"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.
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.
Quote from: iago on March 02, 2006, 10:57:46 AM
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.
Quote from: iago on March 02, 2006, 10:57:46 AM
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.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58112#msg58112 date=1141316321]
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.
Quote from: Faxx86] link=topic=5045.msg58120#msg58120 date=1141323493]
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58112#msg58112 date=1141316321]
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.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58123#msg58123 date=1141328788]
Erm, I meant Longhorn. Specificly talking about WinFS technologies.
Me too.
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.
Microsoft has clearly invented the revolutionary new technology of relational databases. That's what they do, you know.
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.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58128#msg58128 date=1141332286]
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:
QuotePage 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.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58128#msg58128 date=1141332286]
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. :)
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58128#msg58128 date=1141332286]
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.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58133#msg58133 date=1141335257]
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.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 02, 2006, 04:49:14 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58128#msg58128 date=1141332286]
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:
QuotePage 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
Quote from: Sidoh on March 02, 2006, 04:49:14 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58128#msg58128 date=1141332286]
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.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 02, 2006, 04:49:14 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58133#msg58133 date=1141335257]
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.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58140#msg58140 date=1141337067]
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.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58140#msg58140 date=1141337067]
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.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58140#msg58140 date=1141337067]
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
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58133#msg58133 date=1141335257]
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.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 02, 2006, 07:01:28 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58140#msg58140 date=1141337067]
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
Quote from: Sidoh on March 02, 2006, 07:01:28 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58140#msg58140 date=1141337067]
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.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 02, 2006, 07:01:28 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58140#msg58140 date=1141337067]
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.
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.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58174#msg58174 date=1141350558]
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.
Quotesidoh@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. :)
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58174#msg58174 date=1141350558]
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?
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58174#msg58174 date=1141350558]
We'll see when the benchmark comes in.
Indeed we will.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 02, 2006, 09:14:07 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58174#msg58174 date=1141350558]
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.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 02, 2006, 07:01:28 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58174#msg58174 date=1141350558]
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.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58182#msg58182 date=1141352526]
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.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58182#msg58182 date=1141352526]
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.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 02, 2006, 09:25:52 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58182#msg58182 date=1141352526]
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.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 02, 2006, 09:25:52 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58182#msg58182 date=1141352526]
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.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58187#msg58187 date=1141353440]
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.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58187#msg58187 date=1141353440]
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.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58187#msg58187 date=1141353440]
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.
Quote from: Hitmen on March 02, 2006, 10:01:52 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58187#msg58187 date=1141353440]
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.
Quote from: iago on March 02, 2006, 10:06:24 PM
Quote from: Hitmen on March 02, 2006, 10:01:52 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58187#msg58187 date=1141353440]
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 :P
Quote from: Hitmen on March 02, 2006, 10:10:08 PM
They could always map google.* to go to their search engine :P
LOL
Quote from: Hitmen on March 02, 2006, 10:01:52 PM
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.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 02, 2006, 09:43:18 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58187#msg58187 date=1141353440]
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.
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).
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.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58216#msg58216 date=1141388038]
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.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58216#msg58216 date=1141388038]
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?
Quote from: iago on March 03, 2006, 10:13:58 AM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58216#msg58216 date=1141388038]
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.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 03, 2006, 09:40:42 AM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58216#msg58216 date=1141388038]
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.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58229#msg58229 date=1141400339]
Quote from: Sidoh on March 03, 2006, 09:40:42 AM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58216#msg58216 date=1141388038]
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.
So what you're saying is that they also
sort the millions/billions of pages based on what you typed. Why are you trying to strengthen Sidoh's point? :P
No, I'm saying it reduces the load of fetching them..you know unless you forgot how SQL works ..you can provide a limit. It will stop fetching after it reaches that limit..the speed is impressive but nothing no one else can't beat withought trying some.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58236#msg58236 date=1141400571]
No, I'm saying it reduces the load of fetching them..you know unless you forgot how SQL works ..you can provide a limit. It will stop fetching after it reaches that limit..the speed is impressive but nothing no one else can't beat withought trying some.
It still has to sort it all, based on your search criteria, before it can limit them. Sorting is generally pretty fast, with a decent amount of hardware memory. Sorting a database that doesn't fit into main memory takes something like:
2(p) * (1 + log<b>(p/b))
i/o operations. Where b is the number of pages that can fit into active memory and p is the number of pages that are being sorted. The result is the number of disk i/o's required, which is the bottleneck operation.
Since Google doesn't know what you're going to type before you type it, that means that this has to be done every time somebody types something. Unless they've come up with a different way of indexing, but that's the way it's done in the popular relational databases (Oracle, MSSql, and MySQL for sure).
For more information on how data is sorted in a database, Google (ha) for "external mergesort".
Google doesnt seem to be as great as it used to be for me. I think other engines have learned from Google though.
Quote from: iago on March 03, 2006, 10:48:17 AM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58236#msg58236 date=1141400571]
No, I'm saying it reduces the load of fetching them..you know unless you forgot how SQL works ..you can provide a limit. It will stop fetching after it reaches that limit..the speed is impressive but nothing no one else can't beat withought trying some.
It still has to sort it all, based on your search criteria, before it can limit them. Sorting is generally pretty fast, with a decent amount of hardware memory. Sorting a database that doesn't fit into main memory takes something like:
2(p) * (1 + log(p/b))
i/o operations. Where b is the number of pages that can fit into active memory and p is the number of pages that are being sorted. The result is the number of disk i/o's required, which is the bottleneck operation.
Since Google doesn't know what you're going to type before you type it, that means that this has to be done every time somebody types something. Unless they've come up with a different way of indexing, but that's the way it's done in the popular relational databases (Oracle, MSSql, and MySQL for sure).
For more information on how data is sorted in a database, Google (ha) for "external mergesort".
That's nice an all but if they use an SQL variant then they really are just using the technology that already exists. Still havn't found anything unique that they do thus far.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58252#msg58252 date=1141421170]
That's nice an all but if they use an SQL variant then they really are just using the technology that already exists. Still havn't found anything unique that they do thus far.
You lost this argument, man, give it a rest!
