apache/php.ini
/mnt/hdb1/usr/pub/programs/PHP/php-5.0.4-Win32/php.ini-dist
/mnt/hdb1/usr/pub/programs/PHP/php-5.0.4-Win32/php.ini-recommended
/usr/lib/php.ini
/usr/local/lib/php.ini
/usr/local/lib/php.ini.new
/usr/pub/shared/Programming/1 - PHP/php.ini
/usr/pub/shared/Programming/1 - PHP/Brooks Realty/php.ini
/home/cpphpbuild/php-4.3.10/pear/tests/php.ini
/home/cpphpbuild/php-4.3.10/php.ini-recommended
/home/cpphpbuild/php-4.3.10/php.ini-dist
/root/php-4.4.0/pear/tests/php.ini
/root/php-4.4.0/php.ini-recommended
/root/php-4.4.0/php.ini-dist
/root/installd/buildapache/php-4.4.1/pear/tests/php.ini
/root/installd/buildapache/php-4.4.1/php.ini-recommended
/root/installd/buildapache/php-4.4.1/php.ini-dist

One second to search the entire filesystem.  I'd say that's pretty impressive.

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'll believe it when I see it.  Until then, I choose to doubt Microsoft.  Google searches billions of webpages that have completely unrelated data.  I wonder how Microsoft plans to generate that much real data if they are indeed going to test it under the same circumstances that Google faces every time you query its engine?

We'll see when the benchmark comes in.

Indeed we will.

[Warrior]

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

You mean the allocation table is designed to be searched?  That's already the case in every single existing filesystem.  If it wasn't, simple tasks like changing directories would be a difficult task.  They're indexing filesystem information into a higher level database, it's already been done.  I'm not saying Vista isn't going to be great, I'm just saying this isn't much of a "kick-ass" feature.

Okay here is how it will work: Current FSes for "fast searches" index the drive, right? Okay.
Now WinFS will take an SQL approach from the start, dubbed a DBFS. It is completely DB oriented in MSSQL.
That's the difference and it leaves no compatability issues with index files and tags related to the files like IDv3 or whatever.

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'll believe it when I see it.  Until then, I choose to doubt Microsoft.  Google searches billions of webpages that have completely unrelated data.  I wonder how Microsoft plans to generate that much real data if they are indeed going to test it under the same circumstances that Google faces every time you query its engine?

Google searches based on information they already have stored, it's not like it's realtime..it routinely sends a spider out to see if anything's changed.

[Sidoh]

Okay here is how it will work: Current FSes for "fast searches" index the drive, right? Okay.
Now WinFS will take an SQL approach from the start, dubbed a DBFS. It is completely DB oriented in MSSQL.
That's the difference and it leaves no compatability issues with index files and tags related to the files like IDv3 or whatever.

I don't see what you're aiming at here.  The locate utility in Linux does the same thing.  The only thing that Vista is doing differently is using MSSQL as a query engine instead of some other engine?  As long as it's fast, I really don't care.

Google searches based on information they already have stored, it's not like it's realtime..it routinely sends a spider out to see if anything's changed.

That's not my point.  I know how Google works (at least generally).  I'm asking how Microsoft can even begin to compare to how much data Google searches through each time you enter a query string.  Ballmer can say "I'm going to fucking kill Google" all he wants, but I seriously doubt he's going to succeed.  Google is far, far ahead of Microsoft in this area.

[Warrior]

Okay here is how it will work: Current FSes for "fast searches" index the drive, right? Okay.
Now WinFS will take an SQL approach from the start, dubbed a DBFS. It is completely DB oriented in MSSQL.
That's the difference and it leaves no compatability issues with index files and tags related to the files like IDv3 or whatever.

I don't see what you're aiming at here.  The locate utility in Linux does the same thing.  The only thing that Vista is doing differently is using MSSQL as a query engine instead of some other engine?  As long as it's fast, I really don't care.

