Microsoft Holding 'Screw Google' Meetings In DC 331
Runaway1956 writes "Microsoft's chief Washington lobbyist has been convening regular meetings, attended by the company's outside consultants, that have become known by some beltway insiders as 'screw Google' meetings, DailyFinance has learned. The meetings are part of an ongoing campaign by Microsoft, other Google opponents, and hired third parties to discredit the Web search leader, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the matter. 'Microsoft is at the center of a group of companies who see Google as a threat to them in some combination of business and policy,' said a source who requested anonymity to avoid retribution. 'The effort is designed to make Google look like the big high-tech bad guy here.'"
Been there, done that. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been holding some pretty good 'screw Microsoft' meetings for years in the toilet.
Nothing new here...
Joking aside; a little farther and these meetings could been seen as illegal collusion.
Re:Been there, done that. (Score:5, Funny)
I hope not, this slashdot screw microsoft meeting has only just started.
Actually, I'm kinda getting nostalgic ;) (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, you know, I'm kinda getting nostalgic. In ye goode olde days, even just a "Microsoft exists" would generate a flurry of pure hate, and let's not even get into news of such obviously evil behaviour as offering a free CLI version of their compiler. Now as of the time I've hit "Reply To This" were only 5 replies, and mostly moderate stuff. It hardly looks like the proper "screw Microsoft and the horse they rode in on" parties we used to hold :P
Re:Actually, I'm kinda getting nostalgic ;) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, there's hope for Microsoft yet, in another decade or two. After Gates, Ballmer needs to leave too.
Re:Actually, I'm kinda getting nostalgic ;) (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the perception is that everyone is aware that Microsoft is evil, so there's no need to muster up that much hate any more. Besides, all that hating is kind of tiring. I'd rather work on the solution than whinging about the problem. Also, it has become clear that Bill Gates is "in" with the "powers that be". It was never more clear than when Ashcroft gave Microsoft a free pass after it was found to have operated anticompetitively in basically every way. Attacking Microsoft (in the USA) has become more unrealistic than ever. It's better to just work on getting Another System Started and ignore them, which is to say, just go Open Source.
It's also hard for me to bitch out Microsoft while I am forced to tell people who actually want to use websites with flash (such as full screen youtube) that they can't use Linux.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting the population of /. is maturing?
Have you seen a RIAA article lately?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
[quote]It's also hard for me to bitch out Microsoft while I am forced to tell people who actually want to use websites with flash (such as full screen youtube) that they can't use Linux.[/quote]
Works for me.
I just tried a random Youtube video in full screen to check.
Re:Actually, I'm kinda getting nostalgic ;) (Score:5, Informative)
He's probably referring to:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=469439 [mozilla.org]
There was a simple workaround (LD_PRELOAD) but it has been since fixed.
Re:Actually, I'm kinda getting nostalgic ;) (Score:5, Insightful)
While Flash on 64bit windows still is nonexistent.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can do it on my Dual 2 GHz 64 bit athlon with a flash player 10 beta for x64. However, my Acer Aspire One D250 lacks the horsepower... but did it fine in Windows XP, with which it shipped. Flash games which were pretty peppy on this system are actually unplayable on my dual 2 GHz system. If you want flash performance (heh heh) then Linux is a gigantic failure.
Don't get me wrong, I am running Ubuntu Jaunty on my desktop system, and Jolicloud Jaunty on both of my two netbooks. I am even working (occasionall
Re: (Score:2)
Unless things have changed recently, you are using 32 bit flash.
But yes, it should work quite well.
I have no idea what optimisations Adobe has made in the native 64 bit linux plugin.
Re: (Score:2)
"We hope it works..."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If I were to say "64 bit flash is nonexistent", the statement would only be mildly inaccurate. It only exists on Linux in any form, where it relies on IA32 libraries, and crashes consistently. I test drove it, I watched for months for an update that might fix the problems, and finally uninstalled it. (deleted it, actually, there's no real installation or uninstallation)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But as a 32-bit process.
