Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
OS X Operating Systems Businesses Apple

Examining Mac OS X 10.4's Spotlight 440

Posted by michael from the seek-and-ye-shall-find dept.
Ton writes "Apple has published a discussion of Spotlight, the radical systemwide search technology that will be part of Mac OS X 10.4 'Tiger'. The really interesting part is that metadata will be playing a big role in Spotlight while just a few years ago people were afraid metadata in Mac OS X was going the way of the dodo."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Examining Mac OS X 10.4's Spotlight More

Examining Mac OS X 10.4's Spotlight

Comments Filter:

  • Radical (Score:2, Insightful)

    by agent dero ( 680753 )
    Can someone please explain a little more as to how Spotlight using metadata is a "radical" new thing?

    I haven't seen any mainstream implementations (WinFS?) of it, but I didn't know it was a brand new concept.

    • Re:Radical (Score:5, Informative)

      by dJOEK ( 66178 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @05:11AM (#10752973)
      Spotlight is basically a SQLite db that holds data about documents and files on your system. Metadata is gathered by a sort of 'plug-in' for each different file type.

      A Typical use will be making query's such as: Show me everything agent dero sent me between tuesday and thursday last week. Mails, IM transfered images, you name it... Best of all, since this is metadata based, it's supposed to be lightning fast

      You could envision a plugin that would Spotlightify slashdot threads you read, in theory, and apply the power of a database to it.

      but really, you should RTFA

      • Re:Radical (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Spotlight's datastore isn't SQLite.

        The DB for it was custom designed for fast unicode text searches. As far as i know Apple isn't going to document the DB format but will be providing a C based API to search it.

        Does the world need another DB file format? We'll see....

      • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:32AM (#10753657)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Radical (Score:5, Informative)

      by Professor S. Brown ( 780963 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @05:15AM (#10752981)
      The linked article is shit.

      http://developer.apple.com/macosx/tiger/spotlight. html [apple.com]You want this one instead, its got loads more info on what it does and how it works, plus some code examples for the gimps.

      • Re:Radical (Score:5, Interesting)

        by tliet ( 167733 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @09:16AM (#10753936)
        I am the poster and the link was included in the post. Actually, the whole post was about the specific link to the Apple Developer site. Why the editors removed that link is absolutely beyond me...

    • Re:Radical (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Meredeth ( 821492 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @06:23AM (#10753184)
      MetaData is not new. Its not radical. But MS aparently can't make it work. So Apple gets to use it first, 5 percent of the computer population go wow! 95 percent ask why can't we have this, and Longhorn SP1 will get it and proclaim it as a great new radical technology.

    • Re:Radical (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mabinogi ( 74033 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @06:45AM (#10753237) Homepage
      Nowhere does anyone say that Spotlight using metadata is radical, or that metadata itself is radical.

      The metadata part was noteworthy because MacOS has always had metadata, but Apple looked like it was abandoning, or at least deprecating the concept in OS X. The fact that Spotlight will use it shows that metadata on MacOS still has a future.

      • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:36AM (#10753682)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:Radical (Score:3, Informative)

          by diamondsw ( 685967 )
          Avie Tevanian deprecated Metadata. The Technote that recommended removing all metadata, resource forks, type/creator etc (since removed after developer backlash) was written by none other than Tevanian. Obviously he carries a lot of weight, but hardly "Apple" did it. This was very much NeXT imposing its view of computing.

          Meanwhile, which filesystem is better - one that can handle named forks or one that can't? I agree that they cause portability problems (and bundles are far more elegant), but the filesyst

  • Reiser (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 08, 2004 @05:24AM (#10753010)
    From reading the article, I think Hans Reiser has been right about the need for reiser4 on mainstream linux.

    He saw all this stuff comming from way back. If you read the LKML, you will remember that he warned us.

    Its a pity no one listens to him.

    • Re:Reiser Links (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The Both links say quite a bit. I guess the kernel gurus know better, but i think the sql plugin for a FS would be a cool thing to show off with at the very least.

      http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/3727
      http://lwn .net/Articles/100148/

  • Is THIS the discussion? (Score:5, Informative)

    by siliconjunkie ( 413706 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @05:27AM (#10753025)
    The post links to the Apple Spotlight page that has been there for months. Is THIS [apple.com] the "discussion" that is being referred to in the post?

  • the actual discussion/article (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 08, 2004 @05:30AM (#10753033)
    >>> "Apple has published a discussion of Spotlight, the radical systemwide search technology that will be part of Mac OS X 10.4 'Tiger'.

