Google Releases GDS 2.0

FansofTech writes "Google (now $4bn richer) has released v2.0 of Google Desktop. Many new features are introduced including improved Outlook filtering, Gmail indexing, and the feature which is most likely to cause the largest stir...a new Sidebar which displays RSS feeds, a Gmail inbox, news, scratch pad and more. Plug-ins for the new Sidebar are also available including a to-do list, clock, and more. As one blogger pointed out this morning...the release of Google Desktop 2.0 is beginning to take shape as a browser in itself as the need for a Firefox or IE is almost eliminated."

Comments

I'd hate to burst your bubble...

[LegendOfLink]

as the need for a Firefox or IE is almost eliminated...

I'm not really sure who uses Google Desktop; I certainly don't. I had the last version for about a week, and then I got bored with it. This is true for about 90% of the things I find online. Plus, what Google is doing now is starting to be the same thing Microsoft has been doing for the last few years: trying to get their hands into everything.

It's only a matter of time and probable lawsuits before the geek community starts to have a little falling out over this love affair we all seem to have with Google.

*Year 2007: Commence with the pie'ing Paige and Brin jokes.

And most important of all

[Jarlsberg]

It finally supports indexing of files from network shares natively. :)

Privacy Issues

[AlexTheBeast]

I am not a huge privacy kind of guy, but google is getting a little crazy with what they save about you now.

They are now recording click-throughs on their search pages. Why do they need this information? It wasn't too long ago that links on google.com went straight to the link... not back through the google servers...

Just remember to clean out your google desktop index history.

Is our privacy now worth more than free software?

(Tin-foil hat mode off)

Re:Privacy Issues

[jayloden]

Conspiracy theory: Google records all the clickthroughs on their searches to record every piece of information about you for the Government spy agencies and evil spyware marketing.

Realistic theory: What better way to rank a page's relevancy than by determining which links are chosen by the searchers for a given keyword or set of keywords? This helps eliminate the dross from a search, since you know which of the search results previous searchers found at least interesting enough to click through.

Re:Privacy Issues

[jeremy_a]

>> What better way to rank a page's relevancy than by determining which links are chosen by the searchers for a given keyword or set of keywords?

> bad side effect...

> page 1 & 2 search results will firmly become engrained there by this method as everyone clicks on the top few results normally

That could be a problem if the results fed directly into the page rank. But it would seem more logical to use this to cull bad links from the top 10. If people consistenly ignore the first link for a particular search, but instead click on the second or third links, it would be a good indication that the top link isn't very good and should be moved down the list, which could in turn allow a new link to bubble up to the top 10.

Re:Privacy Issues

[stefanlasiewski]

It wasn't too long ago that links on google.com went straight to the link... not back through the google servers...

This isn't new, and Yahoo does it also.

I remember playing with these rewritten links in 2001 for some SEO projects. Back in 1999, many of the links in Google appeared in the status bar as "http://www.google.com/url?url=http%3A//boingboing .net", so it was pretty obvious what they were doing.

This is how the big search engines determine which links are most popular.

The Holy Grail of Direct Marketing is to personalize advertisements efficiently. This is Google's whole business model.

To do this they collect information from the visitors, deposit the information in a huge database, analyze the data and then programatically determine which advertisements will be most effective based on the target audience.

No XP64

[NetJunkie]

It won't install on XP 64-bit edition.

Bleh!

[Agret]

Google Desktop 2.0 is beginning to take shape as a browser in itself as the need for a Firefox or IE is almost eliminated.

Well it's a nice addition to the system but I don't think I'll replace Firefox with it. It'll take awhile for them to port extensions to the Google Desktop thing and even still it's not cross platform.

Re:Bleh!

[ryanov]

And how is it a replacement? You need a browser in order to render the pages you find. Even the config page needs a browser. I guess it'd be a good way to eliminate the need, unless of course I wanted to, y'know, browse the web.

Dashboard

[sedyn]

Does the functionality of this program remind anyone else of dashboard for OSX?

Speaking of, widgets seem to be all the rage at the moment. Do they have any standards (other than program APIs), for say, the sake of portibility? Or would that be pointless?

I ask that because there seems to be a lot of duplication of functions (such as local weather) between various applications.

Hmm, really?

[MaestroSartori]

"...the need for a Firefox or IE is almost eliminated..."

Other than that minor, troublesome web-browsing feature presumably? :)

Google Digital Assistant

[simp]

I want my GDA (Google Digital Assistant). Then I can wander around the world and if I have a question I can look it up in my GDA.
And it should look friendly and reassuring.

