Desktop Search? Why So Terrible? Or Is It? What do you do?
-
I started using computers professionally around 1992 so I'm very familiar with the command line. Anyway, I still find the command-line to be the best bet to 1. find a file :
dir /s finkle*.*
2. or search for text within multiple files:
find /I "finkle" *.*
However, cmd-line find doesn't all you to search subdirs. blech! The built-in windows (and yes this post is about windows-- maybe Linux is better? -- chime in) search is really quite terrible and there are times when it will ignore files and terribly ugly details I remember from XP, etc. Why is the state of searching your own computer in such a terrible condition? Wasn't there a google project for desktop search or something? Just curious if you've found this to be true too.
I spend nearly all my time in a DOSbox on Windows 7, and yes, using DIR to locate something is what I do. I don't search for files I created, of course, I know where those are, but some times I need to find a DLL or SDK tool that Microsoft hid.
-
I use Agent Ransack[^], much faster and better than windows.
Have you ever just looked at someone and knew the wheel was turning but the hamster was dead? Trying to understand the behavior of some people is like trying to smell the color 9.
Agreed - it's an awesome utility! :thumbsup: /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
I use Agent Ransack[^], much faster and better than windows.
Have you ever just looked at someone and knew the wheel was turning but the hamster was dead? Trying to understand the behavior of some people is like trying to smell the color 9.
I'm a little late to the party, but second Agent Ransack. My favorite feature is that when searching for content within files, it shows the search term(s) in context, or with the surrounding content, in a preview window. MS screwed up file and contents searching after XP.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
-
I keep the files on my own desktop organised in a way that makes sense to me, so if I need a file I generally have a pretty good idea where it is If I had to find something on somebody else's desktop however, I'd be screwed!
I have OCD and Alzheimer so I'm extremely well organized but forget my scheme.
Have you ever just looked at someone and knew the wheel was turning but the hamster was dead? Trying to understand the behavior of some people is like trying to smell the color 9.
-
I started using computers professionally around 1992 so I'm very familiar with the command line. Anyway, I still find the command-line to be the best bet to 1. find a file :
dir /s finkle*.*
2. or search for text within multiple files:
find /I "finkle" *.*
However, cmd-line find doesn't all you to search subdirs. blech! The built-in windows (and yes this post is about windows-- maybe Linux is better? -- chime in) search is really quite terrible and there are times when it will ignore files and terribly ugly details I remember from XP, etc. Why is the state of searching your own computer in such a terrible condition? Wasn't there a google project for desktop search or something? Just curious if you've found this to be true too.
newton.saber wrote:
Wasn't there a google project for desktop search or something?
There used to be a program called "Google Desktop" that was great. But they discontinued it because they said that the OS built-in searching was just as good now. :~
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
newton.saber wrote:
Wasn't there a google project for desktop search or something?
There used to be a program called "Google Desktop" that was great. But they discontinued it because they said that the OS built-in searching was just as good now. :~
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
Thanks for the reply. I thought there was something like that. Interesting that google gave up on that and said that the built-in desktop searching was good enough. Sounds odd. I mean they're saying that the microsoft search is as good as the google devs can do? Really? I hate the built-in one. It almost sounds as if there was some kind of agreement between the two companies or something. Interesting.
-
Thanks for the reply. I thought there was something like that. Interesting that google gave up on that and said that the built-in desktop searching was good enough. Sounds odd. I mean they're saying that the microsoft search is as good as the google devs can do? Really? I hate the built-in one. It almost sounds as if there was some kind of agreement between the two companies or something. Interesting.
You're welcome. Here's their last blog post, in case you're interested in their reasoning: http://googledesktop.blogspot.com/[^]
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
I started using computers professionally around 1992 so I'm very familiar with the command line. Anyway, I still find the command-line to be the best bet to 1. find a file :
dir /s finkle*.*
2. or search for text within multiple files:
find /I "finkle" *.*
However, cmd-line find doesn't all you to search subdirs. blech! The built-in windows (and yes this post is about windows-- maybe Linux is better? -- chime in) search is really quite terrible and there are times when it will ignore files and terribly ugly details I remember from XP, etc. Why is the state of searching your own computer in such a terrible condition? Wasn't there a google project for desktop search or something? Just curious if you've found this to be true too.
I use FileLocator Lite[^] daily - they changed the name, from AgentRansack, so that paranoid admins would not block the application based on its name alone(in my last job the admins refused the install purely based on the name).
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
I started using computers professionally around 1992 so I'm very familiar with the command line. Anyway, I still find the command-line to be the best bet to 1. find a file :
dir /s finkle*.*
2. or search for text within multiple files:
find /I "finkle" *.*
However, cmd-line find doesn't all you to search subdirs. blech! The built-in windows (and yes this post is about windows-- maybe Linux is better? -- chime in) search is really quite terrible and there are times when it will ignore files and terribly ugly details I remember from XP, etc. Why is the state of searching your own computer in such a terrible condition? Wasn't there a google project for desktop search or something? Just curious if you've found this to be true too.
For just filename searches, I haven't seen anything that beats Everything[^].
My CodeProject Articles :: Our forgotten astronomic heritage :: My website.
