WinXP SP2 "Search" can't see local file content

[Broida (spamless)]

Hi!
Using WindowsExplorer (not InternetExplorer) in WinXP SP2,
I'm trying to find all files in a directory tree that have
one particular word ("Mouse") inside the file.

It's easy to do in Win9x, and I do it all the time at work
in Win2000, but WinXP says there are NO files in that directory
with that word inside them.

But I can open up ONE file right in the directory the search
starts in and see NINE occurrences of that word!

So, why can't Search find that file?

I've set it to look in System and Hidden files (even though
this file is neither). It is set to NOT case sensitive.
Even if I tell Search to look ONLY in that file (by giving
it the filename), it still can't see the word "Mouse" in
that file.

Help, please!

Mike
zzbroida
charter
net

[David Candy]

What file. Who made it. Did you ask the manufacturer of that product why =
they don't supply a search filter?

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Broida (spamless)" > wrote in message =
news:opsh1jyf1ikrsr5a@broida-wme...
> Hi!
> Using WindowsExplorer (not InternetExplorer) in WinXP SP2,
> I'm trying to find all files in a directory tree that have
> one particular word ("Mouse") inside the file.
>=20
> It's easy to do in Win9x, and I do it all the time at work
> in Win2000, but WinXP says there are NO files in that directory
> with that word inside them.
>=20
> But I can open up ONE file right in the directory the search
> starts in and see NINE occurrences of that word!
>=20
> So, why can't Search find that file?
>=20
> I've set it to look in System and Hidden files (even though
> this file is neither). It is set to NOT case sensitive.
> Even if I tell Search to look ONLY in that file (by giving
> it the filename), it still can't see the word "Mouse" in
> that file.
>=20
> Help, please!
>=20
> Mike
> zzbroida
> charter
> net

[Broida (spamless)]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:12:05 -0600, Broida (spamless) > wrote:

> Using WindowsExplorer (not InternetExplorer) in WinXP SP2,
> I'm trying to find all files in a directory tree that have
> one particular word ("Mouse") inside the file.
>
> But I can open up ONE file right in the directory the search
> starts in and see NINE occurrences of that word!
>
> So, why can't Search find that file?
>
> I've set it to look in System and Hidden files (even though
> this file is neither). It is set to NOT case sensitive.
> Even if I tell Search to look ONLY in that file (by giving
> it the filename), it still can't see the word "Mouse" in
> that file.

I found PART of the problem. Stupid WindowsExplorer ignores
my direction to search "All Files and Folders". The filenames
end in ".con", so it ignores them. Changing the file itself
to ".txt" (an unacceptable solution) makes the search work.

Why won't the damn tool do what I explicitly TOLD it to do?
<grumble, mumble, rant>
And why did MS -break- it??? It worked BEFORE WinXP!

Mike
zzbroida
charter
net

[Broida (spamless)]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:21:16 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:

> What file. Who made it. Did you ask the manufacturer of that product why they don't supply a search filter?

No "search filter" is required to search a file for
a particular string. Just open the file, read in
the contents, and compare the bytes for the string
I told it to look for.

It's a TEXT file, though it's name ends in ".con".
It's the same as a ".ini" file for other programs,
but that's irrelevant.

And that makes absolutely NO difference. I told it
to search ALL files/folders for that string. It should
search even non-text files.

Simple. Even DOS and Win3.1 and all Win9x and WinNT
and Win2K can do it. Any Unix system can do it; see
"grep" or any of a dozen other tools.

But it looks to me like MS broke WinXP so it won't
do it. How dumb.

Mike

[David Candy]

It's not broken. It's nothing to do with MS. It's to do with the =
manufacturer of that product you are using not suppling a search filter.

