|
This isn't the issue here.
To the best of my knowledge, Windows Search has never properly indexed the targets of symlinks or other reparse points. Back in Windows Desktop Search days it was possible to force WDS to do an initial crawl on the targets of symlinks (by adding the symlink to the index scope) but it could not then dynamically update the index when the target files changed since the file system watcher API could not detect changes.
Nowadays with WS in Windows 10, symlinks and other reparse points do not even appear in the UI to include paths in the index scope so that this source of confusion is eliminated.
Note also that the Git FS is not in use here, nor are cloud placeholders; it's all normal NTFS local files.
modified 17-Oct-20 7:32am.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like it was a recent change: Supercharging Windows Search[^]
Quote: For our developers, we also made a change where the indexer no longer covers popular source repositories, like Git. This was partly because of the sheer size of these repositories, and also because the tools developers use to interact with their repos usually have their own search tools. We also worked with our Visual Studio partners to exclude their project folders, which resulted in a quick 30% improvement in disk usage, for an even better developer experience.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: For our developers, we also made a change where the indexer no longer covers popular source repositories, like Git. This was partly because of the sheer size of these repositories, and also because the tools developers use to interact with their repos usually have their own search tools. We also worked with our Visual Studio partners to exclude their project folders, which resulted in a quick 30% improvement in disk usage, for an even better developer experience.
Thanks for finding this.
What the flying frag were they thinking!  The tool I use to search my archived projects is Windows Search! The files are in my file system so as to be indexed! There's no option to disable this -- it's all hardcoded.
They seem to me to have lost touch with reality.
To say that I am disappointed by this bug (and that's what it is as far as I can see) is an understatement.
Trying to appease those who complain that their Windows Search is too slow by hobbling its capabilities seems... bizarre. Indeed, in my experience, Windows Search's ability to adjust CPU and disk usage so as to avoid impacting the users is fantastic.
Users can trivially exclude folders from Windows Search if they don't need them to be indexed. No one has ever been forced to index a massive Git project. This means that there is no good reason whatsoever to hardcode Windows Search to force it to exclude indexing of folders that have been explicitly *included* by the user (as is the case for me) just because they happen to have a .git subfolder. It's braindead behaviour.
modified 16-Oct-20 14:17pm.
|
|
|
|
|
... and some are still wondering why I have put it on my to-do list to change my entire home computer system to move away from the Windows ecosystem, even if it means that I have to adapt a different desktop that has a substantial number of its own bugs. But I have made the decision that I will do it, slowly, to move away from exactly this type of interference with my ownership of my own PC.
|
|
|
|
|
Martijn Smitshoek wrote: . and some are still wondering why I have put it on my to-do list to change my entire home computer system to move away from the Windows ecosystem, even if it means that I have to adapt a different desktop that has a substantial number of its own bugs. But I have made the decision that I will do it, slowly, to move away from exactly this type of interference with my ownership of my own PC.
Somewhat ironically, it is only Windows Search that has kept me on Windows. The alternatives on Linux are all very poorly integrated into the UI and have never offered the feature set that I'd need to use them seriously.
As a user of Windows Search for decades, I've never understand why people don't like it. Excluding this new Git issue (where it seems they have intentionally hobbled it!), I've always thought that Windows Search was one of the best, fastest, smoothly running, fully integrated, search tools. However, I have noticed that Microsoft have been further dumbing down the UI in File Manager in recent Windows versions. This has negatively impacted its usability.
But I still can't move to Linux-based OSs since they're UI integration is so poor and also, in some cases, lacking in capabilities.
modified 16-Oct-20 13:38pm.
|
|
|
|
|
LOL, who is using Windows Search in 2020 ? (Which can be extended to "who uses windows explorer in 2020 ?")
|
|
|
|
|
Giving alternatives for people who read it could be a good idea. 
At best posted in: Free Tools Discussion Boards[^] where they are easy to be found by all users of the site
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I am. It is an exceptionally good integrated search tool (which I accept is an ironic thing to say when it now seems that Microsoft have intentionally hobbled it!).
