Hi Jon,

Thanks, good info!

Yeah, I wasn't too surprised that Search didn't find the new file
*instantly* ... but after I'd left the machine idle for 15 minutes or so, I
expected indexing would have caught up. BTW I checked my Power settings,
they are set to "High Performance", so that's not it (good call, though).

I ran up a clean install of Vista on a blank machine then tried the
"plesiochronous" experiment again, and it worked! So obviously, I've done
something to break Search on my main machine, and several other Vista
machines here ... but what did I do? I guess I'll have to go spelunking
(sigh).

Incidentally, I notice that "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows
Search\Gathering Manager" is one of those keys where the Administrator has
no automatic access: by default, only TrustedInstaller and WSearch have
permissions to modify values. So I guess it isn't intended to be a user
configurable area :-) But, yes - very interesting to examine the values
under that key ... thanks for the pointer.

Overall, I suspect the fundamental architecture of Windows Search is sound.
It just needs some work. After all, WDS on XP worked pretty well; I'm sure
with some work, Search on Vista can regain that level of usefulness (at
least WDS could search network shares, with the optional add-on).

But at present, Search in Vista is far too difficult to use, too difficult
to configure(as you rightly point out), too unreliable, too limited in
function (no network searches, let alone web sites), and too easily broken
(obviously I've done something to break Search on my machine, but ...
what???). I could not recommend anyone upgrade to Vista, on the basis of the
Search facility. There may be other good reasons to upgrade, but ... Search
isn't one of them! despite what the ads tell us.

Mind you, Microsoft managed to take their very promising Tripoli project,
and get it to the point they had to throw it all away, and start again ...
not an auspicious history in searching :) Still, here's hoping ...

Best regards,
--
Andrew McLaren
amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au

vistas search is actually the desktop search they were shoving online and
was a separate download for XP. They took that and merged it into vista.

this is all just an effort to catch up with Google desktop and other desktop
search technologies...

I can assure you that this is one of the most stupid ways to search.
This technology simply does not work. Its slow, it has gapes and gets
corrupeted to easily.
Turn the service off and make sure your folders are organized, then search
in the appropriate folder for each kind of thing you are looking for.


"JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message
news:ewgj8lJ%23HHA.700@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Despite Vista search being hailed (by Microsoft) as 'a main feature',
> Vista search has bugs - such that some things it simply can not find
>
> A search system that can not find 'some' things is as useless as one that
> can not find 'any' things
>
> Are Microsoft working around the clock to fix it? Will it be fixed by
> Monday? Am I the only person that thinks this renders the whole O/S close
> to scrap?

vistas search is actually the desktop search they were shoving online and
was a separate download for XP. They took that and merged it into vista.

this is all just an effort to catch up with Google desktop and other desktop
search technologies...

I can assure you that this is one of the most stupid ways to search.
This technology simply does not work. Its slow, it has gapes and gets
corrupeted to easily.
Turn the service off and make sure your folders are organized, then search
in the appropriate folder for each kind of thing you are looking for.


"JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message
news:ewgj8lJ%23HHA.700@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Despite Vista search being hailed (by Microsoft) as 'a main feature',
> Vista search has bugs - such that some things it simply can not find
>
> A search system that can not find 'some' things is as useless as one that
> can not find 'any' things
>
> Are Microsoft working around the clock to fix it? Will it be fixed by
> Monday? Am I the only person that thinks this renders the whole O/S close
> to scrap?

vistas search is actually the desktop search they were shoving online and
was a separate download for XP. They took that and merged it into vista.

They tried to force it down your throat with office2007 too...
and with the live suite they even install it on XP without even asking you!

THUMBS DOWN FOR MS FOR THEIR CRAP!

this is all just an effort to catch up with Google desktop and other desktop
search technologies...

I can assure you that this is one of the most stupid ways to search.
This technology simply does not work. Its slow, it has gapes and gets
corrupted to easily. It also takes up computer resources and thrashes the
disk.
The index may take weeks according to how much data you have.

Simple users get lost with it.. and if its corrupted they dont know how to
fix it.

Only an idiot would like this crap!

Turn the service off and make sure your folders are organized, then search
in the appropriate folder for each kind of thing you are looking for

MS blew it with this one... its one of the most STUPID things vista has.