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Broida (spamless)" > wrote in message =
news:opsh1kfryqkrsr5a@broida-wme...
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:12:05 -0600, Broida (spamless) =
> wrote:
>=20
>> Using WindowsExplorer (not InternetExplorer) in WinXP SP2,
>> I'm trying to find all files in a directory tree that have
>> one particular word ("Mouse") inside the file.
>>
>> But I can open up ONE file right in the directory the search
>> starts in and see NINE occurrences of that word!
>>
>> So, why can't Search find that file?
>>
>> I've set it to look in System and Hidden files (even though
>> this file is neither). It is set to NOT case sensitive.
>> Even if I tell Search to look ONLY in that file (by giving
>> it the filename), it still can't see the word "Mouse" in
>> that file.
>=20
> I found PART of the problem. Stupid WindowsExplorer ignores
> my direction to search "All Files and Folders". The filenames
> end in ".con", so it ignores them. Changing the file itself
> to ".txt" (an unacceptable solution) makes the search work.
>=20
> Why won't the damn tool do what I explicitly TOLD it to do?
> <grumble, mumble, rant>
> And why did MS -break- it??? It worked BEFORE WinXP!
>=20
> Mike
> zzbroida
> charter
> net

[Tom]

"Broida (spamless)" > wrote in message
news:opsh1kfryqkrsr5a@broida-wme...
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:12:05 -0600, Broida (spamless)
> > wrote:
>
>> Using WindowsExplorer (not InternetExplorer) in WinXP SP2,
>> I'm trying to find all files in a directory tree that have
>> one particular word ("Mouse") inside the file.
>>
>> But I can open up ONE file right in the directory the search
>> starts in and see NINE occurrences of that word!
>>
>> So, why can't Search find that file?
>>
>> I've set it to look in System and Hidden files (even though
>> this file is neither). It is set to NOT case sensitive.
>> Even if I tell Search to look ONLY in that file (by giving
>> it the filename), it still can't see the word "Mouse" in
>> that file.
>
> I found PART of the problem. Stupid WindowsExplorer ignores
> my direction to search "All Files and Folders". The filenames
> end in ".con", so it ignores them. Changing the file itself
> to ".txt" (an unacceptable solution) makes the search work.
>
> Why won't the damn tool do what I explicitly TOLD it to do?
> <grumble, mumble, rant>
> And why did MS -break- it??? It worked BEFORE WinXP!
>
> Mike
> zzbroida
> charter
> net

Download this:
http://www.mythicsoft.com/agentransack/pageloader.aspx?page=download

And get the results you had with the previous versions of Windows you
mentioned. MS broke what a great search feature in 98/ME/2000was, as
compared to what now is in XP.

[David Candy]

Stop your lying. It is not broken. It is a smart searcher rather than a =
stupid string searcher.

Try searching for MZ on 98 and look at the irrelevent hits. Now do the =
same for XP. Note most of the irrelevent hits are no longer there. If =
you don't understand something then don't comment on it.

And just a small note 98, 95, 2000, ME, NT4 does NOT search for all =
text. So you are wrong on that too.

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Tom" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
> "Broida (spamless)" > wrote in message=20
> news:opsh1kfryqkrsr5a@broida-wme...
>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:12:05 -0600, Broida (spamless)=20
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Using WindowsExplorer (not InternetExplorer) in WinXP SP2,
>>> I'm trying to find all files in a directory tree that have
>>> one particular word ("Mouse") inside the file.
>>>
>>> But I can open up ONE file right in the directory the search
>>> starts in and see NINE occurrences of that word!
>>>
>>> So, why can't Search find that file?
>>>
>>> I've set it to look in System and Hidden files (even though
>>> this file is neither). It is set to NOT case sensitive.
>>> Even if I tell Search to look ONLY in that file (by giving
>>> it the filename), it still can't see the word "Mouse" in
>>> that file.
>>
>> I found PART of the problem. Stupid WindowsExplorer ignores
>> my direction to search "All Files and Folders". The filenames
>> end in ".con", so it ignores them. Changing the file itself
>> to ".txt" (an unacceptable solution) makes the search work.
>>
>> Why won't the damn tool do what I explicitly TOLD it to do?
>> <grumble, mumble, rant>
>> And why did MS -break- it??? It worked BEFORE WinXP!
>>
>> Mike
>> zzbroida
>> charter
>> net
>=20
> Download this:
> http://www.mythicsoft.com/agentransack/pageloader.aspx?page=3Ddownload
>=20
> And get the results you had with the previous versions of Windows you=20
> mentioned. MS broke what a great search feature in 98/ME/2000was, as=20
> compared to what now is in XP.=20
>=20
>

[David Candy]

It's not broken. It's working as designed. Whoever made the con file =
should have supplied a search filterr or set con to use the text filter. =
How the hell would windows know that it's a text file.

