Desktop Search Experiences
-
I settled on Copernic some time ago. However, recently, for various reasons I gave Google and Microsoft a try. Google takes forever to complete its first index and is otherwise unacceptably resource hungry. Microsoft is not much better - plus insists on a reboot after uninstalling. :wtf: Copernic has some deficiencies but is still way better than these two. (I've not used Vista so I don't know what Vista search is like.) What do others think?
Kevin
-
I settled on Copernic some time ago. However, recently, for various reasons I gave Google and Microsoft a try. Google takes forever to complete its first index and is otherwise unacceptably resource hungry. Microsoft is not much better - plus insists on a reboot after uninstalling. :wtf: Copernic has some deficiencies but is still way better than these two. (I've not used Vista so I don't know what Vista search is like.) What do others think?
Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Copernic
:eek: Windows 98 UI alert!!!
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Google takes forever to complete its first index
Depends have fast your system is but Yeah after that it get most powerful. Want only emails? Then click emails. Want only files? Then click files. Want a little sneak-peek? Click preview. Want to search real fast CTRL+CTRL type BANG! results. done. Copernic produces results but have fun sorting thru it.
Later, JoeSox CPMCv1.0 ? humanaiproject.org ? Last.fm ? pswrdgen
-
I settled on Copernic some time ago. However, recently, for various reasons I gave Google and Microsoft a try. Google takes forever to complete its first index and is otherwise unacceptably resource hungry. Microsoft is not much better - plus insists on a reboot after uninstalling. :wtf: Copernic has some deficiencies but is still way better than these two. (I've not used Vista so I don't know what Vista search is like.) What do others think?
Kevin
I guess I've never found the need/advantage of having the computer search for something, except for when I need to do an email search for which the services that gmail provides are adequate. Anything on my personal machine, I simply prefer to create a system that organizes things so I can easily find them, rather than rely on a search tool. So, I haven't tried any of these desktop search engines. Marc
-
I guess I've never found the need/advantage of having the computer search for something, except for when I need to do an email search for which the services that gmail provides are adequate. Anything on my personal machine, I simply prefer to create a system that organizes things so I can easily find them, rather than rely on a search tool. So, I haven't tried any of these desktop search engines. Marc
-
I settled on Copernic some time ago. However, recently, for various reasons I gave Google and Microsoft a try. Google takes forever to complete its first index and is otherwise unacceptably resource hungry. Microsoft is not much better - plus insists on a reboot after uninstalling. :wtf: Copernic has some deficiencies but is still way better than these two. (I've not used Vista so I don't know what Vista search is like.) What do others think?
Kevin
I use the built in Vista Search, but have the indexer turned off, slower, but no biggy. If I have to do a serious search, I use Agent Ransack: http://www.mythicsoft.com/agentransack/[^]
Rocky <>< Blog Post: Silverlight goes Beta 2.0 Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
-
I settled on Copernic some time ago. However, recently, for various reasons I gave Google and Microsoft a try. Google takes forever to complete its first index and is otherwise unacceptably resource hungry. Microsoft is not much better - plus insists on a reboot after uninstalling. :wtf: Copernic has some deficiencies but is still way better than these two. (I've not used Vista so I don't know what Vista search is like.) What do others think?
Kevin
Before going to Vista, I used copernic as well. I didn't like the "add-on" Microsoft search to XP, nor was I particularly fond of googles desktop search. Since going to Vista, however, I find search to be one of Vista's best features. It's unobtrusive, and doesn't seem to take any CPU away from important tasks. What's better, Office 2007 integrates with it, so it's a breeze to search for emails within outlook.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
I settled on Copernic some time ago. However, recently, for various reasons I gave Google and Microsoft a try. Google takes forever to complete its first index and is otherwise unacceptably resource hungry. Microsoft is not much better - plus insists on a reboot after uninstalling. :wtf: Copernic has some deficiencies but is still way better than these two. (I've not used Vista so I don't know what Vista search is like.) What do others think?