    What's really funny is that there's no link to the actual published discussion... but anyway...

    http://developer.apple.com/macosx/tiger/spotlight. html [apple.com]

  • Sounds like Beagle for linux (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tuite ( 802608 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @05:31AM (#10753040) Homepage
    I read about beagle for linux it seems to be very similar in functionality. http://www.gnome.org/projects/beagle/ [gnome.org]
    • I was thinking the same thing. While Spotlight is tied to the Filesystem (another Slashdot reader pointed that out earlier), Beagle seems to rely on a Linux kernel patch that can send out notifications about file updated in real-time. I suppose that is how beagle can keep the Lucene(.Net) index in sync with the changes in the file system.

  • Spotlight is cool, but (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Repugnant_Shit ( 263651 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @05:56AM (#10753100)
    I'm waiting for Tiger so that I can try out Automator. This promises to be a point-n-click version of scripting. Hopefully this will be easy enough to use even my parents and maybe even my boss will be able to use it.

    The first thing I'll do is try making an Automator to create thumbnails. Currently I'm using a bash script I wrote on my Linux box to do this. This will be the first time I've paid for an OS upgrade since Win98, so I hope it's worth it.

  • FYI... (Score:5, Informative)

    by jonr ( 1130 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @06:38AM (#10753221) Homepage Journal
    Just a small info. The brain behind Spotlight is Dominic Giampaolo [nobius.org], the same guru that wrote the fantastic BeFS for BeOS.

    • Re:FYI... (Score:4, Informative)

      by pchan- ( 118053 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:21AM (#10753579) Journal
      more accurately, Giampaolo was the guy that re-wrote the BeFS, after a filesystem based on a database proved to be too slow. his book (Practical Filesystem Design) is very enlightening for people interested in these types of things, and is now a free download pdf on his website.

      for non-beos users, here's what you need to know about befs (note that it was pretty much complete by 1995):
      1) FAST. super fast. seriously.
      2) 64 bit, with support for giant volumes and files (10 years ago!)
      3) journaled filesystem. no fsck, no corruption on crash (trust me, my daily use system had bad ram for a while and crashed hourly).
      4) metadata built in and instantly accessed. change the name of a file or any other metadata, and all your "live queries" would reflect the changes.

      how long must my linux desktop wait for what beos had 10 years ago?

  • Im very interested... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @06:56AM (#10753268)
    because Im a potential switcher. I purchased a B&W 350mhzx PowerMac last week to see if MacOSX was really as good as its made out to be here on slashdot. The system is intended to let me try out OSX and a few other apps, so the speed isnt really an issue, adn Ive chucked a GB of ram in there anyway.

    Coming from a WindowsXP background, some things Ive noticed so far:
    • Clicking the 'X' doesnt actually close the application. This annoyed me to start with, but ive slowly gotton used to it.
    • Having to select the application window before I can quit it using the application menu. Or I have to right click on the dock icon to quit. Annoying still.
    • Love the dock. Its just ..... right.
    • Most of the file system is hidden from you, which I like. Put my data where I want it and ignore the rest.
    • The ability to access the underlying BSD OS easily. Love it.
    • Everything looks and feels 'polished'. THats what I always hated about KDE/Gnome when I tried them, the features were there, but noone had taken the time to step back and polish the entire thing off so it all looks and feels together.
    • Every time I boot the Mac, my TFT display is 'wavey' until i have the monitor do an autoadjust. Dont really know whoes fault this is, tho its fine under windows and linux.
    So, final conclusion? I love it, so much that I have already placed an order for a G5 Imac. And in the meantime, Ive purchased a G4 upgrade for this little baby, just to help it along :) If you are wondering what OSX is like, go grab a cheap Mac off of Ebay and try it out. 233 Imac for £99? [ebay.co.uk], 333 imac for £110? [ebay.co.uk] (both the same person, which isnt me, I have no affiliation with this person at all. - notice added for the pedantic slashdotters who hate to see someone else profit)

    • Re:Im very interested... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 08, 2004 @07:05AM (#10753299)
      Clicking the 'X' doesnt actually close the application. This annoyed me to start with, but ive slowly gotton used to it.

      If you want to quickly quit a load of apps or switch application, hit cmd-Tab, and then cycle through the apps with the tab key.

      However you have one gig of RAM on the system. You have no need to quit the programs when switching between them. They'll be paged out to disk as necessary if you manage to fill the available RAM. Multi-tasking works very well as processes aren't in general allowed to hog the processor.

