Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Businesses Apple IT

Apple and MS Battle For Desktop Search Supremacy 707

Posted by Zonk
from the struggle-of-the-titans dept.
markmcb writes "As Microsoft and Apple go back and forth about who came up with what idea first, it's been hard to tell who the real innovaters are. Michael Gartenberg and Jim Allchin of Microsoft give some fair opinions on the current desktop search battle. While they do give credit to Apple's iTunes for search inspiration and to Apple being first out of the box in the OS race, they both imply that Microsoft will provide more robust features with the release of Longhorn."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple and MS Battle For Desktop Search Supremacy

Comments Filter:
  • No Contest! (Score:5, Funny)

    by BandwidthHog (257320) <inactive.slashdo ... icallyenough.com> on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:36PM (#12284322) Homepage Journal
    Windows XP keeps your desktop from becoming overly clutterled with icons you haven't used recently, which makes searching your desktop *much* easier. Clearly, they are the TRUE innova[tt]ors here.

    And if that's not enough, the second core [slashdot.org] should drastically improve that little doggie's performance.
  • Uhh, GOOGLE? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Eric(b0mb)Dennis (629047) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:37PM (#12284338)
    Uhh--- the first real mainstream desktop search I started to see people use was...

    Google Desktop Search?
    • Uh...OS 8.5 (Score:5, Informative)

      by Wyatt Earp (1029) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:41PM (#12284388)
      Wasn't Sherlock on 8.5 the first "desktop search" tool? For the Apple/Windows fight, or did it get web intergration with 9? It's been so long ago I forgot.
      • I'd say On Location was the first serious tool of this type. Find Pro was a freeware/shareware search tool which eventually was licensed by Apple and became Sherlock.
      • Re:Uh...OS 8.5 (Score:4, Interesting)

        by solios (53048) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @05:47PM (#12286443) Homepage
        Web "integration" was there out of the box and was the Big Deal with Sherlock. It was such a Big Deal that it was integrated as a tab into the System-level "Find" command to augment it. Sherlock didn't search your hard drive, it searched the internets.

        Oh, and it had banner ads.

        This was nicely unobtrusive until OS 9, at which point Apple made Sherlock the Find command and replaced the simple, clean interface with the bloated "brushed metal" that we see to this day. Same functionality as previous incarnations with a more OMG TEH INTERNETS!!!! emphasis.

        Oh, and it had banner ads. AND it was big and ugly. So I hauled in my "sherlock" from 8.6 and used that with my powerbook until I switched over to OS X.

        And I didn't do that until they peeled Sherlock back into a separate app (that I've never launched on this machine) and left a useable Find in its place. Which we didn't have at all in between 8.6 and 10.2.
    • Re:Uhh, GOOGLE? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Iphtashu Fitz (263795) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:41PM (#12284395)
      Actually Apple had a desktop search as part of the Mac OS at least as far back as 1998. I forget what it was called but it came with a bunch of pre-defined search sites and you could download and add plugins from other sites as well. It was part of the OS search feature, though, and not a plug-in to a web browser.
      • by jafac (1449) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:49PM (#12284514) Homepage
        No shit, Sherlock. :)
    • Re:Uhh, GOOGLE? (Score:3, Informative)

      by bushidocoder (550265)
      Companies like X1 [x1.com] (recently bought by Yahoo) have been making desktop search systems for years that are vastly superior to the new arrivals in the desktop search wars. It just wasn't a popular topic until very recently.
    • Re:Uhh, GOOGLE? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Amiga Lover (708890) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:44PM (#12284439)
      This I find interesting too.

      While they do give credit to Apple's iTunes for search inspiration and to Apple being first out of the box in the OS race, they both imply that Microsoft will provide more robust features with the release of Longhorn.

      The same thing was being said before the release of Panther. The strengths of longhorn were touted and Panther was conceded as being "admittedly out first, but longhorn will be better". Now 18 months later we have Tiger that is 'admittedly out first, but longhorn will be better".

      I bet when Apple announce their next OS (let's call it Ocelot) the commentary in the media will again be...

      "Ocelot is admittedly out first, but longhorn will be better".

