Google Adds Features and Plugin to Desktop Search 274
Matthew Bischoff writes "Today Google added new features to its popular desktop software. Google
Desktop now supports alternative Netscape based browsers like Firefox,
PDFs, images, video, and music files. Google also added a plug-ins
feature so that developers can integrate their software into the Google Desktop
catalog. Another new addition is a supported way to search from Google's deskbar
software. It's probably a matter of time until we see desktop search integrated
into all of the Google products including the controversial Google
Toolbar 3." Google Desktop is also officially now out of beta.
Other new google things (Score:5, Informative)
Also, they have setup a download page where you can grab individual download packages, or all of their packages in one zip file. www.google.com/downloads/ [google.com]
And of course there was the slashdot article [slashdot.org], the other day describing the new Weather feature and Gmail Improvements.
Great! (Score:5, Funny)
Who cares in two months? (Score:2, Interesting)
Search is great, but I don't see a value-add for anyone other than the OS company itself to develop it.
Re:Great! (Score:4, Funny)
Is Microsoft out of the loop? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, good to see Google isn't doing an eternal beta on this product like its Google News offering (the whole beta thing gets annoying after 2 continuous years!)
Re:Is Microsoft out of the loop? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is Microsoft out of the loop? (Score:2, Insightful)
* Google fanboys, of course. Google as a public company doesn't say shit.
Re:Is Microsoft out of the loop? (Score:4, Informative)
That's a legal issue. If Google starts making money from other news sites without actually paying them, then they risk legal action for use of copyrighted material. Right now, they have no ads because this (in theory) puts them in the fair use section
--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini [freeminimacs.com]
Or a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox [freegamingsystems.com]
Wired article as proof [wired.com]
Re:Is Microsoft out of the loop? (Score:2)
Re:Is Microsoft out of the loop? (Score:3)
You mean, like Slashdot has been doing since before Google was a little more than an overactive synapse? Of course, Slashdot has ads, and subscriptions, and is clearly motivated by profit. Is Rob Malda going to prison now? ($250k+5 years*how many articles with verbatim quotations?)
Fair use allows for this sort of thing. It is not written, "Thou shalt not make m
Re:Is Microsoft out of the loop? (Score:3, Informative)
So is there a catch ? (Score:5, Interesting)
I assume they're not risking their "don't do any bad "-policy for this ?
So what -is- the catch ?
I am fedup with using the regurlar search in Windows, so I am defenitely in for some improvement.
Re:So is there a catch ? (Score:4, Insightful)
That was about it, IIRC. Maybe there will be a plug-in for it so that if it is still around, there will be an add-on to allow full updates.
Re:So is there a catch ? (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22google+de
Re:So is there a catch ? (Score:2)
Re:You want to know what the catch is? (Score:5, Informative)
1.) Any information on you is fair game.
2.) They will happily turn over any information they have on you at any government request.
3.) Your Gmail may reside on their servers indefinitely, even after you delete it. This may also be "indexed" on their servers and the contents read at any time.
Since you claim that this information is in Google's privacy policy, can you provide a link?
Let me quote first from Google's deskbar privacy policy http://desktop.google.com/privacypolicy.html/ [google.com]
Your computer's content is not made accessible to Google or anyone else without your explicit permission.
Now let me quote from Google's gmail privacy policy http://gmail.google.com/gmail/help/privacy.html/ [google.com]
Because we keep back-up copies of data for the purposes of recovery from errors or system failure, residual copies of email may remain on our systems for some time, even after you have deleted messages from your mailbox or after the termination of your account. Google employees do not access the content of any mailboxes unless you specifically request them to do so (for example, if you are having technical difficulties accessing your account) or if required by law, to maintain our system, or to protect Google or the public.
Now feel free to link to the privacy policy of any company in the USA that claims to protect your privacy even after martial law is declared and claims that your data is deleted from their servers the instant you hit delete.
Re:You want to know what the catch is? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Google's privacy policies state that:
1.) Any information on you is fair game.
2.) They will happily turn over any information they have on you at any government request.
3.) Your Gmail may reside on their servers indefinitely, even after you delete it. This may also be "indexed" on their servers and the contents read at any time."
