Customize My Search Results, MSN!

I just finished reading a 150-ish post backlog of Scoblebabble (like it? I did…), and saw his post about opening up the MSN search engine for developers to create “plugins” to provide additional “data tiles”.

I have to say, I’m all for this idea. Sure I still use Google, just because it’s there. Honestly, the results between search engines aren’t significantly different enough to get me to change. However, if MSN took Google’s customized homepage idea and expanded it to their actual search results, allowing me to add and remove, drag and drop blocks of information about results, now THAT would be kick ass. If I had a selection of 10 different tiles and 10 different pieces of data to be included for each individual search result, I’d sure as hell switch to MSN.

As Scoble said in another post on the matter later on:

Anyway, this demonstrates just how difficult it is to make a great search engine. Those pesky users always wanting more.

I agree 100%. And let’s face it… There’s never going to be a one-size-fits-all search engine that makes everyone happy. You want Stock quotes because you watch money programs that include them… I don’t have enough money to care about stock quotes, so I don’t want to see them. If I were able to customize my search results to remove those stock quotes and instead add in something like… say… Newegg prices for items similar to my search, THAT would be totally kick ass!

Sure the Newegg results might not be feasable, but I’ll be Amazon results would be… The point is, I could customize my searching experience, making it the most beneficial and enjoyable for MY needs… not the needs of every other shmuck on the ‘net. Add in some Ajax goodness and let me save my preferences, and I’m a sold customer. This really seems so simple, I’m surprised no one has done it already!

You’re on the right track Scoble! Combine this new kick-ass customizeable search feature on MSN with the rest of the tools they’ve developed (I’m seeing an MSN Spaces results tile here… and then a Virtual Earth tile with local results and a map…) and there’s no way I’d ever use Google again! It’d be Microsoft domination of the internet, which honestly seems like a better prospect than Google domination if you ask me…

Post Meta

10-8-2005
Date
6:36 pm
Time
83
Views
392
Words
Comments
Comment Feeds

My Virtual Server 2005 Complaints

I’ve been using Virtual Server 2005 for quite a while now (over a month of daily usage), and all-in-all, I’m quite pleased. It offers the convenient testing environment of Virtual PC, while easily allowing me to access my virtual machines from almost any PC on my network. For those that are wondering, I’m also a member of the VS2005 SP1 beta program, which I’ve yet to find a problem with (technically anyway)…

The one thing I have noticed that I find very annoying, and which doesn’t make much sense in comparison with the functionality provided by VMWare and the client-side Virtual PC (Virtual Server’s single-user cousin) is the creation of virtual disks.

For disk space purposes, it’s always best (and recommended as so) to create a dynamic disk, which expands from 0 size to the maximum specified size (by default 16gb) as needed.

For performance sake, however, there’s a problem with this. A dynamic disk is subject to very high rates of fragmentation. Since there can be multiple disks on one physical drive, all expanding at random, pieces of data get stuck wherever there’s available space on the physical drive. This creates some horrible disk fragmentation, and can lead to severe decreases in performance. Therefore, it’s recommended that you convert all Virtual Server disks into fixed-size disks, where all 16gb of space is allocated on the physical drive, filled with “fake” data. This means that instead of having millions of pieces of data scattered about in tiny little files on the disk, you’ve instead got one huge file on the physical disk for each virtual drive. Since it’s all allocated at once, it’s all contiguous on the drive (ie: all in the same place). That means it’s much faster for the drive heads to spin around and read data, since it’s all next to each other…

I know VMWare will allow you to create a fixed-size disk initially, and I believe Virtual PC will as well. Virtual Server, however, requires that you create the dynamic disk, and then spend 2 hours converting that dynamic disk into a fixed-size disk. This seems very counter-intuitive if you ask me, particularly for a production system, as Virtual Server is designed to function as.

On a seperate note, I would think you’d be able to create “template” drives on your Virtual Server.

For example, I have 2 disk images, representing “base” or “virgin” installs of both Windows XP Professional SP2 and Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition. When I was using Virtual PC, it was quite simple to VNC into my dedicated box designated for virtual machines and copy the xGB image over into a new directory, rename it, and create a new virtual machine using that existing disk.

On Virtual Server, however, the aim is to make everything web-based so multiple users can access their virtual machines at once, without the need to interact directly with the server’s desktop. Unfortunately, I still have to VNC into the machine, thus hogging control from any other hypothetical users, long enough to copy and rename my virtual disk “template” image so I can create a new virtual machine using it.

Don’t you think there should be some way of handling this operation through the web interface? I find it hard to believe this isn’t a common request… Don’t tell me everyone else actually spends 2 hours installing and configuring their virtual machines, then 2 more hours converting them to fixed-size disks, just to test something and have it eat their machine, then restart the entire process…

Anyway, those are my complaints. Anyone from Microsoft’s Virtual Server team listening? How about you Robert Scoble? Or are you too caught up moving to a new blogging platform and enjoying the results of the Web 2.0 conference to help me out?

Post Meta

Date
4:50 pm
Time
79
Views
623
Words
Comments
Comment Feeds

The Asshole Database Instructor

UPDATE: This post is maintained for historical purposes, and because I resent censorship in all its forms. If you’ve chosen to read this post, please be sure to read the all the comments, as well as the follow-up, The Asshole Database Instructor II: The

Post Meta

Date
4:04 pm
Time
114
Views
44
Words
Comments
Comment Feeds

Ajax SQL Designer

UPDATE: I typo’ed the href= statement for the link. It’s fixed now… If anyone’s still looking.

I know I’ll probably get bashed for using the word ‘Ajax’, but… heh… It’s simple to type…

Call it what you will, I found this cool WWW SQL Designer in the Furl Most Popular list. I really don’t know that I’d ever use it, because I’m old-school and do all this stuff manually, but it’s a pretty cool interface none the less. I love being able to click and drag to form a relation. Very nice tool for some of you SQLers out there!

I’d like to give this link to the dick that teaches my pointless database class, but god knows I’ve probably done enough to hurt my grade in there already… He really is an asshole though. I’ll have to post his response to the note I added to my pointless homework assignment at some point. I think you’d all agree with me that it was totally uncalled for and personally insulting. Hell, maybe I’ll file a formal complaint against him and see if I can get the jerk fired… God knows it’d be doing a favor for any future shmucks that get stuck in his class.

Post Meta

10-7-2005
Date
7:14 pm
Time
108
Views
205
Words
Comments
Comment Feeds

Word Game Fun

If you rearrange the letters in “KATIE HOLMES,” you get “TOM LIKES A HE.” God’s honest truth.

I swear when I read this on Chris Pirillo’s blog, I almost pissed myself laughing…

Post Meta

Date
6:36 pm
Time
133
Views
32
Words
Comments
Comment Feeds