Re: (Score:2)
Flash fails for me with dual monitor on an ATI card with the open source ATI drivers. ATI and dual monitor on linux is not pretty though, the closed source ATI drivers are hell to set up for dual monitor because ATI has a separate config from xorg.conf so in combination they can get messy. It was working two days ago though and nothing has changed since so I have no idea what is happening. Also I am using a 64 bit system just to make sure that there is no possible way to get it works stably. Thinking ab
Re: (Score:2)
In ye goode olde days, even just a "Microsoft exists" would generate a flurry of pure hate
Many reasons there bob.
#1 Windows ME isn't used so much anymore. /. user has dropped to 18.675.
#2 Windows VISTA isn't used so much anymore.
#3 The median age of a
#4 ????
#5 Pure Profit.
Kind of a vindication of teenagers then (Score:2)
Well, if the median age _dropping_ has caused more professionalism and less butthurt fanboy acts, I guess that's a heck of a vindication of teenagers. You know, since the stereotype about 14 year olds is the other way around :P
Nostalgia and the Way Ahead... (Score:2)
In ye goode olde days, even just a "Microsoft exists" would generate a flurry of pure hate
The problem with this was that the two minutes hate often didn't last much more then two minutes, and was a bit repetitive and superficial. For recidivist agents of spiteful malevolence such as Microsoft, even a detailed two decades hate would not suffice.
Take a chill pill (Score:2, Insightful)
Take a chill pill, fanboy. Yes, I get it. In your little world, everyone who isn't at Microsoft's throat, must be some kind of "Microsoft drone" and "acting like victimized kittens".
Meanwhile, the rest of us have better things to attach our self-esteem to, than to either corporation. You know, actual personal achievements, not "I barked for my corporate master like a good doggy today." I swear some people should have been four-legged.
Briefly: rest assured that some of us are merely amused at the whole butth
Re: (Score:2)
I hope not, this slashdot screw microsoft meeting has only just started.
You must be new here.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I hope not, this slashdot screw microsoft meeting has only just started.
You must be new here.
No you must be new here and *WOOOOOOSHHH*
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new here.
Re: (Score:2)
I like how you have a higher UID than the person your saying is new here. :)
Just just goes to prove my point even more.... :>
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Only if you ignore that pesky First Amendment [wikipedia.org] in the Constitution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I could reprise all of First Amendment doctrine for you, but I won't. It's not illegal, and it shouldn't be illegal. Speech that you object to must be countered with speech, not suppression of the speech that you object to.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I could reprise all of First Amendment doctrine for you, but I won't. It's not illegal, and it shouldn't be illegal. Speech that you object to must be countered with speech, not suppression of the speech that you object to.
Freedom of speech is not absolute. If I tell you I'll pay you to commit a murder, and you agree to do it, we're guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, even if neither the killing nor the payment actually happens before we get caught and all we did was talk.
The same principle can certainly be applied to speech on behalf of organizations. There are most certainly openness laws, and many of them concern corporate and government behavior. You may be free to speak, but you're not necessarily free to do it in sec
Re: (Score:2)
Joking aside; a little farther and these meetings could been seen as illegal collusion.
Pfft... Like claims of illegal collusion have ever mattered to Microsoft...
Who else does MS usually have on board? (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone else reading "other third parties" as "politicians"?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I read "hired third parties", not "other third parties".
Those parties are probably lobbyists, who then talk to politicians who have previously been payed for.
Re: (Score:2)
M$ wouldn't do that!
oh wait, they have before.
well, ok
Thanks for the suggestion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would make sense that at least one or two politicians (or their aids) would attend. But if they were to attend, would they be friend, foe or observer?
If they were to attend, they probably would be paid!
Re: (Score:2)
That would make sense that at least one or two politicians (or their aids) would attend. But if they were to attend, would they be friend, foe or observer?
They would be the test subject in a "Clockwork Orange"...
Hello pot... (Score:2)
...the kettle called to say "YOU"RE BLACK".
This is time wasted (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft and its cronies are wasting time. They forget that it all comes down to what people want to use, choice in this case.