Someone asked you to show them where google's privacy policy makes these claims and then you post from googlewatch.org That's almost (well not really but you get the point) like quoting Microsoft on Linux's total cost of ownership
Re:You want to know what the catch is? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's why [google-watch-watch.org].
Re:You want to know what the catch is? (Score:2)
Not to mention their search results have sucked since 2003, but that's totally beside the point.
Any better engines around then ? I do see that Google gets more and more polluted ; But I haven't heard of any good alternatives around.
Re:You want to know what the catch is? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You want to know what the catch is? (Score:2)
A great deal of sound and fury... (Score:2)
The various bits about governmental requests are no doubt there because, whether or not Google notifies you of the fact, they would be required to make such disclosures under US law (see the PATRIOT Act among others). That they're telling you this and others are not is an indication that other companies would rather not disclose it for fear you might be suspicious of them. Google is trying to be as up-front with you as they can, and they're telling you "we will protect you
Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (Score:2, Interesting)
What, exactly does it do? Find files by name? I already have a tool to do that.
I mean, it's just another useless service to run.
I'm being serious. Tell me something neat and impressive that I can make it do, so I too can start preaching the genious of Google.
I tried searching, for example, for some phrases that I know are in some sourcecode files I have. It didn't find the files containing the code. I guess it doesn
Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't delete emails. I happen to be using Outlook, too.
Google search doesnt (the version I tried) index the mailbox.pst file. Maybe it does now. My
So searching all my email for all references to a particular product takes... 29 seconds for a full text search. Less than two for a subject line only search.
Google does this better or faster? How please, because like I said, it didn't index the
If it works, then maybe that's
Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (Score:2)
Google Desktop Search has searched email since it was first available. There is no version that can't search email. Are you sure you haven't got the email search turned off (right click the icon in the task bar, choose preferences).
Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (Score:2, Interesting)
I thought at the very least, the search tools would have an automatic list of files to EXCLUDE.
Get rid of avi files and iso images (by default) and large archives, and I might actually find whats in front of me.
I hate NOT knowing whats missing, and its worse knowing there is a file right in front of me, but the search tool refuses to index it.
I made my own in the end, and it handles everything I can throw at it.
Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (Score:5, Informative)
Google's search utility uses a variant of their own caching technology to make searches much faster. The new plug-in technology will allow someone to make add-ons for searching code.
Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (Score:2)
I used to keep most stuff on my server and have the indexing server + a lot of IFilters index it all, and it was searcheable by a webpage. Not exactly the perfect solution, but so far, none of the desktop search tools have really been much better.
The only one (which is the worst overall IMHO and MS owned) who uses IFilter is the MSN junk (you couldn't pay me enough to install anything that says "MSN" on my PC anyways).
GDS and Copernic have ver
Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (Score:3, Insightful)
It's just a little better. Enough that it's worth using, while Windows built in search is not.
Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (Score:2)
How do you like the interface for those features? If you like them, use them. I don't like deciding whether I'm searching for video vs content in a word doc ahead of time. Not necessary. I don't like Windows' UI for search. (It's not because of the little doggy. I like d
Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (Score:2)
It's not. Most likely you haven't got it switched on.
And neither does GDS. Are you just trolling?
How about simultaneous search of email, text file, Office documents, AOL IMs, and
Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (Score:5, Interesting)
For example: I did a GDS search for the name of a server I was building last week.
Bam. I got every document I had about that server. The online change requests. The service requests to site engineering. The operational handbook I wrote. The inventory spreadsheet.
Wow. That was pretty cool.
I also found out that while GDS doesn't index networked drives/shares, it *will* include documents on the network that you have opened in its search results. That was pretty good too.
It's also useful on a couple of our intranet sites. Just this morning I had to find a change request for a server - using the search mechanism of our change system is difficult at best - but because I could search it in Google, it came up right away.
Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (Score:2)
* It has automatic IM logging and fast searching among logs. I used to save all my chats in a folder and use Windows file find to find stuff. I still save the chats, but I use GDS to search the text (and pull up the original if necessary).
* It finds most common file types (read: MS Office, and whatever you write a plugin for) and can search within them, quickly. It searches a
Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (Score:2)
Oh yeah, and that screenshot is from an older beta. I haven't upgraded yet to 1.0.
Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (Score:2)
because it doesn't have the world's most *@#!* irritating dog built in, maybe?
(my comp is a little old, and everything grinds to a halt every time I need to search for something and that damn dog turns up
yes, I have rage against the Windows Search Dog >:(
Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (Score:2)
Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (Score:2)
There's lot
Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (Score:3, Informative)
What tool? Windows has something built in, but it will take half an hour to find the file but Google Desktop Search can do it in a few milliseconds.
> Tell me something neat and impressive that I can make it do,
Search your entire email in 20ms.
> I tried searching, for example, for some phrases that I know are in
> some sourcecode files I have. It didn't find the files containing the code.
You were using a BETA. Ev
Bad Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
No thanks i'm keepin it off my machine!
Martini Recipe Please (Score:3, Funny)
I was already disappointed with the ToolBar that did not have any 18v cordless versions.
Re:Martini Recipe Please (Score:3, Funny)
So does Google Bar.
So does Chocolate Bar, come to think of it.
SUSE 9.3 Pro (03/09/2005) with desktop search (Score:3, Interesting)
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39
Is Google Desktop Search > Beagle?
Re:SUSE 9.3 Pro (03/09/2005) with desktop search (Score:2)
Or Plan B, insert a proper hyperlink in your post, like this:
SuSE Linux gets desktop search [zdnet.co.uk]
Spellcheck and PDF (Score:5, Informative)
The ability to search PDF's seems like it could be useful if it is actually searching inside the PDF. I haven't actually seen another Windows based tool do that, so for me this could make Google Desktop more than the "toy" it is (for me) at the moment (It doesn't do anything a structured file system cannot).
So good improvements. I can't see what is so controversial about the toolbar though.
Re:Spellcheck and PDF (Score:3, Informative)
Adobe provides a filter [adobe.com] for the built-in Windows indexing service.
searching pdf (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Spellcheck and PDF (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Spellcheck and PDF (Score:2)
Copernic http://www.copernic.com/ [copernic.com] is a pretty nice program which can do just that. After GDS came out, I tried it, but one of the abilities which I needed, and which it didn't provide, was the ability to search within PDFs.
There are other things I don't especially like about Copernic, but all-in-all it's handy, and fast. I'll have to try o
Re:Spellcheck and PDF (Score:2)
Searching for: porn: zero matches.
Did you mean: pr0n?
google: the next Msft? (Score:3, Insightful)
The rate Google is making strides to take over and redefine people's www interaction is quite alarming. From the original "just another search engine" beginnings, Google have made a lot of inroads. I see Google ads all over the place. I load the Google toolbar into IE to get an easier search and now I have intrusive "nannyware" that watches over my shoulder like Clippy does: "I see you've done xxxx a few times, do you want to create a shortcut?".
Tinfoil hat time folks.
Well, you see (Score:2)
They don't just hate Microsoft because Microsoft is successful, as many of Microsoft's defenders seem to think they do.
So unless you try to excessively simplify things, there does not seem to be an immediate logical reason that if Google becomes successful, people will begin to hate them too in significant number.
Google would
Re:google: the next Msft? (Score:3, Informative)
The rate Google is making strides to take over and redefine people's www interaction is quite alarming.
Yes, Google is "taking over people's www interaction"... BECAUSE THEY VOLUNTARILY DOWNLOAD AND INSTALL IT.
Over the past month or so, people are whipping themselves up into hysterics with paranoia about Google. Take the toolbar, for instance. Loads of people were saying things like "OH NOES! It's fooling people into thinking I'm linking to something I'm not!" when in actual fact, the user is click
Re:google: the next Msft? (Score:4, Insightful)
Take over how?
Don't install a lot of stuff from Google.com and set your start page to yahoo.com. No more Google "taking over" your browsing experience. When I use phrases like "taking over" in combination of "redefining", I come to think of spyware that forces stuff onto you, but Google force nothing on you, besides the ads on sites that have chosen to use them if you're counting those, which leads me to...
I see Google ads all over the place.
We won't magically rid the world of ads besides by using ad blockers, so all we can hope for are ads that aren't annoying. And Google's aren't in my opinion, so why complain? I definitely take Google text ads more than flashing DoubleClick ads with Gonzo buddies.