      Of course, the world will suck it up and nod their heads, agreeing that this fabled new version of Windows will be better, sometime in the future, while ignoring the last half decade of "admittedly good" OS X versions which ACTUALLY EXIST AND CAN BE USED!
      • Re:Uhh, GOOGLE? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Morgahastu (522162) <bshel ... fave bands name> on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @03:17PM (#12284884) Journal
        This reminds me of then the Dreamcast came out. Most people didn't buy it because the PS2 "would be better". Thing is that the PS2 came out a year and a half later and it wasn't better, the graphics were slightly poorer (IMHO) than the Dreamcast and it was over a year late.
        • Re:Uhh, GOOGLE? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by HeelToe (615905)
          But the PS2 also clearly took the market out from under the Dreamcast.

          The PS built a reputation on having good games to play on the platform. I think this was a large part of why people waited for the PS2 - banking on good games for the platform.
        • Re:Uhh, GOOGLE? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by 0racle (667029)
          The PS2 has a DVD player, the Dreamcast didn't. It might not be important to you, I know it wasn't for me, but everything I've seen says that was the nail in the coffin for the Dreamcast. So in that sence, it was better.
          • Re:Uhh, GOOGLE? (Score:3, Insightful)

            by soft_guy (534437)
            That was a major factor in favor of the PS2. It is somewhat harder to really "get" today given that you can buy a good DVD player for under $50, but back in 2000 DVD players were over $200, so a $399 PS2 that can also play DVDs was easier to justify as a purchase than a console like the Dreamcast that cannot play DVD.

      • Re:Uhh, GOOGLE? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Flyboy Connor (741764) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @03:31PM (#12285057)
        I remember the same thing happening in 1994. OS/2 (I believe it was version 2.0, might have been a later version -- a good version of OS/2 anyway) was released, and Microsoft was struggling with building Windows 95. The most-read computer-mag in the Netherlands published an article that compared OS/2 to Windows 95. It explained in half a dozen pages why Windows 95 was MUCH better than OS/2. It was larded with screenshots from both OSses, those of OS/2 mainly consisting of a window opened in which a DOS-shell was run, while, of course, the Windows 95 screenshots showed cool icons. At the end of the article, in a very small font, it said that the author of this article was a Microsoft sales manager. I wrote the mag a letter of which the geste was, that it is easy to call a system faultless if it doesn't exist. I also ended my subscription, since it was clear to me they had "sold out".

        Of course, those that have followed Microsoft's career know that their basic strategy is always promising, if not guaranteeing, that the next version of their applications will be perfect. Amazingly, some users still believe this hogwash.

    • by ikewillis (586793) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:52PM (#12284541) Homepage
      How about BeOS LiveQueries, created by Dominique Giampaolo who would later be hired by Apple to develop Spotlight?

      Spotlight is largely an improvement on the ideas he developed with LiveQueries, adding natural language metadata searching to an OS that's pro-actively metadata oriented in the first place.

      If anything, everyone else copied BeOS... the real difference is Spotlight is available to the public at the end of the month. With WinFS, who can say? 2007? 2008? 2009?

      The open source world can look forward to Spotlight-like functionality once Beagle and inotify mature, the only real drawbacks are that it's currently rather unstable and written in .NET/Mono

      • the only real drawbacks are that it's currently rather unstable and written in .NET/Mono
        Ah, so that's why Microsoft keeps delaying -- they're waiting for the code to be written for them!
  • I'm amazed to not see it in the blurb, considering the love affair with Google. I know it works better than 'find' for me.
  • empty promises... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by utexaspunk (527541) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:39PM (#12284360)
    they both imply that Microsoft will provide more robust features with the release of Longhorn.

    It's pretty easy to make empty promises with a product that won't even be released until next year. The point is, OSX has this feature NOW...
    • by DickBreath (207180) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @03:00PM (#12284651) Homepage
      Vaporware will always be better than a shipping product. Just go back through history looking at every vaporware announcement just in the 20th century alone. "My vaporware product will do everything Joe's shipping software does, plus X and Y and Z! So don't buy the currently shipping product. Wait for my vaporware."