      I think this is a common thing amongst people who're used to windows - the windows in OS X represent documents, not applications, so that's why they can be closed without quitting the application. You will find Apple managed to balls this up by being inconsistent though - some applications DO quit on closing the window, but in theory they're applications which only have one window, and are utilities, like the Address Book.

      Be sure to try expose as well, though I doubt it'd work well on that older system.
      http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/expo se/

    • Re:Im very interested... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Mark Hood ( 1630 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:02AM (#10753478) Homepage
      Having to select the application window before I can quit it using the application menu. Or I have to right click on the dock icon to quit. Annoying still.

      OK, use Splat-Tab (Apple/Command/Cloverleaf, call it what you will) to switch between apps. When you get to the one you want, hold down Splat and press Q. It quits the application. Press H instead and it Hides it. There's more of these... [macosxhints.com]

      Hope this helps.. It seems this is OS X 10.3 only, so you might want to check out LiteSwitch X [proteron.com] which does the same thing.

      Mark

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Im very interested... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Unxmaal ( 231 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:23AM (#10753598) Homepage
      Clicking the 'X' doesnt actually close the application. This annoyed me to start with, but ive slowly gotton used to it.

      As someone replied earlier, this is a new paradigm in app management: the top menu controls the application, and the window menu controls the window. More importantly, OSX apps are designed to be left open -- keep them open, close or hide their windows, and they'll use virtually no resources, but will start significantly faster the next time you use them.

      Having to select the application window before I can quit it using the application menu. Or I have to right click on the dock icon to quit. Annoying still.

      Learn your keyboard shortcuts. Take the ten minutes to learn them, and you'll regain hours of your time. Cmd-Q is the shortcut for quit, for example. If you're used to Windows machines, you can switch the cmd key with the Windows key.

      Love the dock. Its just ..... right.

      Check out Quicksilver, from http://quicksilver.blacktree.com . Once you get used to it [and once it gets used to you], it's phenominally faster than the Dock.

      The ability to access the underlying BSD OS easily. Love it.

      iTerm, from http://iterm.sourceforge.net , is a great OSX terminal app.

      Here [unxmaal.com]'s a list of favorite OSX apps I posted a while back. Most are free/OSS, and they're all some of the best apps for any platform.

      • "As someone replied earlier, this is a new paradigm in app management: the top menu controls the application, and the window menu controls the window."

        Actually, this behavior is not a new paradigm as it has been a feature of the Mac OS back before it was Mac OS -- all the way back to The Beginning.

        There are a few reasons for this behavior, but the most important one is that in good UI design, each widget should serve a clear purpose. On a Mac, the "close window" widget closes windows and that's it (unles

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Clicking the 'X' doesnt actually close the application. This annoyed me to start with, but ive slowly gotton used to it.

      LOL. Quitting the app just because I closed a window is one of the things that annoys me the most about Windows. If I'm done working with one document in Word, I have to be sure to open up the next one before I close the first or I have to wait for Word to start up again.

  • Don't confuse this with anything you've seen ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DarthBobo ( 152187 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @07:23AM (#10753355)
    Unless you used BeOS in the past!

    This really is a big deal, much bigger than Microsoft's feeble attempts at full text search, or Google's desktop search. In many way's this much, much more useful than full-text search, especially for developers.

    At home I have about 6,000 MP3s, a 1000 photos, 500 scientific articles in PDF format and hundreds of words files that I need to juggle. Each one has its own metadata database, and none of them are updated in real time.

    Databases:
    MP3 - WinAmp & AudioTron
    Photos - Photoshop
    PDFs - Acrobat Indexer
    Word files - MS Indexer

    That doesn't include any of the other data that is stored completely databases and would have been easier to store in the file system - like email, guitar tab files and god knows what else.

    A properly implemented global meta-data store (that works at the filesystem level, not as an iterative service) profoundly changes how one uses the system, making sorting and finding data actually almost pleasurable.

  • Quicksilver (Score:5, Informative)

    by smartin ( 942 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @07:28AM (#10753375)
    This has already been done to some extent in Quicksilver.

    http://quicksilver.blacktree.com/

    It's an app that indexes parts of your file system and supports plugins to to index application data. The best part is that it is keyboard based. For example. type command-space "slash" enter and it fires off Safari opening /.

    I'm not sure how Apple will improve on this.
    • Quicksilver [blacktree.com] is a pretty nifty program, and I used to use it as a free alternative to Launchbar [obdev.at](which used to perform roughly the same tasks). Both programs learn what you want certain shortcuts to mean, and both use Command-Space to activate them. For me, entering 'FX' is Firefox, 'PS' is photoshop, and so on.