I load the Google toolbar into IE to get an easier search and now I have intrusive "nannyware" that watches over my shoulder like Clippy does: "I see you've done xxxx a few times, do you want to create a shortcut?
Don't install the Google Toolbar. It's not required for any of their services, or in any other way. There are alternative options for whatever you're trying to do, such as installing the Firefox Googlebar extension instead. Again, why complain? Lots of companies make software I don't like for one reason or another -- I still don't make a webpage complaining about these dozens of companies. I just don't use the products I don't prefer. The issue with e.g. Microsoft is that they've worked themselves into the OEM's and employ horrible business tactics in some cases to push their products onto the market. Installing a Googlebar is entirely up to you, and should of course only be done if you like the software. Google probably implemented the "do you want to create a shortcut" thing since their research told it should be convenient for their users. It's not like they force you to google.com when you type in msn.com or anything. It's nothing evil in that sense. What's annoying to you doesn't mean the intent is an evil one, or even that it's annoying to everyone.
Re:google: the next Msft? (Score:2)
That's a silly thing to say. That's like saying that your TV screen is yours, and the revenue from ads placed on it should be yours, and not TV station's.
If you took your monitor, put it on the window and let people who walk by your house read the ads, then you might have an argument.
Re:google: the next Msft? (Score:2)
Besides the products, services, and web searches you use on it of course (excluding any software you may have developed).
Re:google: the next Msft? (Score:2)
Re:google: the next Msft? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not supposed to. However, I can tell you why other people like Google: because they make cool shit that's easy to use and useful as hell.
Frankly I prefer the honesty of a spam
Awww shit... looks like I'm feeding a troll here.
I'm not sure what Google is trying to do.
Make money?
GMail, no thanks. I DO NOT WANT CONTEXT-RELATED ADS EMBEDDED INTO MY EMAIL.
Embedded? Nope, they appear on the right side of the screen, similar to other free-mail service banner ads. So either you haven't used it, or you don't like the idea that their algorithm might actually find something you'd like to buy based on your email. I mean, I can't see how someone who understands how the technology works would be afraid of using it.
Desktop Search, no thanks: I DO NOT WANT CONTEXT-RELATED ADS EMBEDDED INTO MY DESKTOP.
Embedded in your desktop? I installed Google Desktop just now. It shows an icon in the bar near the time. No ads on my desktop. Perhaps you meant the desktop SEARCH RESULTS? Nope, none there, either. Sure, they may add some someday, but it doesn't bother me.
Then again, I don't expect to get everything cool for free. Yet Google surprises me most of the time on that front.
My desktop is not for sale as advertising space. If it were, then the revenue generated from it should be MINE, not Googles.
In other words, the services Google provides are worth nothing to you. That is fine, you don't have to use Google. However, I find it strange that someone would be pissed off that a commercial company might offer services in exchange for advertising revenue.
Have you been living on Earth long?
Re:google: the next Msft? (Score:3, Informative)
So let me get this straight. You want to use Google tools for free and when they post ads TO YOU you want them to pay your for the privelige?
So don't use Gmail or Google search. Not sure what search engine you will use though. I don't know of a subscription based model with no ads.
Re:google: the next Msft? (Score:2)
Re:google: the next Msft? (Score:3, Informative)
Provide web searching and other services in exchange for you seeing text-ads. They don't slip them in, Google's services have ads as part of them. If you don't like their ads, don't use Google. I can't fathom why you think this is underhanded.
GMail, no thanks. I DO NOT WANT CONTEXT-RELATED ADS EMBEDDED INTO MY EMAIL.
Desktop Search Over-rated (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong I installed the first Google Desktop Search, thought it was cool as hell, then never used it again. I just don't have a need.
Re:Desktop Search Over-rated (Score:2)
Seriously, a lot of people these days work with so much data that manual filing would take a significant amount of time and ultimately is never going to happen 100% reliably or with enough fine grained detail. There is obvious value in a tool that can pull information on a given topic from a variety of sources in one quick hit.
Re:Desktop Search Over-rated (Score:2)
But you still have to navigate your tidy folder hierarchies right? The whole point of a desktop searcher is to instantly get to the file you were looking for, skipping most navigation steps.
Re:Desktop Search Over-rated (Score:2)
Show me how creating different folders is faster to give me the data that I want/looking for.