      Maybe it is time to change that old IBM joke into a Microsoft joke. You know,the one where Ballmer/Gates/et.all just sit on the edge of the bed telling her how good it is going to be, but they never do anything. Wish I could remember that joke.
      • by netringer (319831) <maaddr-slashdot.yahoo@com> on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @07:41PM (#12287470) Journal
        Vaporware will always be better than a shipping product. Just go back through history looking at every vaporware announcement just in the 20th century alone. "My vaporware product will do everything Joe's shipping software does, plus X and Y and Z! So don't buy the currently shipping product. Wait for my vaporware."
        It's gets even better than that.

        I remember an actual quote from a Microsoft executive (Ballmer?) many years ago along the lines of, "They just copied what we're going to have to the next version of..." something.

        That's a statement you have to go to Bizarro World to parse.
      • by NanoProf (245372) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @10:47PM (#12288926)

        Three women are discussing how their husbands make love. The first says, "My husband is a footbal player. He is really powerful and energetic in bed, and this is a real turn on for me." The second says, "My husband is a musician, and when we make love it's as if he were playing me. He al- ways knows exactly what I want and gives it to me without my asking." The third says, "Well, my husband is a sales representative for IBM. When we make love all he does is sit on the edge of the bed and tell me how good it's going to be when I finally get it."

        (http://www.holysmoke.org/wb/wb0213.htm)

  • Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)

    by daveschroeder (516195) * on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:39PM (#12284373)
    they both imply that Microsoft will provide more robust features with the release of Longhorn

    So, OS technology will have improved in 18-24 months?

    Amazing!
    • And... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by daveschroeder (516195) * on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:41PM (#12284396)
      ...I'm sure that Apple won't have been doing anything in the meantime.

      Like, oh, working on Mac OS X 10.5.

      Which will, quite literally, probably be shipping around the time Longhorn ships.
    • Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by burns210 (572621)
      Two years is roughly what should be expected for 10.5/11... Apple has said they are going to slow down development(they can't hold this break neck speed indefinitely) so 12-16 has been the standard 10.x development time frame, another 6-12 months would be roughly correct.
  • Dunno... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:40PM (#12284377)
    I rarely search for files, and the current Mac OS X and WinXP search systems suffice. I guess I'm just not the target user type for this stuff.

    I just keep my hard drive carefully arranged and orderly. Folders are your friend. Nest them with wild abandon. I also print out any interesting info tidbits (stuff I know I'll reference multiple times) I find online, and put them in a couple large notebooks that I maintain.

    • Re:Dunno... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by aftk2 (556992) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:54PM (#12284577) Homepage Journal
      Yes, but see, that takes your time. It used to be (and still is, like in the system you describe above) that finding something on a computer required an investment of time: either that time was used beforehand, ensuring proper organization, or at the time of the search - wading through poorly organized folders, duplicates, old files, etc...

      But now, the promise of these tools - in theory - is that we can eliminate this investment of time. We can drop file wherever we want to, and the searching is instantaneous, by whatever bit of criteria we happen to need, conceive, or have access to, at the time of search.

      It's not perfect, though: I know that my sense of organization has devolved since I started using Quicksilver [blacktree.com], and that is sometimes a problem, when I am forced to go manually through folders. Heh, who knows - maybe Apple will release some sort of Spotlight -> Automator transition that allows people to use spotlight queries to actually reorganize their data permanently, not smart folder this and query that, but actually reorganize data in the filesystem based on certain things (kind of like how iTunes manages the folders in its library folder.)
      • Re:Dunno... (Score:3, Funny)

        by andreMA (643885)
        maybe Apple will release some sort of Spotlight -> Automator transition that allows people to use spotlight queries to actually reorganize their data permanently
        +5 Intriguing
        -5 Scary

        *ponders*

  • impromptu poll (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spoonyfork (23307) <spoonyfork@gmail . c om> on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:41PM (#12284399) Journal
    Does anyone else out there consider themselves an above-average to power user and completely not care about the desktop search battle?

    I'm sure there are those that do care and think everyone else should too, and good for them, but I want to hear from those that don't care for whatever reason.

  • Search Technology (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CastrTroy (595695) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:42PM (#12284405) Homepage
    The best way I found to find files on my computer is to keep them organized. Keeping them organized allows me to find files without having to keep an index of what's on there, or worry about whether a certain program can tell what's actually in the file. In the end it all comes down to proper organization.
    • by 2nd Post! (213333)
      "It all comes down to proper organization"

      The point of Spotlight and desktop search, in general, is that the computer handles the proper organization.