Re:This is time wasted (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the include the word Nazi next time...
Best advertisment ever. (Score:5, Interesting)
All these competitors must be very desperate if they organize themselves instead of competing with one another. And I don't mean desperate as in "making less profit" or even "running at a loss", I mean desperate as in "about to be finished in the near future".
This is the best advertisement for Google I can imagine. It's basically Microsoft and there other competitors advising you to put your money on Google.
Crowdsourcing? Hmmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
A previous poster described this as collusion. Conspiracy might be a better word, but that might be construed as a "theory" rather than something that was actually documented.
Now if Microsoft is having meetings with their competitors to take down Google, I have to wonder just how cooperative Microsoft really is. Given the level of paranoia exhibited by MS, anyone MS deals with is a potential threat to them. The vast majority of partners and collaborators with Microsoft have wound up either dead or permanently handicapped. I wonder if all of the attendees at those meetings have considered that trend. To see the trend, go here [groklaw.net].
Re:Best advertisment ever. (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect that their stock hasn't tanked because Wall Street has faith that their core businesses are such a huge cash cow that they will soon recover their former glory. I have my doubts though, I think the shine is gone and a lot more people have now come to see MS as a blunderer, like GM.
Re: (Score:2)
Realize that online services is the only area Google remotely competes in. Yes they have Google Desktop and the online apps and android, but at this stage those are still toys in the real world....about as dangerous as Palm right now. Most of the public and businesses don't need overpriced OSes (and at Microsoft's margin they have a lot to cut) and don't need new hardware in the middle of the second year of really tight belts. If anything this shows Microsoft products aren't providing quite the value to bu
Bing in Chinese means "disease" (Score:2, Funny)
Bing [brandinfection.com] means disease in Chinese.
Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed, but there's a difference between "some random language somewhere" and "the national language of the world's most populous nation".
Nobody's too worried about Basque, Ainu, or Pitjantjatjara. But you can reasonably expect companies at least to avoid negative meanings in Chinese, Spanish, English, and Arabic, if they want to sell a product all over the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe their brand agency were hitting the bong when they came up with bing?
Do you expect them not to lobby? (Score:5, Insightful)
Meh. Were I a Microsoft stockholder, I would sue them for malfeasance if they didn't exhaust every cost-effective, competitive resource available.
Every large corp. lobbies the government for market favoritism. Any large corp. that doesn't is screwing its shareholders.
The problem is that you can do this at all, when the government is supposed to regulate (i.e.: even out) commerce and promote the general welfare (i.e.: not pick winners and losers).
--
Toro
Re:Do you expect them not to lobby? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Were I a Microsoft stockholder, I would sue them for malfeasance if they didn't exhaust every cost-effective, competitive resource available."
Sure. They should be "competitive." But competition does not include finding and executing ways to harm others. That would be another another term. "Destructive competition" is a term coined on the wikipedia page on the word "competition" but I don't think it does well to put those two words together as, to me at least, the word competition implies honor and fair play. Putting the word "destructive" in front does not adequately remove the implications of the word competition. Worse, doing so makes "destructive competition" seem acceptable in civilized society and I cannot subscribe to that point of view. Clearly, however, you can.
There are times I wish I could be an active member of an important legislative body so that I could make a real, positive contribution to society. Unfortunately, I doubt I could withstand the "competition" I would experience in the process.
Re:Do you expect them not to lobby? (Score:5, Insightful)
Any large corp. that doesn't is screwing its shareholders.
Yup, that's absolutely right kids. A company screwing their shareholders is in fact grounds for a lawsuit. Screwing employees, screwing customers, screwing the government, screwing the entire US economy, and screwing the environment is all just good business.
Re: (Score:2)
Ask the management where YOUR profits are? Consider they make 80%+ profits off OS, servers, tools and Office where they hell does all that money go? Most importantly, in a recession why is it not going to YOUR pocket .. as an OWNER and all.