"nlreeves" <nlreeves@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:315E6A77-BA98-4F3F-9F0A-1618035FBF31@microsoft.com...
> You are not the only one.
>
> I have been extremely frustrated with the new, "improved" search tool. I
> routinely search for dates and times files were accessed, created, or
> modified. The search for "accessed" no longer exists, as near as I can
> tell.
> What I am searching for, often, is creation, access, or modification of
> system files. There have been numerous times when I use the Advanced
> Search
> capabilities to search everything (including hidden and system files) , it
> takes forever (since much of that stuff is not indexed) and comes up
> blank.
> I take a look manually (after jumping through all sorts of hoops to be
> granted access to even look at my own files), and easily find a dozen
> files
> that fit the search criteria.
>
> It may be better at searching within files (which the old search tool only
> pretended to be able to do), but is is a shadow of its former self with
> respect to the functions I routinely used it to perform.
>
> Nancy
>
> "JethroUK©" wrote:
>
>> Despite Vista search being hailed (by Microsoft) as 'a main feature',
>> Vista
>> search has bugs - such that some things it simply can not find
>>
>> A search system that can not find 'some' things is as useless as one that
>> can not find 'any' things
>>
>> Are Microsoft working around the clock to fix it? Will it be fixed by
>> Monday? Am I the only person that thinks this renders the whole O/S close
>> to
>> scrap?
>>
>>

vistas search is actually the desktop search they were shoving online and
was a separate download for XP. They took that and merged it into vista.

They tried to force it down your throat with office2007 too...
and with the live suite they even install it on XP without even asking you!

THUMBS DOWN FOR MS FOR THEIR CRAP!

this is all just an effort to catch up with Google desktop and other desktop
search technologies...

I can assure you that this is one of the most stupid ways to search.
This technology simply does not work. Its slow, it has gapes and gets
corrupted to easily. It also takes up computer resources and thrashes the
disk.
The index may take weeks according to how much data you have.

Simple users get lost with it.. and if its corrupted they dont know how to
fix it.

Only an idiot would like this crap!

Turn the service off and make sure your folders are organized, then search
in the appropriate folder for each kind of thing you are looking for

MS blew it with this one... its one of the most STUPID things vista has.


"nlreeves" <nlreeves@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:315E6A77-BA98-4F3F-9F0A-1618035FBF31@microsoft.com...
> You are not the only one.
>
> I have been extremely frustrated with the new, "improved" search tool. I
> routinely search for dates and times files were accessed, created, or
> modified. The search for "accessed" no longer exists, as near as I can
> tell.
> What I am searching for, often, is creation, access, or modification of
> system files. There have been numerous times when I use the Advanced
> Search
> capabilities to search everything (including hidden and system files) , it
> takes forever (since much of that stuff is not indexed) and comes up
> blank.
> I take a look manually (after jumping through all sorts of hoops to be
> granted access to even look at my own files), and easily find a dozen
> files
> that fit the search criteria.
>
> It may be better at searching within files (which the old search tool only
> pretended to be able to do), but is is a shadow of its former self with
> respect to the functions I routinely used it to perform.
>
> Nancy
>
> "JethroUK©" wrote:
>
>> Despite Vista search being hailed (by Microsoft) as 'a main feature',
>> Vista
>> search has bugs - such that some things it simply can not find
>>
>> A search system that can not find 'some' things is as useless as one that
>> can not find 'any' things
>>
>> Are Microsoft working around the clock to fix it? Will it be fixed by
>> Monday? Am I the only person that thinks this renders the whole O/S close
>> to
>> scrap?
>>
>>

vistas search is actually the desktop search they were shoving online and
was a separate download for XP. They took that and merged it into vista.

They tried to force it down your throat with office2007 too...
and with the live suite they even install it on XP without even asking you!

THUMBS DOWN FOR MS FOR THEIR CRAP!

this is all just an effort to catch up with Google desktop and other desktop
search technologies...

I can assure you that this is one of the most stupid ways to search.
This technology simply does not work. Its slow, it has gapes and gets
corrupted to easily. It also takes up computer resources and thrashes the
disk.
The index may take weeks according to how much data you have.

Simple users get lost with it.. and if its corrupted they dont know how to
fix it.

Only an idiot would like this crap!

Turn the service off and make sure your folders are organized, then search
in the appropriate folder for each kind of thing you are looking for

MS blew it with this one... its one of the most STUPID things vista has.