      Who would be more anal, perfect, and organized than a computer? Someone with OCD?
    • by arminw (717974)
      ...In the end it all comes down to proper organization...

      Indeed true. Some people are forever looking for certain physical things, such as their car keys, cell phone and other small items. The computer is like a workshop. A workshop with its tools well organized is a pleasure, but a disorganized one, with tools mixed up is a real pain. Organization in a computer is just as beneficial in getting work done as it is in a real workshop. Even so, adding a good search system should not affect an organized comput
    • So how do you search for (example) all images emailed to a family member in the two weeks before Christmas?

      Spotlight can do this.

      What about Excel files printed in the last week? Spotlight can do this too.

      Or dog photos added to Pages documents that were subsequently sent to a friend?

      With a little image metadata ("it's a dog") Spotlight can do this as well.

      Organisation is great, but it's only giving you one part of the picture. Spotlight also tracks what you've done with those files, allowing you to effe
  • WinFS (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ip_fired (730445) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:42PM (#12284408) Homepage
    I thought that they had pretty much junked what would have been good search. I was looking forward to WinFS, hoping it to be an improvement over NTFS (a modern FS, one with no fragmentation!). And on top of that, cool searching!

    But instead, they are going to make a background process that just indexes things like Spotlight.
    I hope it is at least as flexible as Spotlight, to allow developers to make plugins for their indexing engine so that new filetypes can expose information to be searched.

    I also hope they do a good job at making it transparent. I don't want my computer to be noticeably bogged down while it indexes a 4GB movie file (hopefully it won't index it in the first place!)
    • by bmajik (96670)
      WinFS was originally going to be like, the next version of "Organize your Photos Wizard". It grew into something so scope-out-of-control that it had to be cut from LH client (at least, the full WinFS vision). The ship vehicle seems to change daily.

      That said, what WinFS is trying to tackle currently is considerably more ambitious than what Spotlight, MSN Desktop, or Google Desktop Search do. The "someday" WinFS is not a background process that indexes text documents. Not even close. What Apple is deliv
  • ahem (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:42PM (#12284409)
    'man find'
  • What about Beagle? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Xpilot (117961) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:43PM (#12284412) Homepage
    We can currently download Beagle [gnome.org] for open source operating systems and desktops, and it's already somewhat usable. It's written in C# and requires Mono, and I think it's one of the killer apps for OSS too. We've also see it ported to Windows [nat.org] so things are getting very interesting here.

    So between Spotlight and Longhorn and Google and Beagle, it's not just a 2-way battle :)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:43PM (#12284422)
    "Tiger is nice in that they've put search capability in a lot of places, but there's a lot more (in Longhorn)," Allchin said.

    Referring to an OS that is at least 15 months from release in the present tense is plain crazy, especially when comparing its features to those of an OS that will be on store shelves in 10 days. He might as well just say Longhorn will cure cancer and make your breath minty fresh while you use it. No matter what features it has, they're not doing anybody any good at 6PM on April 29th, 2005-- Tiger's will.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:44PM (#12284432)
    Windows 95 brought us far more features than Macintosh 84.
    • by globalar (669767) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @04:36PM (#12285760) Homepage
      Some people really believe that Windows is pretty up to par with OSX and will go after this point. Check out these comments from ComputerWorld (poor magazine IMO) [computerworld.com]. For record, I don't like the magazine or agree with any of this:

      "Mac OS X may be a nice-looking overlay to Unix, but it still leaves much to be desired. For example, networking in an environment where multiple servers are used is decidedly flaky, permissions must be changed to do simple things like adding fonts or nonstandard printers, and administrative access is difficult."

      "...the view from the trenches is that Windows will be the way to go until an OS that is as user- and admin-friendly comes around."


      And another:

      "A couple of years after the release of Win 95, I attended an Apple event celebrating the new features in Mac OS 8.0. As I sat watching this operating system version that offered full-screen wallpaper (a feature of Win 3.1), Internet options (catching up with Win 95), systemwide sound effects (another Win 3.1 feature) and more, I said to the longtime Mac user sitting beside me that this was Apple's attempt to maintain parity with Windows 95."