Re:Google Digital Assistant

[thedbp]

But most importantly, it should be emblazoned with the words "Don't Panic."

Not true

[geekdreams]

Their browser will come bundled with their operating system.

Windows Only?

[byronne]

Since this sounds so intriguing I thought I'd take a quick look-see. Go to the downloads and what do I see? "Currently available for Windows computers only"

I hope some of their new-found wealth goes toward developing some of these nifty tools for other platforms (Fedora? BSD? MAC?)...

Thunderbird mail!

[jfengel]

I've been waiting for it to index Thunderbird mail, because Thunderbird's search is pretty slow. It claims to do that now. Yay!

Re:Thunderbird mail!

[d3bruts1d]

Yeah... Google Desktop Search 1.0 (Gold) supported Thunderbird indexing. Link for the unbelieving: http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=6 188

Google - windows only?

[yitzhak]

It seems that as Google encourages developers to write windows-only plugins, and GDS comes to rely on third-party plugins for functionality, it'll become that much more difficult to ever see GDS on OS X or linux. Of course, OS X has Spotlight, but it looks like Google is gunning for more than just desktop search, and instead providing a platform that ties Google services and the Desktop together. (Those looking for a GoogleOS - this is probably the closest we're going to get.)

If Yahoo! gets serious with Konfabulator, it could provide a similar service, but in a cross-platform manner. Likely? Perhaps not. But Yahoo! seems to be shaking it's past history of Windows-only support and moving towards platform independence, while Google is bringing out more and more Windows-only products (GDS, Accelerator, Earth). Just another reason that Google seems to be losing geek mindshare while Yahoo! is gaining it. Just look at the rising number of comments on slashdot that are questioning Google's benevolence, or supporting Yahoo!'s newfound drive to openness - flawed though slashdot may be, the comments give you a good barometer for the geek world.

Search more than 1 notes database..

[Destoo]

I want to be able to search more than one lotus notes Databases, if that's not too much to ask.

The plugin we have will only search one, usually the mail file..
I'd like it to search my 5 archive files also.

Thank you.

The Wrong Direction

[eno2001]

I love Google and all of the really cool things they've come up with. I love the fact that they've been able to make such intricate web applications and use very little bandwidth to present users with decent interfaces. But, I think the Google Desktop might be the wrong direction with it's toolbar. Part of the problem that I see with it is that it presents information to the user by default. This is a BAD thing. Users don't typically want or care for information unless they are interested in it right at the moment. By presenting it to them automatically, you make it invisible. Since they see it often enough to annoy them, they wind up ignoring (then worse) and forgetting that it's there.

If you think about it, how many times do you know users who actually use the clock that is displayed on their task bar? I've seen many people at various places I've worked, completely ignore their own PC and look at the clock on the wall. Or, they might even ask someone, "do you know what time it is"? when it's right there in front of them. It's not that they're stupid or that they don't understand what that clock does. It's that they've been OVEREXPOSED to it. This holds true for weather, and headlines as well. Rather than bombarding the user with information, let it agreggate the info in a hidden area with constant updates. Then (much like the Dashboard in Mac OS X) using a special key combo, function key or maybe a clickable area, present the information as a translucent area over the existing desktop. This will then force the user to focus on the new information without being able to interact or be distracted by what is now backgrounded.

My other concern is that by Google designing a full application that rests on top of Windows, they are putting themselves in two unenviable positions:

1. Due to the various interactions between programs from multiple vendors, they may get blamed for system instability if there is a negative interaction with another app that a user has installed. Where I work there is an app that users love that shifts their desktop background randomly and puts a "neat" calendar on their desktop. However, it's blamed for instability frequently. Maybe it is unstable, or maybe it's interacting poorly with another app. Who knows? But that's the problem with utilities that run in the background vs. apps that the user is focused on 100% when running.

2. Microsoft, since they percieve Google to be a threat are very likely going to make this Dekstop thing break. It's happened many times before and you know it will happen again. This tried and true Microsoft Tactic(tm) could result in extra work for the Google programmers who wrote this app.

Finally, they'd be better off designing a replacement shell for Windows if they really want to have a "Google Desktop". They would still be at the mercy of item two above, but item one would apply less since the Google Desktop would now be the shell that the user interacts with all the time. If it's well written, the user should only notice the benefits of an alternative shell to Microsoft's Explorer shell (which is pretty ugly and clunky). If they did this, they might be able to port to other OSes and possibly provide an avenue for people to exit the Windows fold and go with a GNU/Linux/Google Desktop distribution.

