If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Why is search so brain dead these days?
On 6/20/2020 10:30 PM, T wrote:
Hi Yousuf, What do you mean "these days"?Â* Windows search has always stunk.Â* And it is gettig worse. That is my point. There used to search utilities under DOS that worked much better than this. Yousuf Khan |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Why is search so brain dead these days?
On 6/21/2020 10:25 AM, Sjouke Burry wrote:
My guess: M$ does not want the "Median" user inside its installation info. So they block and confuse. I think they are succeeding. I'm not even looking for Microsoft's ****ty files, just stuff in my own save folders. Yousuf Khan |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Why is search so brain dead these days?
In article , Yousuf Khan
wrote: unix find is not fast, especially compared to something with an index. Depends on how much you restricted its search parameters. nope. it's always going to be slower than something that uses an index. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Why is search so brain dead these days?
On 6/21/2020 8:38 AM, philo wrote:
On 6/20/2020 6:06 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote: On 2020-06-20 5:54 p.m., Yousuf Khan wrote: I'm referring mainly to Windows search, but this applies to a lot of other search algorithms all over the place and on the Internet too. In the olden days, search was very efficient and somewhat intuitive. For example, let's say you try to do a search for "virtual" and expect you might find something like VirtualBox, VirtualPC, whatever. But for some reason, the current Windows search cannot find these. If you do a search for the full name, then it may find them (hit and miss). In the old days, these searches would find all instances where the string would occur, even as part of a substring. It was very easy to do searches, and you could even do multiple words to narrow down the searches. What has gone wrong with search algorithms now? Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Yousuf Khan I really can't help you here because I never use Windows search. I use "Search Everything" andÂ* "Agent Ransack" exclusively. sorry Rene Thanks for the info. As one who recently did a search that found close to nothing, I am happy with the much improved results using the free version of Agent Ransack. Ransack : 52 hits in ten minutes From Explorer, after one hour , four hits...search nowhere near complete |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Why is search so brain dead these days?
Yousuf Khan wrote:
T wrote: What do you mean "these days"?* Windows search has always stunk.* And it is gettig worse. That is my point. There used to search utilities under DOS that worked much better than this. You mean running the 'dir' command? You can still do that in a command shell (cmd.exe). For example, you could run: dir {parms} %temp%\dirlist.txt & notepad %temp%\dirlist.txt to see the dir output using Notepad instead of scrolling around inside the command shell (assuming you allocated enough buffer lines in the command shell to accomodate all lines of output from the dir command). If you want something a bit more legible for output, use the 'tree' command instead of 'dir' to get a tree listing of files, like: tree {parms} /f %temp%\treelist.txt & notepad %temp%\treelist.txt Those are just folder/file listers. If you want to find something from their output, pipe the stdout from the listers into the 'find' command. Although you think DOS had better search tools, how many users do you know (outside of those working for software companies) that know how to use the DOS command line and either all the external commands (programs) or the internal commands (inside of command.com or cmd.exe)? Then realize that only a small percentage of those know how to write batch files or multi-part command lines. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Why is search so brain dead these days?
philo wrote:
Thanks for the info. As one who recently did a search that found close to nothing, I am happy with the much improved results using the free version of Agent Ransack. Ransack : 52 hits in ten minutes From Explorer, after one hour , four hits...search nowhere near complete I had to use a registry setting on a *clean* 2004 install, to get the search to Index properly! Behavior like that has apparently been around since the year 2015. Paul |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Why is search so brain dead these days?