But as you think it's broken I can't help you. If you were to recant and =
apologise?

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Broida (spamless)" > wrote in message =
news:opsh1kuie0krsr5a@broida-wme...
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:21:16 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:
>=20
>> What file. Who made it. Did you ask the manufacturer of that product =
why they don't supply a search filter?
>=20
> No "search filter" is required to search a file for
> a particular string. Just open the file, read in
> the contents, and compare the bytes for the string
> I told it to look for.
>=20
> It's a TEXT file, though it's name ends in ".con".
> It's the same as a ".ini" file for other programs,
> but that's irrelevant.
>=20
> And that makes absolutely NO difference. I told it
> to search ALL files/folders for that string. It should
> search even non-text files.
>=20
> Simple. Even DOS and Win3.1 and all Win9x and WinNT
> and Win2K can do it. Any Unix system can do it; see
> "grep" or any of a dozen other tools.
>=20
> But it looks to me like MS broke WinXP so it won't
> do it. How dumb.
>=20
> Mike

[Broida (spamless)]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:50:55 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:

> It's not broken. It's working as designed. Whoever made the con file should have
> supplied a search filterr or set con to use the text filter. How the hell would
> windows know that it's a text file.

Why should Windows --CARE- that it's a text file?

I told it to search ALL files; that's one of the selections
it allowed me to select. It did not do what I ordered it to
do. It's broken.

> But as you think it's broken I can't help you. If you were to recant and apologise?

Recant? Apologise for wanting it to do what it says
it will do? Microsoft should apologize to ME!

Mike

[Broida (spamless)]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:32:00 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:

> It's not broken. It's nothing to do with MS. It's to do with the manufacturer of that product
> you are using not suppling a search filter.

The "Product" I'm using is Windows XP.

I want to search my disk for files containing the
word "Mouse".

But MICROSOFT has broken the Search feature in WindowsXP
so it won't look in ALL the files even when I tell it
to look in ALL the files.

Mike

[David Candy]

Well don't search it then.

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Broida (spamless)" > wrote in message =
news:opsh1qq4wskrsr5a@broida-wme...
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:50:55 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:
>=20
>> It's not broken. It's working as designed. Whoever made the con file =
should have
>> supplied a search filterr or set con to use the text filter. How the =
hell would
>> windows know that it's a text file.
>=20
> Why should Windows --CARE- that it's a text file?
>=20
> I told it to search ALL files; that's one of the selections
> it allowed me to select. It did not do what I ordered it to
> do. It's broken.
>=20
>> But as you think it's broken I can't help you. If you were to recant =
and apologise?
>=20
> Recant? Apologise for wanting it to do what it says
> it will do? Microsoft should apologize to ME!
>=20
> Mike

[David Candy]

con, being an unknown file is only searched for it's properties. As I =
said it's smart searching and you haven't provided a filter for your =
file type. XP searches content. It needs to know what the content is.=20

It is not a XP thing. XP doesn't use the con file type.
--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Broida (spamless)" > wrote in message =
news:opsh1qrmlekrsr5a@broida-wme...
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:32:00 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:
>=20
>> It's not broken. It's nothing to do with MS. It's to do with the =
manufacturer of that product
>> you are using not suppling a search filter.
>=20
> The "Product" I'm using is Windows XP.
>=20
> I want to search my disk for files containing the
> word "Mouse".
>=20
> But MICROSOFT has broken the Search feature in WindowsXP
> so it won't look in ALL the files even when I tell it
> to look in ALL the files.
>=20
> Mike
>

[Broida (spamless)]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:47:15 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:

> con, being an unknown file is only searched for it's properties. As I said it's
> smart searching and you haven't provided a filter for your file type.