      • Just as a historical point, Apple took an astoundingly long time to respond to Win95. In late 1995, the only way to get your Mac on the Internet was to warez a copy of MacTCP (academic only software), and then use this really crappy FreePPP thing. Apple finally got around to shipping OpenTransport, but it was just horrifically buggy in the beginning.

        Win95 was the most hyped thing in computer industry history, and Apple's management was so screwed up at the time they just ignored it (other than the snarky W
  • by Trixter (9555) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:46PM (#12284462) Homepage
    Anyone here old enough to remember Lotus Magellan? If any company or product could be considered first in the desktop search category, it would be Magellan. Released in the late 1980s, it indexed every file on your hard drive into Btrees; when you searched for a term, it would narrow the results in realtime with every keystroke -- blazingly fast. Found files were displayed (many looking just like they would in their native program thanks to several file type filters) with the search word highlighted. Truly one of the MS-DOS highlights of the 1980s.
    • by micron (164661) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:56PM (#12284602)
      Most of the guys who wrote Magellan got back together and released a new desktop search package called X1. http://www.x1.com

      It is quite good, and worth looking at, especially if you were a Magellan fan.

      • by Your Pal Dave (33229) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @03:13PM (#12284834)
        And the free Yahoo! desktop search is based on X1:

        About Yahoo! Desktop Search
        Yahoo! Desktop Search Beta

        Yahoo! Desktop Search 1.0
        Build 1500zk
        Copyright © 2003-2005 Yahoo! Inc. and X1 Technologies, Inc.

        All Rights Reserved. Patents Pending.

        Outside In® Viewer and Content Access Technology © 1991-2004 Stellent Chicago, Inc.
        All Rights Reserved.

        Click here to try Enterprise Desktop Search from X1.


  • by Twon (46168) <twon33&gmail,com> on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:48PM (#12284492) Homepage
    "Instead of being a static graphic indicating the type of document a file is, an icon in Longhorn will be a smaller representation of the first page of a document." ... so I'll have to read the filenames carefully if I'm trying to grab all the .pdf's I've made of my Word documents if they're in the same directory! Wheee, thanks!
  • And the winner is (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FidelCatsro (861135) <fidelcatsro AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:51PM (#12284534) Journal
    BeOS , it had file metadata support years ago and worked well with it .
    not to mention the other companys that have since been making products of this nature .in an MS vs apple fight since Tiger comes out in 10 days and longhorn comes out god knows when, its pretty one sided and apple wins hands down
    • Re:And the winner is (Score:3, Informative)

      by pianophile (181111)
      BeOS , it had file metadata support years ago and worked well with it .

      Did you know that Dominic Giampaolo, one of the file system gurus from Be, now works at Apple? you can even download a book he wrote about file systems from his web page [nobius.org].

      Cool!
  • by hey! (33014) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:53PM (#12284561) Homepage Journal
    Engineer 1 (GENIUS): Wow, these 100GB hard disks sure hold a lot of data.

    Engineer 2: Yeah, I know, half the time I can't find a file I made a few days ago.

    Engineer 1 (GENIUS): Well, these are computers after, all, wouldn't it be nice if there were some way to actually search for your data?

    Engineer 2: Well, there's that cute puppy thingy.

    Engineer 1 (GENIUS): No I mean a way that didn't suck.

    Engineer 2: *** dumbstruck ***

    Manager: Quick, call the patent attorneys!
  • by fred fleenblat (463628) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:55PM (#12284583) Homepage
    Anyone remember xargs?

    find . | xargs grep foo /dev/null

    ah, the good old days.
  • by SoupIsGood Food (1179) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @02:56PM (#12284610)
    This just in! Microsoft downplays competitor's achievement with a promise of better functionality in a vaporware product! Film at 11!

    SoupIsGood Food
  • Oh great... (Score:3, Funny)

    by blueZ3 (744446) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @03:03PM (#12284690) Homepage
    Desktop search will be wonderful in Longhorn. Like I can wait until 2008 to find those desktop icons MS keeps hiding :o)
  • Magic Icons. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by zkn (704992) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @03:06PM (#12284730)
    "However, its implementation(Apples) is not as universal as what Microsoft is proposing."

