Windows 7 search - you gotta be kidding me
-
That looks handy, though I'm philosophically opposed to installing a utility just so I can search the file system. I may get over that objection, but geez! And they wonder why everyone hated Vista, or anything that smelled like it!
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting Services -
Not to appear dense (though that may be unavoidable), but I'm not seeing a solution in the FM.
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting ServicesObviously, you failed to enter the query properly. You need to use the new Microsoft Search dialect, that has been greatly improved, with more features and power through its simplified search syntax. So all you had to type was ... Kind:Any Subject:Any Contains:Everything Author:Christopher Duncan || Lord Vader Date:> Today - Yesterday + Tomorrow * 356 - 12 + 1 Folders: All I mean really. Get with the program. ;P
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Bad Astronomy |VCF|wxWidgets|WTL -
Not to appear dense (though that may be unavoidable), but I'm not seeing a solution in the FM.
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting Servicesdid you use appropriate technology to search the FM? e.g. did you index it? :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]
I only read formatted code with indentation, so please use PRE tags for code snippets.
I'm not participating in frackin' Q&A, so if you want my opinion, ask away in a real forum (or on my profile page).
-
Obviously, you failed to enter the query properly. You need to use the new Microsoft Search dialect, that has been greatly improved, with more features and power through its simplified search syntax. So all you had to type was ... Kind:Any Subject:Any Contains:Everything Author:Christopher Duncan || Lord Vader Date:> Today - Yesterday + Tomorrow * 356 - 12 + 1 Folders: All I mean really. Get with the program. ;P
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Bad Astronomy |VCF|wxWidgets|WTL:laugh: I've got blisters on my fingers!
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting Services -
did you use appropriate technology to search the FM? e.g. did you index it? :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]
I only read formatted code with indentation, so please use PRE tags for code snippets.
I'm not participating in frackin' Q&A, so if you want my opinion, ask away in a real forum (or on my profile page).
A whole effing sparse B-Tree ;P
-
Morons. Must... resist... trip... to... Mac... store... :)
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting ServicesLoving my new iPad right now...
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Loving my new iPad right now...
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Normally I'd make some kind of snarky remark about you being a bunny hugger, but all things considered... :)
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting Services -
did you use appropriate technology to search the FM? e.g. did you index it? :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]
I only read formatted code with indentation, so please use PRE tags for code snippets.
I'm not participating in frackin' Q&A, so if you want my opinion, ask away in a real forum (or on my profile page).
I was thinking of borrowing Christian's iPad. Maybe that's a technology that would work. :)
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting Services -
Loving my new iPad right now...
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Loving my new iPad right now...
Seriously, what is your take on that? It seemed to me like a glorified iPod Touch. I know the screen is a lot larger, but what other advantages are there? It seemed like it does a lot less than some Netbooks from some of the things that have read about it. I am not bashing you or it; I am seriously interested in why you like it... Peace :rose:
WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your a$$ will be laminated. There are 10 kinds of people in the world: People who know binary and people who don't.
-
Loving my new iPad right now...
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
hey - how did you get an iPad ? I didnt think they were avail in Aus yet (let alone the quiet backwaters of Hobart !) .. let me guess - had a recent trip to the states ? (If I had known that I would have asked you to get me one) [edit] just read your post below this ... ahhh - you're still there ! [/edit] 'g'
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Loving my new iPad right now...
Seriously, what is your take on that? It seemed to me like a glorified iPod Touch. I know the screen is a lot larger, but what other advantages are there? It seemed like it does a lot less than some Netbooks from some of the things that have read about it. I am not bashing you or it; I am seriously interested in why you like it... Peace :rose:
WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your a$$ will be laminated. There are 10 kinds of people in the world: People who know binary and people who don't.
-
hey - how did you get an iPad ? I didnt think they were avail in Aus yet (let alone the quiet backwaters of Hobart !) .. let me guess - had a recent trip to the states ? (If I had known that I would have asked you to get me one) [edit] just read your post below this ... ahhh - you're still there ! [/edit] 'g'
it was flown in by the QANTAS CEO himself, CG and he are buddies now. Happened shortly after the Telstra reconciliation. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]
I only read formatted code with indentation, so please use PRE tags for code snippets.