      However Launchbar has since updated to 4.0 beta release, and in doing so has pre-empted spotlight, as it does (right now, in 10.3) index system-wide metadata. So now you can cue up songs by entering

    • Re:Quicksilver (Score:3, Informative)

      by dr.badass ( 25287 )
      I'm not sure how Apple will improve on this.

      QuickSilver and Spotlight seem very similar at first glance, but are in fact very different creatures. They have the same appeal, but very different, but overlapping functions. QuickSilver is still basically a launcher, and Spotlight is still basically a Find function.

      I've found that the things QuickSilver excells at are the things that Spotlight can't inherently do, like abbreviated searches (try "sl do" to launch Slashdot), complex actions, certain applicat

  • German tanks? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Zedrick ( 764028 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @07:31AM (#10753383)
    What's up with apple and German tanks? First the Panther (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz4.htm#panther [achtungpanzer.com]) and now the Tiger (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/tigerp.htm [achtungpanzer.com]). What's next, the Leopard? When apple releases Mac OS 1x.x Leopard II, then I'm buying a Macintosh!

  • disk space (Score:5, Interesting)

    by devonbowen ( 231626 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @07:41AM (#10753415) Homepage
    Anyone have an educated guess of how much disk space this is going to use? I mean both for the meta-data db and the full-content db.

    Devon

    • I have a volume with nothing on it except 60 GB of AAC files. The metadata folder for that volume is 14 MB.

    • Re:disk space (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PhunkySchtuff ( 208108 )
      Well, let's just throw some figures up into the air. You've got a 200GB hard drive. The index is taking up 1GB. This is half of one percent of the drive space, a couple of dollars worth.
      I'd say that 1GB is a lot larger than it will ever be, so it's not a concern for me at all
      I'll happily spend a couple of dollars on drive space for instant searches on my local machine.
      Kai

  • linux - OSX coexistence with spotlight (Score:3, Insightful)

    by e**(i pi)-1 ( 462311 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:02AM (#10753482) Homepage Journal
    It will be interesting to know how this will work together with other OS, for example with linux or solaris. Some of the metadata [apple.com]look similar to what has with the file system status accessible by

    stat file.jpg

    in linux. Would be nice in linux to beef up on metadata too.

    I hope that spotlight will work also, if you have a linux partition exported to the Mac via NFS. Will file information of NFS mounted systems also stored in the database?

    Having linux and OS X working together is already now not without issues. If you have a file Test.jpg and test.jpg in your Linux partition and you copy both to the same place in OSX, the finder (on the mac) complains, because the two files are considered the same.

  • A working example of metadata use in images (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rahulnair ( 666914 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:05AM (#10753495) Homepage
    Check out Mor Naaman at Stanford who is working on adding GPS metadata to photographs. Once he has the GPS coordinates he uses that to get information such at time of day, lighting, weather, elevation, temperature, etc... This allows you to create metadata searches for "All early morning images in clear weather in Las Vegas, etc..."

    YOu can try the system out here [stanford.edu] with a collection of almost 4k images.

  • lock your screens (Score:5, Funny)

    by TVC15 ( 518429 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:45AM (#10753735)

    I've tried Spotlight and suggest that when it comes out, every time you step away from your computer make sure to lock your screen. All someone has to do is type 'porn' into the little search toolbar and within seconds it's all nicely listed.

    Perhaps Apple needs to add a feature to turn off indexing for certain directories. ;-)
    • I often have data on my machine that I don't want others looking at, financial info, a book I'm writing that is embarrassingly bad, etc. I just stick them in encrypted disk images. It also helps me keep work and personal info separate. Typing in a password once to access each directory is not too much of an inconvenience.

  • Plug-Ins (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Feneric ( 765069 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @09:25AM (#10753990) Homepage

    How well this system works will in part depend upon how many data format plug-ins are provided. For example, take something like the SID audio format. It's relatively unknown, but has an officially registered MIME type with IANA [iana.org] giving it a status above many other file format types, and it is used to provide background sounds on some web sites. Will it make the cut?

    This is just one file format chosen at random. There are thousands out there, some of which are used pretty heavily for documentation in certain circles. How about all of the OpenOffice file formats, or the AbiWord format?

    I can see this feature being hugely useful if Apple does a good job of providing plug-ins, and making it easy for third-parties to add more.