Re:The Wrong Direction

[ThinkFr33ly]

Microsoft, since they percieve Google to be a threat are very likely going to make this Dekstop thing break. It's happened many times before and you know it will happen again. This tried and true Microsoft Tactic(tm) could result in extra work for the Google programmers who wrote this app.

Prove it. People on Slashdot love claiming that MS has intentionally broken competitor's applications on Windows or DOS, but nobody is ever able to produce a single shred of actual evidence to support this claim. Sorry, but just because the claim is repeated thousands of times in a Google search result doesn't make it true.

In fact, it has been fairly well debunked for years now... yet people continue to cite it as proof of MS' evil empire.

Give it a rest.

If they did this, they might be able to port to other OSes and possibly provide an avenue for people to exit the Windows fold and go with a GNU/Linux/Google Desktop distribution.

When will you, and the rest of Slashdot, realize that basically nobody cares about other operating systems. Google writes applications to add value to their services and they want to expose it to the largest possible user base with the least effort. This means Windows. Period.

Most people don't WANT to exit the Windows fold, despite your self delusions. Most people are pretty happy with Windows, and the minority that aren't are probably satisfied enough to stick with it because of how widely used and supported it is.

You seem to have this idea that the millions of Windows users out there are just crying out for an escape path. Hate to break it to you, but that's just not the case.

Seems to me that you think Google is heading in the wrong direction because it's opposite to the one you've obviously chosen.

Re:The Wrong Direction

[nbritton]

"If you think about it, how many times do you know users who actually use the clock that is displayed on their task bar? I've seen many people at various places I've worked, completely ignore their own PC and look at the clock on the wall. Or, they might even ask someone, "do you know what time it is"? when it's right there in front of them. It's not that they're stupid or that they don't understand what that clock does. It's that they've been OVEREXPOSED to it. This holds true for weather, and headlines as well. Rather than bombarding the user with information, let it agreggate the info in a hidden area with constant updates. Then (much like the Dashboard in Mac OS X) using a special key combo, function key or maybe a clickable area, present the information as a translucent area over the existing desktop. This will then force the user to focus on the new information without being able to interact or be distracted by what is now backgrounded."


I've seen many people get up from their calculator and spend minutes looking for a calculator, explain that to me.

Re:The Wrong Direction

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

People on Slashdot love claiming that MS has intentionally broken competitor's applications on Windows or DOS, but nobody is ever able to produce a single shred of actual evidence to support this claim. Sorry, but just because the claim is repeated thousands of times in a Google search result doesn't make it true.

In my opinion there is one real case, the DR-DOS / MS-DOS -battle. It's a long story, but as an example: A Microsoft manager wrote this about Win3.1 (to the win3.1 project manager if I recall correctly): "It's pretty clear we need to make sure Windows 3.1 only runs on top of MS DOS or an OEM version of it," and "[t]he approach we will take is to detect dr 6 and refuse to load. The error message should be something like 'Invalid device driver interface.'".

Microsoft tried multiple times to get the court to throw the case out before the actual trial, and when that didn't work they settled with Caldera for an undisclosed (but allegedly massive) sum of money. I guess one could argue that the case isn't clear because of that... but go read the court docs.

Is it going to index my Outlook mail on Exchange?

[HawkinsD]

I can't tell from my cursory review of the web page... So I'll ask here: The Google Desktop Search engine claims to index my "Outlook EMail." What does this mean? Does it contain an Exchange client? Is it going to sift through all my eleventy-million e-mails on my company's Exchange server?

If so: is this a good idea? What will my Exchange administrator think about this? What if lots of us start doing this? Exchange servers are notoriously flaky.

I would sure love to have a quick way to search for the butt-covering e-mail that I sent to Finster a year ago.

Something for a corporate environment?

[mr i want to go home]

I was pretty excited about the original Google Desktop for work - the projects we run have thousands of emails and documents, and the Google desktop search was turning out to be a goodsend for tracking old, but vital documents. However, there didn't seem to be any way to get the index out of a user's personal folders - which meant of course that the 1GB+ index files were getting written back to the server with each log-off.

I know Google have some Enterprise level appliances and tools...but we're only 25 people. That doesn't mean we don't generate butt loads of data - just that we can't afford the big kit. Google desktop would be great if it was just a bit more network friendly and configurable, but at the moment it seems targeted strictly for the home user.

