<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google Quick Search Box attempts to dethrone QuickSilver</title>
	<atom:link href="http://smokingapples.com/software/google-quick-search-box-attempts-to-dethrone-quicksilver/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://smokingapples.com/software/google-quick-search-box-attempts-to-dethrone-quicksilver/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2011 17:01:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob</title>
		<link>http://smokingapples.com/software/google-quick-search-box-attempts-to-dethrone-quicksilver/#comment-10616</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:09:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smokingapples.com/?p=4787#comment-10616</guid>
		<description>Does anyone else understand that they guy who made Quicksilver now works for google and made the search bar also?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does anyone else understand that they guy who made Quicksilver now works for google and made the search bar also?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leandro</title>
		<link>http://smokingapples.com/software/google-quick-search-box-attempts-to-dethrone-quicksilver/#comment-5835</link>
		<dc:creator>Leandro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:08:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smokingapples.com/?p=4787#comment-5835</guid>
		<description>Now it&#039;s officially part of Google: http://googlemac.blogspot.com/2009/06/introducing-google-quick-search-box.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now it&#8217;s officially part of Google: <a href="http://googlemac.blogspot.com/2009/06/introducing-google-quick-search-box.html" rel="nofollow">http://googlemac.blogspot.com/2009/06/introducing-google-quick-search-box.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Google Quick Search Box isn&#8217;t quite QuickSilver&#8230; at least not yet : Pixel Pushing Blogger</title>
		<link>http://smokingapples.com/software/google-quick-search-box-attempts-to-dethrone-quicksilver/#comment-3112</link>
		<dc:creator>Google Quick Search Box isn&#8217;t quite QuickSilver&#8230; at least not yet : Pixel Pushing Blogger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 07:47:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smokingapples.com/?p=4787#comment-3112</guid>
		<description>[...] and has been focused on other projects. So imagine my excitement when I came across the article on Smoking Apples Blog that the same developer has unveiled his latest project, Google Quick Search for the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] and has been focused on other projects. So imagine my excitement when I came across the article on Smoking Apples Blog that the same developer has unveiled his latest project, Google Quick Search for the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://smokingapples.com/software/google-quick-search-box-attempts-to-dethrone-quicksilver/#comment-3107</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:07:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smokingapples.com/?p=4787#comment-3107</guid>
		<description>I tried this on both my Macbook Pro and Mac Pro yesterday. Right now, the program is pretty unstable, it will hang &amp; crash unexpectably, and doing so while eating up a huge amount of memory. On one crash, Google Quick Search Box was using up 360MB+ of memory, and it just kept on going up until I force quit the application.

Instability issues aside, there are a few things I like and dislike about it.

Likes:
It&#039;s more robust if you want to do things outside of your desktop. Searching for anything in your browser is relatively fewer keystrokes away than Quicksilver (unless you set up some custom triggers).

Dislike:
For just accessing items within your own desktop, it doesn&#039;t do it quite as well. It always mixes in Google searches in the results. For example, if I typed Adium in Quicksilver, it will always search through my desktop for relevance first. With Google Quick Search Box, inevitably there&#039;s an option to search Adium on Google&#039;s website. Eventually Adium will rise and become the #1 result, but I wish there was a prioritization system where web searches is the least prioritized by default.

Since it also searches from Spotlight (and most of the time you *have* to, because the first time you search for any result it may not familiar with, you will have to go through the Spotlight results for the correct ones), the performance for even mundane tasks can sometime be sluggish compared to Quicksilver.

Granted, &quot;sluggish&quot; means a few extra seconds, but on an older model Mac it would take a lot more time (my co-workers 12&quot; PowerBook had a really rough time). Quicksilver was extremely fast &amp; robust because it maintained its own index. Using Spotlight does give you more detailed results if you&#039;re looking for some very obscure file, but even when you&#039;re just typing in the name of an application in your &quot;Applications&quot; folder, Spotlight will slow down the responsiveness of Google Quick Search Box.

The advantage of being able to quickly get web search result is a bit offset by Quicksilver&#039;s web search plugin, which can get you more than a dozen different search engine with a few extra keystrokes.

For now, I&#039;m sticking with Quicksilver.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I tried this on both my Macbook Pro and Mac Pro yesterday. Right now, the program is pretty unstable, it will hang &amp; crash unexpectably, and doing so while eating up a huge amount of memory. On one crash, Google Quick Search Box was using up 360MB+ of memory, and it just kept on going up until I force quit the application.</p>
<p>Instability issues aside, there are a few things I like and dislike about it.</p>
<p>Likes:<br />
It&#8217;s more robust if you want to do things outside of your desktop. Searching for anything in your browser is relatively fewer keystrokes away than Quicksilver (unless you set up some custom triggers).</p>
<p>Dislike:<br />
For just accessing items within your own desktop, it doesn&#8217;t do it quite as well. It always mixes in Google searches in the results. For example, if I typed Adium in Quicksilver, it will always search through my desktop for relevance first. With Google Quick Search Box, inevitably there&#8217;s an option to search Adium on Google&#8217;s website. Eventually Adium will rise and become the #1 result, but I wish there was a prioritization system where web searches is the least prioritized by default.</p>
<p>Since it also searches from Spotlight (and most of the time you *have* to, because the first time you search for any result it may not familiar with, you will have to go through the Spotlight results for the correct ones), the performance for even mundane tasks can sometime be sluggish compared to Quicksilver.</p>
<p>Granted, &#8220;sluggish&#8221; means a few extra seconds, but on an older model Mac it would take a lot more time (my co-workers 12&#8243; PowerBook had a really rough time). Quicksilver was extremely fast &amp; robust because it maintained its own index. Using Spotlight does give you more detailed results if you&#8217;re looking for some very obscure file, but even when you&#8217;re just typing in the name of an application in your &#8220;Applications&#8221; folder, Spotlight will slow down the responsiveness of Google Quick Search Box.</p>
<p>The advantage of being able to quickly get web search result is a bit offset by Quicksilver&#8217;s web search plugin, which can get you more than a dozen different search engine with a few extra keystrokes.</p>
<p>For now, I&#8217;m sticking with Quicksilver.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Google Quick Search Box</title>
		<link>http://smokingapples.com/software/google-quick-search-box-attempts-to-dethrone-quicksilver/#comment-3097</link>
		<dc:creator>Google Quick Search Box</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:32:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smokingapples.com/?p=4787#comment-3097</guid>
		<description>[...] new desktop search tool for the Mac was interesting to say the least. A few people got on the train of thought that this utility would compete with [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] new desktop search tool for the Mac was interesting to say the least. A few people got on the train of thought that this utility would compete with [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://smokingapples.com/software/google-quick-search-box-attempts-to-dethrone-quicksilver/#comment-3088</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:23:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smokingapples.com/?p=4787#comment-3088</guid>
		<description>I hear what you&#039;re saying. It&#039;s just that the post title gives a different idea. 

A lot of people never use QS because it&#039;s complicated and has a bit of a learning curve. Maybe this tool from Google is a better fit for them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hear what you&#8217;re saying. It&#8217;s just that the post title gives a different idea. </p>
<p>A lot of people never use QS because it&#8217;s complicated and has a bit of a learning curve. Maybe this tool from Google is a better fit for them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 6/14 queries in 0.005 seconds using disk: basic

Served from: smokingapples.com @ 2012-02-12 00:26:55 -->