What your saying about "responsibility" and such is a crock. They have a responsibility to turn YOUR money into MORE money as efficiently as possible... choking off air supplies" and "lobbying for favoritism" has nothing to do with that. Their business is to make PROFI
ZOMG they might be right! (Score:3, Funny)
In other news.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I.e. a practise otherwise discribed as a standard procedure of strategic competition in corporate America. You don't have to like it, but it's not exactly news. Catching them in the act of trying to bribe a congressmen/senators would be news.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh its you Mr "Microsoft's chief Washington lobbyist" astroturfing the slashdot crowd.
You forget one thing Google's "Don't be evil". I think you find that Google are much less concerned with Microsoft then Microsoft is about Google.
"Competition"? We need a new word. (Score:5, Interesting)
In a competition, the playing field is level and the one who works the best or the hardest or the most efficient wins.
We need a new word for the kinds of "competitive behavior" we see where the focus isn't about making better stuff or providing better services, but is instead focused on bringing down the people around you. In competitive sports, there are rules against such behavior. We can't have ice skaters bashing in the knees of other ice skaters now can we?
Microsoft is very easy to criticize because they are very well focused on bringing the competition down instead of working to make themselves more competitive. They need to have their language license revoked when their describe their behavior as "competitive" and "innovative." The word "bully" comes to mind, but I fear it is too simplistic and doesn't adequately describe the depth of planning and focus demonstrated. Whatever the word, it needs to convey the abandonment of fair play principles of competition and the selfish and callous disregard for others in the damage they cause. Anyone know of a word that describes this sort of behavior? Perhaps a few from psychology text books might well fit in here somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
In competition No the playing field isnt always level, some teams are way better than others and even the good guys will lose quite often BUT
at least everyone in theory is playing by the same rules.
Google is winning because people like their search engine, it works and even 6 year olds can and do use it.
Microsoft often won, and they got in trouble for this, because they owned many of the playing fields and made the rules and told the teams they sponsored about hidden ways of getting an edge on their fields
it is too late (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
microsoft not only has dominance on the desktop & laptops, they also have damn near 100% market share in the EVIL department too.
Damn! I didn't know that Halliburton outsourced that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate SOP (Score:2, Insightful)
All major corporations have strategic meetings about their main competition. Why is this so different just because its Mircosoft doing it?
Or is news really that slow today?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you can reasonably describe them as "strategic meetings," it's certainly not news no matter who's doing it. If you have words like "lobbyists" and "discredit" in the story, it warrants some attention -- again, no matter who's doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have words like "lobbyists" and "discredit" in the story, it warrants some attention -- again, no matter who's doing it.
Its how "the system" has worked since nearly the beginning of human time, and really a non story.
The world runs on politics and deceit.. Show me something that isn't the status quo, and we have a story.
Re:Corporate SOP (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right. You're absolutely right...
And "the news" isn't supposed to exist simply to satisfy the public's craving for a steady supply of entertaining stories (yes, I know how naive I sound saying that because that's not really how it works).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It *sounds* like what they're doing is attempting a smear and astroturf campaign, rather than a "strategic meeting to provide better products".
That is why this appears to be dishonest and evil, while Google does not.
Re: (Score:2)
And again, i ask the question, why is it so different because its Microsoft?
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment is ironic given that there would be no "illegal abuse" judgment (at least in the US) had MS competitors not indulged in the same tactics.
I take it that (Score:3, Funny)
Bit of a credibility problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
The effort is designed to make Google look like the big high-tech bad guy here.
If your effort has widely become known as the "screw Google" meeting, it seems to me that you're doing a pretty bad job of it. Of course, this is DC... cash can easily substitute for credibility.
Competition (Score:2)
I love the irony (Score:2)
It isn't paranoia if it is real (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ya I see how being in control of google.com is so much scarier than a corporation having control over tens of millions of computers with a product that is being mandated in thousands of corporations simply because Microsoft keeps IT departments busy with enough work to justify big salaries.