Nevermind, you missed it.

Google searches based on information they already have stored, it's not like it's realtime..it routinely sends a spider out to see if anything's changed.

That's not my point.  I know how Google works (at least generally).  I'm asking how Microsoft can even begin to compare to how much data Google searches through each time you enter a query string.  Ballmer can say "I'm going to fucking kill Google" all he wants, but I seriously doubt he's going to succeed.  Google is far, far ahead of Microsoft in this area.

It isn't hard to compete with them then, SQL is build for retrieving large amounts of data. The question is in their implementation and marketing and in the acceptance of the search engine by people. Microsoft is ontop of the planet, if they want a google they can have a google.

[Sidoh]

Nevermind, you missed it.

Why don't you explain what I'm not seeing then?  I'm not trying to insult Vista; I'm simply saying this is using age-old technology.  If you're saying it writes to a MSSQL database every time the filesystem is changed, that seems like a huge waste of resources to me.

It isn't hard to compete with them then, SQL is build for retrieving large amounts of data. The question is in their implementation and marketing and in the acceptance of the search engine by people. Microsoft is ontop of the planet, if they want a google they can have a google.

I'm really surprised you think this.  Google uses innovative features which Microsoft doesn't have access to, no matter how much they want to get their hands on it.  In an area like technology, it's impossible to be on top of the world in every single aspect.  Microsoft may be the richest technology corporation in the world, but it certainly isn't the best in every single area.

[Hitmen]

Microsoft is ontop of the planet, if they want a google they can have a google.

That's what they think too, but they have most definately proven themselves wrong.  You can't always throw a couple million at something and hope to succeed. Just look at the xbox division, it became pretty popular here, but flopped in Japan and a bunch of other countries, and the division is billions in the red.

Microsoft definately has to resources to at least come close to the search capabilities of google, but it would *not* be a google, and the millions and millions of people using google aren't going to suddenly switch because microsoft says "hey guys, we're better than google...no, really this time... we mean it..." Their best bet would be buying google, but I don't think that's going to happen.

[iago]

Microsoft is ontop of the planet, if they want a google they can have a google.

That's what they think too, but they have most definately proven themselves wrong.  You can't always throw a couple million at something and hope to succeed. Just look at the xbox division, it became pretty popular here, but flopped in Japan and a bunch of other countries, and the division is billions in the red.

Microsoft definately has to resources to at least come close to the search capabilities of google, but it would *not* be a google, and the millions and millions of people using google aren't going to suddenly switch because microsoft says "hey guys, we're better than google...no, really this time... we mean it..." Their best bet would be buying google, but I don't think that's going to happen.

The best way to force people to switch is to burrow the functionality straight into their new OS.  And I'd gamble that they're planning on doing that. 

[Hitmen]

Microsoft is ontop of the planet, if they want a google they can have a google.

That's what they think too, but they have most definately proven themselves wrong.  You can't always throw a couple million at something and hope to succeed. Just look at the xbox division, it became pretty popular here, but flopped in Japan and a bunch of other countries, and the division is billions in the red.

Microsoft definately has to resources to at least come close to the search capabilities of google, but it would *not* be a google, and the millions and millions of people using google aren't going to suddenly switch because microsoft says "hey guys, we're better than google...no, really this time... we mean it..." Their best bet would be buying google, but I don't think that's going to happen.

The best way to force people to switch is to burrow the functionality straight into their new OS.  And I'd gamble that they're planning on doing that. 

They could always map google.* to go to their search engine

[MyndFyre]

They could always map google.* to go to their search engine

LOL

That's what they think too, but they have most definately proven themselves wrong.  You can't always throw a couple million at something and hope to succeed. Just look at the xbox division, it became pretty popular here, but flopped in Japan and a bunch of other countries, and the division is billions in the red.

Interestingly enough, I think that if Sony doesn't really come out strong with some kind of online support beyond the rudimentary crap they have now, the PS3 is going to lose ground, even with the software support it has from PSold and PS2.

