Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google Desktop for Mac Released

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wed Apr 04, 2007 07:31 AM
from the very-frooty dept.
Julio Ojeda-Zapata writes "Google on Tuesday will release a Mac version of Google Desktop. This software, like the PC version, indexes the content of a hard drive and serves it up on familiar Google-style search-result Web pages (or via a its own drop-down results list, if you prefer). But Google Desktop for the Mac is streamlined compared to the busy, gadget-y Windows version, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The focus is squarely on search — including local indexing of an online Gmail account of your choice. It will also index your iDisk."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Umm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by neoform (551705) <djneoform@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 04 2007, @07:32AM (#18602767) Homepage
    Does this somehow outperform spotlight without adding vulnerabilities?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      If it can be made to index Thunderbird/Seamonkey mail, then it has one advantage over Spotlight. I'll probably install it if it can do that.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      It's about 10x faster than spotlight at answering queries, maybe more.
      • Re:Umm (Score:5, Informative)

        Gmail?


        Exactly. Spotlight is a desktop search. Google Desktop will index your entire browser history, will index your Gmail account locally, and your Google search history. So, that means you can search across both Web content and desktop content simultaneously.

          • Re:Umm (Score:5, Insightful)

            by rm69990 (885744) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @08:35AM (#18603763)
            "And why would I want to do that?"

            If you need to ask that question, don't bother downloading it, while people who DO want to do that will download it. Sound good? I doubt Google released this to please you specifically.

            Oh, and it's nice to have your Gmail locally searchable while offline without having to use the piece of crap that is called Mail.app (spotlight cannot index Thunderbird, the only desktop client I can stand using).

            What good does an open browser window do you if you're on a plane or bus with no internet connection? You see, there are these wonderful things called laptops. Wireless internet coverage is absolute crap up here in Canada.

            Sorry, but it really bothers me when people say "Why would I want/need that?" just to downplay the usefulness of a product. I can't think of a single product, excluding things like toilet paper, that are meant for every single possible purchaser or user on the planet.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              Interesting. I moved to Mail from Thunderbird, because Mail deals with email a little bit better IMHO. While I like gmail, I don't use it exclusively, so I don't have the problem of my mail not being available locally. (There's also the solution of having Mail (or Thunderbird) copy all your gmail locally for those times you're not connected - but that gets to synchronicity issues)

              I'll agree there's no perfect solution yet for the multiple mailbox issue. One of these days, someone will get it right. But I'll
            • Re:Umm (Score:5, Informative)

              by dan the person (93490) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @10:04AM (#18605411) Homepage Journal
              I can't think of a single product, excluding things like toilet paper, that are meant for every single possible purchaser or user on the planet.

              You haven't travelled much have you? Many cultures do not use toilet paper.
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              spotlight cannot index Thunderbird, the only desktop client I can stand using.
              FYI: David Bienvenue has been making quite a lot of progress on making Thunderbird compatible with Spotlight. The feature is currently still in beta, but if you're interested have a look at bug 290057 comment 61 and further.
            • Re:Umm (Score:5, Interesting)

              by John Whitley (6067) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @12:03PM (#18607699) Homepage

              Thunderbird, the only desktop client I can stand using
              ??? I use Thunderbird at work, primarily because it's been a choice between it and Outlook. But Thunderbird's mail editor is possibly the worst of any of the modern apps. It suffers from a flaw I thought was confined to the stupidity of MS Word: it is possible to delete invisible formatting marker, mangling the document's formatting. Backspace, backspace, OOPS, your document formatting is hosed. Even worse, sometimes this flaw causes the editor to expose underlying HTML/XML gunk in the editor.

              You might think you could get around all this via editing in plaintext mode, eh? No dice. There is effectively no first-class plaintext mode in Thunderbird's mail editor. E.g. you can change to "plaintext" mode, but all it does is hide the formatting bar.. any fonts in the document remain, but now you can't change them, even to make them fixed width. Pasting into a "plaintext" editor preserves the original formatting -- including the big fonts and glaring colors from that web page you just copied from. So much for WYSIWYG -- there's no way to actually see what the mailer will send out with plain text formatting. You just have to smack it all to "fixed width" and hope for the best.

              Aside from that, Thunderbird's mail filtering is fairly functional and does what I want. It seems to handle large email boxes allright, but its search is pretty slow.
  • by battery111 (620778) * <battery111 @ g m a i l .com> on Wednesday April 04 2007, @07:33AM (#18602773)
    But why do I need a google app to do this when spotlight comes with my mac and does a pretty outstanding job of this already. Am I missing something?
    • by lpangelrob (714473) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @07:38AM (#18602829)
      I can't be the only person still running 10.3.9 (on 2 boxes). Spotlight just wasn't that killer of an app to me.