Re: (Score:2)
This bit was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
The new details about Microsoft's D.C.-based efforts to undermine Google shine a light on the role of third-party firms, funded by tech giants, that engage in activities such as astroturfing, corporate propaganda, and misinformation. Media reports have hinted at a "whisper campaign" undertaken by entities acting at Microsoft's behest to undermine Google, both with policymakers and the public.
Coupled with Microsoft's long standing campaign to influence social media discussions in technical forums, like this one. Instead of investing that money in making better products, we've come to the point where success has to include not only dominating the market, but influencing social media and the regulatory environment. It's almost like their operating system business is an afterthought for Microsoft these days. They're not about building better products as much as hanging on to their market share and putting down competition.
Remind me again why the artificial person that is a corporation deserves the same freedom of speech protections as an individual? Seems like they sort of have an unfair advantage already when it comes to getting their free speech packaged and distributed.
DoJ, FTC p0wned? All your base are belong to MS! (Score:2)
Gee, I wonder where all of these anti-trust concerns came from regarding Google? Gee, I wonder why Eric Schmidt and Arthur Levinson had to leave Apple's board? So, lame. And pathetic. I know some people will say that every company does this... And that's fine but it doesn't make it right. In fact it just makes MS look... lame and pathetic. Oh we can't compete let's lobby!
Rezisstenzzzz is futile (Score:4, Funny)
Google repels Microsoft attack on London offices (Score:4, Funny)
VICTORIA, Steampunk Britain, Thursday -- An all-out Microsoft rocket attack on Google's London office yesterday caused a small fire from a ruptured gas cylinder, a reminder of the browser and search engine wars and Microsoft's overwhelming might.
The six-story-tall Microsoft mecha, approaching from the direction of Victoria Station, unleashed an all-out attack, belching amusing farts of smoke from its Zune HD assault flamethrowers, before halting with an E74 error and collapsing onto the top of the building, where Google employees were enjoying their regular Thursday afternoon barbecue roasting a Snow Leopard on a spit.
Four fire engines and twenty firefighters in hazmat suits were sent out after reports of Vista fumes in the area.
The attack came a day after a Microsoft suicide car bomber killed seven cockroaches and gave himself a papercut when his car computer bluescreened. Microsoft disclaimed responsibility, asserting it was a completely independent suicide commando who only coincidentally happened to be in the pay of their PR agency.
The BBC has reported Microsoft's complete victory in the battle, with extensive Zune downloads in Silverlight format of the victorious Seattle Revolutionary Army in action.
Illustration: The destruction of the Isengard data centre [today.com]
Apple, Google, MS and AT&T (Score:2)
In Soviet USA, AT&T, Apple, Google, MS and the NSA screw you.
Sun, AOL, Real and Novell say: (Score:2)
Microsoft, we have taught you well.
Well that fills in the gap ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Using google as default in ie8 (Score:5, Informative)
Here are the simple steps to add a new provider:
1.) Click the dropdown in the search box.
2.) Click the "Find more providers" link.
3.) Click "Add to Internet Explorer" for the Google Provider.
4.) Check "Make this my default provider" option.
5.) Click Add. Done.
Also, If you just want to change Google to the default AND remove Bing, it's just as easy...
1.) Click the dropdown in the search box.
2.) Click the "Manage Search Providers" link.
3.) Select the "Google" provider.
4.) Click the "Set as default" button.
5.) Click on the "Bing" provider.
6.) Click the "Remove" button.
7.) Click "Done"
Really, these steps are so obvious that I almost didn't respond because I thought you were joking.
Bill
Re:Using google as default in ie8 (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure why it should take five steps to change your search engine to the most popular engine on the market. Remember that many, many users are extremely limited in their ability to make "simple" changes to a browser configuration (many will simply expect the browser to use Google, for example).
Is it really not possible for Google to exist in a pre-loaded list (or be downloaded automatically) and just be available as a dropdown?
Keep in mind that most users will go with whatever the default setting is, no matter how easy it is to switch (and later complain about the search quality). So Microsoft already wields enormous market power even if the switch is a snap. Making it a multi-step process (where you have to go online, find the provider, then separately make it the default) is going to exclude a shocking number of novice users. And I can't help but think that Microsoft knows this.
