Can't access Google

[Guest]

Just changed over to XP, tried to hop on internet via google...no dice.
Yahoo, MSN no problem Google, Google IE nope, just a large ad for a pop up
blocker. I gots to have my google!!!

 

[Rich Barry]

Did you try typing in www.google.com in the Address bar of Internet
Explorer?

 

[Mike Brannigan [MSFT]]

Just changed over to XP, tried to hop on internet via google...no dice.
Yahoo, MSN no problem Google, Google IE nope, just a large ad for a pop up
blocker. I gots to have my google!!!

Try search.msn.com as an alternative to Google.

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

 

[Guest]

Do you have a firewall that might be blocking it? Or a router maybe? Always
check your hosts file to make sure there is no entry there for google.

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

Try search.msn.com as an alternative to Google.

An inferior alternative to say the least.

 

[MAP]

Just changed over to XP, tried to hop on internet via google...no
dice. Yahoo, MSN no problem Google, Google IE nope, just a large ad
for a pop up blocker. I gots to have my google!!!

Their is some malware that will hijack the google website and redirect you
somewhere else.(I can't remember the name of it)
Have you scanned your system lately?

 

[Mike Brannigan [MSFT]]

An inferior alternative to say the least.

And what is that based on ?

Have you used it recently ? are you using more natural language searches
then just one word ?

How are you comparing the 2 search engines ?

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

 

[Wesley Vogel]

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Mike+Brannigan&FORM=QBHP
vs.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mike+Brannigan&btnG=Google+Search

MSN: 9 hits in 0.08 seconds
vs.
Google: about 110,000 hits in 0.14 seconds

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Mike+Brannigan+[MSFT]&FORM=QBHP
vs.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mike+Brannigan+[MSFT]&btnG=Google+Search

MSN Search: 327 results in 0.09 seconds.
vs.
Google: about 9,640 results in 0.11 seconds.

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In

 

[Winux P]

Could have some mal-ware Tdawg. Ads for pop-up blockers are sometimes a
clue, do a scan and clean for viruses, spyware,... in safe mode after
clearing out the contents of your temp, temp internet and cookies folders,
makes the scanning complete quicker. Then try again, also you are typing
www.google.com [.your country code] and, your not accidently typing
www.booble.com in.

- Winux P

 

[Peter Foldes]

Makes a big difference to what comes up in terms of the relevancy of the post

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Mike+Brannigan&FORM=QBHP
vs.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mike+Brannigan&btnG=Google+Search

MSN: 9 hits in 0.08 seconds
vs.
Google: about 110,000 hits in 0.14 seconds

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Mike+Brannigan+[MSFT]&FORM=QBHP
vs.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mike+Brannigan+[MSFT]&btnG=Google+Search

MSN Search: 327 results in 0.09 seconds.
vs.
Google: about 9,640 results in 0.11 seconds.

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In

Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:

Try search.msn.com as an alternative to Google.

An inferior alternative to say the least.

And what is that based on ?

Have you used it recently ? are you using more natural language searches
then just one word ?

How are you comparing the 2 search engines ?

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:

Try search.msn.com as an alternative to Google.

An inferior alternative to say the least.

 

[Evolution54]

Just changed over to XP, tried to hop on internet via google...no dice.
Yahoo, MSN no problem Google, Google IE nope, just a large ad for a po
up
blocker. I gots to have my google!!!

Try using another browser and see if that works. Some are Opera
Firefox and Maxthon

 

[Mike Brannigan [MSFT]]

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Mike+Brannigan&FORM=QBHP
vs.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mike+Brannigan&btnG=Google+Search

MSN: 9 hits in 0.08 seconds
vs.
Google: about 110,000 hits in 0.14 seconds

As Peter said - in an unqualified search for tow words - you chose my
forename and surname - it is not about the number of hits returned but
entirely about the relevance fo those hits. Hence my comment about using
better queries then just one word.

Also some other results to look at
http://search.msn.co.uk/results.aspx?q=Mike+Brannigan&FORM=QBHP

Web Results
Page 1 of 21,261 results containing Mike Brannigan (0.09 seconds)

Significantly faster and a lot more relevant.

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Mike+Brannigan&FORM=QBHP
vs.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mike+Brannigan&btnG=Google+Search

MSN: 9 hits in 0.08 seconds
vs.
Google: about 110,000 hits in 0.14 seconds

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Mike+Brannigan+[MSFT]&FORM=QBHP
vs.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mike+Brannigan+[MSFT]&btnG=Google+Search

MSN Search: 327 results in 0.09 seconds.
vs.
Google: about 9,640 results in 0.11 seconds.

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In

Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:

Try search.msn.com as an alternative to Google.

An inferior alternative to say the least.

And what is that based on ?

Have you used it recently ? are you using more natural language searches
then just one word ?

How are you comparing the 2 search engines ?

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:

Try search.msn.com as an alternative to Google.

An inferior alternative to say the least.

 

[Wesley Vogel]

The first time you posted search.msn.com not search.msn.co.uk

Anyway, it's like arguing about Fords vs. Chevies or gas stove vs. electric
stove.

I use www.google.com and you probably use a peat stove. ;-)

The bottom line is, that no one in this thread has helped the OP get to
Google.

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Mike+Brannigan&FORM=QBHP
vs.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mike+Brannigan&btnG=Google+Search

MSN: 9 hits in 0.08 seconds
vs.
Google: about 110,000 hits in 0.14 seconds

As Peter said - in an unqualified search for tow words - you chose my
forename and surname - it is not about the number of hits returned but
entirely about the relevance fo those hits. Hence my comment about using
better queries then just one word.

