  Jmartz
join:2000-07-20
Tenafly, NJ | Google isn't Microsoft I would trust Google over Microsoft any day. Microsoft manages to screw up everything and anything they touch. I have not had any problems with any of the stuff Google provides... not to mention, the Google toolbar is OPTIONAL software. Microsoft would force people to use it and make them figure out how to turn off the feature.
--
[BetaNews | phpBB |MSN TerraServer |Space Imaging] | |
|
 |  toddbs98
join:2000-07-08
North Little Rock, AR | Re: Google isn't Microsoft That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. I love this mentality if its Google or Firefox its good and good for you, but if it says Microsoft its automatically bad. No proof needed that its bad, it just is.
--
If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thru' chinks of his cavern.- Blake | |
|
| |  kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Google isn't Microsoft Exactly.
Taking something granted as bad without explanation, reasoning is most stupid, retarded way of thinking. | |
|
| | MordhemLove it, Hate it.
join:2003-07-10
Baltimore, MD | Ya I agree you got some weird people out there that are like that just hate microsoft to no end. They drive me nuts some of them really need to let it go and get a life. | |
|
| | | | Take msn messenger as an example. Before messenger there was icq and yahoo messenger. Everyone was happy. Then came messenger. Now everyone uses it because its just there, with windows.
First - Messenger needs to be upgraded every 3 months. You cannot use older versions of messenger as it blocks you out. I have windows xp sp1 and messenger blocks me out because its too old. But upgrading requires the hassle of going through to the network administrator who has the security privileges.
Second - messenger pesters users to join its "customer improvement" programme, which is essentially eavesdropping. That message never goes away even if you select no, it will come back sooner or later.
Third - Messenger was the first instant messaging program to force users to put up with adverts and other commercial incentives - as if microsoft doesnt already have enough money.
Fourth - I dont like messengers interface and neither do many other people I know, but I am unable to use third party alternatives such as trillian because microsoft blocks themm out. Trillian is compatible with all other instant messaging services such as icq and yahoo.
ICQ and Yahoo are companies that continue to provide great products but are blocked out because of microsofts monopoly. If google can provide products better than microsoft, then they should be given all the support possible because before long, microsoft will bully them out of the market too. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Google isn't Microsoft First - The persistant upgrade is security feature designed to keep Microsofts network stable and safe. it's their right to that and it isn't anything new either.
Second - I've never been 'pestored' by the customer improvement program. It's hardly as intrusive as the ads you find in the Yahoo and ICQ services. Once again.. they are giving you a free program.. it's their right to that.
Third - Yah.. it's just simply supposed to be free. Free and perfect or else microsoft is just gauging you.
Forth - It's Microsofts right to block out Trillian. Naturally because the internet is a breeding ground for jerks who abuse services like the MSN networks. It's about security.
ICQ and Yahoo are not blocked out because of Microsoft. Just like Firefox isn't blocked out. Just like McDonalds and Burger King aren't the only guys that can sell hamburgers. That's an idiotic statement if I ever heard. Especially considering the fact that I am sitting on ICQ, Yahoo, and MSN at the moment.
Google should be treated the same way as Microsoft. If they provide a good product you use it. If they don't provide a good product you don't use it.
By your logic Google blocks stuff out too.. cause they give you a reason not to use anything else. | |
|
| | | my gawd... ms just screws up everything it touches... amazing... if they ran their company and write such bad software whey the hell are they doing so well for so long? | |
|
| | bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | Re: Google isn't Microsoft said by mallyman:write such bad software whey the hell are they doing so well for so long? Many many reasons... For example, its really hard to switch from one platform to another on a large scale.
--
64 bit CPUs and OSes? That's so 1996.
Viva La Fee' Verte! | |
|
| |  mibagent_xGo giggle the handlePremium
join:2001-03-04
Barnhart, MO | said by mallyman:my gawd... ms just screws up everything it touches... amazing... if they ran their company and write such bad software whey the hell are they doing so well for so long? Gee maybe because every manufactured PC comes with a M$ OS already installed. And they get $$ for it regardless if the user wiped the hard drive and installed something else. The only company I see not doing this Dell, but there offering aren't all that great.
If other companies grew some balls and started to offer alternative OSes I think the landscape would change. But until then they won't because they don't train a bunch of Indians to actually solve computer problems instead a reading a script.