Kevin
I'm quite pleased by the search feature included in Total Commander. I've never felt the need to go further.
-
I settled on Copernic some time ago. However, recently, for various reasons I gave Google and Microsoft a try. Google takes forever to complete its first index and is otherwise unacceptably resource hungry. Microsoft is not much better - plus insists on a reboot after uninstalling. :wtf: Copernic has some deficiencies but is still way better than these two. (I've not used Vista so I don't know what Vista search is like.) What do others think?
Kevin
-
I settled on Copernic some time ago. However, recently, for various reasons I gave Google and Microsoft a try. Google takes forever to complete its first index and is otherwise unacceptably resource hungry. Microsoft is not much better - plus insists on a reboot after uninstalling. :wtf: Copernic has some deficiencies but is still way better than these two. (I've not used Vista so I don't know what Vista search is like.) What do others think?
Kevin
I gave up on Copernic because I search for file names more than content, and every time I wanted to search for a file, it wasn't indexed, and I had to wait for an index. I'm quite happy with the Vista file search now.
My head asplode!
Calling all South African developers! Your participation in this local dev community will be mutually beneficial, to you and us.
-
I don't think they're exclusive. I use both.
Kevin
-
I don't think they're exclusive. I use both.
Kevin
-
I do use it mainly for text within emails. However, even with an organised file system I still find it helpful, as I often don't know quite how to classify what I'm searching for. Plus search is often quicker than folder navigation, once you start having lots of folders.
Kevin
-
I do use it mainly for text within emails. However, even with an organised file system I still find it helpful, as I often don't know quite how to classify what I'm searching for. Plus search is often quicker than folder navigation, once you start having lots of folders.
Kevin
True but I suppose the way that things have been recently I'm only working on a few things at a time so set up shortcuts for that etc. The only time where I have to deal with lots of files is for my University coursework but because the simulation packages refused to install on Vista x64 (and partly I didn't want them) I set up an XP VM and installed them in there then set up a mapped drive so that it points to the root of the project's folder so that narrows things down considerably.
-
I guess I've never found the need/advantage of having the computer search for something, except for when I need to do an email search for which the services that gmail provides are adequate. Anything on my personal machine, I simply prefer to create a system that organizes things so I can easily find them, rather than rely on a search tool. So, I haven't tried any of these desktop search engines. Marc
I agree with you about desktop organization. However on rare occasions I do have to do a file system search, I prefer FileLocator Pro http://www.mythicsoft.com/default.aspx[^] I am not sure how it compares with the other tools in performance, I have used it for years, and the price is right. my 2 cents
MrPlankton
-
I settled on Copernic some time ago. However, recently, for various reasons I gave Google and Microsoft a try. Google takes forever to complete its first index and is otherwise unacceptably resource hungry. Microsoft is not much better - plus insists on a reboot after uninstalling. :wtf: Copernic has some deficiencies but is still way better than these two. (I've not used Vista so I don't know what Vista search is like.) What do others think?
Kevin
I tried Vista Search, XP DTS, Copernic and I am using X1, which, like all good things, is free for personal use :) . Why? It's fast, resource usage is reasonable, can be used for VERY large amounts on data (2 TB+, indexing allmost everything on my machines, i.e. all except other databases (yes, you can exclude efficiently what you do not want); X1 indexes archived files (it could get better at this by indexing more content of archives :sigh: ), Outlook (all except notes, why this?). It's got a pretty good preview for most file types (even for pictures, video, sound, pdf, ...). Why is it not sufficient to use a good organization scheme? Well, I do, but with that much data that's only partially helpful. X1 will find things well even if you're organized :omg: (use the org scheme as filters!). Rolf
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Copernic
:eek: Windows 98 UI alert!!!
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Google takes forever to complete its first index
Depends have fast your system is but Yeah after that it get most powerful. Want only emails? Then click emails. Want only files? Then click files. Want a little sneak-peek? Click preview. Want to search real fast CTRL+CTRL type BANG! results. done. Copernic produces results but have fun sorting thru it.