    So what does this really mean? Apple already does this but Microsoft promises to NOT ONLY do exactly the same, but have improved uppon the ideer by their next release.

    We have an OS versus a Proposal. How can it be they declare the proposal the winner? By that time chances are OSX will have evolved just a tad bit. It takes less time to develop a feature already implimenten then it does starting from the bottom. Even if you do have somthing to copycat.
  • by Pecisk (688001) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @03:07PM (#12284753)
    Totally 'Microsoft PR', nothing more.

    First of all, OS X and Mac OS had a superb search FOR ages which works VERY good. Windows search compare to that is a JOKE. Spotlight is just more branded and search more metadata and gives it in more user friendly form. But as search on my OS X stations I just click on input where i start to type file name which I look for and...whola! there it is.

    And second - Longhorn is 3 YEARS still to go! It is like middle ages for history! For christ sakes, Microsoft must be desperate to push such PR stunt like this.

    And yeah, as open source advocat, I have to say that Beagle will certanly rock the world too - because it is actively developed and pushed by Novel/Ximian guys. And of coarse, let's not forget king of the hill in search now - Google.

    And if it is not paid article - however it looks like - then it is such "we just love Microsoft" style press which I simply can't stand anymore.
    • by As Seen On TV (857673) <asseen@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @03:22PM (#12284954)
      First of all, OS X and Mac OS had a superb search FOR ages which works VERY good. Windows search compare to that is a JOKE. Spotlight is just more branded and search more metadata and gives it in more user friendly form.

      Basically everything you said here is wrong.

      Ever since Panther, we've had a thing called Search Kit. (The technology behind Search Kit goes farther back than that.) Search Kit would index the contents of readable files, meaning plain text, and allow you to search them.

      It was slow, it wasn't extensible, and it wasn't modular.

      Spotlight is completely different. Spotlight has a content-search component, but it also has a metadata-search component, and both are linked to data through modular pieces of code called importers. Each importer is associated with one or more file types. When a file of a given type changes on disk (is written to, moved or created), the Spotlight import task (mdimport) calls the relevant importer(s) to re-index the file. These importers are very simple and run very fast. Even on old hardware, the overhead of Spotlight indexing isn't noticeable, in large part because it runs at a very low priority.

      So Spotlight is really something new. It's ubiquitous and it's modular and it's fast.

      Microsoft's search technology looks strikingly similar on paper. Problem is it only exists on paper.
  • supremacy? (Score:4, Informative)

    by deego (587575) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @03:09PM (#12284777)
    There are open source indexing+search products too!

    swish (GPL)

    doodle (GPL)

    beagle in gnome..

    nnir (for email)

    medusa

    mairix

    namazu2
  • by r00td43m0n (796630) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @03:19PM (#12284913)
    In Gaming News.
    Duke Nukem Forever will be better than Half Life 2.
  • by gosand (234100) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @03:29PM (#12285033)
    How do I search? I use "locate", "|", and "grep". That's it. OK, sometimes I use "which" and "find". But I don't even have to use these very often, because I organize my work.

    Why is desktop search such a big deal again? Are people just writing files to random locations on their hard drives? Even when I have to use Windows at work, I put things in logical places so I don't have to search for them.

  • by pointwood (14018) <jramskov.gmail@com> on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @03:32PM (#12285065) Homepage
    It's the Contextual Linkage Engine [beeradvocate.com] that will be part of KDE4. They got some pretty cool ideas which you can read about in that article and also in the comments.
  • Battle... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by taskforce (866056) on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @03:56PM (#12285325) Homepage
    While there's a true battle of the OSes with regards to features, (Tiger and Longhorn are both very good OSes from what I've seen) that battle is for individuals to make up their mind on, not market forces.

    Surely nobody can realistically believe that there's going to be a real battle of numbers in the same way there is for games consoles/competing digital disk formats etc?

    I don't know the exact figures, but I do know that Windows gets about the same number of new users each year as Mac OS has in there entire installed base... No matter how good Mac OS is (and I'm sure it's very good) it's not like we don't know with infinity+1:1 odds which OS is going to be the most widely adopted?

The meta-Turing test counts a thing as intelligent if it seeks to devise and apply Turing tests to objects of its own creation. -- Lew Mammel, Jr.

Working...