Webaroo Releases Offline Internet Search Service for Windows Mobile

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.webaroo.com/dloads/060619WebarooBenQRelease.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.webaroo.com/dloads/06061...BenQRelease.pdf</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Webaroo has released a unique 'web search offline' service, compatible with the Microsoft Windows Mobile 5 platform, and providing owners of Pocket PC and Smartphones with the ability to search the web without having to rely on a mobile Internet connection... by featuring "web packs" on a variety of subjects, such as world news, soccer/football, major cities, the Wikipedia and more. Each of these packs contains thousands of relevant web pages identified by Webaroo's algorithms."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/ekkie_webaroo_200606.jpg" /><br /><br />Webaroo is compatible with both WM5 (PPC &amp; Smartphone) and WM2003SE and there's a standard Windows 2k/XP client that is required as well (everything is provided in one download). In addition to the offline searching, you can also save website content locally for your own offline browsing needs. It's no surprise that the search database (or "web packs") can take up quite a bit of space; thus, Webaroo requires that you have an external card of at least 256MB. Please note that the client software appears to still be in beta, so download at your own discretion. Anyone manage to try this? Let us know.<br /><br /><b>UPDATE:</b> If you're interested, there's also a <a href="http://www.pocketinfo.tv/play/5984#5984">video interview with the Webaroo CEO</a> where he talks about the differences between Webaroo and AvantGo, gives a Pocket PC demo, and also talks about the future roadmap for this service.

[Jason Dunn]

I always wonder a bit when a tool offers to take Web sites offline - how will it do it? Will it be respectful of the server, or will it brutalize it? :?

[malcolmsharp]

I always wonder a bit when a tool offers to take Web sites offline - how will it do it? Will it be respectful of the server, or will it brutalize it? :?

Gee, Jason, I can't think why you would ever wonder that! :devilboy:

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

Well, it's a great point that I hadn't thought of. I can speak on behalf of the entire staff that, behind the scenes, site performance and availability is very important to all of us. Personally, I'd hate to rob all of you of my wonderfully moving and earth-shattering commentary just b/c you can't access the site! ;)

I guess what I wonder is how many people nowadays rely on this capability to take sites offline. I used to do it quite often back in the "dial-up" days and for myself, I find that high-speed internet access seems so ubiquitous that I never think of doing the offline caching anymore. I'm sure there are still a lot of people that like to do this, but depending on how the software handles the caching, it could levying quite a load on the source server.

[PPCRules]

..., I find that high-speed internet access seems so ubiquitous that I never think of doing the offline caching anymore.

I don't know where you guys come from (ok, I know Ekkie comes from LA), but WiFi (if that's what you mean) is certainly nowhere close to "ubiquitous" where I make my rounds. And not for free even if I would go out of my way to find it. So, "offline caching" is of great value to me.
And yes, I'd say that most of the bits I download to accomplish that are never read. Sorry Jason, et.al.. But a lot of that is advertising anyway, so it's just as much the site operator wasting their own bandwidth.