I'm hoping that someone will tell me this version will prove me wrong, but I can't see anything to suggest that in the documentation yet...

Re:Something for a corporate environment?

[DCstewieG]

It was possible to change the location, but you had to do it in the registry. HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Google\Google Desktop\data_dir

Re:Something for a corporate environment?

[David Horn]

What about the free Enterprise edition?

http://desktop.google.com/enterprise/download.html

Data being passed back to Google?

[passionplay]

So does anyone have any news on what information is being passed back to Google or what security settings to choose so that my privacy stays intact? Or is this one of those situations where you have go "give up a little freedom" for "increased convenience" a la "giving up a little freedom" for "increased safety and security?? Thanks.

First they take over the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Coming soon, Google Earth.. oh wait.

Integrating with Spotlight?

[amonredotorg]

Now that Google Desktop does more than just searching, I wonder how long it takes before Google attempts conquering Mac OS X by having Google Desktop integrate with Spotlight! :D Or is that a silly thought? Hmmm.

no comments??

[mE123]

This story has been here for an hour and still no comments??

Slashdot must be broken, because I know people aren't reading the article

Mac version

[jcostantino]

Ok, they have 4 billion dollars, where the fuck is the Mac version?

Re:Mac version

[Alystair]

Stop trying to put Google into the spotlight!

Sidebars

[sethadam1]

I love the idea of sidebars, but honestly, even on my 1280x1024, it feels like such a waste of space. Anyone else agree on this?

It still sits in the middle of your TCP stack

[joshrulzzatwork]

No one has posted yet, so either /. is borked or you guys are all hard at work, heh.

Reading over their developer site (http://desktop.google.com/queryapi.html), it looks like the engine still listens on the same port the first version did, so I am guessing it still sits in the middle of the Windows TCP/DNS stack so that when you go to the normal Google homepage, you see the desktop search choice, and results from your own desktop. I would rather GDS run as a process that searches my drive, listen on a port for my brower to post a search to, and then dump the results back to a browser window. The page I linked basically describes that, however without installing, I can't tell if they still incorporate themselves into their internet site.

After playing with version 1 last year, I gave http://www.copernic.com/en/products/desktop-search /Copernic DS a shot, and have been happy with it. It's fast, has its own UI so it doesn't have to hook into how Windows talks to the web to let me use it, and it indexes IM conversations (athlough you have to manually point its indexer to your chat log directory). My main complaint in memory use. At my previous job, it could take up to 120 megs of memory. Here, where I have been for only 2 months, it uses around 35.

Re:It still sits in the middle of your TCP stack

[King_B]

GDS does not sit inside the TCP/DNS stack. Instead, it appends a small string to your browser's user-agent string, which is read by google.com, and optionally shows the "Desktop" heading if present.

Spyware

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

and you'll all be sorry!

Trust me on this one, boys. You'll be like Mr. Buttle in no more than ten-years time, wondering, "Why'd they get me? I never did anything wrong..."

Google is not cool, Google is not your "friend." Google is the NSA.

I wish we could interface with Copernic D.S.

[JPamplin]

Anyone checked out Copernic Desktop Search? It really works better than the GDS format, for searchign local files and content.

If only Copernic could create something similar that interfaced with CDS. Oh well.

JP

Spotlight

[alanoneil]

Google Desktop appears to include some kind of "Live Search" functionality, bringing Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger's "Spotlight" experience to Windows.

I wonder how it'll fare in terms of integration-- Spotlight gets updated whenever you touch a file (giving always-live info, but at the expense of constant DB updates). GD claims (FAQ) to update the DB only when the computer is not in use (removing the performance drag some people experience with Spotlight, but at the expense of missing recent files).

Any current users of both GD on Windows and Spotlight on Tiger that care to compare?

It was called Google Desktop "search" ....

[Gopal.V]

> Google Desktop. Many new features are introduced including improved Outlook filtering, Gmail indexing,

Ok. So it still says "Our one trick pony is our search". And still no thunderbird indexing ?. I've been saved by Bloomba once because it indexed my Imap cache of my personal mail.

> a new Sidebar which displays RSS feeds, a Gmail inbox, news, scratch pad and more.

How original .. I wonder if all these were google innovations or just re-acquired tools pushed into one window (like my firefox side-bar which acts as an RSS window, Javascript console and DOM inspector together). And what's a scratch pad, some kind of notepad in a window ?.