I don't want smart searching. I want nice dumb byte searches.
Where's the option to enable that?? Or should I say "re-enable"
since it has been in EVERY past version of Windows.

> XP searches content.

But it's NOT searching the content. It's ignoring the content.

> It is not a XP thing. XP doesn't use the con file type.

XP allows the file to exist. I want XP to show me what's IN
the file. I can see it with Notepad or Wordpad (and a dozen
other non-MS tools), but the "Smart" search is too "Stupid"
to see the content.

MS just keeps getting worse and worse....

Mike

[David Candy]

As I said, if you keep insisting it's broken I can't help you. How can =
it know the content. The manufacturer of that file type didn't supply a =
filter to extract the content or use an existing system supplied filter =
(text, properties, mime, html, and office documents).

Perhaps you should use 98 as XP seems beyond you.

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Broida (spamless)" > wrote in message =
news:opsh1t7lzukrsr5a@broida-wme...
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:47:15 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:
>=20
>> con, being an unknown file is only searched for it's properties. As I =
said it's
>> smart searching and you haven't provided a filter for your file type.
>=20
> I don't want smart searching. I want nice dumb byte searches.
> Where's the option to enable that?? Or should I say "re-enable"
> since it has been in EVERY past version of Windows.
>=20
>> XP searches content.
>=20
> But it's NOT searching the content. It's ignoring the content.
>=20
>> It is not a XP thing. XP doesn't use the con file type.
>=20
> XP allows the file to exist. I want XP to show me what's IN
> the file. I can see it with Notepad or Wordpad (and a dozen
> other non-MS tools), but the "Smart" search is too "Stupid"
> to see the content.
>=20
> MS just keeps getting worse and worse....
>=20
> Mike
>

[Broida (spamless)]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:05:20 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:

> How can it know the content.

??? It can LOOK at the BYTES of the file. Trivial to do.
I can create a tool in 15 minutes in C++ or Perl that can
do it for ANY file on the disk. (Well, "locked" files
may present a problem.) I'd rather not have to do that,
though. Explorer SAYS it will search ALL FILES, but it
lies.

AND.... Windows 9x and Windows 3.1 and DOS all did it
perfectly well WITHOUT any "filter". Every OS I've ever
worked on (eighteen at last count) could do it just as
easily. But now WinXP can't do that simple task.

When I tell Explorer to SEARCH ALL FILES, I expect it to
do EXACTLY that. Just as it has done for the past dozen
years or so.

> Perhaps you should use 98 as XP seems beyond you.

Ha-ha-ha! :) Having written two operating systems myself
(well, 80% of each), XP is not a problem. It's the LACK of
capability in XP that is the problem.

Simple byte-access of files seems beyond MS. The guy that
knew how to do it in Win9x and earlier must have left the
company. :)

Mike

[David Candy]

As I said earlier. You don't want to search that bad do you? As you note =
XP isn't as stupid as earlier versions of XP's search. It searches =
content (NOTE CONTENT - con files have unknown content), generates =
abstracts, can do vector searching, boolean searching. The manual on =
search is hundreds of pages.

Google doesn't do byte comparsions. XP's as smart as google. MS web site =
uses this and always has.

If you have written 80% of operating systems (a four function calculator =
was it?). Then use a command prompt. See Findstr.

Or recant.
--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Broida (spamless)" > wrote in message =
news:opsh1vu5smkrsr5a@broida-wme...
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:05:20 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:
>=20
>> How can it know the content.
>=20
> ??? It can LOOK at the BYTES of the file. Trivial to do.
> I can create a tool in 15 minutes in C++ or Perl that can
> do it for ANY file on the disk. (Well, "locked" files
> may present a problem.) I'd rather not have to do that,
> though. Explorer SAYS it will search ALL FILES, but it
> lies.
>=20
> AND.... Windows 9x and Windows 3.1 and DOS all did it
> perfectly well WITHOUT any "filter". Every OS I've ever
> worked on (eighteen at last count) could do it just as
> easily. But now WinXP can't do that simple task.
>=20
> When I tell Explorer to SEARCH ALL FILES, I expect it to
> do EXACTLY that. Just as it has done for the past dozen
> years or so.
>=20
>> Perhaps you should use 98 as XP seems beyond you.
>=20
> Ha-ha-ha! :) Having written two operating systems myself
> (well, 80% of each), XP is not a problem. It's the LACK of
> capability in XP that is the problem.
>=20
> Simple byte-access of files seems beyond MS. The guy that
> knew how to do it in Win9x and earlier must have left the
> company. :)
>=20
> Mike

[Broida (spamless)]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:46:58 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:

> As you note XP isn't as stupid as earlier versions of XP's search.