"Andrew McLaren" <andrew@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
news:F2CDD26A-4309-4181-AB9F-6F80768180DA@microsoft.com...
> "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote...
>> Despite Vista search being hailed (by Microsoft) as 'a main feature',
>> Vista search has bugs - such that some things it simply can not find
>> A search system that can not find 'some' things is as useless as one that
>> can not find 'any' things
>> Are Microsoft working around the clock to fix it? Will it be fixed by
>> Monday? Am I the only person that thinks this renders the whole O/S close
>> to scrap?
>
> I'm inclined to agree. I have found Search in Vista to be very unreliable,
> almost useless.
>
> I used Windows Desktop Search in XP and generally, it gave pretty good
> results; at least by WDS 3.0.1. But Search in Vista seems to have gone
> considerably *backwards* in reliability, usability and performance.
>
> To give a concrete example: On machine one, with Google Desktop installed,
> I went to my Documents folder, and with Notepad created a new, plain text
> document called "searchme.txt" containing a single word "plesiochronous"
> (I was pretty sure I wouldn't have too many "plesiochronous" docs on the
> system :). I went straight back to the desktop, clicked on the Google
> search bar and entered "plesiochronous". Google Search had found the
> searchme.txt file, even before I had finished typing the word. It had been
> indexed in near real-time, and located as I typed in the search box.
>
> On Machine 2, pretty much the same physical and software configuration, I
> went to my Documents folder, and with Notepad created a new, plain text
> document called "searchme.txt", containing a single word "plesiochronous".
> I went straight back to the desktop, and went to Start, Search. I entered
> text "plesiochronous" in the search field. I was able to finish typing the
> whole word. Then, the grey-coloured "searching" bar slowly chugged its way
> across the "Search Results in Indexed Locations". After 30 seconds or so,
> it reported "No items match your search". Hmm, okay. So I changed the
> search location from "Indexed Locations", to an explicit "Documents", and
> I also checked the "Include non-indexed, hidden and system files" check
> box. Again, the slow grey bar across the screen and after a shorter
> period, the answer "No items match your search". Finally, I checked the
> "search in file contents" just in case, and started the search again. That
> was 5 minutes ago, and it's still running. Even if it eventually finds the
> file ... it took Google Desktop about 2 seconds to find it, just seconds
> after I created the file.
>
> But this slightly artificial test was only to confirm what I've seen in
> routine daily operations, over and over: I search for a expression which I
> *know* is in there somewhere, in the ~300 subdirectories and ~14,000 files
> in my Documents folder. I can even have the file open in Word or Acrobat,
> in front of me, while I'm searching for it - still "not found"! After I
> installed Google Desktop, I could find the same files in a second.
>
> Possibly this is operator error, maybe I'm doing something wrong. But if
> so, Vista Search must be unreasonably fragile and dificult to use. I'm a
> reasonably proficient PC user - I can run all the main business and
> developer applications, configure my own network settings etc (I've read
> the iFilter API docs in MSDN; I can even debug my own kernel dumps ...
> but, that's just skiting). If the problem is that I'm doing something
> wrong, then Search shouldn't be that hard or complex to use. Google
> Desktop "just works" every time, with no special effort or consideration
> on my part.
>
> If it's not "operator error" causing the nil hits, and in fact Search
> isn't locating the file then ... well, Search is just broken.
>
> Furthermore, when using Google Desktop, I can easily and happily index
> documents on network shares. Since the majority of my documents are
> sitting on a file server not my local hard disk, that is more or less
> essential functionality. So far, I have not been able to coax Vista WDS
> Search to index anything except local drives. So at very best, Vista's
> Search is a 50% solution. I must use an additional, 3rd party tool to
> search shares anyway.
>
> I could go on ... Search might "be everywhere" in Vista; but I don't like
> the way a search is parameterised, depending on where you start your
> search. For example, I have my Pictures folder open and I'm looking at
> photos of my last holiday. That makes me think "I wonder if there are any
> plesiochronous cables runnning from Sydney out to Cootamundra? I might
> have a doc about that" so I go to the Search box staring me in the face,
> and search on "plesiochronous". But because I'm in the Photos folder,
> Search only looks for *photos* with a "plesiochonous" tag. I have to
> explicitly tell Search to widen the search to Indexed Items or whatever. I
> find that very unintuitive and cumbersome. I much prefer a scheme like
> Apple Spotlight or Google Desktop, where *every* Search filed, searches
> the global search index.
>
> For finding strings in text files, such as source code, I *always* use
> Findstr at a command prompt - it is faster, more reliable and more
> flexible (I can pipe the output to a script) than Vista Search. So
> basically, I'm still using grep, the same as I did on Unix 20 years ago
> :-)
>
> Brandon Paddock seems like a hell of a nice guy, and I'm sure he's 20,000%
> (at least) a better programmer than me; likewise the other WDS team
> members. So I don't mean to bag them, personally. But something went
> terribly wrong in Microsoft's development process - between the early
> "FindMyStuff" utility which was awesome; WDS 3.x in XP which was pretty
> good, to Search in Vista; which is, well, less than useless, it is
> positively misleading, and returns bad, incorrect data. Meanwhile - and I
> absolutely don't wish to sound like a Google advocate, but - Google
> Desktop *Just Works*, and finds the data I need, every time. So whatever
> the other pluses and minuses of the Google solution, it is satisfactory.
> And Vista Search is not.
>
> I really (really, really, really (with sugar and ribbons on it) really
> hope that Search in Vista does reach a stage where it is actually a useful
> feature of the OS. There is no requirement for an operating system to
> provide built-in facilities to make home movies, play games, or watch TV.
> But in this present Age, a core requirement for any OS is a good search
> tool. Sadly, Vista falls down badly on this score (excepting findstr).
>
> PS 2 hours later - still no sign of plesiochronous, from Vista Search.
> Even Findstr finds it in a few seconds.
>
> --
> Andrew McLaren
> amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
>