I have never found anything that works as well or as quickly as Windows Search together with its fantastic UI integration and that includes Agent Ransack, Google Desktop Search (when it existed), Copernic, and others on both Windows and Linux. Recoll on Linux is good but lacks UI integration. The other desktop search tools on Linux (e.g. Tracker and Baloo) suffer from extraordinarily poor UI integration and also, in Baloo's case, lack many of the capabilities of Windows Search on Windows.
modified 16-Oct-20 13:45pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I've posted this bug to the Feedback Hub: Windows Insider[^]
Upvotes would be gratefully received!
** edit **
Oh, wait a minute. I can't see any way to upvote problem reports, only suggestions. Hmm. Oh well.
modified 16-Oct-20 15:06pm.
|
|
|
|
|
WTF is this "Windows Hello" bullshit!
And how do I disable it
Also, how the f*** is a pin-code supposed to be safer than a password?
Rant over.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Never stop dreaming - Freddie Kruger
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't look like that on my computer.
Oddly enough, my old computer, same os, same domain, doesn't have this crap.
Or at least not enabled by default and not possible to switch off.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Never stop dreaming - Freddie Kruger
|
|
|
|
|
Removing it from login could be done using local policy.
Now the mail client want's to force me to use a pin for my hotmail account.
Idiots!
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Never stop dreaming - Freddie Kruger
|
|
|
|
|
Now you know the real meaning of the term AI, it's turning into ai-ai-ajaijai!
|
|
|
|
|
Oh - sorry. I thought when you said "new laptop" you meant plastic surgery on your thighs. Or, at least a new pair of pants.
My mistake.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I figured he meant a cat.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
The "Hello" works fine on my Surface: I turn it on, it sees me, it unlocks. Takes no time or effort, and I'm unlikely to leave my face behind ...
And as for the pin ... is it more secure! Logging In With A PIN Is Safer Than A Password | Bruceb Consulting[^]
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
caveat with that logic, maybe?
I do not synch my devices - I like the security of lonely isolation. Getting into any of them does just that - gets you into that device and no more.
No fingerprint or facial recognition enabled devices.
Maybe I missed something on that reading.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: Also, how the f*** is a pin-code supposed to be safer than a password?
I also wondered about that and didn't like that suddenly my 64 character Windows password was going to be replaced with a 4 digit PIN. Then I learned that the PIN is only stored on your local computer. If you have a Windows account and try to use that PIN when logging onto another computer then the PIN won't work there*.
*I learned this when I finally tried out the PIN on my laptop but it didn't work on my desktop.
So, actually the PIN is a bit more safe than expected because the person who would try to hack your device would have to have physical access to it.
Don't know why they don't explain that more clearly, like "this PIN only works on this device" or something.
|
|
|
|
|
Sooo... they can't send it to you or set a new one if you forget it?
|
|
|
|
|
No. You have to log in using another method - password for example - and then reset the pin and select a new one.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe they can. Actually, someone from work (on Network team) had mentioned this about one of their older family members. She had forgot the PIN and forgot her original password. All you can do is reset your password after that.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Then I learned that the PIN is only stored on your local computer. If you have a Windows account and try to use that PIN when logging onto another computer then the PIN won't work there*.
Unless, of course, you've used the same PIN on all the machines. Which most people will be doing. ("Thank God, I don't have to remember 20-character passwords that need to be changed every 60 days! These four digits will be good forever!")
|
|
|
|
|
GenJerDan wrote: "Thank God, I don't have to remember 20-character passwords that need to be changed every 60 days! These four digits will be good forever!")
well, yeah, there's that. And that does happen. It seems that the PIN basically unlocks a process that then submits the associated account's password to the sign on.
|
|
|
|
|
True and that's why my company doesn't allow using pins. It should be fine for your home computers unless you think someone will still your stuff  In that case, all bets are off.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