      That said, 10.5 looks intriguing, so if the Spotlight-like feature is the only feature of Google Desktop I would need, it would serve my needs for 2 months, at most.
      • by GreatDrok (684119) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @07:42AM (#18602905) Journal
        "I can't be the only person still running 10.3.9 (on 2 boxes). Spotlight just wasn't that killer of an app to me."

        The download page says you need 10.4+ to run Google Desktop so you're still SOL.
      • It's kind of interesting, when I first switched to 10.4 I used the dashboard aLL the time, and I used spotlight ALL the time.

        now, however many months later, I don't use dashboard ever, and I use spotlight for 1) typing in application names to start them 2) in File Open dialogs occasionally.

        • It's kind of interesting, when I first switched to 10.4 I used the dashboard aLL the time, and I used spotlight ALL the time.

          now, however many months later, I don't use dashboard ever, and I use spotlight for 1) typing in application names to start them 2) in File Open dialogs occasionally.


          I use a Mac at work. The first time I tried the dashboard I could not believe anyone thought this was either useful *or* cool; I haven't touched it since. (I use Karamba on my home Linux box, so it's not that I hate widgets; I just don't think the way they're implemented on Mac make them worth using. I'd rather have them persistent, but able to be turned off.)

          Spotlight I use occasionally, but it gives me weird results. I'm sure I'm not using it right, but whenever I do I end up with a million results that have no relation to what I'm looking for. From what I remember, I also couldn't figure out how to search for, say, a set of files with a word in part of the name and a specific file extension.

          If Google Desktop for mac is a little more intuitive and powerful, I'll probably end up using it over Spotlight.
          • The first time I tried the dashboard I could not believe anyone thought this was either useful *or* cool; I haven't touched it since.

            I'm an academic writer and I find the F12 call to bring up the calendar and the dictionary + thesaurus a godsend. As with anything, YMMV.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              Speaking of which, a little know but IMHO awesome keyboard shortcut in OSX is to put your cursor over a word and press Cmd+Ctrl+D -- pops up a dictionary/thesaures lookup box for that word.. very nifty. (works in Cocoa apps)
        • For me, the killer app with 10.4 was/is VoiceOver [apple.com]. I am hoping to be surprised by Jobs and crew on 10.5, but so far spaces and time machine have not piqued my interests [apple.com] and even the new voice and promised Braille support seem minor.
        • I felt the same way, until I got an MBP, due to the demise of my PBA's video subsystem.

          I found that Apple *had* loaded Dashboard with 3 widgets that are quite handy, and for which I'd either had third party addons installed or icons in my dock since X.1.

          i.e. : Calendar Widget::MenuCalendarClock
          Calculator Widget::Calculator Icon in Dock
          Weather Widget::Meteorologist > Forecastfox

          All in all a quick F12 to do a calculation, or check stats when the bro
          • I've tried Quicksilver before... I don't know why, but for whatever reason, it's just not my cup of my tea. I've actually tried it several times because it SEEMS like something I would love, but, oh well.
      • Better check the system requirements before downloading, considering Google Desktop partly relies on Spotlight for some of its settings and thus is only available on Tiger.
    • "But zomg teh googles!!!!1111eleven"

      I suspect it's squarely aimed at switchers who don't know any better. Anything to wring that little bit more advertising revenue from their users.
    • Google Marketing(TM) hates people like you.
    • Spotlight works pretty good but it's nice to have choices. Some people may not like the way Spotlight does things. I would say that there are no losers here, except for maybe chairs in Redmond today.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Maybe it won't suck ass out loud like Spotlight does? Two cases:

      - create a folder named FordChevyDodge. Search for 'Chevy'--it pops right up. Search for 'hevy'--nada. Oops. (That works just fine in 10.3.9, by the way.)

      - create a file named 'file.txt' and put the text 'whateveryouwant' in it. Spotlight for 'whateveryouwant' and it pops right up. Change the file name to 'file.php' and Spotlight for 'whateveryouwant' again. No matches. Oops.