Later, JoeSox CPMCv1.0 ? humanaiproject.org ? Last.fm ? pswrdgen
JoeSox wrote:
Windows 98 UI alert!!!
It's not the prettiest but it's functional.
JoeSox wrote:
Copernic produces results but have fun sorting thru it.
It's good enough for me. Google had little to recommend it. And, on my home PC, it was a resource hog. Copernic isn't.
Kevin
-
Before going to Vista, I used copernic as well. I didn't like the "add-on" Microsoft search to XP, nor was I particularly fond of googles desktop search. Since going to Vista, however, I find search to be one of Vista's best features. It's unobtrusive, and doesn't seem to take any CPU away from important tasks. What's better, Office 2007 integrates with it, so it's a breeze to search for emails within outlook.
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
Since going to Vista, however, I find search to be one of Vista's best features. It's unobtrusive, and doesn't seem to take any CPU away from important tasks.
I suspect that, as is often the way with MS "middleware" the OS-integrated versions tend to be much better than their add-ons.
Kevin
-
I tried Vista Search, XP DTS, Copernic and I am using X1, which, like all good things, is free for personal use :) . Why? It's fast, resource usage is reasonable, can be used for VERY large amounts on data (2 TB+, indexing allmost everything on my machines, i.e. all except other databases (yes, you can exclude efficiently what you do not want); X1 indexes archived files (it could get better at this by indexing more content of archives :sigh: ), Outlook (all except notes, why this?). It's got a pretty good preview for most file types (even for pictures, video, sound, pdf, ...). Why is it not sufficient to use a good organization scheme? Well, I do, but with that much data that's only partially helpful. X1 will find things well even if you're organized :omg: (use the org scheme as filters!). Rolf
rgbigel wrote:
Why is it not sufficient to use a good organization scheme? Well, I do, but with that much data that's only partially helpful.
I agree. :) Maybe I'll have a look at X1. Do you know whether it can index MS's new Windows Live Mail program? Copernic can't at the moment, which is why I gave WDS a try but it was hopeless.
Kevin
-
rgbigel wrote:
Why is it not sufficient to use a good organization scheme? Well, I do, but with that much data that's only partially helpful.
I agree. :) Maybe I'll have a look at X1. Do you know whether it can index MS's new Windows Live Mail program? Copernic can't at the moment, which is why I gave WDS a try but it was hopeless.
Kevin
Kevin, I doubt that X1 can index Live Mail, unless the storage is trivial text file. If L.M. had used text files, Copernic or WDS would have found them, as long as the directories of L.M. were not skipped alltogether... Rolf
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
can it index MS's new Windows Live Mail ?
-
I settled on Copernic some time ago. However, recently, for various reasons I gave Google and Microsoft a try. Google takes forever to complete its first index and is otherwise unacceptably resource hungry. Microsoft is not much better - plus insists on a reboot after uninstalling. :wtf: Copernic has some deficiencies but is still way better than these two. (I've not used Vista so I don't know what Vista search is like.) What do others think?
Kevin
I really like a lot of the Google products but I had to uninstall their desktop search after struggling with it for 6 months. First of all I was really turned off that when I organize my emails in Outlook it no longer knows where they are. That seems pretty basic to me. Email search is one of my biggest uses so this really was a step in the wrong direction for me. I also didn't care for the web interface. I just couldn't find enough power user features. I'm sure they are there but even trying a simple thing like searching within a specific folder was hard to find. The resource use for Google didn't seem to bother my day to day work. Maybe my machine was fast enough or had enough RAM for it not to make a difference. I installed Copernic not expecting a whole lot and have been using it for the past 2 months. I chose it because it seemed to be the next best one on everyones list. I have to say I'm very happy. I haven't been using it a long time yet so I haven't noticed any missing or poorly implemented features. Selecting which types of files to search, where to search, etc is all very easy to find and usage as a whole is a breeze. So far it's found anything I needed quickly and easily. Anyway, that's been my experience.