I didn't "note" that. You must have misread something.

> It searches content (NOTE CONTENT - con files have unknown content),

"Unknown" in only one sense. It's still a stream of bytes.
Only an EMPTY file has no CONTENT. "con" files have whatever
content is put in them. ALL files over ZERO bytes long have
"content". It's easy to search the CONTENT of ANY file: open
it up and look at the bytes.

> The manual on search is hundreds of pages.

And yet it can't do the SIMPLEST search in the world.

> Google doesn't do byte comparsions. XP's as smart as google.
> MS web site uses this and always has.

Irrelevant. I'm not talking about Websites. I'm talking
about files ON MY COMPUTER. This isn't InternetExplorer.
It's WindowsExplorer. And they've crippled the simplest
search function possible. Why not at least leave an option
to select "simple dumb string search"?? :)

> If you have written 80% of operating systems (a four function
> calculator was it?).

Not 80% of all OSs. :) Only two. And they're flying in
USNavy aircraft every day. Not the flight control systems.
These were Electronic Intelligence gathering systems. But
that was almost 20 years ago (on AYK-14(V) hardware [OLD!]).
Now I'm one of about 150 folks writing the latest generation
of the F/A-18 E/F AMC OFP (that's Advanced Mission Computer
Operational Flight Program). It's what I do for a living
(and have for the last 28 years).

> Then use a command prompt. See Findstr.

Hmmm. So WinXP Pro can't do a simple search that the DOS
command prompt can do? Yet Win3.1/9x/NT/2K can all do
this simple task.

Mike

[Broida (spamless)]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:46:58 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:

> You don't want to search that bad do you?

Yes, I do. I want to know which files out of a couple
hundred have a particular string in them.

That's why I'm doing a Search.

Mike

[David Candy]

You can ask it to do anything - but you must recant before I'll tell you =
how. The RAAF flies earler versions of this crap plane. And we will =
probably make the same mistake and buy the stupid JSF. SU-30s or F-22 =
are the only planes worth buying.

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Broida (spamless)" > wrote in message =
news:opsh136vf4krsr5a@broida-wme...
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:46:58 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:
>=20
>> As you note XP isn't as stupid as earlier versions of XP's search.
>=20
> I didn't "note" that. You must have misread something.
>=20
>> It searches content (NOTE CONTENT - con files have unknown content),
>=20
> "Unknown" in only one sense. It's still a stream of bytes.
> Only an EMPTY file has no CONTENT. "con" files have whatever
> content is put in them. ALL files over ZERO bytes long have
> "content". It's easy to search the CONTENT of ANY file: open
> it up and look at the bytes.
>=20
>> The manual on search is hundreds of pages.
>=20
> And yet it can't do the SIMPLEST search in the world.
>=20
>> Google doesn't do byte comparsions. XP's as smart as google.
>> MS web site uses this and always has.
>=20
> Irrelevant. I'm not talking about Websites. I'm talking
> about files ON MY COMPUTER. This isn't InternetExplorer.
> It's WindowsExplorer. And they've crippled the simplest
> search function possible. Why not at least leave an option
> to select "simple dumb string search"?? :)
>=20
>> If you have written 80% of operating systems (a four function
>> calculator was it?).
>=20
> Not 80% of all OSs. :) Only two. And they're flying in
> USNavy aircraft every day. Not the flight control systems.
> These were Electronic Intelligence gathering systems. But
> that was almost 20 years ago (on AYK-14(V) hardware [OLD!]).
> Now I'm one of about 150 folks writing the latest generation
> of the F/A-18 E/F AMC OFP (that's Advanced Mission Computer
> Operational Flight Program). It's what I do for a living
> (and have for the last 28 years).
>=20
>> Then use a command prompt. See Findstr.
>=20
> Hmmm. So WinXP Pro can't do a simple search that the DOS
> command prompt can do? Yet Win3.1/9x/NT/2K can all do
> this simple task.
>=20
> Mike

[Broida (spamless)]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:50:07 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:

> And just a small note 98, 95, 2000, ME, NT4 does NOT search for all text.
> So you are wrong on that too.