      There's lots about Spotlight that I hate. I *loved* how search worked
      • Yes, and Apple has an API [apple.com], and encourages developers to write Spotlight plugins for their apps.
  • by dancingmad (128588) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @07:41AM (#18602897)
    I was asking myself the same question every one else is ("why use this instead of spotlight?") and while I'm not 100% convinced to move over to it, The Unofficial Apple Weblog [tuaw.com] has a good case for using it; if you're using Google homepage and Google Mail, it integrates with those (showing search results on the homepage and being able to download and search your Gmail).
  • by Tsar (536185) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @07:50AM (#18603039) Homepage Journal
    Google on Tuesday will release a Mac version of Google Desktop.

    The referenced Tuesday was yesterday [arstechnica.com], not six days from now. It's completely understandable that some stories are posted late, but is it too much to ask that they be edited to remain factual?
  • It is probably worth a try.. I like Spotlight in Mac OS X 10.4, but I'm not overly impressed with the accuracy and relevance of its results. I'm hoping it gets refined in Leopard and beyond. It often returns too many results that are not relevant. It seems like Spotlight needs a couple more controls to tweak the search.

    I already get the GMail search effect, since I download a copy of my GMail messages to Apple's Mail application via POP3.

    So, the real test comes down to how effective the Google syste
  • ok Google Desktop Search may be good, may be better than Spotlight, etc but Spotlight is "part" of the OS thus is already running even when we don't want it to so now not only do you have Spotlight caching but now Google's app, so your computer is slower. The ability to search your desktop through a webpage is a joke! Why would I when theres a simple icon in the top-right of my screen or pressing Apple+Space to open it up, alot more simplier then through a browser. To search my gmail, why not just intergrat
  • QS (Score:2, Informative)

    Quicksilver may not be a "search tool" per se... but it searches just fine. Beats spotlight hands down, and has nifty features like triggers. I'm not sure I will need more google in my life...
    • Amen. I'm still not convinced why I should use this over QuickSilver. If they were to finally port picasa to the Mach though, that would beat iPhoto hands down....
  • I'm not sure why Google or anyone else is still flogging third-party desktop search tools. Desktop search is already well-integrated into both Mac and Vista. You can make an argument that you don't want Apple or Microsoft "monopolizing" their own platform's search, but as the developers of those operating systems I'm inclined to think they know their own stuff best.

    Third-party search toolbars also seem like a major step back in terms of security: you have yet another thing with access to your local filesy
  • > Julio ... writes:
    > "Google on Tuesday will release a Mac version of Google Desktop. ..."

    Call me old fashioned, but I am not sure that posting the submissions "unedited" is as good an idea as CmdrTacco seems to think. Any semi-literate person knows that you may have to supply additional information to keep the context of the citation correct. In this case, the missing part would be "Julio *wrote* the day before yesterday". As it is, the citation wrongly refers to next week, although it meant to be th
  • by chipster (661352) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @08:44AM (#18603917)
    ...is if Google had produced a native Spotlight Importer[1]. I can't believe google re-invented the wheel here.

    [1] http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Carbon/Co nceptual/MDImporters/Concepts/WritingAnImp.html [apple.com]

    • by volsung (378) <stan@mtrr.org> on Wednesday April 04 2007, @08:58AM (#18604155)

      I'm watching it run right now, and Google didn't reinvent the wheel, exactly. Google Desktop is running mdimport (the program that invokes the Spotlight plugins to convert files to collections of terms) in the background. What Google is providing is a replacement/supplement for the Spotlight search interface, but not all of the Spotlight software stack. This is how Google Desktop takes advantage of all your existing Spotlight Importer plugins. (Which are damn easy to write. Props to Apple for that.)

      Spotlight's indexing could use some improvement, so I'm looking forward to seeing how Google Desktop performs on my large collection of PDF and Postscript files. Spotlight doesn't seem to do very intelligent ranking of the documents it returns, so unless the search terms are fairly unique, the results can be impossible to sift through. Hopefully Google (or maybe 10.5) will improve that.

    • by Tsar (536185) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @08:00AM (#18603179) Homepage Journal
      Why should I get a Mac when I can do the exact same thing on Vista?

      Thanks, I haven't laughed that hard all week.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        It's even funnier when you realize what you need to run Vista to even get to the point where it "competes" with a Mac:
        • New C2D CPU $200+
        • new motherboard to support that CPU under Vista $200+
        • 2GB RAM minimum to go with that new motherboard: $180
        • new graphics card $300+
        • high end copy of Vista $300+

        Good lord, and that's only if you're adding things to an existing PC! That's almost $1200 right there! Note I'm not talking about pond muck systems, but a system that actually would allow an apples to apples comparison

        • > high end copy of Vista $300+

          The copy of Vista that comes with most PCs is good enough for the average user and it's absorbed into the price of the system so you won't even notice paying for it. Hardware prices for Vista capable machines are dropping all the time, but even now a PC with Vista is much cheaper than a Mac. There are many improvements from XP to Vista so forget everything you know about XP. Once you have tried Vista, I doubt you will want to use a Mac again. Don't take my word for it though
            • You missed my point entirely. My point was that if you can say 'Why use this product when I already have Spotlight?' and get modded up, why can't use say 'Why use this product when I already have Vista?' There is nothing wrong with Vista.

