The image that is brought up all the time is Netscape. The argument goes like this: 'Remember Netscape? Microsoft destroyed it and it will do the same to Google.'

Not everybody thinks Microsoft will succeed, of course. the Search Battle is not the same as the Browser Wars.

On reflection, we all know Netscape made a lot of mistakes. Some were out of arrogance and silliness, others could not be helped.

The world has generally praised Microsoft for being able to quickly do an about-face and embrace the internet just when it was thought the firm could not. Still, Microsoft's success is difficult to separate from its monopoly: without it, would it have so easily defeated Netscape?

It is now nearly 10 years later and we seem about to go through another battle. But much has changed since those early Web days. Back then, the Web had only just been invented much less 'discovered'.

Microsoft was only becoming the powerhouse it has since become. It was not yet under the gaze of the United States Department of Justice, although competitors were beginning to mount their complaints. At that time the company was able to happily bundle - or force others to bundle - its browser and destroy Netscape.

Netscape was an easy target in a different century. Things are quite different today. Not only is Google a very different company (with an entirely different set of problems), so too is Microsoft. The giant has lost the edge it once had.

Microsoft is beginning to behave in the same way as its great idol IBM. It is more interested in maintaining what it has than in developing anything innovative.

The biggest difference this time, however, is that the battle is not being fought only on the desktop. It is being fought at the server end and that is Microsoft's greatest weakness.

It is by no means a slam dunk, as some believe.

Google must be extremely careful and the evidence so far would seem to show the company is doing the right things.

The young bucks who founded the company, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, have done a great job with the technology.

By bringing on Eric Schmidt, they have had the sense to acquire an element of adult supervision that many of the dotcoms never had.

It could be argued that Mr Schmidt is the only person to have gone up against Microsoft twice and won, or at least come away with a draw. At Sun, Mr Schmidt was a leading figure in the development of Java, a technology that has had Microsoft spinning for nearly 10 years. As chief executive of Novell, he helped a company most believed was on its last legs get ahead of Microsoft for a brief moment, even if it was more because Microsoft could not deliver than because Novell did anything spectacular.

Still, to have gone up against the dragon twice and survived is no mean feat.

Google will need lots of good allies (and considering how many companies despise Microsoft, that should not be difficult), but it must be very careful as well.

Microsoft may no longer be the power it was 10 years ago, but it has lots of cash and its monopoly is still intact. That is something that should not be ignored. If it really wants to go head to head with Google, it is going to have to get a lot better at writing software, something it has never had a great reputation for.

It might even want to try a little innovation for a change.

Google is off to a great start, but it cannot afford to relax. The stakes for the company are enormous: potential control over all digital access.

Microsoft already controls most of the world's desktops, so if Google fails, Microsoft could end up controlling the way we search for digital information.

Does anybody really want that to happen? Mr Schmidt said there was room for many players. Let us hope he is right.

It would be better for us all if we had some healthy competition. Without it, we end up with things like Windows XP.