Survey Results

Grimolfr25-Jun-07 2:33

Grimolfr

25-Jun-07 2:33

In my experience, nothing in Vista is intelligent about resource usage.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things I like fine about Vista, but the resource usage is just ... FUBAR.

Grim

(aka Toby)

MCDBA, MCSD, MCP+SB

SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue IS NOT NULL

(0 row(s) affected)

Kevin McFarlane25-Jun-07 9:09

Kevin McFarlane

25-Jun-07 9:09

Shog9 wrote:
as of last December WDS still had a nasty habit of kicking in several minutes after i'd started a "rebuild all"...

Does it not have the option to pause indexing?

For example, I have Copernic desktop search. It suspends indexing when it other applications are active. However, it can still index while you're installing software, especially with an apparently frozen progress bar. In that case I just manually suspend indexing.

Kevin

Shog⁹25-Jun-07 9:48

Shog⁹

25-Jun-07 9:48

Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Does it not have the option to pause indexing?

It does, but... that's not the sort of app i really have the patience to be hand-holding.

----

Yes, but can you blame them for doing so if that's the only legal way they can hire programmers they want at the rate they can afford?
-- Nish on sketchy hiring practices

Kevin McFarlane25-Jun-07 11:45

Kevin McFarlane

25-Jun-07 11:45

I should add however that in your scenario of a rebuild I've not noticed any interference from indexing. Could be that CDS is more resource efficient?

Kevin

Shog⁹25-Jun-07 11:54

Shog⁹

25-Jun-07 11:54

Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Could be that CDS is more resource efficient?

That's quite possible.
Also, I use a laptop with a rather slow harddrive - which makes unnecessary disk activity really hurt. I can't tolerate virus scanners running while i work either, for the same reason.

----

Yes, but can you blame them for doing so if that's the only legal way they can hire programmers they want at the rate they can afford?
-- Nish on sketchy hiring practices

Stuart Dootson26-Jun-07 5:53

Stuart Dootson

26-Jun-07 5:53

Shog9 wrote:
Maybe Vista's search is fast, and intelligent about resource usage

I don't Vista either - but my Dad does, and I've noticed that the disk seems a lot more active than when using XP - looking at the task manager, the indexing service does seem reasonably busy as well...

Anton Afanasyev24-Jun-07 18:20

Anton Afanasyev

24-Jun-07 18:20

IMHO, Vista should just have an option to hide the default search box/search options. If Google/anyone else wants to, they can create their own Explorer add-in and have it place the search box there, but that's not exactly replacing the default Vista search engine, now is it?

Almighty Bob25-Jun-07 7:13

25-Jun-07 7:13

here's my experience with both.

here's my computer specs:
fx-60 running at 3.2Ghz
4 gig of ram
500 gig sata-II striped raid

vista's search indexer:
75% cpu 100% of the time
95% memory usage (of 4 gigs o.O)
high task priority
ran for 2 weeks before stopping the aggressive indexing

google's search indexer
no noticable cpu utilization
no noticible memory consumption
background task priority
done indexing everything in 4 hours

so. I disabled vista's search because I don't want that piece of crap running 24/7 using all my resources on a very beefy machine, so I run google desktop. If I could integrate google's search into vista I would.

have you even tried vista's search? I'd trust a search engine's software for searching over an operating system company who wants to have their hands in everyone's pot all the time.

W∴ Balboos, GHB25-Jun-07 9:07

W∴ Balboos, GHB

25-Jun-07 9:07

Mostly, I agree.

Except for: "I'd trust a search engine's software for searching over an operating system company who wants to have their hands in everyone's pot all the time."

That's histerical! Google's giving new meaning to the on-line Big-Brother. They unabashedly will go through your google-mail, keeping items even if you delete them. Gathering. Gathering. Gathering. And trying to by doubleclick - arguably the no. one privacy villan on the net. I don't even like to send mail to google-boxes. Could/Is Billy Gates been any worse when it comes to privacy? A plague on both their houses.

MS should be made to open up the access so that they can't destroy their competition by the technique used to put NetScape Navigator into an early grave.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

Almighty Bob25-Jun-07 9:30

25-Jun-07 9:30

a while ago, the US government demanded that online providers such as google, yahoo, and microsoft hand over information about who is searching what. every other company gladly handed over the information except google. they were taken to court for not complying with the subpoena.

now who knows what goes on behind the scenes (neither you nor I) so anyone crying big brother does so in ignorance, but the facts that are available give me the impression that data collected by google stays with google, and that they take privacy very seriously.

everything you do online is tracked by someone (and rest assured the american government is one of those people). the concept of privacy is a misnomer, and I cannot believe for a moment that the purchase of double click had anything to do with "getting peoples secrets" it acquired one of the biggest ad companies in existence (of which google is one of the biggest even before the acquisition of double click) to take advantage of ads online. Have you forgot about the dot bomb era where every search engine around (except google) sold page rank, ran a billion ads to the highest bidder, and every other means to make a buck??? google looked like an idiot for having an "ad" free page that didn't sell page rank, and only had a few contextual text ads on each page. now google's search engine look and feel is copied by every search engine out there.

more importantly, online privacy isn't what the poll or the comments were about btw, and the "I'd trust..." bit was trusting the quality of the search indexing/storing/retrieval of data/ resource consumption, not privacy (as you so quickly jumped on the assumption van about).