vistas search is actually the desktop search they were shoving online and
was a separate download for XP. They took that and merged it into vista.

They tried to force it down your throat with office2007 too...
and with the live suite they even install it on XP without even asking you!

THUMBS DOWN FOR MS FOR THEIR CRAP!

this is all just an effort to catch up with Google desktop and other desktop
search technologies...

I can assure you that this is one of the most stupid ways to search.
This technology simply does not work. Its slow, it has gapes and gets
corrupted to easily. It also takes up computer resources and thrashes the
disk.
The index may take weeks according to how much data you have.

Simple users get lost with it.. and if its corrupted they dont know how to
fix it.

Only an idiot would like this crap!

Turn the service off and make sure your folders are organized, then search
in the appropriate folder for each kind of thing you are looking for

MS blew it with this one... its one of the most STUPID things vista has.


"Andrew McLaren" <andrew@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
news:F2CDD26A-4309-4181-AB9F-6F80768180DA@microsoft.com...
> "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote...
>> Despite Vista search being hailed (by Microsoft) as 'a main feature',
>> Vista search has bugs - such that some things it simply can not find
>> A search system that can not find 'some' things is as useless as one that
>> can not find 'any' things
>> Are Microsoft working around the clock to fix it? Will it be fixed by
>> Monday? Am I the only person that thinks this renders the whole O/S close
>> to scrap?
>
> I'm inclined to agree. I have found Search in Vista to be very unreliable,
> almost useless.
>
> I used Windows Desktop Search in XP and generally, it gave pretty good
> results; at least by WDS 3.0.1. But Search in Vista seems to have gone
> considerably *backwards* in reliability, usability and performance.
>
> To give a concrete example: On machine one, with Google Desktop installed,
> I went to my Documents folder, and with Notepad created a new, plain text
> document called "searchme.txt" containing a single word "plesiochronous"
> (I was pretty sure I wouldn't have too many "plesiochronous" docs on the
> system :). I went straight back to the desktop, clicked on the Google
> search bar and entered "plesiochronous". Google Search had found the
> searchme.txt file, even before I had finished typing the word. It had been
> indexed in near real-time, and located as I typed in the search box.
>
> On Machine 2, pretty much the same physical and software configuration, I
> went to my Documents folder, and with Notepad created a new, plain text
> document called "searchme.txt", containing a single word "plesiochronous".
> I went straight back to the desktop, and went to Start, Search. I entered
> text "plesiochronous" in the search field. I was able to finish typing the
> whole word. Then, the grey-coloured "searching" bar slowly chugged its way
> across the "Search Results in Indexed Locations". After 30 seconds or so,
> it reported "No items match your search". Hmm, okay. So I changed the
> search location from "Indexed Locations", to an explicit "Documents", and
> I also checked the "Include non-indexed, hidden and system files" check
> box. Again, the slow grey bar across the screen and after a shorter
> period, the answer "No items match your search". Finally, I checked the
> "search in file contents" just in case, and started the search again. That
> was 5 minutes ago, and it's still running. Even if it eventually finds the
> file ... it took Google Desktop about 2 seconds to find it, just seconds
> after I created the file.
>
> But this slightly artificial test was only to confirm what I've seen in
> routine daily operations, over and over: I search for a expression which I
> *know* is in there somewhere, in the ~300 subdirectories and ~14,000 files
> in my Documents folder. I can even have the file open in Word or Acrobat,