Also some other results to look at
http://search.msn.co.uk/results.aspx?q=Mike+Brannigan&FORM=QBHP

Web Results
Page 1 of 21,261 results containing Mike Brannigan (0.09 seconds)

Significantly faster and a lot more relevant.

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Mike+Brannigan&FORM=QBHP
vs.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mike+Brannigan&btnG=Google+Search

MSN: 9 hits in 0.08 seconds
vs.
Google: about 110,000 hits in 0.14 seconds

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Mike+Brannigan+[MSFT]&FORM=QBHP
vs.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mike+Brannigan+[MSFT]&btnG=Google+Search

MSN Search: 327 results in 0.09 seconds.
vs.
Google: about 9,640 results in 0.11 seconds.

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In

Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:

Try search.msn.com as an alternative to Google.

An inferior alternative to say the least.


And what is that based on ?

Have you used it recently ? are you using more natural language
searches then just one word ?

How are you comparing the 2 search engines ?

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:

Try search.msn.com as an alternative to Google.

An inferior alternative to say the least.

 

[Mike Brannigan [MSFT]]

The first time you posted search.msn.com not search.msn.co.uk

Anyway, it's like arguing about Fords vs. Chevies or gas stove vs.
electric
stove.

I use www.google.com and you probably use a peat stove. ;-)

The bottom line is, that no one in this thread has helped the OP get to
Google.

Agreed - indeed.
(Got to love the smell of those peat stoves )
--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

The first time you posted search.msn.com not search.msn.co.uk

Anyway, it's like arguing about Fords vs. Chevies or gas stove vs.
electric
stove.

I use www.google.com and you probably use a peat stove. ;-)

The bottom line is, that no one in this thread has helped the OP get to
Google.

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Mike+Brannigan&FORM=QBHP
vs.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mike+Brannigan&btnG=Google+Search

MSN: 9 hits in 0.08 seconds
vs.
Google: about 110,000 hits in 0.14 seconds

As Peter said - in an unqualified search for tow words - you chose my
forename and surname - it is not about the number of hits returned but
entirely about the relevance fo those hits. Hence my comment about using
better queries then just one word.

Also some other results to look at
http://search.msn.co.uk/results.aspx?q=Mike+Brannigan&FORM=QBHP

Web Results
Page 1 of 21,261 results containing Mike Brannigan (0.09 seconds)

Significantly faster and a lot more relevant.

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Mike+Brannigan&FORM=QBHP
vs.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mike+Brannigan&btnG=Google+Search

MSN: 9 hits in 0.08 seconds
vs.
Google: about 110,000 hits in 0.14 seconds

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Mike+Brannigan+[MSFT]&FORM=QBHP
vs.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mike+Brannigan+[MSFT]&btnG=Google+Search

MSN Search: 327 results in 0.09 seconds.
vs.
Google: about 9,640 results in 0.11 seconds.

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In Mike Brannigan [MSFT] <[email protected]> hunted and pecked:
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:

Try search.msn.com as an alternative to Google.

An inferior alternative to say the least.


And what is that based on ?

Have you used it recently ? are you using more natural language
searches then just one word ?

How are you comparing the 2 search engines ?

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:

Try search.msn.com as an alternative to Google.

An inferior alternative to say the least.

 

[Wesley Vogel]

I don't believe that I have ever actually seen a peat stove.

We use buffalo chips here in Colorado. :-D

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In

The first time you posted search.msn.com not search.msn.co.uk

Anyway, it's like arguing about Fords vs. Chevies or gas stove vs.
electric
stove.

I use www.google.com and you probably use a peat stove. ;-)

The bottom line is, that no one in this thread has helped the OP get to
Google.

Agreed - indeed.
(Got to love the smell of those peat stoves )
--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

The first time you posted search.msn.com not search.msn.co.uk

Anyway, it's like arguing about Fords vs. Chevies or gas stove vs.
electric
stove.

I use www.google.com and you probably use a peat stove. ;-)

The bottom line is, that no one in this thread has helped the OP get to
Google.

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Mike+Brannigan&FORM=QBHP
vs.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mike+Brannigan&btnG=Google+Search

MSN: 9 hits in 0.08 seconds
vs.
Google: about 110,000 hits in 0.14 seconds


As Peter said - in an unqualified search for tow words - you chose my
forename and surname - it is not about the number of hits returned but
entirely about the relevance fo those hits. Hence my comment about using
better queries then just one word.

Also some other results to look at
http://search.msn.co.uk/results.aspx?q=Mike+Brannigan&FORM=QBHP

Web Results
Page 1 of 21,261 results containing Mike Brannigan (0.09 seconds)

Significantly faster and a lot more relevant.

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Mike+Brannigan&FORM=QBHP
vs.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mike+Brannigan&btnG=Google+Search

MSN: 9 hits in 0.08 seconds
vs.
Google: about 110,000 hits in 0.14 seconds

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Mike+Brannigan+[MSFT]&FORM=QBHP
vs.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mike+Brannigan+[MSFT]&btnG=Google+Search

MSN Search: 327 results in 0.09 seconds.
vs.
Google: about 9,640 results in 0.11 seconds.

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In Mike Brannigan [MSFT] <[email protected]> hunted and
pecked:
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:

Try search.msn.com as an alternative to Google.

An inferior alternative to say the least.


And what is that based on ?

Have you used it recently ? are you using more natural language
searches then just one word ?

How are you comparing the 2 search engines ?

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:

Try search.msn.com as an alternative to Google.

An inferior alternative to say the least.