|
A new version of the free UltraFileSearch has been released. This excellent search utility is a great replacement for those in shock at what Microsoft did to to search in Windows 7. Did I mention it's free?
"This Utility does not use background indexing, does not waste system resources and does not use extra space on the disk."
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: for those in shock at what Microsoft did to to search in Windows 7
I can't pretend that I think the way the Windows search works is great (it wasn't gratis in Windows Virus either), but I'm curious to know what you mean by this? What do you consider is wrong with the to to search?
I'm not heavy - I'm KIDNAP RESISTANT...
-----
Don't tell my folks I'm a computer programmer - They think I'm a piano player in a cat house...
-----
Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo!
-----
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects - Will Rogers, September 7, 1924
|
|
|
|
|
Have you tried search in Windows 7? Did you find what you were looking for?
|
|
|
|
|
Well, let's just say that when I DO find what I'm searching for, it's mostly not due to Windows as much as great Search Foo...
I'm not heavy - I'm KIDNAP RESISTANT...
-----
Don't tell my folks I'm a computer programmer - They think I'm a piano player in a cat house...
-----
Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo!
-----
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects - Will Rogers, September 7, 1924
|
|
|
|
|
I'm guessing that some PM at Microsoft had this "better idea" and got some idiotic focus group to back him up. Essentially, Windows 7 search makes it necessary to "program" a search, instead of filling in one text box and clicking Search.
I don't understand why MS didn't make this an "optional" search. The PM must be a stupendous BS artist.
|
|
|
|
|
i have no idea how Windows search actually works. i can't tell if it's searching file names or contents, what the name matching rules are, etc..
that's why i always keep a copy of Search And Replace[^] on my thumb drive
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe I've been lucky, but I've had a high success rate with Win 7 search. Mind you, I don't use it that often so perhaps I'm not seeing the glitches.
|
|
|
|
|
My karma with Win7 search is zero. 
|
|
|
|
|
And MY karma is to become SHOGUN
I'm not heavy - I'm KIDNAP RESISTANT...
-----
Don't tell my folks I'm a computer programmer - They think I'm a piano player in a cat house...
-----
Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo!
-----
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects - Will Rogers, September 7, 1924
|
|
|
|
|
I normally find what I'm looking for with Windows 7 Search.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Hans, I hate the Weven search so this will be a life saver.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm using Agent Ransack[^], but I will give UltraFileSearch a chance.
Stephane
"Facebook is like prison - sitting, wasting time, writing on walls and being poked by people you don'k even know."
www.exotk.org
|
|
|
|
|
well, after testing UltraFileSearch is a lot slower than Agent Ransack ( 57sec vs 37sec ) and I really like that Agent Ransack gives a preview of the file contents with the line where the text is found.
Stephane
"Facebook is like prison - sitting, wasting time, writing on walls and being poked by people you don'k even know."
www.exotk.org
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the time I search for a file name, not its contents. How does the speed compare if you're just searching for a file?
|
|
|
|
|
for file search without content, UltraFileSearch is ~2x faster
Stephane
"Facebook is like prison - sitting, wasting time, writing on walls and being poked by people you don'k even know."
www.exotk.org
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: for those in shock at what Microsoft did to to search in Windows 7
Did MS not completely break the file search as far back as XP?
As far as I remember NT worked great, XP was broken (just didn't work), Vista was pretty crap (with building indexes and stuff before it went off and did a search) and I either haven't tried it on 7 or it worked for me when I did.
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
Using it for just file name searches (sometimes with date & file size options), XP search worked every time for me. (I always turned off the indexing stuff on every XP box I had.) Vista I skipped.
|
|
|
|
|
 Your request was denied because of its content categorization: Malicious Sites.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks interesting, but the free agent ransack also has a "file content search result preview" which I find invaluable.
vbfengshui
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually used Everything for quite a while, before I switched to UltraFileSearch. My biggest complaint about Everything is that every time I went to do a search, Everything would start by indexing the HD first; and that stuff about "a few seconds" is bullcrap. On my big dev drives it would take 10 seconds and more.
I also like the UI of UltraFileSearch better, but that is just subjective.
Overall Everything seems like a fine product; you just have to be aware that it's index-based, and get some realistic timings.
|
|
|
|
|
There is an option "Unload database when inactive" on the General tab in the options. Clear that, and you shouldn't have the big delay.
I have been using Everything for a while now and never looked back.
I especially like that searches are instantaneous, filtering the results as fast as I can type (on a somewhat decent CPU).
|
|
|
|
|
I'll second the suggestion to use Search Everything for all but content searches. I've never seen a slow-down in the indexing, and it's basically instantaneous filtering-type searching with wildcards. It handles filters that have thousands of results just fine. I've used it for several years with not a single issue.
http://www.voidtools.com/download.php
|
|
|
|
|
HAns
Did you know that McAfee SiteAdvisor has the www.ultrafilesearch.com site red flagged? I see that the tool is listed at CNet.com with a CNet editors rating of 4 out of 5 stars, something you don’t usually see with sites that are labeled as malicious. Note that McAfee SiteAdvisor doesn't have it as a warning but a full blown RED X. When you look at the details there’s nothing listed as to why the site was Red Flagged which is a first for me. there is always an account for why a site got flagged. There also are no comments from users saying the site is not bad which is another thing I normally see with sites wrongly labeled as bad by McAfee.
Very weird.
Could this tool and site be getting Red flagged because it has 'bucked' the system by going against Microsoft's own search tool? There's either a big mistake with SiteAdvisor flagging this or someone is pushing for the Red X flagging from behind the scenes.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