I'm not participating in frackin' Q&A, so if you want my opinion, ask away in a real forum (or on my profile page).
modified on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 7:38 PM
-
I'm a dinosaur. I admit it. I have large green scales and sharp teeth perfect for gnawing on anything that looks tasty. All of which is to say that like many others here, my initial MS experiences were with DOS. And I'm strangely at peace with that. Since olden times, the DOS based search parameters have been honored. Whether I type in a search box from Explorer in Windows or from the command line prompt, * is the wildcard for everything, ? is the wildcard for one character. And thus, *.ascx* will give you *.ascx, *.ascx.cs, *.ascx.designer.cs since the last * means "and everything else after this." Imagine my surprise when I do that search in Windows 7 and it gives me simply *.ascx. If I search for *.ascx.*, I get *.ascx.cs and *.ascx.designer.cs, but no .ascx files since they don't have the . at the end. Exclaiming WTF with some enthusiasm, I went to a command prompt where, sure enough, *.ascx* works just like it always did. Clearly, there's a moron at work here. Either I'm simply too stupid to understand how to use Search in the Explorer, or some rocket scientist at MS thought it would be good to have pattern matching work differently in the GUI than it does on the command line (and all previous versions of Windows). And so, I put it to the masses here (washed and otherwise) who know well my knack for personal stupidity: am I simply not smart enough to properly use search, or is MS as brain dead as I'm thinking to break something so fundamental to an OS as the ability to search for files? After all, given how long it took to do file copies in Vista, it's not like this kind of thing is unprecedented. Grrr. That's it. I'm gonna go find a lesser mammal and gnaw on it...
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting ServicesTry *.ascx*.*
-
it was flown in by the QANTAS CEO himself, CG and he are buddies now. Happened shortly after the Telstra reconciliation. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]
I only read formatted code with indentation, so please use PRE tags for code snippets.
I'm not participating in frackin' Q&A, so if you want my opinion, ask away in a real forum (or on my profile page).
modified on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 7:38 PM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
No results at all with this approach, but thanks.
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting ServicesI've had similar problems with no results at all, indexed or not. In my case it was something to do with junctions that it didn't like I think. I had my C:\Users junctioned to H:\Junction\Users and the search bar in Explorer within the documents library wouldn't work at all, but it does work if I manually navigate into H:\Junctions\Users and search in there.
-
That looks handy, though I'm philosophically opposed to installing a utility just so I can search the file system. I may get over that objection, but geez! And they wonder why everyone hated Vista, or anything that smelled like it!
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting ServicesYeah I think the same way. Especially since I'm guessing there's loads of overhead in the background to do all this indexing etc and it's a shame if it's not even going to be used. I guess there's some way to switch it off though - it was indexing service in earlier versions of windows, plus that stupid find fast thing that office insisted on installing even when you told it not to in the setup. Might have changed now.
-
I'm a dinosaur. I admit it. I have large green scales and sharp teeth perfect for gnawing on anything that looks tasty. All of which is to say that like many others here, my initial MS experiences were with DOS. And I'm strangely at peace with that. Since olden times, the DOS based search parameters have been honored. Whether I type in a search box from Explorer in Windows or from the command line prompt, * is the wildcard for everything, ? is the wildcard for one character. And thus, *.ascx* will give you *.ascx, *.ascx.cs, *.ascx.designer.cs since the last * means "and everything else after this." Imagine my surprise when I do that search in Windows 7 and it gives me simply *.ascx. If I search for *.ascx.*, I get *.ascx.cs and *.ascx.designer.cs, but no .ascx files since they don't have the . at the end. Exclaiming WTF with some enthusiasm, I went to a command prompt where, sure enough, *.ascx* works just like it always did. Clearly, there's a moron at work here. Either I'm simply too stupid to understand how to use Search in the Explorer, or some rocket scientist at MS thought it would be good to have pattern matching work differently in the GUI than it does on the command line (and all previous versions of Windows). And so, I put it to the masses here (washed and otherwise) who know well my knack for personal stupidity: am I simply not smart enough to properly use search, or is MS as brain dead as I'm thinking to break something so fundamental to an OS as the ability to search for files? After all, given how long it took to do file copies in Vista, it's not like this kind of thing is unprecedented. Grrr. That's it. I'm gonna go find a lesser mammal and gnaw on it...
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting ServicesHow about just
.ascx? I think Windows now "pseudo"-includes the wildcards at the start and end. It appears to just run a string.Contains method on the filename... Works on my machine.