Yousuf Khan wrote:
VanguardLH wrote: Yousuf Khan wrote: I'm referring mainly to Windows search, but this applies to a lot of other search algorithms all over the place and on the Internet too. In the olden days, search was very efficient and somewhat intuitive. For example, let's say you try to do a search for "virtual" and expect you might find something like VirtualBox, VirtualPC, whatever. But for some reason, the current Windows search cannot find these. Perhaps you did not configure Windows Search to include the C:\Program Files and C:\Program Files (x86) folders (and their subfolders), or add whatever folders contain the "virtual"-named files you expect to find. No, everything is included. By default, not everything is included under the system drive (normally the C: drive), like the C:\Windows folder. Although I've included more subfolders, I don't include everything under the C: drive. If the files you were looking for were .exe filetypes, is the .exe filetype included as one of those that Windows Search hunts for (the Indexing Options - Advanced - Filetypes tab)? Are any locations listed as exclusions? When you view the Indexing Options dialog, does it say "Indexing in progress"? How long does it take when you Rebuild the index database, or does it hang? I've read where a corrupted file can hang the indexing, so run "chkdsk c: /r". Did you include temp and download folders in the target locations? Those could have changing files at the time of indexing. Unfinished files are, by definition, considered corrupted and can hang the indexing. Do you use MS Outlook as your e-mail client? If so, is it configured to incorporate Windows Search? If you use POP accounts, a PST file could be corrupt, especially if the message store was allowed to exceed the maximum size of the .pst file, so you have to run scanpst.exe to repair. If you don't want to scan your e-mails using Windows Search, and the regular (inbuilt) search within Outlook is sufficient for you to find e-mails in its message stores, deselect Outlook as a target in Indexing Options. Did you check the state of the Windows Search service? Should be startup = Automatic and status = Running. A lot of search links in Windows rely on using the Bing service. Users have found they can get empty search results until they disable the Bing integration with Windows Search. I disabled Bing integration soon after I did a fresh install of Windows 10. I don't remember if I did the regedit hack or used a tweaker. HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curre ntVersion\Search Data item: BingSearchEnabled (if not present, create DWORD 32bit) Data value: 1 = enabled, 0 = disabled. Windows Search will then only return local search results, and not attempt to connect out to Microsoft's Bing service. Windows Search has a troubleshooter (although I've found them to rarely fix a problem): Settings - Update & Security - Troubleshoot, scroll down to "Find and fix other problems" section, and select the "search and indexing" option. For the problem, select "Files don't appear in search results". |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Why is search so brain dead these days?
On 2020-06-21 6:27 a.m., Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 6/20/2020 7:56 PM, Paul wrote: Windows search is prefaced on "search indexer" with "brute force scan" as a secondary option. Vista was the best, in that the search had a "try harder" tick box, which institionalized the notion of the brute force filename search. Later versions are kinda lame by comparison. The thing is that single Unix "find" command was so much faster and more powerful than all of these current search programs. They can't even search through something with the benefit of an index nearly as fast or as accurately as find without an index. Ummmm... ...no. 'The find utility recursively descends the directory tree for each path listed, evaluating an expression (composed of the ``primaries'' and ``operands'' listed below) in terms of each file in the tree.' There is no way a recursive directory search of an entire drive will be faster than an indexed search. I recall there were various find-like utilities for searching under DOS that were just as simple, powerful, and fast. Now it's all messed up. I even saw an episode of Linus Tech Tips which they were complaining about how stupid the Windows search is. Search should be simple, what did they need to go modifying it for? Hey! This is Microsoft! |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Why is search so brain dead these days?
Yousuf Khan wrote:
I recall there were various find-like utilities for searching under DOS that were just as simple, powerful, and fast. Well, that means you used 3rd party search tools under DOS. Why are you averse to using 3rd party search tools under Windows? If the built-in Windows tools don't work for you, use something else. If MS-Paint won't do everything you want, move to something else (many are free), like Paint.NET or GIMP. If you find the Win10 UWP Mail and Calendar apps to be too limp, get a better e-mail and calendaring app (many are free). Windows Search isn't working for you. Use something else that does work. Lots of free and robust choices. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Why is search so brain dead these days?
On 2020-06-21 5:55 a.m., Mayayana wrote:
"VanguardLH" wrote \ but the trouble is that such a program has to run | regularly to update its record. That's not necessary with Agent | Ransack. And best of all, AR can find the files on Windows. I don't | have any files on a Mac. | | Ah, but the database is updated continuously. | | Ah, you also have a reading comprehension defect, too. He's an AppleSeed. Their knowledge consists of marketing nuggets from Lord Jobs and disciple-in-chief Timmy Cook. They'll always have a comeback because Apple marketing has trained them in how to believe that Macs are better than anything else in the world. I wouldn't be surprised if Advanced AppleSeed Training includes a specific list of answers for Windows doubters, just like any good cult has: Q: "But I can use any one of 4 free programs on Windows to do XYZ. What about Macs?" A1: "The Apple version only costs $70 and it's much better." A2 (inspired by Linux fanatics): "If you can't do it on a Mac then you don't need it." Simple fact: You've all been complaining about Window's search functionality. Mac OS has a search that works really, really well. :-) |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Why is search so brain dead these days?