  • The really interesting part is that metadata will be playing a big role in Spotlight while just a few years ago people were afraid metadata in Mac OS X was going the way of the dodo.

    The kind of metadata that was almost deprecated by Apple isn't quite same thing as the "modern" concept of metadata. The classical HFS metadata covered concepts like file type, file creator, and "Finder bits" that aren't handled at the file system level in other OSes. This, combined, with the Mac OS's historical use of resource forks for storing developer defined data records, made perserving such data difficult or impossible in heterogenous environments like the Internet. It's really a shame; I've always thought this concept was the most elegant attempt to solve the problem of "rich data" associated with data files without requiring the data in the file itself to have some form of universal container format.

    The metadata concept used by Spotlight is going to be based in part on a plug-in system that allows the Mac OS to reconstruct metadata information from the data within files themselves, rather than just using the metadata facilities provided by HFS and Mac OS resource forks. That means that each different kind of file, from Word documents to PDFs to Postscript jobs, needs its own special kind of processing to read its own format of storing such data. It's less elegant and more processor intensive that just using the historical HFS system, but it's more likely to to be useful for extracting metadata from files provided by Windows and other Unix variant users.

  • Still needs work (Score:4, Interesting)

    by xnot ( 824277 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @10:03AM (#10754323)
    I'm not convinced yet apple is going to get Spotlight right, i.e. truely revolutionary. It has potential (smart Finder folders is on the right path) but at the moment, it seems they are more interested in simply trying to duplicate Quicksilver/Launchbar technology, which is the wrong way to do this.

    I'm tired of apple ripping off ideas from developers without (A) Giving them credit or (B) developing something equivalent so the new as at least as feature-full as the old. Based on apple's history, the first version of Spotlight will likely be a horribly dumbed down version of Launchbar in terms of tech, since apple is obsessed with "ease of use": i.e. a three year old has to be able to work it.

    Rant aside, there are a few key pieces I think apple is missing:

    (1) User-created metadata. I should be able to tag anything I want with any metadata I want so the organization system follows ME and MY preferences, instead of the system determining it for me. Apple should be thinking about taking the insanely wonderful metadata system they created in iTunes and applying that to the finder. It is essential you be able to tag metadata in, because you don't always access the same objects for the same purposes.

    (2) Flexible file system. This is a concept I've developed which basically says that the file system should be dynamic and adaptable to match the thought flow of the user (only possible with a good metadata file system). If you've ever seen this app on the PC, think: "The Brain". What that means is that if apple does #(2) right, it should be easy as hell to tag things, and then basically I can create relationships which let me "flow" through my files by navigating CONCEPTS instead of folder heirarchy. A good app that does this is Devonthink. Devonthink will grab the contents out of your files, and when you do a search, you can not only see your search term but "related" search terms. Click on a new search term and you get a new listing. So as you come up with ideas about what you want to do, you can easily and naturally branch off into other parts of your file system. This methodology models the way the human brain actually works- thinking in concepts and spacial organization, rather then structure. (The "flexible" comes because the system takes your tags and adapts the search around them, allowing you to change how the "flow" works, depending upon what topics are most important to you.)

    (3) The next level after metadata search is a new way of visually interpreting the metadata and relationships between. Which means a NEW FINDER. I can't believe Steve actually threw this comment out after demoing Spotlight: "With this, you probably won't even need to use the finder any more." Well then why even have the Finder at all, Steve?! There IS a reason for the finder, which is why it's stayed around all these years, and that is that people think SPACIALLY. People are creatures of habit, and one way we remember where things are is if we know where to look for it and it's always in the same place. Which means there needs to be a visual grounding to the above dynamic files system, to give people a sure footing to all of this. I'm talking about things like a window that always stays in the same spot and always performs the same task, like showing you what new files have been added to the system, or actively updating your list of word documents wherever they are. Right now in the finder, a window is a window is a window. That shouldn't be. If a search is applied to a window, then that window isn't just showing you files, it's performing an active function. The finder needs to evolve to take on the new roles and responsiblities it should have in the context of a metadata files system. Spotlight should replace the finder: the two should work together seamlessly.

    The good news is that Spotlight is built into the system, so even if apple screws up the implimentation (likely), the next generation of 3rd party apps will hopefully be able to fill in the gaps.
    • (1)
      Finder comments do this.

      (2)
      Whatever.

      (3)
      Whatever.

