Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Adds Features and Plugin to Desktop Search

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the those-guys-are-everywhere dept.

Google 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.

cancel ×

274 comments

Nothing to see here? (-1, Offtopic)

freitasm (444970) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870679)

Clicked on the Read More link and got "Nothing to see here, move along"... Is this a cache mechanism?

Re:Nothing to see here? (0, Offtopic)

soda160289 (776461) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870711)

n00b, n00bie n00bie n00bie. Ultra noob, super noob. noob noob noob noob noob noob!! NOOB NOOB NOOB NOOB NOOB NOOB

Re:Nothing to see here? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870832)

Hmmm... ID#776461? Who's the "n00b"? Or maybe that's just an indecation of your age...

Re:Nothing to see here? (1)

t0ny747 (849486) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870983)

n00b, n00bie n00bie n00bie. Ultra noob, super noob. noob noob noob noob noob noob!! NOOB NOOB NOOB NOOB NOOB NOOB

What the hell are you 10?

surprise, surprise (-1, Troll)

buxton4 (849144) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870681)

Surprise surprise another google story, ow much arey paying you /.?

Wow, who uses this? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870683)

Anyone? Show of hands?

Re:Wow, who uses this? (2, Interesting)

freitasm (444970) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870716)

I actually use this - as a Server Search tool! Check some instructions [geekzone.co.nz] ... Not sure if it is going to work with this new Google Desktop Search version - but will test soon.

Re:Wow, who uses this? (1)

goofyspouse (817551) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870736)

I tried it before and deleted it because it lacked support for Firefox cache searches. I'm installing it now to see if it has improved.

Re:Wow, who uses this? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870804)

Welp this sounds bad, it's a toolbar that can add itself to your firefox. Great,,,,, :-(
And it's opensource. Even better, :-(
Now how long is it going to be before the spyware/adware companies get ahold of this source code, and start using it to manipulate firefox.
Great Job...

Re:Wow, who uses this? (3, Informative)

mobilebuddha (713936) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870759)

i don't use google desktop search. copernic desktop search software is much better (at least for me). once you move your emails in outlook from 1 folder to another, google will no longer be able to open up the email correctly. it's also not intuitive as to how one can reindex email/files etc after installation. as much as i like a lot of their services, desktop search isn't one of them.

Other new google things (5, Informative)

panic911 (224370) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870684)

If you go to toolbar.google.com [google.com] in firefox (or Netscape, I assume), they now promote the open-source googlebar extension for Firefox. They also offer a toolbar 3.x beta for IE now.

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.

Re:Other new google things (1)

tabkey12 (851759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870761)

Finally a company that properly acknowledges the open source community - as an Apple fan, I wish it would do the same thing with its a/v codecs, for example, as well as its core OS.

gnome + google = ? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11871126)

I'm wondering when we will see a Gnome-based desktop manager in google labs...

Computer Science? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870697)

Computer science? Most of you are just fucking code monkies.

Controversial Toolbar? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870698)

What am I missing here?

Re:Controversial Toolbar? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870760)

Beta versions so far have featured a prominent image of Janet Jackson's bared breast as an interface element

Re:Controversial Toolbar? (5, Funny)

david.given (6740) | more than 9 years ago | (#11871109)

Beta versions so far have featured a prominent image of Janet Jackson's bared breast as an interface element

No, they want to attract users.

Re:Controversial Toolbar? (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870803)

The toolbar supports Bush, while the browser is a staunch Democrat.

Re:Controversial Toolbar? (2, Informative)

oiarbovnb (728906) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870841)

It is controversial because of copyright [slashdot.org] stuff. Our wise editors forgot to provide a link.

Re:Controversial Toolbar? (2, Informative)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870858)

Some people object to the information that the toolbar uploads to Google in exchange for using the advanced features.

Re:Controversial Toolbar? (1)

oiarbovnb (728906) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870913)

And how is this different from any of the other toolbars google has provided? While this is true, it does not differ itself from Google's other toolbars. I believe the article was pointing out that it is specifically Toolbar 3 that was in question.

Re:Controversial Toolbar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870950)

Its not diferent. Thats why its spyware

Re:Controversial Toolbar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870991)

sorry.. if use this toolbar for Internet Explorer. Yes, is a Spyware! If use this toolbar for Mozilla... No, no is a Spyware! Http://br.mozdev.org

Re:Controversial Toolbar? (3, Insightful)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 9 years ago | (#11871017)

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.

Re:Controversial Toolbar? (5, Insightful)

northcat (827059) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870897)

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.

Firefox is "Netscape-based"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870941)

The submitter is a lunatic?

Re:Controversial Toolbar? (1)

awasim (862787) | more than 9 years ago | (#11871088)

Auto-Link [betterbadnews.com]

Great! (4, Funny)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870701)

Great! Now if only IE and Windows were out of beta, we'd be set.