--
Join Team helix and help find a cure. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | mibagent_xGo giggle the handlePremium
join:2001-03-04
Barnhart, MO | Re: Google isn't Microsoft said by Ohreally700:from mibagent_x 
But until then they won't because they don't train a bunch of Indians to actually solve computer problems instead a reading a script.Hopefully this is not a racist comment?  Definetly not. Evry single anything that can be done on the phone is sent to India because all they did was train a bunch of people to read scripts and not really fix computers because they work cheaper. When all the support was in the US I could 1. have a chance of getting some-one when knew what they were talking about. 2. Wasn't blantly obvious they were reading a script. 3.Could talk to a supvisor, know you ask for a super the idiot hang-up on you. 4. Not have them repeat themselves 4-5 times because I can't understand their "english".
Did I go tad to far with that comment, maybe, I don't think so tho. Just trying to make a point that that most PC companies don't give a *. They make BS deals with M$ to make a POS $300 PC. They need to grow some balls and attempt to make a better product. Not cheaper. 
--
Join Team helix and help find a cure. | |
|
| | | | | It has nothing to do with Balls and everything to do with the fact that there is no demand for it. People want windows. The people that don't won't typically go through Dell to buy a computer. | |
|
| | | | mibagent_xGo giggle the handlePremium
join:2001-03-04
Barnhart, MO | Re: Google isn't Microsoft said by Televiper:
It has nothing to do with Balls and everything to do with the fact that there is no demand for it. People want windows. The people that don't won't typically go through Dell to buy a computer.
Then if there isn't demand then why even bother offering it at all huh? Apparently there is. They need to expand their offerings.
--
Join Team helix and help find a cure. | |
|
| |  hpguruCurb Your DogmaPremium
join:2002-04-12 | said by mallyman:my gawd... ms just screws up everything it touches... amazing... if they ran their company and write such bad software whey the hell are they doing so well for so long? »www.spreadreadingcomprehension.com/ 
--
Boundlessly expands the sky and nothing stops the white clouds from freely flying about. | |
|
| |
| | | | Re: Google isn't Microsoft VH1's Behind the Music: Google. | |
|
| | | |
|
1 edit | said by Jmartz:I would trust Google over Microsoft any day. Microsoft manages to screw up everything and anything they touch. I have not had any problems with any of the stuff Google provides... not to mention, the Google toolbar is OPTIONAL software. Microsoft would force people to use it and make them figure out how to turn off the feature. I'm not that giddy about Microsoft either, but I wouldn't go running to anything else just because it's not Microsoft. each platform has it's merits. Personally I hate additional toolbars anyways, it's just PC fluff. | |
|
| | | | Re: Google isn't Microsoft said by AtomicZero: said by Jmartz:I would trust Google over Microsoft any day. Microsoft manages to screw up everything and anything they touch. I have not had any problems with any of the stuff Google provides... not to mention, the Google toolbar is OPTIONAL software. Microsoft would force people to use it and make them figure out how to turn off the feature. I'm not that giddy about Microsoft either, but I wouldn't go running to anything else just because it's not Microsoft. each platform has it's merits. Personally I hate additional toolbars anyways, it's just PC fluff. Amen, to that last line of yours!!
I'm an underdog kind of guy anyway. I am totally sick of hearing Google this and Firefox that. Don't use either one at all and can do anything that anyone else does. 
--
Spread Opera, fastest browser on earth or Cyberspace! | |
|
| | | I came across this little piece of software that I thought was pretty cool called LinkZu - »www.linkzu.com . Sort of like the Google thing but not nearly as intrusive. It also is more customizable with the linking ability. I thought hey now this is cool, why didn't Google think of it first. | |
|
| | | You sound like a shill working for Google. They are clearly just as greedy and untrustworthy as the next company. Remember all the Get-Search-CC redirectors you were deceptively referred to after a search, just so they could make money. All the paid sponsor links they're emphasizing just show how foolish anyone must be to think they can be trusted to have the consumer's interest in mind at all. | |
|
| | | Dude, Microsoft is OPTIONAL as well. No one's sticking a gun to your head and forcing anyone to use Microsoft. Therefore, it's optional. | |
|
| | | Google needs revenue - so watch out! they will get it anyway they can... even on the backs of webmasters trying to earn a living. Shortly, you'll see just how evil they can get.
