A Windows 7 search alternative ?

[pacinitaly]

Instantly? Use your own common sense. I'm not some bloody hoser with 1800 posts on this board, I came here as a last resort to find a solution. I've spent days (over the past 5 months) looking for a solution, and bottom line, it just does not work. Content based searches across my network crash or give wrong results! In XP Mode they do not. P-O-S!

If it is a bug, aka Microsoft's fault, why would it work for just about everyone else? How about my users...all 30 of them who've been switched to Windows 7 Professional? We store everything on our servers, and I have taught all of them how to use the search so they can find files somewhere across the 150 GB of data we currently store. Not one person has complained of an issue...and these people complain about everything computer-related.

Common sense isn't always common, as demonstrated here. The longer you sit and blame Microsoft, the longer it will be until you decide to find the real culprit. I do sincerely hope you aren't ever a legal prosecutor or a detective.

But my search needs are simple so I only need a simple search program that works quickly and effectively and does not take any time to learn and to configure.

You've got it right in front of you. What does the power of the computer have to do with it? There isn't even a learning curve, because the syntax is either readily available, or part of common knowledge, as demonstrated in the previous thread in which a user bashed Microsoft (sound familair?) for not returning all of their .sol files....several pages worth of rants, until it was discovered the OP didn't know the simple and decades old syntax of *.sol to find them. Simply put...the search feature does exactly what it is instructed to do, and it is available on screen nearly everywhere.

If my users can learn how to use it effectively, than there's no excuse for anyone else not to. These are people who often call me at home at night asking how to undock their laptops from their docking stations, what cables they need for wireless internet, and what it means when they put their computers to sleep. Yes, those are true stories.

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

 

[Buddahfan]

But my search needs are simple so I only need a simple search program that works quickly and effectively and does not take any time to learn and to configure.

You've got it right in front of you. What does the power of the computer have to do with it? There isn't even a learning curve, because the syntax is either readily available, or part of common knowledge, as demonstrated in the previous thread in which a user bashed Microsoft (sound familair?) for not returning all of their .sol files....several pages worth of rants, until it was discovered the OP didn't know the simple and decades old syntax of *.sol to find them. Simply put...the search feature does exactly what it is instructed to do, and it is available on screen nearly everywhere.

If my users can learn how to use it effectively, than there's no excuse for anyone else not to. These are people who often call me at home at night asking how to undock their laptops from their docking stations, what cables they need for wireless internet, and what it means when they put their computers to sleep. Yes, those are true stories.

I don't recall ever talking about the "power of the computer".

I am talking about Windows 7 Search and its power.

It is overkill for a computer that has only 115,000 files on it.

I shouldn't have to read a 5,700 word document "Configuring and Using" Windows 7 Search in order to be able to search on a computer that has only 115,000 files on it. As it turns out at least two other people agree with me, the designer of the software that I am using to search and at least one other poster here. I am sure that there are thousands more.

Windows 7 Search is great for finding Windows Operating Systems programs like "Device Manager" etc. because it doesn't require reading a 5,700 page document to do and works great.

However, when it comes to finding "Stuff" on my computer with only 40,000 files that are not in the C:\Windows directory chain and are not part of the Windows 7 Operating System then Windows 7 Search is overkill, straight up.

The search program that I am using to find programs on my computer that are not part of the Windows 7 operating system did not require reading a 5,700 word instruction document. All I did was install the program and begin to search. Bingo, finds everything I need quickly and with no fuss or learning curve.

Windows 7 Search is too complicated to learn and setup for my needs and not needed when I have less than 50,000 Non Windows System 7 files on my computer,

 

[DeaconFrost]

Windows 7 Search is too complicated to learn and setup

That has to be one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever read posted in a forum, and I've read some doozies. Setup? It's there already. Complicated? What? You type in what you want to search for, using either a strong or syntax that's been in use for two decades.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. if my user base of 30 can use the Search without problems, there's no possible way to say it is too complicated. These are people who, several times, have asked what cables they need at home for wireless internet.

 

[mjf]

Windows 7 Search is too complicated to learn and setup

That has to be one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever read posted in a forum, and I've read some doozies. Setup? It's there already. Complicated? What? You type in what you want to search for, using either a strong or syntax that's been in use for two decades.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. if my user base of 30 can use the Search without problems, there's no possible way to say it is too complicated. These are people who, several times, have asked what cables they need at home for wireless internet.

This would have to be one of the most "passionate" areas of discussion bordering on the irrational.
Some clearly think Windows search is a marvelous search engine with a powerful and acceptable user interface. GREAT.
For these people their search is over.

For some, it does not work effectively, have lost trust in the program and feel the user interface is lacking. FACT.
For these people there are alternatives. Get on with it.