(On second thought, Microsoft has a fiduciary duty to know this --- if you're a stockholder and Microsoft tells you they aren't doing this to screw Google, you'd better be unhappy with them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Eh. See my list below for how -other- browsers have this implemented and you might wonder how MS managed to get it down to just 5 steps.
The answer: http://www.opensearch.org/Home [opensearch.org]
( Note: FF and Chrome are also OpenSearch engine descriptions compatible, so if you happen to be browsing a search engine's site that offers an OpenSearch engine description file, you should be able to simply click it an
Re: (Score:2)
I think you just proved his point
Search Engine procedures in the major browsers... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the procedures for the major browsers as I find them 'intuitively'; e.g. I'll double-click an item expecting a dialog of options to come up.. in lieu of that, or in the case of fields, I right-click the thing expecting a fly-out of options.
There might be shorter routes, but in that case they weren't very intuitive -to me-.
I had to cheat for FireFox's Address bar, doing a google search, to find out that setting was hidden in about:config .
=====
IE8
As above, but please note that it's the dropdown -next to- the search box, on the right of the magnifying glass.
=====
For the remaining exercises, let's try adding Bing to the others (for demonstration purposes - though I guess if you like Bing...), making it the default, and then removing it again.
=====
FireFox 3.5 (3.5.1) - 'Default' Search: Google
-----
Adding Bing
-----
1. Click on the drop-down arrow on the left hand side of the search field
2. Select "Manage Search Engines..."
3. Click on the "Get more search engines..." option
You will now be presented with the FireFox add-ons website. None of the top-listed options are the major search engines, and bing is nowhere to be found in page 1, so...
4. enter "Bing" in the search field
5. change the "within" dropdown to "Search Tools"
6. click the big green Search btton
7. the first result should be the official, Microsoft bing! team-supplied, search engine. Click on the Download Now button
8. click on Accept [the license] and Install (if you want, read the license first.. It's Ms-PL)
A "Add Search Engine" dialog will now pop up
9. Click the Add button. ( You can check the "Start using it right away" option if you want, but that won't make it the default. )
-----
Making Bing the default (while adding: n/a; from scratch only)
-----
FireFox doesn't really have a 'default search'. It will simply use whatever you have selected last in the search field.
One could argue, however, that any junk entered into the address bar, which leads to a search engine (guess which?), is akin to a default search engine. So to that point...
1. Enter "about:config" in the address bar.
1.5. If you haven't previous ignored the "This might void your warranty!" (what warranty would that be, Mozilla? Tongue-in cheek humor, eh?) warning, click the "I'll be careful, I promise!" button.
2. Double-click on the entry "keyword.URL" (scroll down, use filter, not counting that as a 'step')
3. Enter the string: "http://www.bing.com/search?q="
(For arbitrary engines, you'll have to figure out which part of the address is the keyword bit and make sure that's the last item, etc.)
4. Click the OK button
-----
Removing Bing
-----
1. Click on the drop-down arrow on the left hand side of the search field
2. Select "Manage Search Engines..."
3. Select the Bing item
4. Click on the Remove button
5. Click OK
=====
=====
Google Chrome 2 (2.0.172.43) - Default Search: Google ( XD )
-----
Adding Bing
-----
1. Right-click on the address/search bar
2. Choose "Edit Search Engines..." from the context menu
3. Click the Add button
4. Enter as Name: "Bing"
5. Enter as URL: "http://www.bing.com/search?q=%s"
(For arbitrary engines, you'll have to figure out which part of the address is the keyword bit and make sure to place a "%s" in the place where the keyword would occur.)
6. Click the OK button
7. Click the Close button
-----
Making Bing the default - from having added it
-----
( do not follow step 7 above )
7. Click the "Make Default" button.
8. Click the Close button.
-----
Making Bing the default - from scratch
-----
1. Right-click on the address/search bar
2. Choose "Edit Search Engines..." from the context menu
3. Select "Bing"
4. Click the "Make Default" button.
5. Click the Close button.
-----
Removing Bing
-----
1. Right-clic
Re: (Score:2)
when you say 'Click' do i right-click again?
