Beta
×

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!

Apple and MS Battle For Desktop Search Supremacy

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the struggle-of-the-titans dept.

Microsoft 707

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No Contest! (5, Funny)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284322)

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.

Linux has one too!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284371)

Linux has a search tool too... It's called Beagle.

For demo:
http://nat.org/demos/

Re:No Contest! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284572)

Show me a moderator with a sense of humor and ill show you king tut doing a limbo.
parent is a post you morons , if you think it is not funny then moderated overrated not a troll
RTFSFAQ(Read the fcking slashdot FAQ)

frist post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284330)

cool?

Uhh, GOOGLE? (3, Interesting)

Eric(b0mb)Dennis (629047) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284338)

Uhh--- the first real mainstream desktop search I started to see people use was...

Google Desktop Search?

Uh...OS 8.5 (5, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

Re:Uhh, GOOGLE? (1)

DaHat (247651) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284391)

They are of course referring to search capabilities available out of the box on a given system.

Re:Uhh, GOOGLE? (1)

Eric(b0mb)Dennis (629047) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284415)

Yes, I figured this, but why?

It's my experience that bundled applications are a 'bad thing (tm)'

I don't understand why slashdotters see bundling DS software with the OS would be good, which would effectively force a lock-in to that program and kill off any competition

Re:Uhh, GOOGLE? (4, Informative)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

Re:Uhh, GOOGLE? (4, Funny)

jafac (1449) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284514)

No shit, Sherlock. :)

Re:Uhh, GOOGLE? (2, Informative)

bushidocoder (550265) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284413)

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? (5, Insightful)

Amiga Lover (708890) | more than 9 years ago | (#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!

Uhh, BeOS LiveQueries? (5, Informative)

ikewillis (586793) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284541)

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

What about google's desktop search? (3, Insightful)

MrAnnoyanceToYou (654053) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284343)

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.

Lol. Mod me redundant. (1)

MrAnnoyanceToYou (654053) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284384)

Gotta love the first 3/5 comments I could see mentioning that Google did something like it too.

But none of this is a 'first' thing - I mean, it's just a more advanced version of a tool that has existed since the beginning of my time - grep.

Re:Lol. Mod me redundant. (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284478)

Yup, searching and indexing is such an obviously valuable feature and such a darling of CS, there wasn't any real insight required to want to implement it. These utilities have been growing incrementally for 30 years -- I can't think of any one (besides the Unix standbys, perhaps) that's more important than the others.

Re:What about google's desktop search? (2, Informative)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284545)

It's offtopic, but I used Google Desktop Search for a while and found it terrible. I switched to Copernic and have never looked back.

(Oh I tried the MSN search tool as well, but found Copernic superior to that as well)

They both suck (1, Troll)

Enigma_Man (756516) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284345)

Searching for stuff requires you to have organized it well in the first place. I haven't seen anything right out of the box from either Apple or Microsoft that's any more innovative than anybody else's butt out there.

This is the crappy pot calling the crappy kettle crappy.

-Jesse

Re:They both suck (5, Insightful)

KillerDeathRobot (818062) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284376)

Searching for stuff requires you to have organized it well in the first place.

No it doesn't. The point of searching is to bypass organization or to impose organization on data according to current needs.

Re:They both suck (1, Insightful)

Enigma_Man (756516) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284410)

Yes it does.

Even if a desktop searching tool lets you search by text contained within a document, or the name of a file, or what have you, you still have to name it, or put text within it in a way that's organized. The user is required to give it structure to begin with.

Basically, organization is up to the user, whether it be by creating organized directories, or by creating logical names.

-Jesse

Re:They both suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284490)

You honestly don't have a fucking clue, do you?

Re:They both suck (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284560)

Even if a desktop searching tool lets you search by text contained within a document, or the name of a file, or what have you, you still have to name it, or put text within it in a way that's organized. The user is required to give it structure to begin with.

Yes, that's true in the sense that if you want to find the spreadsheet file for your taxes, it can't just be a recipe for pancakes. Unfortunately, if a user can't manage to do that much properly, there really isn't much that can be done to help.