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58252#msg58252 date=1141421170]
Quote from: iago on March 03, 2006, 10:48:17 AM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58236#msg58236 date=1141400571]
No, I'm saying it reduces the load of fetching them..you know unless you forgot how SQL works ..you can provide a limit. It will stop fetching after it reaches that limit..the speed is impressive but nothing no one else can't beat withought trying some.
It still has to sort it all, based on your search criteria, before it can limit them. Sorting is generally pretty fast, with a decent amount of hardware memory. Sorting a database that doesn't fit into main memory takes something like:
2(p) * (1 + log(p/b))
i/o operations. Where b is the number of pages that can fit into active memory and p is the number of pages that are being sorted. The result is the number of disk i/o's required, which is the bottleneck operation.
Since Google doesn't know what you're going to type before you type it, that means that this has to be done every time somebody types something. Unless they've come up with a different way of indexing, but that's the way it's done in the popular relational databases (Oracle, MSSql, and MySQL for sure).
For more information on how data is sorted in a database, Google (ha) for "external mergesort".
That's nice an all but if they use an SQL variant then they really are just using the technology that already exists. Still havn't found anything unique that they do thus far.
What the hell are you talking about? YOU are the one who brought up SQL, and I was explaining to you why normal SQL would probably be too slow.
/me bashes his head on his desk repeatedly as he gives up hope on Warrior.
Quote from: iago on March 03, 2006, 07:01:56 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58252#msg58252 date=1141421170]
Quote from: iago on March 03, 2006, 10:48:17 AM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58236#msg58236 date=1141400571]
No, I'm saying it reduces the load of fetching them..you know unless you forgot how SQL works ..you can provide a limit. It will stop fetching after it reaches that limit..the speed is impressive but nothing no one else can't beat withought trying some.
It still has to sort it all, based on your search criteria, before it can limit them. Sorting is generally pretty fast, with a decent amount of hardware memory. Sorting a database that doesn't fit into main memory takes something like:
2(p) * (1 + log(p/b))
i/o operations. Where b is the number of pages that can fit into active memory and p is the number of pages that are being sorted. The result is the number of disk i/o's required, which is the bottleneck operation.
Since Google doesn't know what you're going to type before you type it, that means that this has to be done every time somebody types something. Unless they've come up with a different way of indexing, but that's the way it's done in the popular relational databases (Oracle, MSSql, and MySQL for sure).
For more information on how data is sorted in a database, Google (ha) for "external mergesort".
That's nice an all but if they use an SQL variant then they really are just using the technology that already exists. Still havn't found anything unique that they do thus far.
What the hell are you talking about? YOU are the one who brought up SQL, and I was explaining to you why normal SQL would probably be too slow.
Okay so tell me, what other technology can they possible utilize to sort through the billions of entries?
Additionally:
How would fetching entries with a limit possibly be slow? A technology which specializes in reading large amounts of data combined with a speedy server can indeed get the job done, you're just thinking unrealisticly.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58343#msg58343 date=1141474987]
Okay so tell me, what other technology can they possible utilize to sort through the billions of entries?
Are you seriously implying its impossible to use other database/search routines when SQL possibilities are excluded? Hahahahah....
It's obviously something else, though. Look:
QuoteResults 1 - 10 of about 6,980,000 for what's your favorite band right now. (0.22 seconds)
I just copied/pasted a random line of text from one of the IM windows I had open. 0.22 seconds to estimate that there are 6,980,000 articles related to my query? Sure sounds like SQL to me... *cough*
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58343#msg58343 date=1141474987]
Additionally:
How would fetching entries with a limit possibly be slow? A technology which specializes in reading large amounts of data combined with a speedy server can indeed get the job done, you're just thinking unrealisticly.
For the third time:
because it doesn't pre-order the searches for every possible query. It searches and then sorts.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58343#msg58343 date=1141474987]you're just thinking unrealisticly.
You're not thinking at all.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 04, 2006, 12:00:14 PM
For the third time: because it doesn't pre-order the searches for every possible query. It searches and then sorts.
Exactly.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 04, 2006, 12:00:14 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58343#msg58343 date=1141474987]you're just thinking unrealisticly.
You're not thinking at all.
DINGDINGDING winner!
I R WEENAR.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 04, 2006, 12:00:14 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58343#msg58343 date=1141474987]
Okay so tell me, what other technology can they possible utilize to sort through the billions of entries?
Are you seriously implying its impossible to use other database/search routines when SQL possibilities are excluded? Hahahahah....
It's obviously something else, though. Look:
QuoteResults 1 - 10 of about 6,980,000 for what's your favorite band right now. (0.22 seconds)
I just copied/pasted a random line of text from one of the IM windows I had open. 0.22 seconds to estimate that there are 6,980,000 articles related to my query? Sure sounds like SQL to me... *cough*
With fast enough servers getting a ballpark figure isn't too hard. Please.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 04, 2006, 12:00:14 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58343#msg58343 date=1141474987]
Additionally:
How would fetching entries with a limit possibly be slow? A technology which specializes in reading large amounts of data combined with a speedy server can indeed get the job done, you're just thinking unrealisticly.
For the third time: because it doesn't pre-order the searches for every possible query. It searches and then sorts.
How would you know this? Link to an article, doc, specification, anything.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 04, 2006, 12:00:14 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58343#msg58343 date=1141474987]you're just thinking unrealisticly.
You're not thinking at all.
[/quote]
Cmon Sidoh, this is your usual insult the person instead of come up with something smart. Get over it.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58379#msg58379 date=1141498730]
With fast enough servers getting a ballpark figure isn't too hard. Please.
Find me a fast enough server then, please. Additionally, it's not SQL. SQL doesn't "estimate" things. It's a query language. It gives what you ask for. Google does not use SQL, it uses something better. Get over it.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58379#msg58379 date=1141498730]
How would you know this? Link to an article, doc, specification, anything.
Because it's
COMMON SENSE. How could they possibly construct a list of every possible query that people are going to use? They're not going to. They're going to develop algorithms to sort search results dynamically. Since they update their possible results with every web crawl they do, they'd constantly be re-sorting the results. The results would be less relevant and Google would suck more than it does now.
Warrior,
use your fucking head.
Open your eyes.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 04, 2006, 12:00:14 PM
Cmon Sidoh, this is your usual insult the person instead of come up with something smart. Get over it.
