Slashdot Mirror
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."
Does this somehow outperform spotlight without adding vulnerabilities?
MABASPLOOM!
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?
I was asking myself the same question every one else is ("why use this instead of spotlight?") and while I'm not 100% convinced to move over to it, The Unofficial Apple Weblog has a good case for using it; if you're using Google homepage and Google Mail, it integrates with those (showing search results on the homepage and being able to download and search your Gmail).
"There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
Why should I get a Mac when I can do the exact same thing on Vista?
Thanks, I haven't laughed that hard all week.
[gandalf]Run, you fool![/gandalf]
That's not as big a problem as you'd think.
1. Other apps haven't had a problem because of this. Both Mozilla and OpenOffice, for example, insisted on writing their very own framework and widgets, so basically they're _neither_ Gnome nor KDE. Your line of thinking seems to be that that would make them shunned by both KDE and Gnome users, yet that's not really the case. And then there's stuff like XMMS, which doesn't even try to look even remotely like the desktop, and had no problem either.
2. In the meantime both KDE and Gnome can use each other's themes. So you can just write your app with either set of widgets and it won't look out of place on the other desktop.
3. I'd buy your argument if it were some really complex app, with lots of forms and controls. Essentially all you really need there is a freakin' web-page-like page, in a frame. As long as you can draw a white background with a rectangle for the input and a button, you're actually good to go for a simple search app. (The borders and title bar of the frame will be drawn by the window manager anyway, so you don't have to worry about those.)
4. And you don't even have to do that, if your goal is to look like Google. I.e., like a web page. Think about it. You can just serve HTTP on the port of your choice, restrict it to localhost so it's not abusable from outside, your "application" icon just starts a browser on that port. There you go: now the user can use whatever browser they prefer, and have it look like any other page in that browser. They can use Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror if they absolutely have to have a KDE-only environment, or whatever.
Basically, let's lay _that_ tired argument to rest at least in this case. Linux has some problems with mass adoption, yes, but constantly claiming that you can't write apps because there are 2 desktops... is just false, and it's getting repetitive and boring by now.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
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).
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I'm watching it run right now, and Google didn't reinvent the wheel, exactly. Google Desktop is running mdimport (the program that invokes the Spotlight plugins to convert files to collections of terms) in the background. What Google is providing is a replacement/supplement for the Spotlight search interface, but not all of the Spotlight software stack. This is how Google Desktop takes advantage of all your existing Spotlight Importer plugins. (Which are damn easy to write. Props to Apple for that.)
Spotlight's indexing could use some improvement, so I'm looking forward to seeing how Google Desktop performs on my large collection of PDF and Postscript files. Spotlight doesn't seem to do very intelligent ranking of the documents it returns, so unless the search terms are fairly unique, the results can be impossible to sift through. Hopefully Google (or maybe 10.5) will improve that.
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.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.