Nevermind, you missed it.

Why don't you explain what I'm not seeing then?  I'm not trying to insult Vista; I'm simply saying this is using age-old technology.  If you're saying it writes to a MSSQL database every time the filesystem is changed, that seems like a huge waste of resources to me.

I won't go forward and say that it's a huge waste of resources, because I'm sure they're not incorporating the whole SQL Server engine into the kernel.  I'm happy to see that they're putting that power into the filesystem, but War, you'd be surprised how much information is actually stored by NTFS's relational database engine.  Simply because it doesn't do full-text indexing and stuff like that implementing a filesystem with a SQL engine is that revolutionary. 

The primary difference between NTFS and WinFS is that NTFS scans record-by-record at files.  Indexing service, when enabled, theoretically intercepts and indexes full-text stuff, although I've never actually seen an improvement by enabling it.  WinFS is simply going to make a search go like so:

SELECT * FROM fileSystem WHERE path LIKE "C:/*" AND fileName LIKE "*.txt";

It'll make searching much, much faster in Windows, but it isn't a revolution except for Windows.

[Sidoh]

This is how I thought it worked initially.  From Warriors last comment, I was under the impression that I was missing something.

Once again, this is another useless debate.  They're implementing technology that's been around for a while and then claiming its going to kick everything else's ass (including Google's ahahaha).

[Warrior]

Well it depends if they do kick everyone elses ass, it wouldn't be wise to dismiss it either. Google doesn't have some magical undiscovered technology, it's just been the boldest corporation to implement search on such a widescale. Sure MS may want some of googles techniques but the technology they use isn't anything drasticly different from anything else.

[Sidoh]

Well it depends if they do kick everyone elses ass, it wouldn't be wise to dismiss it either. Google doesn't have some magical undiscovered technology, it's just been the boldest corporation to implement search on such a widescale. Sure MS may want some of googles techniques but the technology they use isn't anything drasticly different from anything else.

I think it does.  It searches through ~7 Billion websites (with hundreds, sometimes even thousands) of pages in less than a second.

Microsoft isn't going to beat Google.

By the way, if you read that article I linked you, you'll know that Ballmer threw a chair across the room when he found Ralmulk (sp?) was leaving Microsoft for a job at Google.

[iago]

Well it depends if they do kick everyone elses ass, it wouldn't be wise to dismiss it either. Google doesn't have some magical undiscovered technology, it's just been the boldest corporation to implement search on such a widescale. Sure MS may want some of googles techniques but the technology they use isn't anything drasticly different from anything else.

If Microsoft can have "trade secrets", why can't Google?

[Warrior]

Well it depends if they do kick everyone elses ass, it wouldn't be wise to dismiss it either. Google doesn't have some magical undiscovered technology, it's just been the boldest corporation to implement search on such a widescale. Sure MS may want some of googles techniques but the technology they use isn't anything drasticly different from anything else.

If Microsoft can have "trade secrets", why can't Google?

We know what secrets they have, just not specific. Just like Linux has to have some trade secrets if they want to have 3D. Doesn't mean we don't know they have 3D.

[Warrior]

Well it depends if they do kick everyone elses ass, it wouldn't be wise to dismiss it either. Google doesn't have some magical undiscovered technology, it's just been the boldest corporation to implement search on such a widescale. Sure MS may want some of googles techniques but the technology they use isn't anything drasticly different from anything else.

I think it does.  It searches through ~7 Billion websites (with hundreds, sometimes even thousands) of pages in less than a second.

Microsoft isn't going to beat Google.

By the way, if you read that article I linked you, you'll know that Ballmer threw a chair across the room when he found Ralmulk (sp?) was leaving Microsoft for a job at Google.

It doesn't display them all on the same page..it isn't hard to get a number of pages meeting the criteria. They just display them as they get them back.