> in front of me, while I'm searching for it - still "not found"! After I
> installed Google Desktop, I could find the same files in a second.
>
> Possibly this is operator error, maybe I'm doing something wrong. But if
> so, Vista Search must be unreasonably fragile and dificult to use. I'm a
> reasonably proficient PC user - I can run all the main business and
> developer applications, configure my own network settings etc (I've read
> the iFilter API docs in MSDN; I can even debug my own kernel dumps ...
> but, that's just skiting). If the problem is that I'm doing something
> wrong, then Search shouldn't be that hard or complex to use. Google
> Desktop "just works" every time, with no special effort or consideration
> on my part.
>
> If it's not "operator error" causing the nil hits, and in fact Search
> isn't locating the file then ... well, Search is just broken.
>
> Furthermore, when using Google Desktop, I can easily and happily index
> documents on network shares. Since the majority of my documents are
> sitting on a file server not my local hard disk, that is more or less
> essential functionality. So far, I have not been able to coax Vista WDS
> Search to index anything except local drives. So at very best, Vista's
> Search is a 50% solution. I must use an additional, 3rd party tool to
> search shares anyway.
>
> I could go on ... Search might "be everywhere" in Vista; but I don't like
> the way a search is parameterised, depending on where you start your
> search. For example, I have my Pictures folder open and I'm looking at
> photos of my last holiday. That makes me think "I wonder if there are any
> plesiochronous cables runnning from Sydney out to Cootamundra? I might
> have a doc about that" so I go to the Search box staring me in the face,
> and search on "plesiochronous". But because I'm in the Photos folder,
> Search only looks for *photos* with a "plesiochonous" tag. I have to
> explicitly tell Search to widen the search to Indexed Items or whatever. I
> find that very unintuitive and cumbersome. I much prefer a scheme like
> Apple Spotlight or Google Desktop, where *every* Search filed, searches
> the global search index.
>
> For finding strings in text files, such as source code, I *always* use
> Findstr at a command prompt - it is faster, more reliable and more
> flexible (I can pipe the output to a script) than Vista Search. So
> basically, I'm still using grep, the same as I did on Unix 20 years ago
> :-)
>
> Brandon Paddock seems like a hell of a nice guy, and I'm sure he's 20,000%
> (at least) a better programmer than me; likewise the other WDS team
> members. So I don't mean to bag them, personally. But something went
> terribly wrong in Microsoft's development process - between the early
> "FindMyStuff" utility which was awesome; WDS 3.x in XP which was pretty
> good, to Search in Vista; which is, well, less than useless, it is
> positively misleading, and returns bad, incorrect data. Meanwhile - and I
> absolutely don't wish to sound like a Google advocate, but - Google
> Desktop *Just Works*, and finds the data I need, every time. So whatever
> the other pluses and minuses of the Google solution, it is satisfactory.
> And Vista Search is not.
>
> I really (really, really, really (with sugar and ribbons on it) really
> hope that Search in Vista does reach a stage where it is actually a useful
> feature of the OS. There is no requirement for an operating system to
> provide built-in facilities to make home movies, play games, or watch TV.
> But in this present Age, a core requirement for any OS is a good search
> tool. Sadly, Vista falls down badly on this score (excepting findstr).
>
> PS 2 hours later - still no sign of plesiochronous, from Vista Search.
> Even Findstr finds it in a few seconds.
>
> --
> Andrew McLaren
> amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
>

Please tell all this to FRANK Jupiter Jones and other blind MS followers who
deny any such problem even though I have pointed them out again and again
numerous times...