On 2020-06-21 6:02 a.m., Mayayana wrote:
"VanguardLH" wrote | When you do something about your trolls infecting Mac newsgroups, I'll | stop posting here. | | Not an excuse (except by a inane child) to prosyletize your choice of OS | in the wrong newsgroup. This is actually another symptom of AppleSeed indoctrination. Since they're a cult they assume Windows users are a cult. They also see the hardware as part of the product. That's why so many of them refer to "Wintel". Macs are maybe 8% of the market, but most Mac users see it as a clash of the titans. Their monolithic device provider, Apple, vs the opposing, monolithic device provider, Wintel. So, while we mostly don't think about Macs, because there's simply no reason to, they're constantly thinking about Wintel, their imagined competitor. So Alan thinks the plural "you" is attacking the AppleSeed home base. LOL! |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Why is search so brain dead these days?
On 2020-06-21 7:22 a.m., Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 6/21/2020 9:28 AM, nospam wrote: unix find is not fast, especially compared to something with an index. Depends on how much you restricted its search parameters. Â*Â*Â*Â*Yousuf Khan No.. ...it does not. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Why is search so brain dead these days?
On 2020-06-21 7:42 a.m., philo wrote:
On 6/21/2020 8:38 AM, philo wrote: On 6/20/2020 6:06 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote: On 2020-06-20 5:54 p.m., Yousuf Khan wrote: I'm referring mainly to Windows search, but this applies to a lot of other search algorithms all over the place and on the Internet too. In the olden days, search was very efficient and somewhat intuitive. For example, let's say you try to do a search for "virtual" and expect you might find something like VirtualBox, VirtualPC, whatever. But for some reason, the current Windows search cannot find these. If you do a search for the full name, then it may find them (hit and miss). In the old days, these searches would find all instances where the string would occur, even as part of a substring. It was very easy to do searches, and you could even do multiple words to narrow down the searches. What has gone wrong with search algorithms now? Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Yousuf Khan I really can't help you here because I never use Windows search. I use "Search Everything" andÂ* "Agent Ransack" exclusively. sorry Rene Thanks for the info. As one who recently did a search that found close to nothing, I am happy with the much improved results using the free version of Agent Ransack. Ransack : 52 hits in ten minutes From Explorer, after one hour , four hits...search nowhere near complete Spotlight: all the hits on the entire drive in 15 seconds. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Why is search so brain dead these days?
On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 08:48:31 -0400, Mayayana wrote:
I disable indexing. I don't see any reason to enable so much excess disk activity. As I said, Agent Ransack doesn't use an index and it's still almost instant. But I also don't use it constantly. With most things I know where they are. For someone who has no idea where things are stored, indexing may be useful. It's in the other thread, but with respect to "indexing", the WSL "locate" command works instantly to find Windows files, but it too requires an index (i.e., updatedb). That "updatedb" index can be scheduled to run nightly, if desired. o The "locate" command will work on whatever is the current index. For command-line searches, WSL has the _huge_ advantage of piping to grep, sed, awk, etc.. See details in this thread for setting up WSL in a handful of commands: o *Tutorial for setting up Ubuntu as a Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL in Windows 10* https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.freeware/rOT8xBWo9dk See details in this thread for running searches using non-Windows freewa o *Windows file name & content search freeware* *that works better than the native Windows search tools* https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.freeware/V3etp1R3kpk -- Every post to Usenet archives should help someone now & in the future. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Why is search so brain dead these days?
On 6/21/20 11:01 AM, Paul wrote:
philo wrote: Thanks for the info. As one who recently did a search that found close to nothing, I am happy with the much improved results using the free version of Agent Ransack. Ransack : 52 hits in ten minutes Â*From Explorer, after one hour , four hits...search nowhere near complete I had to use a registry setting on a *clean* 2004 install, to get the search to Index properly! Behavior like that has apparently been around since the year 2015. Â*Â* Paul Sure recall how "search" used to do such a good job of sorting by date too |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|