I doubt it. If it isn't intuitive then we need to fix it. - Chris Maunder
-
I'm a dinosaur. I admit it. I have large green scales and sharp teeth perfect for gnawing on anything that looks tasty. All of which is to say that like many others here, my initial MS experiences were with DOS. And I'm strangely at peace with that. Since olden times, the DOS based search parameters have been honored. Whether I type in a search box from Explorer in Windows or from the command line prompt, * is the wildcard for everything, ? is the wildcard for one character. And thus, *.ascx* will give you *.ascx, *.ascx.cs, *.ascx.designer.cs since the last * means "and everything else after this." Imagine my surprise when I do that search in Windows 7 and it gives me simply *.ascx. If I search for *.ascx.*, I get *.ascx.cs and *.ascx.designer.cs, but no .ascx files since they don't have the . at the end. Exclaiming WTF with some enthusiasm, I went to a command prompt where, sure enough, *.ascx* works just like it always did. Clearly, there's a moron at work here. Either I'm simply too stupid to understand how to use Search in the Explorer, or some rocket scientist at MS thought it would be good to have pattern matching work differently in the GUI than it does on the command line (and all previous versions of Windows). And so, I put it to the masses here (washed and otherwise) who know well my knack for personal stupidity: am I simply not smart enough to properly use search, or is MS as brain dead as I'm thinking to break something so fundamental to an OS as the ability to search for files? After all, given how long it took to do file copies in Vista, it's not like this kind of thing is unprecedented. Grrr. That's it. I'm gonna go find a lesser mammal and gnaw on it...
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting ServicesI'm a dinosaur too; I search in a DOSbox. I didn't install Search and I know I've uninstalled it in the past. I certainly don't "index" my drives. X| I grew up with (Open)VMS so I'm used to good wildcards in directories. DOS was hosed, WinXP is a little better, but not much.
-
I'm a dinosaur. I admit it. I have large green scales and sharp teeth perfect for gnawing on anything that looks tasty. All of which is to say that like many others here, my initial MS experiences were with DOS. And I'm strangely at peace with that. Since olden times, the DOS based search parameters have been honored. Whether I type in a search box from Explorer in Windows or from the command line prompt, * is the wildcard for everything, ? is the wildcard for one character. And thus, *.ascx* will give you *.ascx, *.ascx.cs, *.ascx.designer.cs since the last * means "and everything else after this." Imagine my surprise when I do that search in Windows 7 and it gives me simply *.ascx. If I search for *.ascx.*, I get *.ascx.cs and *.ascx.designer.cs, but no .ascx files since they don't have the . at the end. Exclaiming WTF with some enthusiasm, I went to a command prompt where, sure enough, *.ascx* works just like it always did. Clearly, there's a moron at work here. Either I'm simply too stupid to understand how to use Search in the Explorer, or some rocket scientist at MS thought it would be good to have pattern matching work differently in the GUI than it does on the command line (and all previous versions of Windows). And so, I put it to the masses here (washed and otherwise) who know well my knack for personal stupidity: am I simply not smart enough to properly use search, or is MS as brain dead as I'm thinking to break something so fundamental to an OS as the ability to search for files? After all, given how long it took to do file copies in Vista, it's not like this kind of thing is unprecedented. Grrr. That's it. I'm gonna go find a lesser mammal and gnaw on it...
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting ServicesIt's not a file-name search. It can search file-names, but it can also search attributes and content, and as others have noted you can trigger file-name searching by using certain operators, but if you leave them out then... it guesses. Note that "ascx", "*.ascx.*", and "name:*.ascx" (without quotes) should all give you what you're after...
-
I'm a dinosaur. I admit it. I have large green scales and sharp teeth perfect for gnawing on anything that looks tasty. All of which is to say that like many others here, my initial MS experiences were with DOS. And I'm strangely at peace with that. Since olden times, the DOS based search parameters have been honored. Whether I type in a search box from Explorer in Windows or from the command line prompt, * is the wildcard for everything, ? is the wildcard for one character. And thus, *.ascx* will give you *.ascx, *.ascx.cs, *.ascx.designer.cs since the last * means "and everything else after this." Imagine my surprise when I do that search in Windows 7 and it gives me simply *.ascx. If I search for *.ascx.*, I get *.ascx.cs and *.ascx.designer.cs, but no .ascx files since they don't have the . at the end. Exclaiming WTF with some enthusiasm, I went to a command prompt where, sure enough, *.ascx* works just like it always did. Clearly, there's a moron at work here. Either I'm simply too stupid to understand how to use Search in the Explorer, or some rocket scientist at MS thought it would be good to have pattern matching work differently in the GUI than it does on the command line (and all previous versions of Windows). And so, I put it to the masses here (washed and otherwise) who know well my knack for personal stupidity: am I simply not smart enough to properly use search, or is MS as brain dead as I'm thinking to break something so fundamental to an OS as the ability to search for files? After all, given how long it took to do file copies in Vista, it's not like this kind of thing is unprecedented. Grrr. That's it. I'm gonna go find a lesser mammal and gnaw on it...
Christopher Duncan
www.PracticalUSA.com
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Copywriting ServicesIMHO search is broken since Windows XP SP2!
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.