Re:They both suck (1)

Dot.Com.CEO (624226) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284566)

Ever used iTunes? Short of having no id3 information or all your mp3s named track???.mp3, it makes organising and searching easy as hell. It does not expect any organisation, it just expects to find data that is supposed to be there and it sorts through it.

Re:They both suck (1)

Enigma_Man (756516) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284596)

Both XMMS and Winamp have had this functionality since they began. Try pressing the "J" key next time you fire either up.

-Jesse

Re:They both suck (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284406)

Well, then you obviously haven't seen Spotlight [apple.com] in action. This little guy rocks. I as a developer have been testing Tiger since last July, and I have never seen anything more helpful or faster, Windoze, Mac or Google.

Re:They both suck (4, Interesting)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284431)

What, you mean like smart folders, that automatically detect when you add a new file of a certain type, anywhere on your hard drive, and add it to the virtual folder? Oops, Tiger has that.

Smart folders WILL change the way you use your computer. There's no need to hunt through folders for a certain document, as all organization can be done at a smart folder level. Plainly put, it doesn't MATTER where your data is stored in the file structure, smart folders will allow you to organize everything easily and quickly. Just like file systems make it where you don't care where the bits lie on the disk, smart folders will make it where you don't care where the files lie in the directory structure. This is a BIG improvement.

Of course, you didn't actually bother to think about the point you were attempting to make, because you were rushing to get your post near the beginning of the dicsussion so it could be modded up.

Re:They both suck (1)

Enigma_Man (756516) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284522)

No, I definitely thought about the point I was trying to make. As hard as OS makers try to innovate "searching" to use your example, if I want to add a new mp3 to my drive, I will add it in a directory named after the album, in a directory named after the band. Having all of the mp3s lumped into a big "smart" folder does nothing for organization, and infact is much more difficult to read.

It does matter where the bits lie if you want organization to find things better, which is up to the user.

-Jesse

Re:They both suck (5, Informative)

dcclark (846336) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284434)

I'm not sure where that's coming from. I can't speak for Longhorn's search features, but Spotlight (in OS X 10.4) will search based on contents, file name, and tons of metadata. You could toss your files onto your hard disk in any random way you want, and it would be equally efficient at searching as if you had organized it in a more human-friendly way.

Ideally, if you can't remember what you called the document, then maybe you can remember a few key words from its contents, the approximate day when you created it, some metadata such as "photo taken at the Mackinaw Bridge" or something like that.

So while this may not be groundbreakingly new, I think that Spotlight really will provide USEFUL features. Based on what I've seen in previews and whatnot, it would be extremely useful to have an always-ready and always-accessible search feature which can handle metadata easily.

Re:They both suck (1)

Enigma_Man (756516) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284552)

But a lot of these things require user intervention to begin with. The user is responsible for organizing the contents (such as adding keywords for "mackinaw bridge" OR putting it in a directory named for the date, etc), and the search tool is secondary to the organization process. Any innovations in searching only come from users paying more attention to organization in the first place. I still stand by my assertion that nothing from MS or Apple is innovative or even remarkably different from what's been out there for years.

-Jesse

Google Desktop Search? (1)

DarkBlackFox (643814) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284347)

So where does Google fit in here?

Re:Google Desktop Search? (1)

Tsiangkun (746511) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284435)

In the third party applications.

Hurrrrrrrrrr (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284348)

fp muthafuckas

Microsoft always steals features (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284351)

BUT, they implement them better than anyone else.

Re:Microsoft always steals features (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284427)

Name three in which that was the case.

Re:Microsoft always steals features (5, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284449)

BUT, they implement them better than anyone else.

With the exception of GUI design, networking, popup menus, text rendering, web standards, file systems, security, user friendliness, software licensing agreements, programming languages, feature creep/application bloat and general business practices.

Other than those things they're great! :)

searching for good things (-1, Offtopic)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284357)

I have searched and have found: http://deansplanet.com/natalie_portman-stripper_po le.html [deansplanet.com] Now all I need are some hot grits.

Re:searching for good things (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284487)

"I have searched and have found: http://deansplanet.com/natalie_portman-stripper_po le.html [deansplanet.com] Now all I need are some hot grits."