 

[DeaconFrost]

For some, it does not work effectively, have lost trust in the program and feel the user interface is lacking. FACT.

I'll bite. Fact: The majority of the threads end up exposing the fact that the complainer either messed with "tweaking" the OS, or they simply don't know the basics on how to use the Search...much like coming across a person who doesn't know the keyboard shortcuts.

I'll continue to play your game: The Search works just fine, and returns the info you need. Ever hear the saying garbage in garbage out? That explains why some people "think" it doesn't work. As for the interface? Seriously? There's a box at the top right of every Explorer window. You type in your search term, and it returns the results. How or why would anyone need to complain about the interface?

This "debate" is like buying a new car and then bitching that the cupholder isn't perfectly round. It works fine and holds every cup you put it in...but you'll complain about it anyway. In your own words....get over it.

 

[mjf]

I rest my case.

 

[mikedl]

Indeed, mjf, once again:

Needless to say (but I'm still gonna say it ), a GUI search would be best in Win 7 ala Win XP. One of the most frequently asked questions on this board deals with the search function in Win 7.

Sure, one could learn the syntax; I'm a geek, I've learned it and I use it. One can also tweak the indexing options; I'm a geek, I've tweaked it for my needs.

The point is, this board has many people looking for help with Win 7. They are not all geeks like me and many of the other regular posters here.

The XP search was easy. It offered drop downs for file types, extensions, contents, size, date modified, location (one did not have to select the folder through explorer, one could select it from a drop down) et al, without remembering some arcane syntax methods. Welcome to the world of DOS. A Win 7 search GUI could expound, hierarchically, on the old XP search GUI with extra drop downs for the myriad of newly indexed values. It's too bad MS doesn't do this.

I'm mystified. This is not a small issue for the average user. All they want to do is find their files and get their work done. MS made that more difficult and less intuitive in Win 7.

It is too easy to dismiss others by simply saying "learn the new method" when others have been using the XP search method for almost 10 years now. I cannot imagine a GUI would be that difficult to put together. Again, it's too bad MS hasn't done it in Win 7.

I miss the cat ...

 

[Dzomlija]

Indeed, mjf, once again:

Needless to say (but I'm still gonna say it ), a GUI search would be best in Win 7 ala Win XP. One of the most frequently asked questions on this board deals with the search function in Win 7.

Sure, one could learn the syntax; I'm a geek, I've learned it and I use it. One can also tweak the indexing options; I'm a geek, I've tweaked it for my needs.

The point is, this board has many people looking for help with Win 7. They are not all geeks like me and many of the other regular posters here.

The point has, i think, been completely missed. Yes, we are not all geeks. In fact, I get a little annoyed with people with they treat me differently simply because I know how to do something they don't. I usually tell people that knowledge is like climbing a ladder. You've got to take one step at a time. Sure, I'm a little further up the ladder than some, but given enough time, they will reach the upper levels also.

This holds true with just about every facet of learning you can think of. If you're not prepared to invest the time to learn something new, then you're wasting no-ones time but your own.

The XP search was easy. It offered drop downs for file types, extensions, contents, size, date modified, location (one did not have to select the folder through explorer, one could select it from a drop down) et al, without remembering some arcane syntax methods. Welcome to the world of DOS. A Win 7 search GUI could expound, hierarchically, on the old XP search GUI with extra drop downs for the myriad of newly indexed values. It's too bad MS doesn't do this.

I'm mystified. This is not a small issue for the average user. All they want to do is find their files and get their work done. MS made that more difficult and less intuitive in Win 7.

What? Clicking a box and typing a query is less intuitive? Sure, Windows Search has many more options, but that hardly makes it difficult to use? I love drawing paralells to explain my position, so to illustrate peoples inability or unwillingness to learn Windows Search, I've a good one:

You are born, you get older, your parents buy a bicycle for you to use to get to school every morning. Over the years as you get older, you get new ones that fits your growing needs. But the basics remain the same. Two wheels and pedal power. But one day, you're old enough for an entirely different beast: A motorcycle or even a car. But you instead decide to stick with pedal power, because it's what you know, and you're afraid that a new car has too many options.

It is too easy to dismiss others by simply saying "learn the new method" when others have been using the XP search method for almost 10 years now.

The point I'm trying to make is this: Can you imagine how much different the world would be if everyone continued using what they know, because they did not understand the new technologies that have replaced the old?

The old "I don't understand this" excuse doesn't cut it. If you're not willing to learn how, then you're wasting oxygen. I see no reason to encourage people to continue using old antiquated methods. Doing so would be a disservice to them, as it would deny them the opportunity to grow and to learn new things.

I cannot imagine a GUI would be that difficult to put together. Again, it's too bad MS hasn't done it in Win 7.
I miss the cat ...