Where do you get that? I have a Win95 system, a Win98SE system,
and a WinXP system here at home. At work, my WinNT system was
upgraded to Win2000 a couple years ago.

ALL of those systems except the WinXP one will search for text
strings in ANY file on the system (except locked files of course).

They DO "search for all text". Why do you believe they don't?

Mike

[David Candy]

It won't find unicode text in files without a unicode header. Such as =
exe files

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Broida (spamless)" > wrote in message =
news:opsh14jmk4krsr5a@broida-wme...
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:50:07 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:
>=20
>> And just a small note 98, 95, 2000, ME, NT4 does NOT search for all =
text.
>> So you are wrong on that too.
>=20
> Where do you get that? I have a Win95 system, a Win98SE system,
> and a WinXP system here at home. At work, my WinNT system was
> upgraded to Win2000 a couple years ago.
>=20
> ALL of those systems except the WinXP one will search for text
> strings in ANY file on the system (except locked files of course).
>=20
> They DO "search for all text". Why do you believe they don't?
>=20
> Mike

[David Candy]

Sounds like you prefewr to slag search than use it.

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Broida (spamless)" > wrote in message =
news:opsh14ahuakrsr5a@broida-wme...
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:46:58 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:
>=20
>> You don't want to search that bad do you?
>=20
> Yes, I do. I want to know which files out of a couple
> hundred have a particular string in them.
>=20
> That's why I'm doing a Search.
>=20
> Mike

[Broida (spamless)]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:35:04 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:

> You can ask it to do anything - but you must recant before I'll
> tell you how.

I've already TOLD it to do it. It accepted my instruction
but ignored it. Thanks for your "support".

> The RAAF flies earler versions of this crap plane. And we will
> probably make the same mistake and buy the stupid JSF. SU-30s
> or F-22 are the only planes worth buying.

Don't get JSFs! Different manufacturer completely,
and it's WAY over budget and getting far too expensive.
F-22 is also overly expensive. F/A-18 is much less
costly; you could get a couple for the price of one F-22
and more for the price of one JSF. If you had A/B models:
yuck. And the C/D ones are getting old. The E/F models
are bigger (20%) and better. F-15 would be good if they
were gonna make any more; the production line here is
only building a couple/year for attrition replacements.

I did some F-15 training simulator work. Saw an F-15
poster with a great slogan: "If it's up, we shoot it down.
If it's down, we blow it up." <grin>

Mike

[Broida (spamless)]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:42:21 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:

> It won't find unicode text in files without a unicode header. Such as exe files

Ah. Quite possible. I'm talking just plain old
"text". ASCII. Never needed to do anything with
Unicode.

Mike

[David Candy]

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/Su-30.htm

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Broida (spamless)" > wrote in message =
news:opsh14xm0okrsr5a@broida-wme...
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:35:04 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:
>=20
>> You can ask it to do anything - but you must recant before I'll
>> tell you how.
>=20
> I've already TOLD it to do it. It accepted my instruction
> but ignored it. Thanks for your "support".
>=20
>> The RAAF flies earler versions of this crap plane. And we will
>> probably make the same mistake and buy the stupid JSF. SU-30s
>> or F-22 are the only planes worth buying.
>=20
> Don't get JSFs! Different manufacturer completely,
> and it's WAY over budget and getting far too expensive.
> F-22 is also overly expensive. F/A-18 is much less
> costly; you could get a couple for the price of one F-22
> and more for the price of one JSF. If you had A/B models:
> yuck. And the C/D ones are getting old. The E/F models
> are bigger (20%) and better. F-15 would be good if they
> were gonna make any more; the production line here is
> only building a couple/year for attrition replacements.
>=20
> I did some F-15 training simulator work. Saw an F-15
> poster with a great slogan: "If it's up, we shoot it down.
> If it's down, we blow it up." <grin>
>=20
> Mike

[Broida (spamless)]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:18:05 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:

> 54 A and 17 B.