Check the inside of your pants after you view that pic.

empty promises... (4, Insightful)

utexaspunk (527541) | more than 9 years ago | (#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...

Re:empty promises... (1)

iotashan (761097) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284387)

Not to mention, OS X 10.5 and 10.6 will probably beat longintooth... I mean Longhorn... out the door. :D

Re:empty promises... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284423)

Uh, OS X will have it in 10 more days, according to Apple...

Re:empty promises... (1)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284457)

It's pretty easy to make empty promises with a product that won't even be released until next year.

Uhh, no. It's not easy at all. They merely make it *look* easy because they've got an R&D budget larger than the Pentagon's and over two decades of practice.

They're not empty promises (4, Funny)

RLW (662014) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284571)

Microsoft has been the *best* and *truest* inovator of the MS Windows desktop (and of MS Windows OSes for that matter) the world has ever seen. Nobody puts more features in to MS windows applications than anybody else. True it does borrow some ideas from *completely* unrelated fields (such as OSX for instance). But putting those features into MS Windows is the real litmus test of MS Windows OS inovation.

Re:empty promises... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284496)

Indeed, especially since it's likely the next revision of OS X will be released by that point.

Re:empty promises... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284499)

Yep. Longhorn is the shit. It will peel your carrots for you and make you more attractive to the opposite sex while preventing earthquakes and IRS audits.

It will be so good, you won't even mind the seven-year wait, or the $89 license upkeep fee every three months which they will regretfully be forced to add in order to prevent those terrorist pirates from stealing their software.

The delays are understandable. They still need to complete the features which Apple stole from them. Oh, wait...

Re:empty promises... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284523)

"It's pretty easy to make empty promises with a product that won't even be released until next year."

There is a logical abd valid reason MS is accused of hyping vaporware.

With longhorn? (1)

theWrkncacnter (562232) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284372)

Whats the release date on that now? 2020?

Re:With longhorn? (2, Funny)

Enrique1218 (603187) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284442)

They didn't give an exact date. But, they did mention something about hell and snowman.

Hmm... (3, Funny)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#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... (4, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#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... (2, Interesting)

burns210 (572621) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284565)

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... (3, Insightful)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 9 years ago | (#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... (1)

avalys (221114) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284491)

Yeah, but think about it - with desktop search, if you want to go after a file, just type the name, or some content related to it. No need to hunt through fifteen layers of uber-organized folders, scrolling through lists to find the folder you want, looking for the file, etc.

It's about three clicks and a few keystrokes over five seconds, versus fifty clicks over twenty seconds.

Re:Dunno... (1)

Electroly (708000) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284511)

It's a matter of convenience. With current OSX and WinXP, it's just more convenient/less hassle to make folders and organize yourself. I'm the same way -- I don't think I've ever used the find tool in OSX. But back when I used BeOS, I used filesystem queries all the time because it was more convenient and faster than dealing with my own organization.

I think when Spotlight is there at a click's notice, it might become more convenient to use it instead of folders.

Re:Dunno... (1)

Golias (176380) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284553)

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.

If you are an OS X user, and you like keeping things organized, there are two words which you will probably fall in love with:

Smart folders.

Example of how they work: Do a search for all your .xml files. Close that window as a "smart folder." The next time you open that window, it will not only display the result of the search you ran, but it will also include any .xml files which have been added since.

Are you starting to think of ways in which such a feature could be really handy? I bet you are.

Re:Dunno... (4, Interesting)

aftk2 (556992) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284577)

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.)

iTunes? (0, Redundant)

CypherXero (798440) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284380)

FTFA: "While they do give credit to Apple's iTunes for search inspiration"

Do they mean "Spotlight [apple.com] ?"

Re:iTunes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284464)

Jesus, first time should be told to RTFA after quoting TFA.

No, they mean iTunes. It keeps all your music meta-data in a nice little xml file and loads it up when it's run. From that, it can do all sorts of fancy searches.

Re:iTunes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284465)

No, they don't. The live searching element first appeared in iTunes, long ago.

Re:iTunes? (1)

Tsiangkun (746511) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284479)

No, they mean the search interface that appeared years ago in iTunes was the original innovation that sparked the desire to put the search mechanism in place for searching the whole machine. Spotlight is the product of that desire.