(can't tell you how many times i've been asked that during a 'support' call...)
While simple for people who can bounce between operating system and program interfaces but MOST people don't even (our mac friends inc(de)luded), don't even know there is such a thing as a right click - let alone what it is for.
While you agonizingly make your point, the reality is that FF & Chrome users DON"T WANT TO USE BING. If Bing is a tool it is the one in the bin at the grocer
Re: (Score:2)
Well it wasn't intended as a tech support manual. I daresay if you ask *some* people to right-click a button, they'll move the cursor on the right-hand side of the button and click it using the left mouse button. :)
Also.. the left mouse button is the on that is usually on the top, and not on the left -side- of the mouse (as some mice have buttons there).
We can keep this up all day - I'm sure you got the post just fine
"While you agonizingly make your point, the reality is that FF & Chrome users DON"T WA
Re: (Score:2)
I just install Firefox and delete the IE shortcut from my desktop. No more Bing/Live or what ever they call it and Google is the search engine for Firefox by default!
Re:Crush Compaq (Score:5, Insightful)
An "internal" campaign doesn't include other companies in the same markets and "hired third parties"; when you add those in, it becomes more like a cartel or trust.
Re: (Score:2)
Leave no chair unturned!
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides that, Microsoft has proven time and again that it is dangerous to do business with them: they not only destroy their competition, they will destroy their business partners if it makes them a buck.
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the real issue is that Google has found a delivery model that is almost entirely platform-neutral. As long as you've got a browser that's capable of handling Google's AJAX apps, you can access their services. It doesn't matter whether it's a PC, a Mac or a smart phone. Microsoft is just going to have to bloody well compete in the modern market place, and while it's starting to, it's history since the mid-1990s of competing with any of the leading web portals has been dismal. They weren't even able to take on Yahoo when it was king of the hill.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, the *future* Google OS is just going to be a branded Linux platform. Unless, and I don't know how they would manage it, they block anyone from running any code they want to, there'll be nothing stopping people from running Firefox, or heck, installing Wine and running Internet Explorer. If Google truly wanted that kind of lock in, then they ought to be like Apple and the iPhone.
But hey, don't let any sense of accuracy or even logic get in the way of trying to score one against Google.
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget the whole "Don't be Evil" thing. Notice that Google is not having "Screw Microsoft" meetings in DC, and if they did, everyone would be shocked. It's funny how much this sort of thing effects company actions. Overall, I'm a fan of both Microsoft and Google, but I trust Google to be a better steward of things I care about, like a digital on-line library. You have to like Bill Gates for his foundation, and for supporting the disabled with special Windows features, but his company has been ruthless and underhanded in business for decades.
Re:pathetic (Score:4, Interesting)
After a trip to Brazil, RedHat's Tiemann was told that the Foundation requires that MS have "cabinet level access" to the government and that MS products be used in any projects the Foundation is involved. If there is a shred of truth to this whatsoever than I cannot regard the actions of the Foundation as true charity. Rather it is the most dishonorable sort of influence peddling.
Re:pathetic (Score:4, Insightful)
Google is no better than Microsoft, they just have a PR firm that has managed the nerd-cred more effectively.
That is simply wrong.
1: MS have a long history of abusing their monopoly. Google haven't.
2: You can easily switch away from the Google stuff that you use. You can not easily switch away from your MS stuff.
Okay, Google may be an evil corporation, but they haven't done anything obviously evil yet. I think...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tracking != abusing.
Recommended reading: any recent EULA by Microsoft.
And compare it to license agreements which come with Google products.
Regards,
Ruemere
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the difference between Google and Microsoft is that Microsoft's Business Model is based on customer lock-in. It's well known and documented. They do this by deliberately creating incompatabilities, MS-only "standards", formats, etc.
Google has become sucessful by creating the best search engine. You always have the choice of using the search engine you like best. But, most people use Google because they feel it is better.