Even C/Ds would be better. :) Same airframe, too.

> Range is important.

Yep. The F/A-18 E/F (that's the SuperHornet) can be
mini-tankers. They can carry a refuelling pod/tank.
Really only useful to prevent planes waiting to land
on the carrier from running out of fuel while others
land, though.

Mike

[Broida (spamless)]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:43:05 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:

> Sounds like you prefewr to slag search than use it.

Well, since it won't do what I've instructed
it to do, it's worthless to me.

Mike

[David Candy]

F15 and F18 are too old for Australia to buy. Our national security is =
that we have the best airforce in SE Asia. And they need to remain the =
best for the next 30 years - that rules out older planes. Especially =
with sukhois breeding in Asia (India, China, Malaysia, Indonesia). The =
people (who care about this) want F22. I live somewhere that Japan =
shelled during WW2. I don't like people dropping bombs or shells on me.

The RAF only had a fighter command in WW2 because the voters insisted. =
We'd all be speaking German if it wasn't for the english voters in the =
1930s.

Of course Sukhois can do buddy refuelling too.

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Broida (spamless)" > wrote in message =
news:opsh25ylhikrsr5a@broida-wme...
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:18:05 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:
>=20
>> 54 A and 17 B.
>=20
> Even C/Ds would be better. :) Same airframe, too.
>=20
>> Range is important.
>=20
> Yep. The F/A-18 E/F (that's the SuperHornet) can be
> mini-tankers. They can carry a refuelling pod/tank.
> Really only useful to prevent planes waiting to land
> on the carrier from running out of fuel while others
> land, though.
>=20
> Mike

[David Candy]

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=3Dcache:PcWAZjI4Ok8J:support.microsoft.=
com/default.aspx%3Fscid%3Dkb%3BEN-US%3BQ309173++FilterFilesWithUnknownExt=
ensions.+support&hl=3Den&lr=3Dlang_en|lang_es

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Broida (spamless)" > wrote in message =
news:opsh250kgekrsr5a@broida-wme...
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:43:05 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:
>=20
>> Sounds like you prefewr to slag search than use it.
>=20
> Well, since it won't do what I've instructed
> it to do, it's worthless to me.
>=20
> Mike

[Broida (spamless)]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 09:57:18 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:

> http://www.google.com.au/search?q=cache:PcWAZjI4Ok8J:support.microsoft.com/default.aspx%3Fscid%3Dkb%3BEN-US%3BQ309173++FilterFilesWithUnknownExtensions.+su pport&hl=en&lr=lang_en|lang_es


Thanks. I looked at that article (after you posted your link).
There's a couple methods given, and I can see that they'll work.

But it's still a really, really roundabout way to do things.

If they just had an option "Do simple search in ALL files"
it would be transparent to the user. No special registry
settings or anything. If that option is selected, it just
looks at EVERY byte of the selected files, regardless of the
file type.

Oh, well. At least it CAN be tweaked to work.

Thanks for the link, and the conversation. :)

Mike

[David Candy]

Well guess what. It wasn't written for your use but the 99% of users =
that want to find business letters or photos of the grandkids.

BTW that global reg key does only what it name says pre SP1. Sp1 and =
later it does what is described in the article.

The whole point is searching user content not the other information in a =
file. EG Searching for html will if using text searching find every web =
page on your computer as all web pages start with
<html>

In XP's search only what the user can see (and that includes all the =
properties shown in Explorer's Derails view - and there's more if =
indexing server is on) is searched. Buried deep in Computer Management =
is a web page query form that returns the results like google. With =
abstracts automatically generated of the documents.