> Google Desktop 2.0 is beginning to take shape as a browser in itself as the need for a Firefox or IE is almost eliminated.

If it has Gecko or MSHTML inside and is web enabled, the lack of an addressbar does not make it any less of a browser. I slowly see an AOL'ish trend of google to draw customers into their all you need in one window approach which worked so well for AOL for many years. I don't like that kind of lock-in by anybody.

You know why I don't install Google toolbar, web-accelerator or Yahoo ! companions ?. I grew up in a web where everything was addressed and could be accessed by me with almost any capable tool in the market - these guys are trying to dictate tools for me according to their content marketing. They already know which websites I hit (Ads), what I look for (search), what I buy (froogle), whom I mail (gmail) and now they want in on the Desktop too. I don't want them to be the know-all spooks.

Re:It was called Google Desktop "search" ....

[illumin8]

You know why I don't install Google toolbar, web-accelerator or Yahoo ! companions ?. I grew up in a web where everything was addressed and could be accessed by me with almost any capable tool in the market - these guys are trying to dictate tools for me according to their content marketing. They already know which websites I hit (Ads), what I look for (search), what I buy (froogle), whom I mail (gmail) and now they want in on the Desktop too. I don't want them to be the know-all spooks.

I don't know why you guys don't chill out a little bit with the privacy concerns. If you want to search the web, that's fine, go to the google website and search. There's no need for a download and there's no need for additional software on your computer, other than the web browser of course.

Now, on the other hand, if you want to INDEX and SEARCH your local hard drive, you're going to need something a little more powerful than a website off in the middle of the internet to do that (unless of course you want to let an internet spider index your local machine, which I'm guessing you don't since you sound all concerned and uppity about privacy). I'm sorry, but yes, you WILL HAVE TO INSTALL something in order to index your local hard drive. Google does not send any information back to their servers. The index stays local, and all of your private information stays local.

Google has always been extremely clear on their privacy policy. If you're so paranoid that you don't even want them hosting your email, you've got some serious paranoia issues because Google is a private company, not the government or the NSA, and if you can't trust any private company with your email then you better just cancel all your internet access and accounts right now, since ANY private company can turn your data over to the government at ANY time (given the proper subpoena).

I'm sick of all you privacy nuts complaining when a company like Google offers a new service. You guys are just luddites that happen to use computers. If you're so worried about your precious little pr0n archive ending up in the NSA's hand then you better go lock yourself in a bunker up in Montana and hide from the rest of the world. Come to think of it, why don't you go do that? It would save us from having to hear your constant bitching on Slashdot.

How long before...

[jkrise]

Google Linux? Rather than writing plug-ins for the most popular Desktop OS, it'd be nice if Google released a complete desktop OS - with plug-ins / replacements for Outlook and Office. -

Include a calendar

[fluor2]

Dear Google. Include a calendar, and I can finally get rid of this sh*t called Outlook.

List of plug-ins

[LoverOfJoy]

Here it is:
http://desktop.google.com/plugins/c/all.html

None of them stood out as very useful to me, but I can imagine they could be great for some people.

Re:Still useless

[oojah]

Try going to the preferences and "Search these locations" and you will be able to add drives to your hearts content.

Did you also know that it is possible to change where the "My Documents" virtual folder refers to? I have all of my data on a seperate drive so changed it to point to there.

Right click on the "My Documents" on your desktop and choose properties and you should see the details for changing the location.

Cheers,

Roger

Re:Browser need eliminated?

[hyfe]

And how do you access GMail without a browser?

It's actually quite hard.Basically, it involves using the so-called "Post Office Protocol", one large hack of an inadequate mess. It's a bitch to set up, and not something I would wish upon anybody. Stay well clear!

If you're the masochistic type,check out these fairly esotoric sites though:
Explanation here and more details here

Re:New MS!

[StevoJ]

Two Microsofts fighting each other I can cope with. It's when there's only one I start to worry.

Re:Help me out here

[jekk]

You can't get much more reliable than the contractually binding published privacy policy:

http://desktop.google.com/privacypolicy.html

To quote: "Your computer's content is not made accessible through Google Desktop to Google without your explicit permission."

-- Michael Chermside

MOD PARENT UP!

[jkrise]

Why is this funny? That's 1 user who's got the guts to post his opinion about social engineering going on in this site, and it gets modded funny! Read my first journal on this subject and mod the parent up so it gets seen prominently.