Who cares in two months? (2, Interesting)

maxhead (5778) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870904)

Does this matter in the face of Apple releasing search throughout Tiger in the next two months? Microsoft are behind, but still have search coming in Longhorn next year.

Search is great, but I don't see a value-add for anyone other than the OS company itself to develop it.

Re:Great! (3, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 9 years ago | (#11871101)

How are they going to get to beta, if their Alpha line has been dropped?

And the sad thing is (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870715)

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.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870893)

Shareware?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870969)

Is it fair to consider shareware a superset of freeware? I would say so. I would also hesitate to call Google's program truly freeware, since while the program is free it is linked to a service Google profits from. :shrugs:

Is Microsoft out of the loop? (5, Interesting)

tabkey12 (851759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870717)

Who wants WinFS [slashdot.org] in 2 or 3 years when you can have Google Desktop Search now, for free?

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? (3, Insightful)

Jnickraz (683267) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870774)

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.

Re:Is Microsoft out of the loop? (4, Informative)

PxM (855264) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870781)

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!)

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? (1)

spuke4000 (587845) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870838)

For more info see here [slashdot.org] .

Re:Is Microsoft out of the loop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870810)

the whole beta thing gets annoying after 2 continuous years!

Why do you care? The only consequence is the fact that it says "beta" a few times in the interface. The quality is better than most 1.0 products.

p.s. fuck free ipod spam

Re:Is Microsoft out of the loop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870921)

News is still in development...they are continually adding new country-specific news/language offerings.

Re:Is Microsoft out of the loop? (1, Troll)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#11871032)

Betcha WinFS wont want to embed context-related ads into my search results.

We call that malware or spyware when other companies do it. Gator Desktop Search maybe.

So does Google Desktop Search ACTUALLY do this... (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 9 years ago | (#11871225)

Are are you just astrotilling the soil of FUD?

This just in (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870722)

Google served up a search response today. Discuss.

Dear Google (-1, Troll)

Letter (634816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870727)

Dear Google,

Please let me be the first to congratulate you on advancing one of your projects past the "beta" stage.

Love,
Letter

So is there a catch ? (4, Interesting)

88NoSoup4U88 (721233) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870734)

So is there any catch to their desktop tool ?
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 ? (3, Insightful)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870903)

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.

Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (2, Interesting)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870756)

I've had Google Desktop Search installed on my main machine for a couple months now.

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 doesnt recognize .c or .h as text to index them?

If found stuff in a word doc that i made just to test it, but the built in search already does that.

So, what's it do? Why do I need it? Why does this need to be integrated into every app on my desktop?

I agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870865)

I totally do not get "desktop search." Who is this feature targeted towards, and why does it get so much press, when so many users evidently have no clue that they need it?

Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (5, Interesting)

lelitsch (31136) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870881)

Find every occurence of a name in 400MB worth of email in less than a second. Something that crashes Eudora and takes forever in Outlook.

Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (2, Interesting)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#11871001)

Cool.

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 .pst file is 724,304KB at the moment.

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 .pst file at all when I tried it.

If it works, then maybe that's something useful. Frankly though, 29 seconds isn't going to break me.

Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (5, Informative)

typobox43 (677545) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870892)

There is a plugin [google.com] for this new version of Google Desktop search that allows you to specify additional file extensions to search as text files - for example, your .c and .h files.

Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (5, Informative)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870943)

It finds files by content, and much faster than does the Windows search. Without indexing on, Windows must search every file individually. With the caching on, it's somewhat faster, but still abysmally slow compared to Google's search. There were some very painful limitations until now, particularly the lack of PDF searches. I'm hoping that there will be some ability to customize the searches somewhat further to allow for searching straight text files like .c, .h, or .php.

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 (2, Insightful)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 9 years ago | (#11871005)

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:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (0, Troll)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#11871087)

Windows built in search is shitty for finding content inside files, and Outlook is shitty at finding content inside emails.

Define shitty.

Windows built in search found the .c and .h files I mentioned earlier. And, as I said in another response to this thread, I just tried searching my 700MB plus outlook mailbox.pst file, and it took 29 seconds to return a few thousand results.

Google did not index my outlook mailbox at all. Unless this is a new feature.

I should also mention that Outlook did not present me with any context sensitive ads. I guess GDS is great if you complain about the lack of advertisments embedded in your personal data.

So far, thats the only feature I see that it has. Ads. Aside "speed", and really, searching even a completely full 80 gig HDD by walking through every file/dir with a simple VBScript doesn't take more than a couple minutes.

Re:Why? Whats it for? Whats it do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11871152)

So, what's it do? Why do I need it?

It is a very very fast search of all your files and emails. I use it extensively at work and not at all at home. Searching in Outlook is a joke compared to Google Search.