It's not an insult, Warrior. You can take it as such, but if its the case, it was a secondary cause. It's a retort. You're not thinking -- it's the truth.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 04, 2006, 02:13:29 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58379#msg58379 date=1141498730]
With fast enough servers getting a ballpark figure isn't too hard. Please.
Find me a fast enough server then, please. Additionally, it's not SQL. SQL doesn't "estimate" things. It's a query language. It gives what you ask for. Google does not use SQL, it uses something better. Get over it.
SQL organizes how it reads the data, anything else would do something extremely similiar.
Additionally, how can it use something "better" if by what you say "it's not SQL"..?
Quote from: Sidoh on March 04, 2006, 02:13:29 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58379#msg58379 date=1141498730]
How would you know this? Link to an article, doc, specification, anything.
Because it's COMMON SENSE. How could they possibly construct a list of every possible query that people are going to use? They're not going to. They're going to develop algorithms to sort search results dynamically. Since they update their possible results with every web crawl they do, they'd constantly be re-sorting the results. The results would be less relevant and Google would suck more than it does now.
Warrior, use your fucking head. Open your eyes.
It isn't very hard actually. You can get a ballpark figure easily "on the fly" and it isn't like their webcrawls are done everytime you search either. It's using old data it collects.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 04, 2006, 12:00:14 PM
Cmon Sidoh, this is your usual insult the person instead of come up with something smart. Get over it.
It's not an insult, Warrior. You can take it as such, but if its the case, it was a secondary cause. It's a retort. You're not thinking -- it's the truth.
[/quote]
It's impossible to not be thinking unless you're dead so I'll take it you're either indeed insulting or just posting random bull which wouldn't be out of character for you.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58389#msg58389 date=1141500059]
SQL organizes how it reads the data, anything else would do something extremely similiar.
Additionally, how can it use something "better" if by what you say "it's not SQL"..?
SQL is a query language. I can gaurentee Google doesn't use a SQL related engine (by this we mean MSSQL, MySQL, Oracle, etc). They coded their own engine.
That's why it works so well; that's why it's better.
MSN (same query):
QuotePage 1 of 1,543,673 results containing what's your favorite band right now (0.26 seconds)
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58389#msg58389 date=1141500059]
It isn't very hard actually. You can get a ballpark figure easily "on the fly" and it isn't like their webcrawls are done everytime you search either. It's using old data it collects.
How? Show me. By "old," it's as new as it can be. I know the webcrawls aren't triggered by a search query. That's
common sense. The point is that it has a huge database of billions of websites that it searches through for a specific query. When it gets the results, it filters through them to find the most relevant. That's not amazing?
Bullshit.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58389#msg58389 date=1141500059]
It's impossible to not be thinking unless you're dead so I'll take it you're either indeed insulting or just posting random bull which wouldn't be out of character for you.
Warrior, I am now convinced that you're an
idiot. I'm done arguing with you. You're
hopeless.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 04, 2006, 02:28:31 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58389#msg58389 date=1141500059]
SQL organizes how it reads the data, anything else would do something extremely similiar.
Additionally, how can it use something "better" if by what you say "it's not SQL"..?
SQL is a query language. I can gaurentee Google doesn't use a SQL related engine (by this we mean MSSQL, MySQL, Oracle, etc). They coded their own engine. That's why it works so well; that's why it's better.
MSN (same query):
QuotePage 1 of 1,543,673 results containing what's your favorite band right now (0.26 seconds)
You can't "guarantee" anything withought proof. Like I said, find me the proof then we'll see how far your guarantees go.
MSN is inferior to google, that is well known. We still have yet to see how their new search will fair however. That will be in 6months time. Like I said, unless you can find an official statement from google, a document, whatever then your statement is false. That's about as logical as me saying "Linux has some feature, I know it's better I can guarantee it, blahblahbullshitblahblah but I have no proof."
Quote from: Sidoh on March 04, 2006, 02:28:31 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58389#msg58389 date=1141500059]
It isn't very hard actually. You can get a ballpark figure easily "on the fly" and it isn't like their webcrawls are done everytime you search either. It's using old data it collects.
How? Show me. By "old," it's as new as it can be. I know the webcrawls aren't triggered by a search query. That's common sense. The point is that it has a huge database of billions of websites that it searches through for a specific query. When it gets the results, it filters through them to find the most relevant. That's not amazing? Bullshit.
Alright let's see here:
It sends spiders out to get information about a site
It organizes them THEN based on keywords
It stores them
You search:
It parses your query and then fetches from a database where they ALREADY are
ordered by relevance and where there ALREADY is a set count of queries found
You additionally said the crawls arn't triggered by searches yet you continue to try to prove it has to sort through something like it's an amazing feat? Give me a break and quit shooting yourself in the foot.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 04, 2006, 02:28:31 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58389#msg58389 date=1141500059]
It's impossible to not be thinking unless you're dead so I'll take it you're either indeed insulting or just posting random bull which wouldn't be out of character for you.
Warrior, I am now convinced that you're an idiot. I'm done arguing with you. You're hopeless.
Hey, just as long as you know the strongest points in your arguments are your personal attacks that's fine by me.
:)
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58433#msg58433 date=1141516033]
You can't "guarantee" anything withought proof. Like I said, find me the proof then we'll see how far your guarantees go.
MSN is inferior to google, that is well known. We still have yet to see how their new search will fair however. That will be in 6months time. Like I said, unless you can find an official statement from google, a document, whatever then your statement is false. That's about as logical as me saying "Linux has some feature, I know it's better I can guarantee it, blahblahbullshitblahblah but I have no proof."
If you can find me an SQL engine that can search through 6-7 billion indexes and then sort and segment the results, I'll be disproved. Until then, my point stands true. That's my proof. I've never used any database engine can do that. This is why Google is amazing.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58433#msg58433 date=1141516033]
Alright let's see here:
It sends spiders out to get information about a site
It organizes them THEN based on keywords
It stores them
You search:
It parses your query and then fetches from a database where they ALREADY are
ordered by relevance and where there ALREADY is a set count of queries found
You additionally said the crawls arn't triggered by searches yet you continue to try to prove it has to sort through something like it's an amazing feat? Give me a break and quit shooting yourself in the foot.
Warrior, this is a serious question. It's not intended to be an insult.
