|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Windows started going downhill with Win95 when they replaced "File Manager" with "Windows Explorer". The user used to be in control, and managed their system. From that point, MS were in control, the user was in the dark, and had to "Explore" and hope they stumbled across something useful. 19 years and counting of trying to tame Windows... 
|
|
|
|
|
newton.saber wrote: Why is the state of searching your own computer in such a terrible condition?
It was no concern of the OS in 1992.
newton.saber wrote: Wasn't there a google project for desktop search or something?
For DOS?
..an indexing-system that parses various file-formats "in the background"? Ehr, no, not in DOS.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: newton.saber wrote: Wasn't there a google project for desktop search or something?
For DOS?
No, for Windows. OP stated that he uses the command line for search even in modern Windows environments.
And yes, Google Desktop was a sadly shortlived piece of software that added a search field to the Windows taskbar and allowed users to search their files. It had its shortcomings (the indexer was pathetically slow, the index files were huge, and it was running off HDDs and so didn't have the in-memory speed advantages that Google gains on their servers), but as an alternative to the (then-current) Windows XP search tool, it was a major advancement.
Then Microsoft went and made a halfway decent desktop search field in Vista, improved on it in 7, and again sped it up in 8. And OP probably hasn't given it a fair shot, because on a daily basis (using Windows 7) I experience none of the problems OP complained about.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't search. I remember where I put things.
|
|
|
|
|
I was searching for android virtual device manager (avd) exe down through the android dev kit installation.
I was curious, because the best bet was :
dir /s avd*.*
So, I find myself using 25 year old (or more) technology and think maybe there is something better. Nah.
|
|
|
|
|
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...
|
|
|
|
|
Wonderful! After 8 years of trying to work out the best way to manage documents in Windows, this year I finally arrived at the conclusion that everything should be in a single folder. Hierarchical folder structures are the devil! Of course, having a single folder means that the names and metadata for files become more important - but that is A Good Thing, because: good names and metadata = more searchable.
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
If it is not too scared!
Added a few truths for the story[ ].
»»» <small>Loading Signature</small> «««
· · · <small>Please Wait</small> · · ·
![Badger | [badger,badger,badger,badger...]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/badger.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