Bad Idea (4, Insightful)

FzArEkTaH (865743) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870764)

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!

Martini Recipe Please (3, Funny)

UCFFool (832674) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870771)

The GoogleBar better be able to search for a few good mixed drink recipes, otherwise this is the worst bar yet!
I was already disappointed with the ToolBar that did not have any 18v cordless versions.

Re:Martini Recipe Please (3, Funny)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870829)

"Tool Bar" sounds like a gay nightclub.

So does Google Bar.

So does Chocolate Bar, come to think of it.

Well.... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870780)

And I for one welcome our new viral-software-spreading all-encompassing-search-engine overlords!

PREPARE TO BE INDEXED!

SUSE 9.3 Pro (03/09/2005) with desktop search (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870783)

In other news, SUSE Pro 9.3 is said to be released this Wednesday the 9th, with Beagle (Desktop search) and iPod support, according to the following article which even Novell.com links to on their front page:

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,390 20 390,39190538,00.htm

Is Google Desktop Search > Beagle?

Re:SUSE 9.3 Pro (03/09/2005) with desktop search (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870809)

In the url I posted above, remove the extra space added from posting between "0,39020" and "390,39190538,00" to view the article

Someone please tell me (1, Offtopic)

Mantorp (142371) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870791)

Since I'm too lazy.

Can you search mapped network drives yet or just local hard drive?

Spellcheck and PDF (5, Informative)

JaxWeb (715417) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870798)

I think most Slashdotters will be pleased (or at least would be, if they used IE) with the new Spellcheck feature on the Google Toolbar. That's a pretty cool feature.

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 (1)

oiarbovnb (728906) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870874)

Controversy [slashdot.org] .

Re:Spellcheck and PDF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870951)

Um...acrobat searches in pdfs by itself.

Re:Spellcheck and PDF (3, Informative)

Kagami001 (769862) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870961)

I haven't actually seen another Windows based tool do that

Adobe provides a filter [adobe.com] for the built-in Windows indexing service.

searching pdf (2, Informative)

Dink Paisy (823325) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870980)

MSN's desktop search tool will search PDF files if you install Adobe's Acrobat IFilter plugin [adobe.com] . I've found it valuable several times.

Re:Spellcheck and PDF (2, Informative)

cyngus (753668) | more than 9 years ago | (#11871071)

A neat little feature of Mac OS X I'd like to point out is spellcheck everywhere, or rather the potential to have it. With Mac OS X text container you can get most of the features of TextEdit (RTF compatible editor) using the built-in frameworks (NSSpellChecker). OmniWeb did (and probably still does) use this for all text input boxes, so boxes like the one I'm using for this had spellcheck-as-you-type, underlining misspelled words in red. Sadly neither Camino or Firefox has adopted this. For the curious running Mac OS X you can see the spell check process running by using the top command line program. Its called "AppleSpell".

Google Adds Featured? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870801)

What? Google's advertising on my desktop? I didn't notice! Their advertising is so effective now it doesn't even have to be visible!

google: the next Msft? (3, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870819)

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? (-1, Troll)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870919)

I agree.

Google has stated that their goal is to become the worlds biggest advertising service. They work around the clock to try and slip ads onto my computer without me noticing, or getting upset.

Why am I supposed to like them, exactly?

Frankly I prefer the honesty of a spam, or a flashing and blinking popup with audio, to what Google's doing. At least I know the spammers intent. I'm not sure what Google is trying to do.

GMail, no thanks. I DO NOT WANT CONTEXT-RELATED ADS EMBEDDED INTO MY EMAIL. Desktop Search, no thanks: I DO NOT WANT CONTEXT-RELATED ADS EMBEDDED INTO MY DESKTOP. I don't care if they're "non intrusive" or "text only".

My desktop is not for sale as advertising space. If it were, then the revenue generated from it should be MINE, not Googles.

Re:google: the next Msft? (1)

Pulzar (81031) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870987)

My desktop is not for sale as advertising space. If it were, then the revenue generated from it should be MINE, not Googles.

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? (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 9 years ago | (#11871114)

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.


No, thats not silly at all.

I payed for, and/or created all of the content on my PC.

NBC owns "Friends", if they want to splice in ads, it's up to them. *I* own "LetterToEditor.doc" and "sec_core.cpp".

Re:google: the next Msft? (1)

squidinkcalligraphy (558677) | more than 9 years ago | (#11871161)

Then I suppose you're just going to have to pay for the software, information, and services you use then.

Re:google: the next Msft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870922)

3 years. 100 tops.

Well, you see (1)

mcc (14761) | more than 9 years ago | (#11871020)

The thing is that in general people tend to hate Microsoft because they have performed ethically deplorable actions that have negatively impacted the computer industry and its users.

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 have to start performing ethically deplorable actions that negatively impact the computer industry and its users for that.