Are you stupid?As I've said already, I'm completely aware of how Google works. I'm saying it's impossible for public search engines like MSSQL, MySQL and Oracle to do what Google does. It has 6
BILLION results. If Google searched iteratively like SQL engines do and it took 0.00000001 seconds (that's
one ten-millionth of a second), it would take several minutes to complete your search. That's considering it searches through different areas of a website, too. This is valid proof. You're just too blind to see it.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58433#msg58433 date=1141516033]
Hey, just as long as you know the strongest points in your arguments are your personal attacks that's fine by me.
:)
I know that you think that, but it's a subjective statement. Believe it or not, you're not always right. In fact, recently, you're rarely right.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 04, 2006, 07:03:12 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58433#msg58433 date=1141516033]
You can't "guarantee" anything withought proof. Like I said, find me the proof then we'll see how far your guarantees go.
MSN is inferior to google, that is well known. We still have yet to see how their new search will fair however. That will be in 6months time. Like I said, unless you can find an official statement from google, a document, whatever then your statement is false. That's about as logical as me saying "Linux has some feature, I know it's better I can guarantee it, blahblahbullshitblahblah but I have no proof."
If you can find me an SQL engine that can search through 6-7 billion indexes and then sort and segment the results, I'll be disproved. Until then, my point stands true. That's my proof. I've never used any database engine can do that. This is why Google is amazing.
Go try one out, you're the one who wants to know. I already know that provided you have the hardware to run it (Which google obviously has) it's quite possible. You can ride them all you want, until you provide something other than that it's just filler.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 04, 2006, 08:34:43 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58433#msg58433 date=1141516033]
Alright let's see here:
It sends spiders out to get information about a site
It organizes them THEN based on keywords
It stores them
You search:
It parses your query and then fetches from a database where they ALREADY are
ordered by relevance and where there ALREADY is a set count of queries found
You additionally said the crawls arn't triggered by searches yet you continue to try to prove it has to sort through something like it's an amazing feat? Give me a break and quit shooting yourself in the foot.
Warrior, this is a serious question. It's not intended to be an insult. Are you stupid?
As I've said already, I'm completely aware of how Google works. I'm saying it's impossible for public search engines like MSSQL, MySQL and Oracle to do what Google does. It has 6 BILLION results. If Google searched iteratively like SQL engines do and it took 0.00000001 seconds (that's one ten-millionth of a second), it would take several minutes to complete your search. That's considering it searches through different areas of a website, too. This is valid proof. You're just too blind to see it.
No, like you said in your other thread I want statistics, articles and documentation please. :) PDF format or doc would be nice.
It is possible and I'm done trying to convince you of it, i'm not a miracle worker.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 04, 2006, 08:34:43 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58433#msg58433 date=1141516033]
Hey, just as long as you know the strongest points in your arguments are your personal attacks that's fine by me.
:)
I know that you think that, but it's a subjective statement. Believe it or not, you're not always right. In fact, recently, you're rarely right.
I still have yet to see a situation where I am wrong, you're just looking at it from a different side of the glass. Most of the time you just get mad and assert your moderation powers thus resulting in me winning. Thanks.
How the fuck is Warrior still arguing? You aren't making sense!!!
There is no SQL engine that can sort that many results by relevance. What, exactly, is the SQL statement to order by relevance?
Also, I hate to break it to you, but Google hasn't pre-generated every possible keyword. I did a search for "it has the enemy of mankind to be luckier than thine own master" and it took 0.33 seconds. There is no way that Google could have known I would type that. Ergo, you are absolutely full of shit. End of story.
Sidoh is absolutely right. You are hopeless. Your arguments in this and other threads (recently and historically) have absolutely no merit, and, as far as I can tell, you don't think. You're absolutely blinded and led to somebody else's conclusions. I hate to break it to you, but you are COMPLETEY missing EVERY fact in this thread, and only posting in response to the parts that you've picked out. Your arguments make no sense and totally suck, and if nothing productive is posted here soon I'm just going to trash this for complete and total ignorance.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58517#msg58517 date=1141535928]
Go try one out, you're the one who wants to know. I already know that provided you have the hardware to run it (Which google obviously has) it's quite possible. You can ride them all you want, until you provide something other than that it's just filler.
I've provided you with all of the information you need. All you need to do is disprove it. Good luck.
I'm not the one that wants to know, you idiot. You're the one that's challenging what I know.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58517#msg58517 date=1141535928]
No, like you said in your other thread I want statistics, articles and documentation please. :) PDF format or doc would be nice.
It is possible and I'm done trying to convince you of it, i'm not a miracle worker.
Hypocrite.
SQL searches iteratively. If you don't believe that, you're stupid. If you can't believe that, you're blind. If you won't believe that, you're stubbornly idioticly blind.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58517#msg58517 date=1141535928]
I still have yet to see a situation where I am wrong, you're just looking at it from a different side of the glass. Most of the time you just get mad and assert your moderation powers thus resulting in me winning. Thanks.
No. You're an idiot Warrior. AN IDIOT. I seriously hope that you don't remain like this for much more of your young life. You're shaving years of progress off of your potential.
iago, I love you.
Quote from: iago on March 05, 2006, 12:45:10 AM
How the fuck is Warrior still arguing? You aren't making sense!!!
There is no SQL engine that can sort that many results by relevance. What, exactly, is the SQL statement to order by relevance?
Also, I hate to break it to you, but Google hasn't pre-generated every possible keyword. I did a search for "it has the enemy of mankind to be luckier than thine own master" and it took 0.33 seconds. There is no way that Google could have known I would type that. Ergo, you are absolutely full of shit. End of story.
Let's see here, first it's been shown (http://www.httprevealer.com/usage_gzip.htm) that google uses gzip to compress
it's webpages. That can account for most of it's speedy results along with indexed.
They don't use SQL to order by relevance, they use a technology they developed called "PigeonRank" or something along those lines to order the data returned in an SQL fashion, I'm not saying they use a public solution. I'm saying whatever solution they have developed is based on the same underlying principals.
"Google indexes pages on the Web by using what are commonly known as "spiders", "crawlers", or "robots".
Google's famous search engine spider, GoogleBot, uses links on web pages as a sort of freeway. It travels from site to site by following links. When Google finds a new web page, Google will "crawl" the code on the page and transport it back to its datacenter. Google's "FreshBot" may visit "indexed websites" everyday in order to keep the index fresh. How often this is done varies wildly, is often speculated, and varies from site to site.
