Google Desktop

re: Google Desktop

Tad — Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:47:00 GMT

Thank you someone for not kissing googles ass, and saying this is the greatest invention ever. It looks like software that should be months and months away from even being released as beta. I removed it the second I got it on my machine since I was so ugly. I didn't bother looking into it at all, I just didn't like it.

re: Google Desktop

Lerch — Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:50:00 GMT

Just wanted to pop in and say that these are really excellent points. I was very much looking forward to the Google Desktop, but found that on both my work and home machines I was using applications that weren't compatible and that I didn't want to give up. Now that I have read your post, I'm not even sure I'm interested anymore!

I wonder if the forthcoming Microsoft desktop search won't have some of these same problems?

re: Google Desktop

anonymous — Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:59:00 GMT

Is WinInet.dll for AIM Chat indexing? Just a wild guess.

re: Google Desktop

Nathan Maffeo — Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:32:00 GMT

I completely agree. I'm willing to bet a maicious page could glean info from your box even without an applet. I'm thinking of some combination of Javascript and frames...

In any event, I have thought many of the same questions you mention.

Google Desktop - Just Uninstalled

eWorld.UI - Matt Hawley — Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:34:00 GMT

re: Google Desktop

Ludvig A. Norin — Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:05:00 GMT

Very good article! You do an excellent job in suggesting how the desktop search application could be improved. That said, there is one point on which I vigorously disagree; that the browser is the "wrong interface" for this application. I do not mean to say the interface could be better than it is, regardless of it being in the browser or not, but I do say that the browser interface works very well indeed for presenting the search results among millions of pages. Presenting thousands of search results to the user is not a goal - at least I hope it isn't! I talk to people about these kinds of things almost on a daily basis, and the Google applications (desktop and search in general) seems to be extremely easy for a great many people to learn and use. They are saying they want to search for information on their computer in the same kind of way. For orders, quotations and expense reports. Even for dynamically calculated reports! I'm not talking about computer wizards here, just your ordinary bookkeeper or stock-inventory-person. These people have a point, and I don't think it is right to dismiss the web-search approach for other applications like that. There might be an important lesson to learn here, so it's time to start experimenting!

re: Google Desktop

truenorthern@netscape.net — Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:57:00 GMT

I have been using the google desktop search and lookout and find them both to be useful beta apps. I look forward to the future final releases. Also in the short time I have been using the google desktop I have not seen any incompatabilities, could someone enlighten me as to what problems it causes...

I trust you will be at least as skeptical of the microsoft desktop search when it emerges from MS labs...

re: Google Desktop

Kevin Blakeley — Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:43:00 GMT

Want an alternative...www.x1.com Its not free but if you do a lot of searching it beats google desktop hands down, mainly because it doesn't use a web interface to show results.

re: Google Desktop

Jeff Gonzalez — Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:46:00 GMT

Lookout can search your files if you are willing to search via an email client.

re: Google Desktop

Shannon J Hager — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:16:00 GMT

The web interface is fine on the web but the desktop isn't the web so there is no reason to cripple an application by using that interface. (Also, note that Google's desktop interface has even less features than the real web version.) If a user thinks that interface is fine, they'll LOVE a real desktop application.
I am currently using Copernic's desktop search ( http://www.copernic.com ), it is free, a full-featured program, and it does everything Google's desktop search does and about 500% more.

re: Google Desktop

Binesh George — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:40:00 GMT

Good points. I uninstalled it minutes after intalling it . The suer interface not only sucks major time but also the privacy issues are a big concern.

Say it isn't so, Google!

Lockergnome's Web Developers — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 04:51:00 GMT

The new Google Desktop search. Is it all that it is cracked up to be? I am still waiting to hear more about the final verdict before making my opinion completely public yet. Besides that, Google is not the only...

re: Google Desktop

Gopal — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:28:00 GMT

This link addresses item no. 9 and other concerns. <http://desktop.google.com/features.html>

See the section Removing Results.

Google Desktop's Uninstall component works pretty good!

Dave Burke's Blog — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 06:36:00 GMT

Google Desktop

Martin's WebLog — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:44:00 GMT

re: Google Desktop

Arcadi — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 07:44:00 GMT

About point 8... It does not run only at http://127.0.0.1:4664/. It needs a kind of random seed value to access the google desktop. Something like http://127.0.0.1:4664/&s=2195727400. I suppose an external program can also have access to those 'seeds'.

re: Google Desktop

Shaun Thomas — Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:22:00 GMT

Thank you for undertaking such an illuminating analysis of Google's installation procedures and its possible implications. As to why the browser is used to disply results, and assuming, individuals have cleared their browser for making outbound communications through their firewall, then its choice does make it more logicial - if you see what I mean.