You're obviously not a developer, and have never tried designing a GUI.

As for the cat? Well, what can I say except good riddance?

 

[mikedl]

I cannot imagine a GUI would be that difficult to put together. Again, it's too bad MS hasn't done it in Win 7.
I miss the cat ...

You're obviously not a developer, and have never tried designing a GUI.

As for the cat? Well, what can I say except good riddance?

Thanks for the feedback, Dzomlija.

You made a very bad assumption, however. I am a developer, among other things. I design programs that run inside AutoCAD and create Access databases that tie into information contained in AutoCAD drawings. I design my GUI's around the needs and wants of my clients. I've designed a number of GUI's for varying applications and usages of information in those two programs.

If you didn't like the cat, Dzomlija, it was easy enough to just turn it off (or use the dog ).

I still miss the cat ...

 

[Hopalong X]

I miss the puppy dog.

Win 7 search would work much better with the puppy dog scampering around while searching.

Good puppy!

Nirvana! Everything is right in the World now.

 

[mikedl]

:roflmao:

Back atcha, Mike!

 

[Hopalong X]

Ahhh! Cute kitty!

 

[MacGyvr]

I do make use of multiple partitions. I have 12 on my production machine (spread across 4 drives), and I edit Indexing Options so that I am not indexing all resources, but only those I feel useful.

I have about 1/2 of my partitions indexed.

James Colbert, More than likely, this is why you're having search issues. As I quoted in the last sentence of my last post "I can see why users with multiple partitions/drives are having issues, it gets very complex"

And I think your assessment is unfortunately correct. Multiple partitions and selective indexing likely do contribute to the issue. But this should not be so. In fact, I just left this post to google for any issues with "win 7 indexing AND multiple partitions" and "win 7 search AND multiple partitions". Given my time limits this morning, I only perused the first page of each google search, but could find no mentions of this being a problematic condition for Win7 search/indexing.

I think I may try turning indexing on for all partitions and see if it makes a difference. Of course, the system will need time for indexing, and given that I will be out for most of the day (and will turn the system off), I probably won't know if it makes a difference until the weekend.

A good day to all,
James

Microsoft suggests against just that. Indexing entire drives or partitions will hamper the search capabilities. Index only those specific locations that you wish to search (top folder level).

 

[James Colbert]

Microsoft suggests against just that. Indexing entire drives or partitions will hamper the search capabilities. Index only those specific locations that you wish to search (top folder level).

Be that as it may, indexing all partitions and drives is a big part of what has made search usable for me.

James

 

[James Colbert]

[The old "I don't understand this" excuse doesn't cut it. If you're not willing to learn how, then you're wasting oxygen.

Really? Wasting oxygen? Does that apply to those who can't fix their own car as well? How about arc welding? How about carpentry? Plumbing? A/C installation and repair? Electrical troubleshooting, wiring houses? Bookkeeping? How about writing music? Wrote any good songs lately? No? Hand over the lungs, buddy. Any aspect of any skill at which you are not proficient, able or willing to learn at all? Sorry, your philosophy condemns you.

The above I've named are just a few of the everyday necessities in our lives, all of which come 2nd nature to some. But, If I apply your philosophy (and shared by other posters) to you, you're a waste of space. Know how to do all of those? How about recombinant DNA?

The point being (that seems to be overlooked no matter how many times it's made) is that not all have the ability to understand what you (or others) might consider simple. Nor do you (or anyone) understand everything about everything. Nor can you. Nor can anyone.

There are some users in this forum that believe that anybody who doesn't understand what they consider to be simple (or, even, they may understand, but it's not working correctly for them) must be idiots, and certainly in this forum, many times they are treated as such. And quite rudely and arrogantly so.

The irony here is that a philosophy held must apply to those that wield it. Even the inability to understand that not everyone has the gift of understanding 'search' or file management, or missing GBs, you name it, must fall under that very same philosophy if it is true at all. It cannot be selectively applied, else it is rendered invalid.

So, if there is any area that is beyond your understanding, just know that to someone, somewhere, it's as simple as can be. And you must immediately quit wasting our oxygen, as per your philosophy.

You just got both barrels, and the truth is that, although I am addressing this particular post, there are several posters who hold this philosophy to a much greater degree, and in fact, treat people quite arrogantly and rudely. I have no hard feelings against you or any other poster, but have had enough of the rudeness directed at posters who don't possess the skills others think they should. And it happens entirely too often in this group, sometimes angering or humiliating posters enough that they go elsewhere for help, thus, defeating what I think is the primary purpose of this forum.


James

 

[mikedl]

Props, James. ^^^^^

Well said.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

The point being (that seems to be overlooked no matter how many times it's made) is that not all have the ability to understand what you (or others) might consider simple.

James

You are certainly correct in your pointed post.