Drive more traffic to your websiteGoogle's database maintain billions of pages. They use a proprietary formula (or alogorithm) to "score" the relevancy of websites for each search query. The highest ranking, or "most relevant" websites for a specific query are listed first in the search results. "
It indeed does crawl webpages and stores them by keyword, if you would look closely to google pages it searches them by integrity and by each individual keyword. I don't know what you're getting at.
Here (http://www.iprcom.com/papers/pagerank/) is some information on the PageRanking technology they use, it's nothing exclusive to them and nothing super secret. My point still stands, this and most technologies can be replicated and refined pretty easily.
To further help my position:
Quote
* Keyword-rich, visible, on-page content in the form of paragraphs of complete sentences (not keyword after keyword separated by commas. This should be informative, descriptive text using words pertaining to your business.)
* Keywords in the title tag
* Keywords in the description tag
* The number of web pages out on the Web that are linking to your site
* The quality of the web pages out on the Web that are linking to your site
* The number of links on a page
* The keyword density of any particular section of text
For more information on how google ranking works to further my point that most of their technology is public knowledge:
http://blog.case.edu/bcg8/2006/02/24/how_does_google_ranking_work (http://blog.case.edu/bcg8/2006/02/24/how_does_google_ranking_work)
Now to tackle the SQL issue further:
QuoteGoogle's Query Processor
The query processor has several parts, including the user interface (search box), the "engine" that evaluates queries and matches them to relevant documents, and the results formatter.
Here is even more information proving that google indeed handles their database like I said it does (http://www.google.com/addurl/?hl=en&continue=/addurl)
To quote from that article
Quote
We add and update new sites to our index each time we crawl the web, and we invite you to submit your URL here. We do not add all submitted URLs to our index, and we cannot make any predictions or guarantees about when or if they will appear.
They crawl the web periodicly and update their known database of websites with keywords. It's known and accepted but somehow you're stating that they use something else?
You're full of shit.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 05, 2006, 12:53:12 AM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58517#msg58517 date=1141535928]
Go try one out, you're the one who wants to know. I already know that provided you have the hardware to run it (Which google obviously has) it's quite possible. You can ride them all you want, until you provide something other than that it's just filler.
I've provided you with all of the information you need. All you need to do is disprove it. Good luck.
I'm not the one that wants to know, you idiot. You're the one that's challenging what I know.
I think I stated pretty much how google works above if you want any more information please post. Good luck.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 05, 2006, 12:53:12 AM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58517#msg58517 date=1141535928]
No, like you said in your other thread I want statistics, articles and documentation please. :) PDF format or doc would be nice.
It is possible and I'm done trying to convince you of it, i'm not a miracle worker.
Hypocrite.
SQL searches iteratively. If you don't believe that, you're stupid. If you can't believe that, you're blind. If you won't believe that, you're stubbornly idioticly blind.
Hey, give me proof -
proof and I'll drop my argument. You have offered nothing and I have offered plenty. See above.
You're just poking at nothing now Sidoh.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 05, 2006, 12:53:12 AM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58517#msg58517 date=1141535928]
I still have yet to see a situation where I am wrong, you're just looking at it from a different side of the glass. Most of the time you just get mad and assert your moderation powers thus resulting in me winning. Thanks.
No. You're an idiot Warrior. AN IDIOT. I seriously hope that you don't remain like this for much more of your young life. You're shaving years of progress off of your potential.
Young life? I'm 17 and 18 in a few days. Years of progress? I've made more progress in a few years than people have made in plenty. I've read more manuals, PDFs, tutorials, articles, blog posts, magazines and been tutored by more people you can count. Me defending Microsoft isn't going to change than and you saying something isn't going to change that. Try actually addressing something instead of going "OH GOOD ONE IAGO", dolt.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
Quote from: iago on March 05, 2006, 12:45:10 AM
How the fuck is Warrior still arguing? You aren't making sense!!!
There is no SQL engine that can sort that many results by relevance. What, exactly, is the SQL statement to order by relevance?
Also, I hate to break it to you, but Google hasn't pre-generated every possible keyword. I did a search for "it has the enemy of mankind to be luckier than thine own master" and it took 0.33 seconds. There is no way that Google could have known I would type that. Ergo, you are absolutely full of shit. End of story.
Let's see here, first it's been shown (http://www.httprevealer.com/usage_gzip.htm) that google uses gzip to compress
it's webpages. That can account for most of it's speedy results along with indexed.
They don't use SQL to order by relevance, they use a technology they developed called "PigeonRank" or something along those lines to order the data returned in an SQL fashion, I'm not saying they use a public solution. I'm saying whatever solution they have developed is based on the same underlying principals.
"Google indexes pages on the Web by using what are commonly known as "spiders", "crawlers", or "robots".
Google's famous search engine spider, GoogleBot, uses links on web pages as a sort of freeway. It travels from site to site by following links. When Google finds a new web page, Google will "crawl" the code on the page and transport it back to its datacenter. Google's "FreshBot" may visit "indexed websites" everyday in order to keep the index fresh. How often this is done varies wildly, is often speculated, and varies from site to site.
Drive more traffic to your websiteGoogle's database maintain billions of pages. They use a proprietary formula (or alogorithm) to "score" the relevancy of websites for each search query. The highest ranking, or "most relevant" websites for a specific query are listed first in the search results. "
It indeed does crawl webpages and stores them by keyword, if you would look closely to google pages it searches them by integrity and by each individual keyword. I don't know what you're getting at.
Here (http://www.iprcom.com/papers/pagerank/) is some information on the PageRanking technology they use, it's nothing exclusive to them and nothing super secret. My point still stands, this and most technologies can be replicated and refined pretty easily.
To further help my position:
Quote
* Keyword-rich, visible, on-page content in the form of paragraphs of complete sentences (not keyword after keyword separated by commas. This should be informative, descriptive text using words pertaining to your business.)