Google and MS are about to have a big fight over SE technology and market dominance. Will be as big as the old IE vs. Netsc*pe who will win?
No, I trust neither MS or G**gle. And with more browser integration, Google will be part of your very own A** H*le. Better pucker up!
HP | |
|
 DreamCarrWinter Sucks.Premium
join:2001-04-16
6D 6F 6F 00 | not google now too.... personally, i find embedded links like that, especially for advertising, to be a huge nuisance. i dont want to have to watch where i move my mouse on a webpage just to avoid a link popup giving me a blurb about a random word on the page. the google toolbar has now entered my 'annoyance' category, which is only one step away from spyware in my opinion.
i know you can disable it, but i still find it intrusive. hotbar used to be a legitamate program/toolbar as well, and slowly morphed into the blight that it is today. i dont want to see google go the same way.
--
Percussive Maintenance: The fine art of wacking the sh*t outa something until it works. | |
|
| BPremium,MVM
join:2000-10-28 | Re: not google now too.... said by DreamCarr:i know you can disable it, but i still find it intrusive. hotbar used to be a legitamate program/toolbar as well, and slowly morphed into the blight that it is today. i dont want to see google go the same way. That's a good point, and a cautionary tale. Lots of current spyware started out as software of some value. Even, arguably, Gator. Which is Spyware. (Claria is Spyware.)
I don't expect Google to succumb any time soon, but the path away from "Don't be evil" can be unclear...
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
|
| | | | Re: not google now too.... That's a good point, and a cautionary tale. Lots of current spyware started out as software of some value. Even, arguably, Gator. Which is Spyware. (Claria is Spyware.)
I don't expect Google to succumb any time soon, but the path away from "Don't be evil" can be unclear... "Don't Be Evil" is a marketing gimmick. It's not like you're going to be able to hold them up and court and say that under some interpretation of the law they lied. Take a look at Gmail. They hold your data indefinitely without any sort of explanation. Google came out on top because it was an excellent search engine. Given time there will be others if there isn't already. Google just happens to be 'cool' right now. All us anti-corporate geeks have latched onto it as our hero and we've decided not to be critical of them. In honestly.. we've always should of had an eye on them. | |
|
Taranis
join:2001-12-06
Mount Vernon, WA | Smart Tags I'd love to learn how to turn them off altogether, Google or not. It's a pain, as stated above, to have to carefully navigate around them so I'm not hit with yet another advertisement... | |
|
| | | Re: Smart Tags said by Taranis:I'd love to learn how to turn them off altogether, Google or not. It's a pain, as stated above, to have to carefully navigate around them so I'm not hit with yet another advertisement... Maxthon. Add the url with a wildcard to the Filter settings - boom, done.
Like I have »www.googlesyndication.com/* , *intellitxt* , and I think *adsense* all in my filter list. I don't even see those links anymore. PWScoops kept doing that mess.
What I'm hoping for is a plugin to block DIV tags by the ID. Then I'll be fully protected from unwanted advertising. | |
|
| | I see no problem... So long as they are not turned on by default when installing the searchbar - which they are not.
Since you have to actually turn the feature on, I don't have a problem with Google offering it. If Google wants to add a "make my web pages look like crap" button, they can, so long as that is not the defualt setting when the toolbar is installed.
Please note if Google changes the option to being on by default, my opinon changes completely. | |
|
| | | Re: I see no problem... said by joebear29:So long as they are not turned on by default when installing the searchbar - which they are not. Since you have to actually turn the feature on, I don't have a problem with Google offering it. If Google wants to add a "make my web pages look like crap" button, they can, so long as that is not the defualt setting when the toolbar is installed. Please note if Google changes the option to being on by default, my opinon changes completely. The Google toolbar does indeed make my web pages look like crap, by turning certain form fields yellow. A while back it took me a while to figure out that it was the Google toolbar doing that, and how to turn that feature off on my web pages so that users would experience them as I intended. | |
|
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
BPremium,MVM
join:2000-10-28 | And It Starts -- "Word" BlogoSphere Invades DSLRToo bad; we held out a very long time. Only TWO hits on a DSLR search for the neologism.
Sad... 