If Indexing server is on you can enter advanced queries in the =
Containing Text field. This includes Vector queries, relational, =
boolean, etc. It supports two query languages and also SQL and database =
manager (oledb).

The point I'm making is Search is designed for users not programmers.
--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Broida (spamless)" > wrote in message =
news:opsh3h2trikrsr5a@broida-wme...
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 09:57:18 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:
>=20
>> =
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=3Dcache:PcWAZjI4Ok8J:support.microsoft.=
com/default.aspx%3Fscid%3Dkb%3BEN-US%3BQ309173++FilterFilesWithUnknownExt=
ensions.+support&hl=3Den&lr=3Dlang_en|lang_es
>=20
>=20
> Thanks. I looked at that article (after you posted your link).
> There's a couple methods given, and I can see that they'll work.
>=20
> But it's still a really, really roundabout way to do things.
>=20
> If they just had an option "Do simple search in ALL files"
> it would be transparent to the user. No special registry
> settings or anything. If that option is selected, it just
> looks at EVERY byte of the selected files, regardless of the
> file type.
>=20
> Oh, well. At least it CAN be tweaked to work.
>=20
> Thanks for the link, and the conversation. :)
>=20
> Mike

[Broida (spamless)]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:01:45 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:

> EG Searching for html will if using text searching find every web
> page on your computer as all web pages start with <html>

I understand that, but it could be that I -wanted-
to find every web page on my computer. :) It's easy
enough to limit the search by start directory and/or
by part of the filename to reduce the "irrelevant"
hits.

If they had an easy-to-find option to turn it on/off
then I would have NO problem at all with the Default
search being the "filtered" search as it exists now.

I guess my complaint is that it doesn't LET me do what
==I== want unless I futz around with the registry or
indexing service first. I'm not asking it to do any-
thing that is difficult for it to do. It should be
simpler.

> The point I'm making is Search is designed for users not programmers.

Yep, but programmers are also users. :)

Mike

[David Candy]

> Yep, but programmers are also users. :)
I've tried that phrase with MS. But they are unmoved.

I have my own written search program.

My main complaint with search, after adapting to it not searching, is =
the whole potential of it is wasted. Why shouldn't the shell search =
window also give abstracts. Why can't search results look like google's =
(as it can certainly do it).

Part of the reason is WinFS which is a database that will hold all user =
data.So a search of dog will find all mails, documents, etc with dog in =
it.

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.uscricket.com
"Broida (spamless)" > wrote in message =
news:opsh3pbkqokrsr5a@broida-wme...
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:01:45 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:
>=20
>> EG Searching for html will if using text searching find every web
>> page on your computer as all web pages start with <html>
>=20
> I understand that, but it could be that I -wanted-
> to find every web page on my computer. :) It's easy
> enough to limit the search by start directory and/or
> by part of the filename to reduce the "irrelevant"
> hits.
>=20
> If they had an easy-to-find option to turn it on/off
> then I would have NO problem at all with the Default
> search being the "filtered" search as it exists now.
>=20
> I guess my complaint is that it doesn't LET me do what
> =3D=3DI=3D=3D want unless I futz around with the registry or
> indexing service first. I'm not asking it to do any-
> thing that is difficult for it to do. It should be
> simpler.
>=20
>> The point I'm making is Search is designed for users not programmers.
>=20
> Yep, but programmers are also users. :)
>=20
> Mike

[stink finger]

begin Broida (spamless) piddled around and finally wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:50:55 +1100, David Candy <.> wrote:
>
>> It's not broken. It's working as designed. Whoever made the con file should
>> have supplied a search filterr or set con to use the text filter. How the
>> hell would windows know that it's a text file.
>
> Why should Windows --CARE- that it's a text file?
>
> I told it to search ALL files; that's one of the selections
> it allowed me to select. It did not do what I ordered it to
> do. It's broken.
>
>> But as you think it's broken I can't help you. If you were to recant and
>> apologise?
>
> Recant? Apologise for wanting it to do what it says
> it will do? Microsoft should apologize to ME!
>
> Mike

You're talking about David Candy...his thought processes last about .78
seconds, then he just taps at whatever keys happen to look neato after that.