But the point is not being overlooked at all.

It is being willfully ignored because to acknowledge it undermines the argument of the opposition. The act of willfully ignoring the point only makes it all the more conspicuous. Of course, the conspicuousness itself then must be similarly ignored. Ad infinitum, lather, rinse, and repeat.

 

[mjf]

The point being (that seems to be overlooked no matter how many times it's made) is that not all have the ability to understand what you (or others) might consider simple.

James

You are certainly correct in your pointed post.

But the point is not being overlooked at all.

It is being willfully ignored because to acknowledge it undermines the argument of the opposition. The act of willfully ignoring the point only makes it all the more conspicuous. Of course, the conspicuousness itself then must be similarly ignored. Ad infinitum, lather, rinse, and repeat.

This thread has become sheer entertainment. Some of you guys are full of yourselves. You seem to be suggesting the average person would have difficulty understanding the syntax of the Windows search? It's more likely that they couldn't be bothered because they are engaged in their own primary occupation and don't want to be slowed down by some search tool with an archaic command line interface. They certainly don't want to fix the search tool when it's not even working properly for them. These are the people who make the money for software houses.

Alternatively we could scrap this windows nonsense and go back to a Unix command line operating system.

 

[Dzomlija]

[The old "I don't understand this" excuse doesn't cut it. If you're not willing to learn how, then you're wasting oxygen.

Really? Wasting oxygen? Does that apply to those who can't fix their own car as well? How about arc welding? How about carpentry? Plumbing? A/C installation and repair? Electrical troubleshooting, wiring houses? Bookkeeping? How about writing music? Wrote any good songs lately? No? Hand over the lungs, buddy. Any aspect of any skill at which you are not proficient, able or willing to learn at all? Sorry, your philosophy condemns you.

The above I've named are just a few of the everyday necessities in our lives, all of which come 2nd nature to some. But, If I apply your philosophy (and shared by other posters) to you, you're a waste of space. Know how to do all of those? How about recombinant DNA?

The point being (that seems to be overlooked no matter how many times it's made) is that not all have the ability to understand what you (or others) might consider simple. Nor do you (or anyone) understand everything about everything. Nor can you. Nor can anyone.

There are some users in this forum that believe that anybody who doesn't understand what they consider to be simple (or, even, they may understand, but it's not working correctly for them) must be idiots, and certainly in this forum, many times they are treated as such. And quite rudely and arrogantly so.

The irony here is that a philosophy held must apply to those that wield it. Even the inability to understand that not everyone has the gift of understanding 'search' or file management, or missing GBs, you name it, must fall under that very same philosophy if it is true at all. It cannot be selectively applied, else it is rendered invalid.

So, if there is any area that is beyond your understanding, just know that to someone, somewhere, it's as simple as can be. And you must immediately quit wasting our oxygen, as per your philosophy.

You just got both barrels, and the truth is that, although I am addressing this particular post, there are several posters who hold this philosophy to a much greater degree, and in fact, treat people quite arrogantly and rudely. I have no hard feelings against you or any other poster, but have had enough of the rudeness directed at posters who don't possess the skills others think they should. And it happens entirely too often in this group, sometimes angering or humiliating posters enough that they go elsewhere for help, thus, defeating what I think is the primary purpose of this forum.


James

Point well taken, James.

In hindsight, perhaps I could have used a little more tact, and not come off as rude. Which was not my intention.

I understand that everyone has different skillsets to suit their unique personalities and learning abilities, but by philosophy I always try to help others. Perhaps this is why I get annoyed when someone encounters something new, and dismisses it entirely without at least giving it some effort to learn.

My brother happens to be an electrician by trade, and a pretty competent carpenter too. Oh, I can do the things he does, but not with his proficiency. I don't know how to fix cars myself, but I do know enough about them to at least be able to understand what is being said.

My point is that if you don't try something new at least once, then how can we possibly grow and learn? My anger is directed towards those who just don't make an effort to try. Which is better? Attempting to learn something new, and failing, or just not trying at all?

Personally, I'd rather make a fool of myself 1000 times over failing at something new before I give up without trying at all.

 

[soho1]

James is right. mborner was too when he said "with that knowledge..."

Trouble is, it is not obvious how to use it at first. A typical search for me is to find the office files that had particular content. For instance, where did I leave that XLS file that had the MSFT stock quotes and links in it?

By default, searching for will yield 100+ entries from my Outlook messgaes, but nothing else.

What you have to do is type in the command line start box is:
*.xls* CONTENT:MSFT
and press ENTER

That will execute a search resulting in the dozen or so files (on my machine) that have MSFT in an XLS file.

I don't know all the ins and outs of search, but with search, knowledge is power. Everyone log their tips on how to use it here and we can summarize a tutorial.

I hope that helps.