Google Desktop for Mac Released

Julio Ojeda-Zapata writes "Google on Tuesday will release a Mac version of Google Desktop. This software, like the PC version, indexes the content of a hard drive and serves it up on familiar Google-style search-result Web pages (or via a its own drop-down results list, if you prefer). But Google Desktop for the Mac is streamlined compared to the busy, gadget-y Windows version, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The focus is squarely on search — including local indexing of an online Gmail account of your choice. It will also index your iDisk."

Comments

Umm

[neoform]

Does this somehow outperform spotlight without adding vulnerabilities?

Re:Umm

[MightyYar]

If it can be made to index Thunderbird/Seamonkey mail, then it has one advantage over Spotlight. I'll probably install it if it can do that.

Re:Umm

[Gr8Apes]

So, that means you can search across both Web content and desktop content simultaneously. And why would I want to do that?

Honestly, Google Desktop is a product necessary for windows, but seems superfluous for Macs, especially as you'll almost always have a browser open anyways.

Re:Umm

[rm69990]

"And why would I want to do that?"

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

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

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

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

Re:Umm

[Gr8Apes]

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

I'll agree there's no perfect solution yet for the multiple mailbox issue. One of these days, someone will get it right. But I'll stick to my initial statement that G desktop seems largely redundant on a Mac.

I know this may sound stupid . . .

[battery111]

But why do I need a google app to do this when spotlight comes with my mac and does a pretty outstanding job of this already. Am I missing something?

Edit for accuracy, please?

[Tsar]

Google on Tuesday will release a Mac version of Google Desktop.

The referenced Tuesday was yesterday, not six days from now. It's completely understandable that some stories are posted late, but is it too much to ask that they be edited to remain factual?

Re:Where's the Linux version?

[kosmosik]

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

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

Or you could use FreeDesktop.org standard protocols and build a tray residing app - it would work nice in both GNOME and KDE.

So it is really not that hard to build a minimalistic daemon in C which does all the hard work (indexing, queries) and then some frontends in higher level (like GTK/Python, Qt/Python) languages.

> The biggest problem is that "Linux" may be a good platform to target,
> because the desktop is separated from the OS, you CAN'T target the
> "Linux Desktop"

Well you can. You just need to decide if you target GNOME or KDE. :) Other desktops are insignificant and will probably addopt GNOME version anyway...

> ...and we see why Linux is a great server platform, but a lousy
> desktop platform because it's not standardized in the same way.

Same ol' trolling...

Re: I don't have a Mac

[Gr8Apes]

It's even funnier when you realize what you need to run Vista to even get to the point where it "competes" with a Mac:

• New C2D CPU $200+
  
• new motherboard to support that CPU under Vista $200+
  
• 2GB RAM minimum to go with that new motherboard: $180
  
• new graphics card $300+
  
• high end copy of Vista $300+
  

Good lord, and that's only if you're adding things to an existing PC! That's almost $1200 right there! Note I'm not talking about pond muck systems, but a system that actually would allow an apples to apples comparison of features with relatively equal quality parts. I think you'll find that these numbers may even be low when compared to a Dell system that will actually be able to run Aero/Glass well.

Then compare that to the prices for a Mini @ $700, a Macbook ~$1400, a Macbook Pro ~$2200, or a slightly above baseline Mac Pro ~$2800 (including the X1900XT).

What would have made more sense...

[chipster]

...is if Google had produced a native Spotlight Importer[1]. I can't believe google re-invented the wheel here.

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

Re:*I'm* missing *your* point?

[Gr8Apes]

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

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

I don't care for Vista's new interface design, and the file copy/move/delete issues pretty much kill any incentive to go any further with it. The eye candy is more distracting and disruptive than attractive, and thus kills any attractiveness in it. Add in the DRM'd OS, and there's no reason to run it at all. I like to be in control of what my computer does, thank you, not MS.

Lastly, just to feed the troll a little more because I'm bored, the main point in running a Mac isn't to run OSX (OMG, I just heard a blood vessel pop!) but rather to run the things that run on it. OSX doesn't get in my way, and I am able to accomplish something other than futzing about with my OS.

Headline: Stepchild beaten and sent to bed...

[helios17]

This is par for Google. The road to riches for Google was paved with Linux. Tens of thousands of servers hum along, stuffing cash into the Google coffers and what do we get? Summer of Code? Geek Please. It's nothing short of a slap to the face of Linux Users. We wrote about this in 2005. http://blog.lobby4linux.com/archives/44-Google-Wha t-Have-You-Done-For-Us-Lately.html Looks like audacity is more than a sound file tool... keywords: ungrateful, jerks, oblivious to what side thier bread is buttered...