              Is this site just anti-Microsoft, or what?
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                Yes, /. it pretty much anti-MS even though there are some virulent MS fanboi's here. Most here haven't bought any of the MS marketing pile. Now, that said, I reread your initial comment.

                Mac Minis can be had for $500 or so. The cheapest Vista PC is about $400 and won't run anywhere near the speed of a Mac Mini, runs Vista Basic (basically XP w/ DRM) and isn't the system I'm comparing. The low-end are AMD Semprons, by the time you hit the first dual core systems, you're in the $600+ range.

                I don't care for Vis
    • [gandalf]Run, you fool![/gandalf]
    • by Moraelin (679338) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @08:08AM (#18603323) Journal

      Google is ignoring Linux again. You might argue that OS X has more users than Linux, which I think is debatable. However then you have to think which desktop on Linux do you target? GNOME? KDE? minimal X (and then accept that your app looks like crap on things like SuSe or Ubuntu)?
      The biggest problem is that "Linux" may be a good platform to target, because the desktop is separated from the OS, you CAN'T target the "Linux Desktop" ...and we see why Linux is a great server platform, but a lousy desktop platform because it's not standardized in the same way.


      That's not as big a problem as you'd think.

      1. Other apps haven't had a problem because of this. Both Mozilla and OpenOffice, for example, insisted on writing their very own framework and widgets, so basically they're _neither_ Gnome nor KDE. Your line of thinking seems to be that that would make them shunned by both KDE and Gnome users, yet that's not really the case. And then there's stuff like XMMS, which doesn't even try to look even remotely like the desktop, and had no problem either.

      2. In the meantime both KDE and Gnome can use each other's themes. So you can just write your app with either set of widgets and it won't look out of place on the other desktop.

      3. I'd buy your argument if it were some really complex app, with lots of forms and controls. Essentially all you really need there is a freakin' web-page-like page, in a frame. As long as you can draw a white background with a rectangle for the input and a button, you're actually good to go for a simple search app. (The borders and title bar of the frame will be drawn by the window manager anyway, so you don't have to worry about those.)

      4. And you don't even have to do that, if your goal is to look like Google. I.e., like a web page. Think about it. You can just serve HTTP on the port of your choice, restrict it to localhost so it's not abusable from outside, your "application" icon just starts a browser on that port. There you go: now the user can use whatever browser they prefer, and have it look like any other page in that browser. They can use Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror if they absolutely have to have a KDE-only environment, or whatever.

      Basically, let's lay _that_ tired argument to rest at least in this case. Linux has some problems with mass adoption, yes, but constantly claiming that you can't write apps because there are 2 desktops... is just false, and it's getting repetitive and boring by now.
      • There are more issues than just those though. One is that the different desktop environments have different schemes for loading applications on startup (which presumably you would want Google Desktop to do). Secondly, and there's lots of complaints regarding this, there is no standardization for toolbar integration. Things are getting better, but they're not perfect. Third is knowing how and where important files are located for indexing. You probably don't want Google Desktop indexing 10,000+ thumbnai
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      > However then you have to think which desktop on Linux do you target? GNOME? KDE?

      Both. Just build yourself a daemon service that does indexing in background and then add frontends to it (CLI, GNOME/GTK, KDE/Qt). Since frontends will just query a service (via DBUS f.e., or even TCP socket) I would be extremely easy to build multiple frontends for it. Maybe even document the protocol used to query and wait for open source community to build frontends theirself.

      Or you could use FreeDesktop.org standard pro
    • I agree with the "Spotlight Already Does That" posts. Keeping that in mind:

      http://beagle-project.org/Main_Page [beagle-project.org]
    • I do think it has to be said, though, that if you really want desktop search that includes your e-mail using apple mail seems like less of a sacrifice than sharing all the data with them that google desktop necessitates.

      Honestly, I tried the apple "MAIL" app when I got the Powerbook, and found it limited and frustrating in the extreme - using it IS a sacrifice.

      After taking a crack at Thunderbird, then Entourage, I have settled on Gyazmail, [gyazsquare.com] which really is a nice bit of work.

      (The power supply for t