-
You're welcome. Here's their last blog post, in case you're interested in their reasoning: http://googledesktop.blogspot.com/[^]
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
Oh wow, reading between the lines that message makes more sense to me. It's like they are saying: "In order to drive another nail in the coffin of the desktop -- which we don't own --, we are discontinuing our helpful utility so people will move their data to cloud-based storage -- which we own." :D Now that's a message I expect. :D
-
Oh wow, reading between the lines that message makes more sense to me. It's like they are saying: "In order to drive another nail in the coffin of the desktop -- which we don't own --, we are discontinuing our helpful utility so people will move their data to cloud-based storage -- which we own." :D Now that's a message I expect. :D
That's very astute, I didn't realize that! :laugh:
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
I use Agent Ransack[^], much faster and better than windows.
Have you ever just looked at someone and knew the wheel was turning but the hamster was dead? Trying to understand the behavior of some people is like trying to smell the color 9.
-
I use FileLocator Lite[^] daily - they changed the name, from AgentRansack, so that paranoid admins would not block the application based on its name alone(in my last job the admins refused the install purely based on the name).
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
Obligatory Dilbert...Mordac Information Preventer [^]
-
Thanks for the reply. I thought there was something like that. Interesting that google gave up on that and said that the built-in desktop searching was good enough. Sounds odd. I mean they're saying that the microsoft search is as good as the google devs can do? Really? I hate the built-in one. It almost sounds as if there was some kind of agreement between the two companies or something. Interesting.
Well it does make sense as given the fact that Microsoft come with the OS, more than 95% of the people will either use it or not use search at all even if someone make it better. And given that Microsoft does the OS, it can make better integration with the system and ensure that the system works well with Office applications which are used by a lot of peoples. And then their owns applications like Outlook might even use system search internally. Having said that, it would be nice if the system could be improved.
Philippe Mori
-
I started using computers professionally around 1992 so I'm very familiar with the command line. Anyway, I still find the command-line to be the best bet to 1. find a file :
dir /s finkle*.*
2. or search for text within multiple files:
find /I "finkle" *.*
However, cmd-line find doesn't all you to search subdirs. blech! The built-in windows (and yes this post is about windows-- maybe Linux is better? -- chime in) search is really quite terrible and there are times when it will ignore files and terribly ugly details I remember from XP, etc. Why is the state of searching your own computer in such a terrible condition? Wasn't there a google project for desktop search or something? Just curious if you've found this to be true too.
-
I started using computers professionally around 1992 so I'm very familiar with the command line. Anyway, I still find the command-line to be the best bet to 1. find a file :
dir /s finkle*.*
2. or search for text within multiple files:
find /I "finkle" *.*
However, cmd-line find doesn't all you to search subdirs. blech! The built-in windows (and yes this post is about windows-- maybe Linux is better? -- chime in) search is really quite terrible and there are times when it will ignore files and terribly ugly details I remember from XP, etc. Why is the state of searching your own computer in such a terrible condition? Wasn't there a google project for desktop search or something? Just curious if you've found this to be true too.
Total Commander[^] internal search[^] ALT+F7: modal search ALT+SHIFT+F7: independent search regexp search and more
-
I started using computers professionally around 1992 so I'm very familiar with the command line. Anyway, I still find the command-line to be the best bet to 1. find a file :
dir /s finkle*.*
2. or search for text within multiple files:
find /I "finkle" *.*
However, cmd-line find doesn't all you to search subdirs. blech! The built-in windows (and yes this post is about windows-- maybe Linux is better? -- chime in) search is really quite terrible and there are times when it will ignore files and terribly ugly details I remember from XP, etc. Why is the state of searching your own computer in such a terrible condition? Wasn't there a google project for desktop search or something? Just curious if you've found this to be true too.
Total commander has a wonderful search engine. Did not see Peter Adam's post. Note for self : Refresh before answering a thread.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Entropy isn't what it used to.
-
Total Commander[^] internal search[^] ALT+F7: modal search ALT+SHIFT+F7: independent search regexp search and more
Total Commander is great on so many levels !
Peter Adam wrote:
ALT+SHIFT+F7: independent search
:confused: What is this ? Never came across. [Tried, but I see no difference with the normal search] *mother of all facepalms* I installed the wrong version on my work computer, and have been using the ... 08/2012 release for several months now. :sigh: OK, got the trick with the new search, actually pretty excellent !!
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Entropy isn't what it used to.
-
In the early 1980s I was working on an OS that provided separate directories for each user's files, but each user's file space was flat (like in CP/M or DOS 1.0). Then hierarchical directories where introduced, "Office style", with filing "Cabinets" with "Drawers" containing "Folders" of "Documents". But, as with every new and fancy mechanisms, many people were overusing it. The users simply were not trained to structure their information by location. Through the grapevine we heard that the local user group of one of our largest customers had been discussing the problem of documents getting lost in the wilderness. Then one of the users stood up and explained how she had solved the problem: She had created a single cabinet, named "Cabinet", with a single drawer, named "Drawer", and a single folder, named "Folder", where she placed all her documents. Everything was there, in Cabinet/Drawer/Folder/filename, nothing was ever lost! And the crowd rejoiced: Great idea! A couple weeks later everybody had merged all their cabinets into one cabinet, all their drawers into one drawer, and all their folders into a single folder...
-
Apparently, I don't need to search[^] - what I want will come to me...
You looking for sympathy? You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric (Page 1788, if it helps)
