Google Adds Features and Plugin to Desktop Search

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.

Comments

And the sad thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone (Google) is creating useful shareware software to enhance the Windows operating system... and Microsoft probably sees this as a threat.

So when do we see a Linux version.

Bad Idea

[FzArEkTaH]

It's bad enough my tech-retarded roomate try's to find my pr0n when he "goin on ebay" with this the desktop search he may actually be able to find something

No thanks i'm keepin it off my machine!

Re:Is Microsoft out of the loop?

[Jnickraz]

Why is it annoying? Your not losing any functionality because its labeled "Beta". What they are doing is saying "hey this product is good, and its gonna be even better some day investors". Its alot better, I think then releasing a product a la "Windows" with bugs and its share of flaws.

google: the next Msft?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

How soon before /. becomes a Google-bashing society?

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.

Re:google: the next Msft?

[That's Unpossible!]

Why am I supposed to like them, exactly?

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?

[Jugalator]

The rate Google is making strides to take over and redefine people's www interaction is quite alarming.

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.

Desktop Search Over-rated

[Rollsbot]

I guess I've been using a computer for too long because I have no use for desktop search tools. I learned to make folders and file my files appropriate a long time ago, and as a result, I never have to search for anything.

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.

Firefox a netscape-based browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Google Desktop now supports alternative Netscape based browsers like Firefox

Surely the other way round? Netscape is now based on Gecko (and IE). Firefox can hardly be called netscape based these days...

Re:Controversial Toolbar?

[northcat]

It's controversial because some idiots can't tell the difference between an enabled-by-default feature on the default browser on a monopoly OS and a disabled-by-default feature on an optional additional program.

Re:So is there a catch ?

[Martin Blank]

I'm hoping that they updated the caching mechanism, as IIRC it didn't remove documents that you had moved or deleted. While this is handy sometimes for retrieving accidentally lost information, it does present a bit of a problem in that sometimes you really *want* that information gone.

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.

Security

[MHobbit]

As long as Google Desktop encrypts the index to AT LEAST 256-bits, I'll be happy.

Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do

[Elwood P Dowd]

Uh, read the feature list. If you don't like it, don't use it. Windows built in search won't help you find that website you saw the other day but can't remember now and can't find in your history. Windows built in search is shitty for finding content inside files, and Outlook is shitty at finding content inside emails.

It's just a little better. Enough that it's worth using, while Windows built in search is not.

Re:Controversial Toolbar?

[Martin Blank]

It tells you upfront when you install it that it will upload certain information (the sites you visit) to Google. You have to make the choice when installing it of what version to use -- there is no default for whether Advanced Settings are turned on or off -- and Google clearly spells it out.

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.

Plugin architecture = spyware risk?

[Niten]

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...

Re:Huh?

[kin_korn_karn]

nope. Shareware means you pay for it eventually. Freeware means you don't pay for it, period.

GMail?

[FuzzzyLogik]

Why doesn't it also search GMail? That would be a real benefit. Or does it already and i just don't see this listed anywhere?

Mod -1 laughable

[Chuck Chunder]

a) The data on your hard disk isn't encrypted so having an index encrypted doesn't buy you any real security.
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.

Re:You want to know what the catch is?

[DocDendrite]

You're fucking paranoid.

Re:Is Microsoft out of the loop?

[generic-man]

What they* are also saying is that "hey this product is good, and if you criticize it then this is in beta and it's not finished yet." At least when companies like Apple release unfinished software, they have customers to answer to. If you criticize Google, then how dare you criticize a free service.

* Google fanboys, of course. Google as a public company doesn't say shit.

Re:You want to know what the catch is?

[jomas1]

I'm very familiar with google watch and I've actually quoted the very same exerpt that you have but what do you think this proves? I can link dozen's of pages that claim creationism has been scientifically proven and anything else that I'd like to prove. You said:
"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:Controversial? Misunderstood Is More Like It.

[wootest]

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 least in a location in memory). I can get at it.

I'm doing absolutely nothing wrong when I'm trying to view source, or manipulate the temporary image of the downloaded copy of your original web site, because it's my right as a user to make sure I can read the content I have access to comfortably. It's when I'm trying to change your content at the server that you should be worried.