* Keywords in the title tag
* Keywords in the description tag
* The number of web pages out on the Web that are linking to your site
* The quality of the web pages out on the Web that are linking to your site
* The number of links on a page
* The keyword density of any particular section of text
For more information on how google ranking works to further my point that most of their technology is public knowledge:
http://blog.case.edu/bcg8/2006/02/24/how_does_google_ranking_work (http://blog.case.edu/bcg8/2006/02/24/how_does_google_ranking_work)
Now to tackle the SQL issue further:
QuoteGoogle's Query Processor
The query processor has several parts, including the user interface (search box), the "engine" that evaluates queries and matches them to relevant documents, and the results formatter.
Here is even more information proving that google indeed handles their database like I said it does (http://www.google.com/addurl/?hl=en&continue=/addurl)
To quote from that article
Quote
We add and update new sites to our index each time we crawl the web, and we invite you to submit your URL here. We do not add all submitted URLs to our index, and we cannot make any predictions or guarantees about when or if they will appear.
They crawl the web periodicly and update their known database of websites with keywords. It's known and accepted but somehow you're stating that they use something else?
You're full of shit.
"PigeonRank" was an April fool's joke (it's just "PageRank"). Google uses their own stuff for queries (source: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20050071741&OS=20050071741&RS=20050071741 ).
The PageRank system is primarily how many times a page is linked to, then how many of the words match, then how many of the words are relevant.
Heh, I thought I saw something fishy when it was mentioned as "PageRank" everywhere else. Oh well.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
Let's see here, first it's been shown (http://www.httprevealer.com/usage_gzip.htm) that google uses gzip to compress
it's webpages. That can account for most of it's speedy results along with indexed.
So?
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
They don't use SQL to order by relevance, they use a technology they developed called "PigeonRank" or something along those lines to order the data returned in an SQL fashion, I'm not saying they use a public solution. I'm saying whatever solution they have developed is based on the same underlying principals.
"Google indexes pages on the Web by using what are commonly known as "spiders", "crawlers", or "robots".
So?
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
Google's famous search engine spider, GoogleBot, uses links on web pages as a sort of freeway. It travels from site to site by following links. When Google finds a new web page, Google will "crawl" the code on the page and transport it back to its datacenter. Google's "FreshBot" may visit "indexed websites" everyday in order to keep the index fresh. How often this is done varies wildly, is often speculated, and varies from site to site.
So?
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
Drive more traffic to your websiteGoogle's database maintain billions of pages. They use a proprietary formula (or alogorithm) to "score" the relevancy of websites for each search query. The highest ranking, or "most relevant" websites for a specific query are listed first in the search results. "
So?
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
It indeed does crawl webpages and stores them by keyword, if you would look closely to google pages it searches them by integrity and by each individual keyword. I don't know what you're getting at.
I'm getting at the fact that they can sort an index billions of webpages in basically no time. SQL can't do that. Thus, they aren't using standard SQL. Thus, they have their own technology. Isn't that what you've been arguing against?
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
Here (http://www.iprcom.com/papers/pagerank/) is some information on the PageRanking technology they use, it's nothing exclusive to them and nothing super secret. My point still stands, this and most technologies can be replicated and refined pretty easily.
To further help my position:
Quote
* Keyword-rich, visible, on-page content in the form of paragraphs of complete sentences (not keyword after keyword separated by commas. This should be informative, descriptive text using words pertaining to your business.)
* Keywords in the title tag
* Keywords in the description tag
* The number of web pages out on the Web that are linking to your site
* The quality of the web pages out on the Web that are linking to your site
* The number of links on a page
* The keyword density of any particular section of text
For more information on how google ranking works to further my point that most of their technology is public knowledge:
http://blog.case.edu/bcg8/2006/02/24/how_does_google_ranking_work (http://blog.case.edu/bcg8/2006/02/24/how_does_google_ranking_work)
Now to tackle the SQL issue further:
QuoteGoogle's Query Processor
The query processor has several parts, including the user interface (search box), the "engine" that evaluates queries and matches them to relevant documents, and the results formatter.
Here is even more information proving that google indeed handles their database like I said it does (http://www.google.com/addurl/?hl=en&continue=/addurl)
To quote from that article
Quote
We add and update new sites to our index each time we crawl the web, and we invite you to submit your URL here. We do not add all submitted URLs to our index, and we cannot make any predictions or guarantees about when or if they will appear.
They crawl the web periodicly and update their known database of websites with keywords. It's known and accepted but somehow you're stating that they use something else?
You're full of shit.
None of that matters! Google has special proprietary technology that it uses that isn't SQL. You don't know exactly how it works, and nobody outside of Google does. Would you just give it up?
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
Let's see here, first it's been shown (http://www.httprevealer.com/usage_gzip.htm) that google uses gzip to compress
it's webpages. That can account for most of it's speedy results along with indexed.
... That's HTTP compressing; it saves bandwidth, not speed. I think the "time" saved would be minuscule, since it has to compress the
results (that's right, it's already done its searching/sorting, this compressing is after-the-fact). That takes
timeQuote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
They don't use SQL to order by relevance, they use a technology they developed called "PigeonRank" or something along those lines to order the data returned in an SQL fashion, I'm not saying they use a public solution. I'm saying whatever solution they have developed is based on the same underlying principals.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AT THE PIGEON RANK AHAHAHAH. Warrior, perhaps you should check this out: http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html
Feel dumb? Good, you should.
Of course it uses the same underlying principals. They fetch some results from a database, sort them and show them to you. My point is
they do it faster with more results than anyone on the market.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
"Google indexes pages on the Web by using what are commonly known as "spiders", "crawlers", or "robots".
Google's famous search engine spider, GoogleBot, uses links on web pages as a sort of freeway. It travels from site to site by following links. When Google finds a new web page, Google will "crawl" the code on the page and transport it back to its datacenter. Google's "FreshBot" may visit "indexed websites" everyday in order to keep the index fresh. How often this is done varies wildly, is often speculated, and varies from site to site.
Drive more traffic to your websiteGoogle's database maintain billions of pages. They use a proprietary formula (or alogorithm) to "score" the relevancy of websites for each search query. The highest ranking, or "most relevant" websites for a specific query are listed first in the search results. "
It indeed does crawl webpages and stores them by keyword, if you would look closely to google pages it searches them by integrity and by each individual keyword. I don't know what you're getting at.
Honestly, Warrior, I don't know what you're getting at either. I've established several times that I understand how the spiders work.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
Here (http://www.iprcom.com/papers/pagerank/) is some information on the PageRanking technology they use, it's nothing exclusive to them and nothing super secret. My point still stands, this and most technologies can be replicated and refined pretty easily.