Re:iTunes? (1)

Bander (2001) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284547)

No, they actually mean iTunes, which has a little text box for searching. As you type, the available songs are filtered to match your text. According to some sources, the iTunes search feature was the inspiration for Spotlight.

It's funny to watch Microsoft claim that their OS will be better (in 18 months) than Apple's (in 10 days).

Well, duh (1)

klui (457783) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284381)

Longhorn will probably have more robust search features than Tiger has today (mid 2005). But what will happen with an upcoming version of OS X? It's easy to make predictions with an unreleased/beta product.

And the winner is... (0, Offtopic)

meehray (715859) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284383)

Google!

Because anything Apple or M$ comes out with will be trumped by Google's next idea or improvement.

Why a desktop search tool? (1)

rrosales (847375) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284393)

Excuse my ignorance but I don't understand the need for a desktop search tool. I can search through e-mail using my e-mail client (or now that I've switched to Gmail, use it's searching ability) or just set all my Internet programs to download all files to a directory (my desktop for convenience). Using Firefox as my default browser, typing google along with my search query will use Google's search engine to find whatever it is that I'm looking for.

Re:Why a desktop search tool? (3, Interesting)

izomiac (815208) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284472)

My guess is that Joe Average can't remember if he saved Important.doc to C:\, C:\My Documents, C:\Documents and Settings\JAverage\My Documents, N:\, or to the Start Menu/whereever else inexperienced users tend to save things.

erm (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284394)

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

Didn't Google release a add on bar which did all this and some other things? I know we all hate Microsoft here and Apple is "cool" now. But come on, we're all Google fanboys no matter what OS we use.

impromptu poll (3, Insightful)

spoonyfork (23307) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284399)

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.

Re:impromptu poll (1)

XpirateX (691224) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284443)

Leaving your files in a logical and consistent way makes these search programs more timely to use than just browsing my file structure. Sure, I can't search my chat logs or whatever else...but I wouldn't want to anyway.

Re:impromptu poll (1)

Baorc (794142) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284509)

Nope, I couldn't care less for the battle. I put stuff in obvious folders, and stuff that im too lazy to sort at the moment, I put in an "TooLazyToSort" folder which is probably where I will find whatever I'm looking for.

To take an extra second at each download to put your stuff in an appropriate folder will save you an eternal ammount of time searching for it.

Besides, I find the indexing service to be utterly useless. And hey, if I can't find it, that means no else can therefore I'm safe :)

Re:impromptu poll (3, Insightful)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284539)

And for the stuff that falls under multiple categories, which folder should that go in?

[cue "but what about symlinks?" responses]

Re:impromptu poll (2, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284593)

Only file search I use on OS X is by content. I index folders I know I'll need to get into, so when I know I had X in some file in "School Stuff" and so I search by content.

Search Technology (4, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284405)

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.

WinFS (2, Interesting)

ip_fired (730445) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284408)

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!)

Re:WinFS (1)

ssj_195 (827847) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284524)

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
From one I understand, WinFS is something of a misnomer, as it is not actually a file system at all. It's more or less just a database sitting on top of NTFS.

ahem (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284409)

'man find'

What about Beagle? (5, Informative)

Xpilot (117961) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284412)

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 :)

they both imply (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284420)

they both imply that Microsoft will provide more robust features with the release of Longhorn.

VAPOR alert

yeah, if and when it gets here, it'll be the best. yeah, that's the ticket

Why Mr. Allchin, what a big RDF you have! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

This may be.. (1)

raynet11 (844558) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284426)

True about windows comming out ahead but I think
that Apple users need not worry since Apple's release
schedule is much more frequent then Microsofts.. My Windows
may be better for a year or two but then I have to
wait 5yrs for the next Windows to come out.. I can't
imagine where Apple's OS will be in 5yrs..

Microsoft has delivered in the past. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284432)

Windows 95 brought us far more features than Macintosh 84.

grep anyone? (1, Insightful)

danmart (660791) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284444)

Breakthrough technology: a file search tool that finds things on your pc. Who could have thought up something so innovative and so 2005? Except wasnt file find in the first release of msdos and unix? Or is the breakthrough the magnifying glass icon in the top right corner?

