|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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." 
Now that's a message I expect.
|
|
|
|
|
That's very astute, I didn't realize that! 
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Google's Desktop Search WAS good. I was really bummed when they discontinued it. I depended on it a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
For just filename searches, I haven't seen anything that beats Everything[^].
|
|
|
|
|
newton.saber wrote: However, cmd-line find doesn't all you to search subdirs. blech!
findstr does, though....
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
findstr? Who knew? Thanks for the tip. Missed that addition to the commands. findstr is relatively new since it was only added in Win2K.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Commander is great on so many levels !
Peter Adam wrote: ALT+SHIFT+F7: independent search
 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.  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.
|
|
|
|
|
ALT+F7: it blocks your Commander until the search ends
ALT+SHIFT+F7: search in a different, non-modal window. Useful, if you use the Allow only 1 copy of Total Commander at a time option. Only search in selected directories/files option is not available.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, see my edited answer above. I've cursed many times at the fact that the search window blocked the main window... If only I had looked at the updates more closely 
I have always wondered why windows would not natively go to a two-tree-visualization for its explorer. Once you have used one like Total commander, you cannot go back !
~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 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Agree with you. It is particularly frustrating when you know you have placed something in one of folders but cannot find it.
TOMZ_KV
|
|
|
|
|
I use this little utility: http://www.indexyourfiles.com/
It's been around for years, it's fast and free.
|
|
|
|
|
Everything is good.
http://www.voidtools.com/[^]
Indexes the HDD very fast and finds dlls and other files that are usually hidden.
It did stuff up on me once, but easily fixed, and it is easy to use and is as fast as.
A windows application that makes you wonder why windows search is such a slug. The best bit is that it does find everything.
I am pretty sure that I discovered Everything from the CP free tools page.
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
|
|
|
|
|
I use bash[^] as my daily driver shell on Windows (and on OS X when I'm using my own laptop), so I use find[^] to look for specifically named files. I use ag[^] to search for text in files - it's VERY fast... And of course, on OS X, I have Spotlight[^], which works better than any indexing system I've used on Windows.
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
CodeProject MVP for 2010 - who'd'a thunk it!
|
|
|
|
|
Used an old version of Copernic Desktop Search -- loved it. Paid for an upgrade (Ha, ha!) to 4.X CDS. Received "benefit" of it being an incredible resource (and disk hog), having my old search patterns unsupported (e.g., "dir_getFiles" is always parsed by CDS as "dir" AND "getFiles"), long lag time on opening the search window before I can enter parameters.
The old CDS was a great way to find code snippets I vaguely remembered. The new CDS is marginally useful for that.
UltraFileSearch (http://www.ultrafilesearch.com/) works great for me, as does Windows Grep (http://www.wingrep.com/).
I will definitely try out Agent Ransack!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just use Cygwin grep. It doesn't skip files like MS's search does, it works recursively, and it doesn't require that a massive database be kept up to date all the time. Trouble is, it can only find strings of text and doesn't understand the formatting of the content -- it completely misses words that have formatting inserted in the middle of them. That limitation hasn't yet been a problem for me.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Take a look at findstr. It's a far more powerful search engine for the Windows command line. Another free search engine I use is Notepad++, which has a find in files feature and puts the results into an editor window that allows you to click to open the files.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