To further help my position:
Quote
* Keyword-rich, visible, on-page content in the form of paragraphs of complete sentences (not keyword after keyword separated by commas. This should be informative, descriptive text using words pertaining to your business.)
* Keywords in the title tag
* Keywords in the description tag
* The number of web pages out on the Web that are linking to your site
* The quality of the web pages out on the Web that are linking to your site
* The number of links on a page
* The keyword density of any particular section of text
Sadly, pagerank isn't the only thing Google is using to sort your results. It has to be dynamic. If you honestly think they can pre-order the search results, you're an idiot.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
Now to tackle the SQL issue further:
QuoteGoogle's Query Processor
The query processor has several parts, including the user interface (search box), the "engine" that evaluates queries and matches them to relevant documents, and the results formatter.
Here is even more information proving that google indeed handles their database like I said it does (http://www.google.com/addurl/?hl=en&continue=/addurl)
What are you talking about? Are you an idiot? That's
common fucking sense. We all know the general concept; in fact, we've all explicitly stated it during this argument. You're just too busy not paying attention to our points to notice.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
To quote from that article
Quote
We add and update new sites to our index each time we crawl the web, and we invite you to submit your URL here. We do not add all submitted URLs to our index, and we cannot make any predictions or guarantees about when or if they will appear.
They crawl the web periodicly and update their known database of websites with keywords. It's known and accepted but somehow you're stating that they use something else?
....... FOR FUCKING CHRISTS' SAKE WARRIOR OPEN YOUR MOTHER FUCKING EYES.
Please, go re-read my argument. I've
explicitly,
openly,
without hesitation said that Google uses this general idea. I'm saying that the underlying technology is much more advanced and efficient than anything anyone else has.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
You're full of shit.
Obviously, that's what your brain is made out of.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
I think I stated pretty much how google works above if you want any more information please post. Good luck.
No you didn't. You stated the obvious once again (the pagerank thing was good, but irrelevant. It's not the only factor that google accounts for when it orders search results).
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
Hey, give me proof - proof and I'll drop my argument. You have offered nothing and I have offered plenty. See above.
You're just poking at nothing now Sidoh.
I'm going to switch my research paper and study you. You will never cease to amaze me in your oblivious state of mind. I'm done wasting time on you. It's obviously hopeless.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
Young life? I'm 17 and 18 in a few days. Years of progress? I've made more progress in a few years than people have made in plenty.
Sadly, that's not going to get you many places by itself. You need a college degree, work experience and opportunities before you can do anything with your new-found knowledge. Sorry to break it to you, but most everyone here has done the same things you have. They've found a passion for some area of technology, decided it was interesting enough to pursue on their own and have done it. True, most people have chosen different areas of study, but in a general way, we're all in the same boat.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
I've read more manuals, PDFs, tutorials, articles, blog posts, magazines and been tutored by more people you can count.
Good for you. So have I.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
Me defending Microsoft isn't going to change than and you saying something isn't going to change that.
You defending Microsoft is never going to change. Ever-vigilant. Ever-stubborn. Ever-ignorant. Ever-blind.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
Try actually addressing something instead of going "OH GOOD ONE IAGO", dolt.
I did. I addressed every single one of your points with great accuracy. Not surprisingly, you completely missed the points in every single one of my arguments. Good job.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 05, 2006, 11:02:23 AM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
They don't use SQL to order by relevance, they use a technology they developed called "PigeonRank" or something along those lines to order the data returned in an SQL fashion, I'm not saying they use a public solution. I'm saying whatever solution they have developed is based on the same underlying principals.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AT THE PIGEON RANK AHAHAHAH. Warrior, perhaps you should check this out: http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html
Feel dumb? Good, you should.
It's not a far stab off of their actual technology, it was a spinoff of their technology soon realized after I posted the article.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 05, 2006, 11:02:23 AM
Of course it uses the same underlying principals. They fetch some results from a database, sort them and show them to you. My point is they do it faster with more results than anyone on the market.
My point is: Not.For.Long. If it's the same underlying principals then there is no reason why they can't be surpassed.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 05, 2006, 11:02:23 AM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
"Google indexes pages on the Web by using what are commonly known as "spiders", "crawlers", or "robots".
Google's famous search engine spider, GoogleBot, uses links on web pages as a sort of freeway. It travels from site to site by following links. When Google finds a new web page, Google will "crawl" the code on the page and transport it back to its datacenter. Google's "FreshBot" may visit "indexed websites" everyday in order to keep the index fresh. How often this is done varies wildly, is often speculated, and varies from site to site.
Drive more traffic to your websiteGoogle's database maintain billions of pages. They use a proprietary formula (or alogorithm) to "score" the relevancy of websites for each search query. The highest ranking, or "most relevant" websites for a specific query are listed first in the search results. "
It indeed does crawl webpages and stores them by keyword, if you would look closely to google pages it searches them by integrity and by each individual keyword. I don't know what you're getting at.
Honestly, Warrior, I don't know what you're getting at either. I've established several times that I understand how the spiders work.
That wasn't directed to you numbnuts.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 05, 2006, 11:02:23 AM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
Here (http://www.iprcom.com/papers/pagerank/) is some information on the PageRanking technology they use, it's nothing exclusive to them and nothing super secret. My point still stands, this and most technologies can be replicated and refined pretty easily.
To further help my position:
Quote
* Keyword-rich, visible, on-page content in the form of paragraphs of complete sentences (not keyword after keyword separated by commas. This should be informative, descriptive text using words pertaining to your business.)
* Keywords in the title tag
* Keywords in the description tag
* The number of web pages out on the Web that are linking to your site
* The quality of the web pages out on the Web that are linking to your site
* The number of links on a page
* The keyword density of any particular section of text
Sadly, pagerank isn't the only thing Google is using to sort your results. It has to be dynamic. If you honestly think they can pre-order the search results, you're an idiot.
Why not? It's certainly possible, like I said until you show me proof of these "Technologies" I can go ahead and state any company has a super technology but it's shit withought proof. You seem to be avoiding that.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 05, 2006, 11:02:23 AM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
Now to tackle the SQL issue further:
QuoteGoogle's Query Processor
The query processor has several parts, including the user interface (search box), the "engine" that evaluates queries and matches them to relevant documents, and the results formatter.