I'm sure some people do just hate whatever's successful, of course. But I don't think they're anything other than an insignificant minority.

Re:google: the next Msft? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11871065)

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 clicking a button to add the links themselves.

Blind panic. Think of the children.

Desktop Search Over-rated (3, Insightful)

Rollsbot (859293) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870820)

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 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870823)

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...

I believe (5, Funny)

chachob (746500) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870828)

Google Desktop now supports alternative Netscape based browsers like Firefox
You mean Firefox-based browsers like Netscape, right? (I know, I know)

Built in spellcheck. (5, Funny)

PxM (855264) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870853)

The Google Toolbar [google.com] now has a spell check built it. Now if it only had a feature that would electricute the user everytime he wrote something in 1337.

Re:Built in spellcheck. (5, Funny)

Liselle (684663) | more than 9 years ago | (#11871055)

The Google Toolbar now has a spell check built it. Now if it only had a feature that would
electricute the user everytime he wrote something in 1337.
What would it do to people who mis-spell words like "electrocute"? Maybe stahb them with a nife, or chute them with a gunn?

Google toolbar for IE only... interesting (-1, Redundant)

hellfire (86129) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870862)

Anyone else notice that Google Toolbar is for IE only, and PC IE to boot.

It's not that on the Mac, IE isn't being supported any more, or on the PC they refuse to support alternative browsers... it's that most other browsers support several sets of these functions already!

Every other browser blocks popups. Most browsers support a google search built into the app, most support an autofill function, and a few support spell checking in forms (I know for sure Safari does). The only thing none of the browsers support is the google map searching. All the other functions are relatively minor, though the option that allows you to view the page rank would be important to hard core web designers who optimize sites to be high on the search engine results.

Google toolbar is great for those few people who don't understand or comprehend alternative browsers, but this is becoming less and less news for slashdotters because most of us are switching, especially for our personal use, and geeks don't mind typing in maps.google.com or will design their own tool if it's that much of an inconvenience.

Controversial? Misunderstood Is More Like It. (5, Informative)

TheFlyingGoat (161967) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870867)

The only reason the Google Toolbar 3 is controversial is because Slashdotters haven't taken the time to look at how it really works. Most think that the Autolink feature creates links that weren't put there by the page's creator (automatically linking an address to Google maps, for instance). In reality, you have to visit a page then click the Autolink button. It's automatic in a semi-automatic gun kind of way. Sure, it's doing a lot of stuff on its own, but it needs you to start telling it to do so before it starts. Not controversial since it's use is optional.

Re:Controversial? Misunderstood Is More Like It. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870994)

Thankfully i can disable that shit with a simple script... Don't want google making money from my site.

Still requires admin rights to use (5, Interesting)

Kagami001 (769862) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870875)

"Google Desktop Search can only be used when the account from which it was installed is logged in."

Yep, that lovely message is still there when I try to use it in my main work account.
Oh, well. Maybe next time.

Wrong slashdot department (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870896)

Shouldn't this item be from the "better late than never" department? All the other technical websites and even news services were on top of this early this morning...

Outlook Contacts? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870911)

Anybody figure out how to get Google Desktop Search to index your Outlook Contact list?

Security (2, Insightful)

MHobbit (830388) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870917)

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

Keeping porn out of search history? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870928)

Say you visit websites that you don't want indexed? How do you stop it?

Re:Keeping porn out of search history? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11870948)

You can pause indexing ... right-click the icon.

Got to love that panic response to Copernic 1.5 (3, Interesting)

CdBee (742846) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870937)

There's been an informal campaign for mozilla suite support in GDS ever since it was launched

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 (5, Funny)

jals (667347) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870947)

People seem to be overlooking the real news contained in this story: a Google product actually out of beta. Surely a first?

GMail? (1)

sidepocket (817256) | more than 9 years ago | (#11870962)

So when is GMail supplosed to come out of beta? It seems like everybody who wants it has it already. I won't see what harm a 1.0 release would do.

Controversial? (-1, Redundant)

TomorrowPlusX (571956) | more than 9 years ago | (#11871028)

Uhh... what's so controversial about Google Toolbar 3? I'm serious, what have I missed here?

Looks like yet another toolbar I don't want and can't use ( I use Safari ).

Lots of problems.... (2, Interesting)

DarkMantle (784415) | more than 9 years ago | (#11871058)

There are alot of problems this has with Antivirus and firewall programs. See here [google.com] for a list.

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.

searching mhtml (1)

computer_chacham (111723) | more than 9 years ago | (#11871131)

Does it search inside mhtml files yet? I stopped using Google Desktop Search because of that limitation, has it changed?

Plugin architecture = spyware risk? (2, Insightful)

Niten (201835) | more than 9 years ago | (#11871209)

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...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...