    • The technologies are barely related; Apple is not ripping off QS/LB in the least here. Spotlight is a technology for searching through files based on their conent and metadata. QS/LB are utilities for finding files based on easily typed mnemonics. You are looking at one aspect of Spotlights appearance (the dropdown search pane in the corner) and assuming it's a ripoff based on some similarity to the appearance of the other utilities.

      In fact, the Spotlight indexing technology will be a boon to the utilities

  • Great. Just fricking great. (Score:3, Funny)

    by ChuckleBug ( 5201 ) * on Monday November 08, 2004 @01:32PM (#10756762) Journal
    So now Apple's given my wife a way to INSTANTLY find all my porn.

    I guess I now have to go back to a "download as needed then delete" paradigm.

    Sheesh, I wish they'd think these things through.

  • Extrinsic vs intrinsic metadata (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gidds ( 56397 ) <slashdot@NospaM.gidds.me.uk> on Monday November 08, 2004 @01:50PM (#10756975) Homepage
    I think we're talking about different things here. What's being discouraged is the sort of metadata that's extrinsic -- separate from the file. On the Mac's file system, each file has a 4-character type code and a 4-character creator code, and also any amount of data in the resource fork, all of which is separate from the normal datastream. This is all at risk when moving files to or from different file systems or machines, and can be a pain to maintain and use. I think OS X is right not to need it (though it still handles it well).

    However, from what I've seen, that's not the sort of thing Spotlight is about. The plugins we're talking about make use of intrinsic metadata - information extracted from the datastream itself. Many common file types include some descriptive information: EXIF data in pictures, MP3 tags in audio files, meta tags in HTML files, and so on. Spotlight is a way of extracting and using that data.

    The practical differences include, OTTOMH:

    • Spotlight's information won't be lost when files get stored on other file systems, sent over email, processed on other platforms, &c.
    • Spotlight uses information that's already in the files - you won't have to set it up manually.
    • You can use existing tools to see and edit the metadata - MP3 taggers, photo editors, whatever. And you can do so on any machine and OS.
    This is probably one of those rare cases when that foul word 'leverage' might be appropriate -- Spotlight should allow you to make much better use of an existing resource. As such, it sounds like a jolly neat idea!

  • Search Ontology (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ElitistWhiner ( 79961 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @02:06PM (#10757132) Journal
    There's been reference from the beginning of the computer revolution to this solution we've all been waiting for... and credit to evolutionary steps taken by apps such as,Quicksilver, Launchbar, BeOS, etc... but one application that predates AND which most closely matches the feature set is:
    Simson Garfinkle's "Sbook.app" from NeXT in the 90's.

    The usefulness of Sbook.app ability to add tokens in a flat file for instantaneous searches enabled people to apply Sbook.app outside its realm of address book that it originally was designed.

    Abstracting its functionality and interoperating at the kernel level is pure Apple polish on the brand. Until people start using "Spotlight", the verdict will be out on adoption across the platform.

    I will venture it will be one of the defining characteristics of the Mac platform into the future.

  • Backups? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by twenex ( 139462 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @03:39PM (#10758589)
    Does anyone know how this will work with Backups/Restores? OS X backup programs have enough problems with resource files, yet alone this additional data.

    Also, how about remote file systems (nfs for example). Resource files are mapped as regular files with a ._ prefix. Will the metadata be useable on an NFS mounted filesystem.

  • Search on the desktop (Score:3, Interesting)

    by akuzi ( 583164 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @04:37PM (#10759464)
    Sure search engines are killer apps for the Internet but that's because the web is intrinsically disorganised and distributed.

    Is search really so relevant for a single computer and the average desktop user? Most people already organise their files in a somewhat structured way, and generally know where to find stuff. (Especially if they use OS X)

    Sure powerful file search might be useful occasionally, but i don't see it as a huge issue that companies like M$ think it is.

  • Practical examples of what spotlight does... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MrMeCee ( 813413 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @05:28PM (#10760165)
    ...using smart folders.

    If you have a mac with a ton of files, various "Previous System Folders" etc...follow along :)

    I have smart folders for pdfs, avis, mpgs, and wmvs

    I have these sorts of files *all over the place*...movie clips, test files, you name it.

    I go to the finder, "open" the Windows Media Files folder, and they are all "there"

    Or all the "archive" files (zip, rar, sit/sitx etc) i've collected and not erased in the last year...

    or all of the emails i've received from japanese users...

    it goes on and on.

    To me, its like the whole star trek "Computer..find all of the blah blah blah for sector Whatever"

    It concentrates on the "what you want" as opposed to the current paradigm of where did i pit it/what app did i use, etc

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close