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
|
| | | Re: And It Starts -- "Word" BlogoSphere Invades DSLR Trust me. I fight it right alongside using the phrase "killer app". | |
|
 PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | Webmaster concerns? How will this affect site owners who wish to display thier own links? Will they be overwritten?
--
www.pulsetoday.com -- marketing forums! | |
|
| | Maybe I should Install the toolbar This seems like a good reason to install the google toolbar. I like the concept, this would just save me time of having to copy and past something into google. | |
|
1 edit | AutoLink must be turned on on EVERY page The difference here is that Microsoft wanted to enable "smart tags" by default. To turn it off, the webmaster of the site would need to include "no smart tags please" code on each of their pages.
Google, on the other hand, has their "AutoLink" feature set up as a button (on a third party toolbar that isn't installed via any nefarious or sneaky means). When you click that button, the local copy of the page is parsed and reformatted to include the special links (addresses to Google Maps, ISBNs to Amazon, etc).
So the user needs to tell the Google toolbar for each page to show those links as they want it performed. This is very different from having the browser that controls a vast majority of market share automatically include the links as the page loads.
EDIT: One more thing. The toolbar can be configured. So if you want addresses to go to Mapquest or Yahoo Maps you can set it up to do so.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ | |
|
 MoracCat god
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
kudos:1
 ·Comcast
| Autolink gives you choices I don't think Autolink is that terrible.
a) You can turn it off
b) You can change where it links to (Googlemap, Mapquest or Yahoo Maps).
Web page authors might not like it messing with their pages, but I don't think the end user has anything to worry about.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
| | Google Autolinks is in conflict of interest. Our websites have their own autolinks feature built in and we do not want google using our content to create their own autolinks. It is like robbing from our revenue using our hard work.
»www.ChicagoAds.com
»www.TechRoot.com
& Many More | |
|
| | | Re: Google Autolinks is in conflict of interest. Surely it would make more sense if the Autolinks feature only placed links on pages that didn't have any links in place.
I agree that it's unfair for sites that rely on receiving income from their own links to suddenly find that people are bypassing those links and going direct via Google's toolbar.
However if you are on a page where there is no other detail and the creator has not put their own links, to a mapping site, for example then it could be useful.
I also wonder about the legality of doing such an action. Imagine if you placed an ad in a local paper with your telephone number at the bottom and the paper produced a second version of the paper where they replaced it with a competitors number and sold it under a well known branding as its sponsor. Surely the weight of the branding would encourage the average reader to purchase that version, believing it to be superior. And bingo, all the money and effort you've put in to the advert is lost.
Just a thought. | |
|
| | | I look at this as two seperate issues.
(1) This is a commercial company producing a software feature which may at some point allow them to generate income.
(2) I am free to read the web in any way I choose and this is comparable to a braille reader in many ways.
For the first point, they say they are not getting money from the AutoLink'd sites at the moment. This does not, of course, stop them from doing so in the future. It would be mitigated should they allow the users to set their own destination for the various classes of AutoLink (ISBN, reg plate, phone number, etc). At that point I could choose to use some other online bookstore instead of Amazon. Google could still generate an income from this through the normal affiliate programs, and as the company that has enabled it (through their software) are may be due something.
For the second point, there is a Firfox extension which places icons next to links to tell me what type of file is at the end of the link. I find this very handy and see AutoLink in the same vien (for me). If the author of a page is not aware of an online service to find the bio of a book author, but I do, why should I not be able to integrate this into my experience. It's my computer after all, and I don't think anyone would have an issue with me running a proxy-server which rebuilds the pages for me (and only me). Likewise, I know of many people who link doubleclick et al to localhost to avoid ever getting ads from them. It's a personal choice and one which should not be denied you.
In summary, I think the technology is extremely useful in being able to generate an automatic linking structure, albeit quite limited. To enable this to be a 'good' tech rather than a 'bad' tech they just need to allow the user to choose their own options for what is linked and to whom. The PKI (secure website certificate) infrastructure works in this way, I can choose whom to trust and whom not to. I have control, not Google, Apple, Microsoft etc. The browser vendor provides me with a reasonable starting point, but I can override this as I see fit. Without that, PKI and hence online e-commerce, would not be viable. | |
|
|
|
Re: Google isn't Microsoft
Re: Google isn't Microsoft
It's the old Microsoft Double standard...AGAIN
