. Meanwhile, some of the problems in GDS mentioned in this post seemed to have been provided/fixed in newer versions. Unfortunately, the documentation is almost completely lacking and they don't seem to work for me (or at least follow the principle of least surprise). It is really impossible for me to say if they are features or bugs.
Next, I have tried to find answers on the GDS Groups where a couple of weeks ago it was said:
[...] We will also have an official Google representative who will periodically offer tips and clarifications in the group under the nickname "Google Desktop Guide." [...]but to my surprise the "Google Desktop Guide" adviser have answered exactly to 2 (two) questions.
So, I have understood that a software disclaimer notice:
Google Desktop Search is provided "as is". [...]can sometimes be read as in: "We provide this piece of software to you. If it works than enjoy, if not than do not bug us about it".
Another cool thing about GDS is that upon uninstall it provides a web form asking for the reasons you are removing it. I guess if they would read the forum, than they will really find plenty of these.
2 comments:
I'm really curious why you combine Copernic and Google, you must be tying down extra resources. I only use Copernic for everything, what's the benefit of the combination?
Thx.
Hi Zoli!
The main reason for doing using this combination is that I really like the simplicity of GDS UI (CTRL + CTRL to bring up the search box and than a web page) and also the powerful query language of GDS.
I am not using GDS for the rest of the job (files indexing, etc.) because it performed really bad for me (no move tracking, lot of space for the indexes, impossibility to customize the exact locations for indexing etc.).
./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.
Post a Comment