Cheers

Netscape Desktop Part Two?

[gsa700]

This sounds a lot like that Netscape Desktop thing that never actually made it out the door. Constellation was it? Around 1997 I sent an email to a Netscape engineer and told him I thought they should make Netscape into a shell for linux and he replied that I wasn't alone and to keep my eye's open. Maybe this is finally it!

RSS w/o user intervention

[_Shorty-dammit]

actually, according to their docs, this new version gives users RSS feeds without the user even having to know wtf RSS is. It automatically sets the stuff up for you. So it isn't just another RSS feed reader, the feature sounds like it'd be rather handy and I don't know of any other doing this.

re: overexposure

[King_TJ]

I tend to agree with your basic premise that a toolbar might not really be the ideal direction for Google - at least, if you want to see them remain known for their stark, but useful/powerful web pages.

But my main issue with toolbars are the fact that by their nature, they're gaudy "OS hacks". In essense, every time you see a "toolbar" on a system, it's a 3rd. party "after the fact" workaround for a perceived lack/failing of the OS itself.

A "system utility", "accessory" or "application", by contrast, would be a program that sits on the hard drive someplace and isn't seen or heard from until you specifically launch it.

You recently saw this illustrated in Mac OS X with all the whining over Apple's inclusion of the new "Dashboard" feature in v10.4. (Basically, it was amazingly similar in concept and execution to a shareware app that existed long before.) But ultimately, you see Dashboard winning people over. Why? Because obviously, it's a better situation to have such a thing integrated into the OS itself, even if it has some weaknesses compared to the 3rd. party "add ons". For starters, it's a "level playing field" because *all* users of that version of the OS have the same tool. You also have one less product on your computer supported by a separate party - so less chance of it suddenly becoming "unsupported" or incompatible, forcing you to wait for a fix.

I'm not necessarily against placing items of potential interest right on the user's desktop. I think the Windows clock in the taskbar is perfectly fine and unobtrusive. If people don't think to look at it when they want to know what time it is, well .... that's probably just because it is so unobtrusive. But I've certainly used mine to see what time it is - and it's also a really quick way to realize if a given PC has an incorrectly set date/time which could cause strange errors in some applications.

Re:Browser need eliminated?

[isilrion]

And, of course, if you are really feeling geeky, you can launch python and
 
 

import libgmail
acc=libgmail.GmailAccount('username','pa ss')
acc.login()
msgs = acc.getMessagesByQuery('is:unread')
foreach thread in msgs:
    for msg in thread:
        print msg.source

Joking aside, I've had to do that. Very useful (and annoying) when you need to check your email, have no browser around, and you remember that you forgot *again* to enable pop3 in your gmail account.

Isilrion

P.S: Yes, that has happened!

Re:Browser need eliminated?

[Nasarius]

"Post Office Protocol", one large hack of an inadequate mess

You jest, but it's somewhat true. GMail provides over 2GB of storage now. They promote the idea of storing all your email forever. Why the heck don't they have an IMAP interface?

MOD PARENT DOWN

[kurtmckee]

They already know which websites I hit (Ads), what I look for (search), what I buy (froogle), whom I mail (gmail) and now they want in on the Desktop too.

Tripe. They have clearly-stated privacy policies. Why aren't you complaining about Microsoft? They have email, chat, and search services too! Heavens! Why aren't you up-in-arms that they control your desktop?

Google provides useful services. Your snide remarks about whether the sidebar has any innovation are unwarranted -- it indexes my Thunderbird mail (nice fact-checking, by the way) and provides a todo list among other things. I find it useful, even though it's been done before.

If you want to whine and moan about something, at least know what you're talking about. You'll sound more competent.

Re:Is it going to index my Outlook mail on Exchang

[URSpider]

I can't tell from my cursory review of the web page... So I'll ask here: The Google Desktop Search engine claims to index my "Outlook EMail." What does this mean? Does it contain an Exchange client? Is it going to sift through all my eleventy-million e-mails on my company's Exchange server

GDS indexes your Outlook mail by communicating directly with Outlook. It should index anything that's in an Outlook folder, including IMAP, POP, or Exchange mail. It doesn't have any ability to talk directly to your Exchange server, though if you don't keep a local copy of your mail, it's going to hit the server quite a bit as it retrieves each and every message in your Exchange folders and indexes them.

You should DEFINITELY check with your company network admin before you install GDS -- most of them are not big fans, because of the potential security risks.