Re:grep anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284585)

Ehm, excuse my ignorance, but even after searching through the grep man page I still can't find a way to convince grep to deliver results within milliseconds.

Oh, might that be because grep can't do this, as grep is a different tool than the once we are talking about here?

But wouldn't that mean that your post is, ehm, essentially stupid, dumb and offtopic? And how could it have been modded insightful if that was the case? Surely I'm doing something wrong here.

Copernic Desktop Search (2, Informative)

blueturffan (867705) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284454)

Can't wait for Longhorn? Try Copernic Desktop Search for WinXP. http://www.copernic.com/ [copernic.com] )

Makes finding files or email messages a breeze.

Why am I not suprised (2, Interesting)

xbrownx (459399) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284456)

that CNET comes up with a shitty article, totally ignoring Google?

Hold on a second. (2, Insightful)

Moofie (22272) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284460)

You mean that two Microsoft honchos say that the product they will probably ship sometime next year is better than the stuff that's available (more or less) right now?

Wow. Stop the presses.

Neither of them were first! (4, Informative)

Trixter (9555) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284462)

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.

Serious question (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284477)

Having not used any of these services I don't know exactly what they do. How does their functionality compare to locate?

Re:Serious question (1)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284581)

How does their functionality compare to locate?

They'd be roughly equivalent if you could pipe locate to your GPU.

"fair" (1)

nnnnnnnn (876913) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284486)

How exactly do we get a "fair" evaluation of the head of Microsoft's Windows unit?

own (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284489)

I think they're talking about apple and microsoft's own desktop search in their own os's. google doesnt make their own os.

Well, THIS sure is helpful... (5, Interesting)

Twon (46168) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284492)

"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!

Search in Rapsody (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284493)

I remember seeing a demo years ago of Rapsody years ago. The creation of a folder that dynamically added/deleted aliases of matching files.

Meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284504)

While they are battleing, I'm happily using beagle on my nice Gnome desktop.

Honestly, I don't know if the search features OSX and Longhorn are going to provide are better than beagle or not, however I do know that beagle is a great technology, works well for me and above all, allready works and runs on my system.

Duh (1, Interesting)

Gannoc (210256) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284506)

they both imply that Microsoft will provide more robust features with the release of Longhorn.

Of course they will. They have 3+ years to respond to Apple's feature.

I mean, thats ridiculous. Thats like saying "Yeah, this new game has good graphics, but this other game coming out in 2008 will look much better!"

Of course it will. You have three years of additional programming and hardware improvements.

I don't get it (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284520)

I don't understand how these desktop search products are any different then what you can get using "Search" off of the start menu. Every OS I've ever used has had the ability to search through the drives for files containing a word either built in, or available with a 3rd party program. I jsut don't see what is so special about these search bars that are popping up everywhere,

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284570)

I don't understand how these desktop search products are any different then what you can get using "Search" off of the start menu.

Well for starters, it will be faster. Microsoft's file search capability in XP sucks major ass. In terms of speed and interface, OS X's (and I mean Panther's) beats the shit out of it already. It's only going to look worse between the time Tiger ships in 10 days and Longhorn finally gets pushed out the door in late 2006.

And the winner is (4, Interesting)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284534)

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

Post is a troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284535)

Which religion is best?
I've been looking into various types of spirituality and am seriously considering Jainism as my main operating system. Since there's no other way to find out such things, I figured I'd ask the Slashdot crowd. Which is teh one true religion?"

Dont miss the boat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12284544)

Whats going on here is as plain as the nose on your face. Each company wants to get their users used to using a specific search program. Even though on the surface it appears to be aimed for local information i am sure at the onset or sometime later there will be a check box that allows you to search the internet from this app. Therefore Microsoft can send more people to its search engine thus bypassing the need for Google or others. It seems to me to be a way to exploit the average user...

Let's peek in on GENIUS at work. (3, Funny)

hey! (33014) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284561)

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!

nostalgia moment (2, Funny)

fred fleenblat (463628) | more than 9 years ago | (#12284583)

Anyone remember xargs?

find . | xargs grep foo /dev/null

ah, the good old days.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?