Fortunately, I suspected the above and so did not install the programme. However, I have installed Microsoft's own version. It requires the .net framework to be installed. I will be monitoring its activities from now on.

Finally, Google are not the only company to do the above I have a list of well known programmes that do even worse things. One is a security product with anti-virus and firewall that installs Backweb. My problem is do I tell others and risk being sued. I could not afford to defend myself. More importantly, I would have to install the programme again (probably several times under very strict conditions) to verify things for my own piece of mind. Next, Spysweeper which fortunatley reported the installation did not completely remove it from my system and it took hours going through the registry, booting into safe mode etc to get rid of stubburn files (the registry entries were similarly protected).

I really do recommend people get a good port monitor: something that keeps a log of all out-going communications, their IP address destination, port numbers and protocals and which process/programme made the call. You will find most well programmed spyware will use Internet Explorer or Firefox, your anti-virus software when it checks for updates to 'piggyback' a ride out of your system. Also they will consume little resources and will not appear under running processes and only slow your browser down for the first few seconds it takes to fire-up. During that initial period they will send the info on you and then close down and wait leaving a port open for return messages/ activation. Remeber, these are not produced to reek havoc on your machine, complete stealth is the objective. The only way I know of detecting their presence is to check for any IP addresses reported that you have not been to. Then run these against the ARIN database etc and see who owns the IP address - I found it was www.coolwebsearch.com IP address 66.250.0.0 - 66.250.255.255
www.coolwebsearch.co.uk
212.67.203.0 - 212.67.203.255

The other way to detect their infection is that they will hook into certain files ntoskrnl.exe is a particular favourite but there are others as mentioned in the initial posting.

Your could enter the above IP numbers and web sites into your restricted sites zone (Start --- Settings --- Control Panel --- Internet Options --- Security -- Restricted Sites --- Sites and enter the details there. Do not worry if you get that bit wrong as it tells how it should be done if you make a mistake. That is if you are running IE or add them to your banned IP adddresses in your firewall.

Finally, to check in-going and out-going I use Microsoft's port reporter, but there are others such as Karen's Port monitor (I think that is what its called)?

All the best

Shaun

Some

Franci Penov — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 04:01:00 GMT

re: Google Desktop

Mike H. — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 03:30:00 GMT

An alternative is Filehand Search at http://www.filehand.com/ and it is FREE!

re: Google Desktop

Nathan Weinberg — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:35:00 GMT

I spoke to Google's Marissa Mayer last week, and here are a few of your points she already answered, as layed out in my post at http://insidegoogle.blogspot.com/2004/10/digital-life-how-google-desktop-works.html:

11: Google Desktop is limited to 2 gigabytes.
3, 4, 5: Support for multiple users is coming. It's only beta! Give it time.
1, 2, 6, 7, 10: These are features by design. If you don't like the design, you don't have to use it. Some programs use one interface, some use another. You make it seem like the world is coming to an end if applications interface with the internet and the web browser.
8: Google has already corrected one possible exploit, and is working on any others. All software has exploits, including every single web browser. Companies can only do their best.

Google Desktop: uninstalling already? Not surprising.

Digging My Blog - Dan Hounshell — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:15:00 GMT

Google Desktop: uninstalling already? Not surprising.

Digging My Blog - Dan Hounshell — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:15:00 GMT

Google Desktop - Part 2

Franci Penov — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:14:00 GMT

re: Google Desktop

sam madden — Fri, 22 Oct 2004 01:12:00 GMT

Installed it - didn't even get a chance to run it as it clashed with VET antivirus. Uninstalled it and went back to the best I've found - Copernic's desktop search.
Love the point made by Google's Marissa Mayer that the index is limited to 2 gig. Reminds me of the Steven Wright joke "I have a map of the United States .... it's original size ... it says one mile equals one mile."

re: Google Desktop

JPDaigle — Fri, 22 Oct 2004 02:04:00 GMT

I agree with most of your points, Franci, especially #6 (using the browser as interface). I expand on this one here:

http://www.softwareengineering.ca/jpdaigle/PermaLink.aspx?guid=209ce43f-cd77-4162-bba5-d4471110fbc3

Franci Penov Google Desktop | Paid Surveys

Franci Penov Google Desktop | Paid Surveys — Sat, 30 May 2009 04:07:56 GMT

PingBack from http://paidsurveyshub.info/story.php?title=franci-penov-google-desktop

Franci Penov Google Desktop | Joint Pain Relief

Franci Penov Google Desktop | Joint Pain Relief — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:56:55 GMT

PingBack from http://jointpainreliefs.info/story.php?id=2578