I still create folders (both in email and data) to separate stuff into common denomators, but it would someitme take me 20-30 minutes to find was I was looking for. Now it takes seconds, allowing me to be a lot mor
I believe (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I believe (Score:2)
Built in spellcheck. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Built in spellcheck. (Score:5, Funny)
Controversial? Misunderstood Is More Like It. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Controversial? Misunderstood Is More Like It. (Score:3, Insightful)
And these ways to prevent stuff like AutoLink are also dumb.
How many of you use bookmarklets/favelets? Mozilla/Firefox extensions? Opera's web designer things? User-defined stylesheets? Would you like them to cease functioning just because the author didn't want you to be able to muck with the content or the presentation locally? Doing that is the stupidest thing since the scripts that go out of their way to prohibit me from viewing source - if I'm viewing it, I have it saved as a file in cache (or at leas
Still requires admin rights to use (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, that lovely message is still there when I try to use it in my main work account.
Oh, well. Maybe next time.
Security (Score:2, Insightful)
Mod -1 laughable (Score:5, Insightful)
b) Even if it was encrypted, the decryption key would have to also be on your computer for Google Desktop to use it anyway so would be fairly easily snarfable by someone who had enough access to get at the index.
c) Google Desktop runs as an http server on localhost. Anyone with enough access to get to the index could more easily query the Google interface directly for whatever they are interested in.
Got to love that panic response to Copernic 1.5 (Score:4, Interesting)
Last week Copernic 1.5b was released with full support, now Google are producing the same feature. Coincidence? If so tough luck, I already switched from GDS!
The real news here (Score:5, Funny)
Lots of problems.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure why NOD32's [nod32.com] Internet Monitor affects a DESKTOP search. But I can't use it as long as I'm using my AV program of choice. Does this make sense to anyone? Because I can't figure it out.
BTW: this has been a known issue for a few months now.
Re:Lots of problems.... (Score:2)
Think about it: It makes lots of sense to block that, because how many times per day do you have a piece of software that scans almost your entire harddrive for files (outside of search programs and apps built into the OS)?
Plugin architecture = spyware risk? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's awesome that Google has provided this tool to us, and I hope that they release a OS X and Linux versions soon. However, I worry that we may see spyware use this search plugin architecture for, say, rapidly locating credit card information or bank statements...
GMail? (Score:4, Insightful)
Google...make way for Copernic Desktop Search (Score:3, Informative)
Comparisons:
1) Searching text files (.java,
2) Music/Video/Images are both searchable and *viewable/watchable/hearable* from within CDS while it was just added in a limited capacity in GDS.
3) Thunderbird and Eudora both searchable in CDS and Thunderbird just added in GDS.
4) Smart indexing of *network drives* in CDS 1.5 beta is totally awesome. It is amazing to see what you have instant access to on your corporate network in terms of internally searchable code files and business docs.
5) CDS 1.5 beta searches iTunes, QuickTime and OGG information (artist, album, etc) while GDS is likely more limited.
6) CDS 1.5 has targeted search (search email first, or files first, etc.) while GDS has been known to choose it's own path.
7) The GDS killer IMHO - preview of every major filetype is within the actual CDS search...like DOC, XLS, PPT, HTM, Email, code files and also highlighting search terms in different colors showing their context.
Prove me wrong after you download it and try it [copernic.com] (for free of course).
Wow (Score:2)
I was wrong! It's so fast. Get it, you'll never use windows search again.
ARG (Score:2)
Still no regex, wildcards, etc ?? (Score:2)
Re:Wow, who uses this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wow, who uses this? (Score:3, Informative)
oh no! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Controversial Toolbar? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Controversial Toolbar? (Score:5, Funny)
No, they want to attract users.
Re:Controversial Toolbar? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Controversial Toolbar? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Controversial Toolbar? (Score:4, Insightful)
Spyware does not clearly spell out what it's doing, or what it does with the information, or even that it is being installed. Big difference.
Re:Controversial Toolbar? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Someone please tell me (Score:2, Informative)
http://users.tns.net/~skingery/firefox/GDS_Tips.h
Re:Someone please tell me (Score:3)
Re:searching mhtml (Score:3, Informative)