W∴ Balboos, GHB26-Jun-07 0:58

W∴ Balboos, GHB

26-Jun-07 0:58

Perhaps I misunderstood your intent with the trust. The hands in everyone elses pot seemed to imply snooping (to me) just as it meant trusting the veracity of the search results (to you). Lesson for us both?

What google is doing, which I think is yet unequaled in the snoop area, is going through emails, retaining emails (even when the recipient wishes to delete them), &etc. What's even worse is that even if those using google's email go in with eyes wide open and a complete disreguard for their own privacy, they are causing those who send them email to also be profiled. Reading other people's mail really sucks. The example you gave of google being above its competitors in some cases doesn't change a thing in this regard. And consider: they couldn't turn over what they haven't gathered, parsed, and collated. It's just awsome gall on their part.

For similar reasons, I wouldn't use their (or anyone elses) web based app's. If I wanted them to know what was in my letters, I'd send them a copy.

Funny thing: extremely cheap storage and broadband connections. They seem so great until you realize how much of your info can be transmitted in a few seconds spread over a few minutes - and kept indefinitely.

Oh Brave New World!

"Orgy Porgy! Orgy Porgy! Orgy Porgy! Orgy Porgy" - Aldus Huxley

Almighty Bob27-Jun-07 4:21

27-Jun-07 4:21

I would like to see your sources on google employees digging through gmails. If by this you're referring to *indexing* emails, then seriously... thats funny.

if you really believe google is out to get all your info you send over email, then you'd have to apply the same logic to microsoft's live or hotmail service.

and speaking to not using webmail because someone may see a picture of your kid, then you must not know how email works period. and since every single email you send is relayed across multiple SMTP servers and there are no assurances that that mail server does not store your email in some form, you run the risk of getting the same result as storing email on hotmail or gmail.

in fact, anytime you browse the internet, or post on a website, they collect information about you (pretty scary that they could actually know what ISP you use, the geographical location you're from, and what browser version you're using... Sniff | :^)

)

lol

W∴ Balboos, GHB27-Jun-07 5:05

W∴ Balboos, GHB

27-Jun-07 5:05

You needn't have asked: just "google" gmail+spying
Actually, I used a different search engine for this particular search.

Here's a comment - (emphasis mine) - a few links, follow:
I think your all missing the point a bit. Unlike MSN which guarantees certain user rights to privacy, Google does not protect your information to the same extent. It reserves the right to read your mail as well as to pass on your information to various third parties if requested. This means that if the FBI etc asks google for your account info (including e-mails) they may oblige. While the FBI etc are sure to be able to legally force MSN to hand over details it will at least demand a court order, on the other hand google may just hand it over if asked. The main reason gmail doesn't secure privacy rights is that it has various programs running that checks your emails for key words and sends you appropriate adverts. For example you get an email from your mate in Thailand you will receive adverts on the page for flights, hotels etc in Thailand. Though there isn't an actual person reading your mail there are programmes constantly 'spying' on you. This marketing tool is tied into google search so the sites you visit while signed into gmail will all be recorded and used for marketing purposes Although the current purpose of the 'spying' is a marketing tool the fact that they reserve the right to spy on you is a bit worrying. The further worrying thing about Gmail is that it does not guarantee that it will delete your emails from their system when you delete them on our end... The google team having the right to keep deleted email and read them at their leisure certainly is a bit disconcerting. ....Yes it is quite legal but that doesn't mean that it's not spying and doesn't mean that it's not course for concern.

. . . I don't know about you, but I find the policies outline above to be a "bit" more intrusive than scanning for spam/virus'. Go figure.

A rather easy search (via WebCrawler):
http://blogs.zdnet.com/micro-markets/?p=428[^]

Google, In general:
http://www.rinf.com/news/nov05/googlefacts.html[^]

Or, for the those-who-don't-care crowd:
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2004/11/11/is-google-spying-on-you[^]
Only a small step from that expression: I don't care who read my mail - "I don't have anything to hide".

Pointing out that X is worse than Y doesn't really do anything to exonerate Y - just attempts to distract. Similar reasoning applies to noting Z already does almost as much as Y, so what's the big deal.

If you don't stop the little deals, then you won't survive to learn that big deals are made a little at a time.

The link you should really follow is: http://www.telisphere.com/~cearley/sean/camps/first.html[^] - quote of Pastor Martin Niemöller

Read the patriot act; see what's already going on; these aren't silly little paranoid delusions.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

LeonardReinhart27-Jun-07 1:50

LeonardReinhart

27-Jun-07 1:50

I agree: No - Google would be cataloging everything on my computer.

Len

Almighty Bob27-Jun-07 4:23

27-Jun-07 4:23

and it would be way too hard to tell it what you wanted indexed... oh wait, it has an interface to tell it what to index. it was windows search that does not.

hrm...