Here is even more information proving that google indeed handles their database like I said it does (http://www.google.com/addurl/?hl=en&continue=/addurl)
What are you talking about? Are you an idiot? That's common fucking sense. We all know the general concept; in fact, we've all explicitly stated it during this argument. You're just too busy not paying attention to our points to notice.
iago obviously stated otherwise, when I'm talking to you then you address the points.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 05, 2006, 11:02:23 AM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
To quote from that article
Quote
We add and update new sites to our index each time we crawl the web, and we invite you to submit your URL here. We do not add all submitted URLs to our index, and we cannot make any predictions or guarantees about when or if they will appear.
They crawl the web periodicly and update their known database of websites with keywords. It's known and accepted but somehow you're stating that they use something else?
....... FOR FUCKING CHRISTS' SAKE WARRIOR OPEN YOUR MOTHER FUCKING EYES.
Please, go re-read my argument. I've explicitly, openly, without hesitation said that Google uses this general idea. I'm saying that the underlying technology is much more advanced and efficient than anything anyone else has.
FOR CHRISTS' SAKE SIDOH, I'M NOT TALKING TO YOU.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 05, 2006, 11:02:23 AM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58547#msg58547 date=1141566817]
You're full of shit.
Obviously, that's what your brain is made out of.
You're full of shit.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 05, 2006, 11:02:23 AM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
I think I stated pretty much how google works above if you want any more information please post. Good luck.
No you didn't. You stated the obvious once again (the pagerank thing was good, but irrelevant. It's not the only factor that google accounts for when it orders search results).
Proof please.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 05, 2006, 11:02:23 AM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
Hey, give me proof - proof and I'll drop my argument. You have offered nothing and I have offered plenty. See above.
You're just poking at nothing now Sidoh.
I'm going to switch my research paper and study you. You will never cease to amaze me in your oblivious state of mind. I'm done wasting time on you. It's obviously hopeless.
Then you lose. Loser.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 05, 2006, 11:02:23 AM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
Young life? I'm 17 and 18 in a few days. Years of progress? I've made more progress in a few years than people have made in plenty.
Sadly, that's not going to get you many places by itself. You need a college degree, work experience and opportunities before you can do anything with your new-found knowledge. Sorry to break it to you, but most everyone here has done the same things you have. They've found a passion for some area of technology, decided it was interesting enough to pursue on their own and have done it. True, most people have chosen different areas of study, but in a general way, we're all in the same boat.
Right, probably only person here who can show me up here is Myndfyre. You can say you've done everything but it's nothing
But he's Myndfyre and that warrants excuse.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 05, 2006, 11:02:23 AM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
I've read more manuals, PDFs, tutorials, articles, blog posts, magazines and been tutored by more people you can count.
Good for you. So have I.
It's pretty obviously you havn't, you still think on a highlevel. You're in the box and it's flipped upsidedown on the sidewalk.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 05, 2006, 11:02:23 AM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
Me defending Microsoft isn't going to change than and you saying something isn't going to change that.
You defending Microsoft is never going to change. Ever-vigilant. Ever-stubborn. Ever-ignorant. Ever-blind.
"Wait till Vista", we'll see. I'll be laughing.
Quote from: Sidoh on March 05, 2006, 11:02:23 AM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58548#msg58548 date=1141567030]
Try actually addressing something instead of going "OH GOOD ONE IAGO", dolt.
I did. I addressed every single one of your points with great accuracy. Not surprisingly, you completely missed the points in every single one of my arguments. Good job.
You seem to be dodging and saying it isn't worth your time lately. You suck and so do your "points with great accuracy"
HAHAHAHAHAHA YOU THINK PIGEONS PECKING ON KEYBOARDS POWERS GOOGLE AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA
Edit I'm not done yet.
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA
That seriously made me bust up laughing. Warrior, you're hopeless. You tried to find a way to validate an APRIL FOOLS article as PROOF OF YOUR ARGUMENT.
I wholly agree with Sidoh that you're a complete waste of time to talk to.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58566#msg58566 date=1141579231]
Quote from: Sidoh on March 05, 2006, 11:02:23 AM
I'm going to switch my research paper and study you. You will never cease to amaze me in your oblivious state of mind. I'm done wasting time on you. It's obviously hopeless.
Then you lose. Loser.
Giving up on somebody who is too dense to understand is not the same as admitting defeat. The fact that you're willing to take such a victory shows that you are indeed in the weaker position.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58566#msg58566 date=1141579231]
You seem to be dodging and saying it isn't worth your time lately. You suck and so do your "points with great accuracy"
Again, that's not dodging, it's giving up on somebody. It's like when a kid is going through school and not learning anything, eventually the teachers give up and work on useful people.
Here's the bottom line: perhaps Microsoft's technology is better. I don't know that. But you totally suck at defending it. Your arguments are completely meaningless. Why can't you find somewhere else to spew. There are plenty of forums with dumb people who'll believe what they're told, why don't you find one of them?
Perhaps? It is better. When it comes to technology, Linux will always be behind but they will never seem to lose that stupid attitude they have. It will take an absolute wipeout of the OS to finally shut them up. You're a waste of time, both of you.
For the quotebooks:
Quote(10:51:57) Sidoh: HAHAHAHAHAHHA PIGEONS HAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHA
HAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAH AHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAH
AHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHA
HAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAH AHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHA HHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHH HAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAH AHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHA HAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHA HAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHH
(10:52:22) Warrior logged out.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=5045.msg58574#msg58574 date=1141580934]
Perhaps? It is better. When it comes to technology, Linux will always be behind but they will never seem to lose that stupid attitude they have. It will take an absolute wipeout of the OS to finally shut them up. You're a waste of time, both of you.
I think that Linux
is better. I'm pretty sure I've used Windows more than you ever have, and I've also used Linux more than you ever have. I think that Windows users should use that stupid attitude that they have, and maybe they can actually have a normal argument? It will take an absolute wipeout of the OS to finally shut them up. You're a waste of time.
You just suck at arguing. Don't worry, maybe when you grow up you'll get better. In my opinion, and important part of arguing is understanding the other person's point of view. Since I've used both OSes more than you, I understand both points quite well, so that makes it more difficult for you to have any useful argument.