"Andrew McLaren" <andrew@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
news:F2CDD26A-4309-4181-AB9F-6F80768180DA@microsoft.com...
> "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote...
>> Despite Vista search being hailed (by Microsoft) as 'a main feature',
>> Vista search has bugs - such that some things it simply can not find
>> A search system that can not find 'some' things is as useless as one that
>> can not find 'any' things
>> Are Microsoft working around the clock to fix it? Will it be fixed by
>> Monday? Am I the only person that thinks this renders the whole O/S close
>> to scrap?
>
> I'm inclined to agree. I have found Search in Vista to be very unreliable,
> almost useless.
>
> I used Windows Desktop Search in XP and generally, it gave pretty good
> results; at least by WDS 3.0.1. But Search in Vista seems to have gone
> considerably *backwards* in reliability, usability and performance.
>
> To give a concrete example: On machine one, with Google Desktop installed,
> I went to my Documents folder, and with Notepad created a new, plain text
> document called "searchme.txt" containing a single word "plesiochronous"
> (I was pretty sure I wouldn't have too many "plesiochronous" docs on the
> system :). I went straight back to the desktop, clicked on the Google
> search bar and entered "plesiochronous". Google Search had found the
> searchme.txt file, even before I had finished typing the word. It had been
> indexed in near real-time, and located as I typed in the search box.
>
> On Machine 2, pretty much the same physical and software configuration, I
> went to my Documents folder, and with Notepad created a new, plain text
> document called "searchme.txt", containing a single word "plesiochronous".
> I went straight back to the desktop, and went to Start, Search. I entered
> text "plesiochronous" in the search field. I was able to finish typing the
> whole word. Then, the grey-coloured "searching" bar slowly chugged its way
> across the "Search Results in Indexed Locations". After 30 seconds or so,
> it reported "No items match your search". Hmm, okay. So I changed the
> search location from "Indexed Locations", to an explicit "Documents", and
> I also checked the "Include non-indexed, hidden and system files" check
> box. Again, the slow grey bar across the screen and after a shorter
> period, the answer "No items match your search". Finally, I checked the
> "search in file contents" just in case, and started the search again. That
> was 5 minutes ago, and it's still running. Even if it eventually finds the
> file ... it took Google Desktop about 2 seconds to find it, just seconds
> after I created the file.
>
> But this slightly artificial test was only to confirm what I've seen in
> routine daily operations, over and over: I search for a expression which I
> *know* is in there somewhere, in the ~300 subdirectories and ~14,000 files
> in my Documents folder. I can even have the file open in Word or Acrobat,
> in front of me, while I'm searching for it - still "not found"! After I
> installed Google Desktop, I could find the same files in a second.
>
> Possibly this is operator error, maybe I'm doing something wrong. But if
> so, Vista Search must be unreasonably fragile and dificult to use. I'm a
> reasonably proficient PC user - I can run all the main business and
> developer applications, configure my own network settings etc (I've read
> the iFilter API docs in MSDN; I can even debug my own kernel dumps ...
> but, that's just skiting). If the problem is that I'm doing something
> wrong, then Search shouldn't be that hard or complex to use. Google
> Desktop "just works" every time, with no special effort or consideration
> on my part.
>
> If it's not "operator error" causing the nil hits, and in fact Search
> isn't locating the file then ... well, Search is just broken.
>
> Furthermore, when using Google Desktop, I can easily and happily index
> documents on network shares. Since the majority of my documents are
> sitting on a file server not my local hard disk, that is more or less
> essential functionality. So far, I have not been able to coax Vista WDS
> Search to index anything except local drives. So at very best, Vista's
> Search is a 50% solution. I must use an additional, 3rd party tool to
> search shares anyway.
>
> I could go on ... Search might "be everywhere" in Vista; but I don't like
> the way a search is parameterised, depending on where you start your
> search. For example, I have my Pictures folder open and I'm looking at
> photos of my last holiday. That makes me think "I wonder if there are any
> plesiochronous cables runnning from Sydney out to Cootamundra? I might
> have a doc about that" so I go to the Search box staring me in the face,
> and search on "plesiochronous". But because I'm in the Photos folder,
> Search only looks for *photos* with a "plesiochonous" tag. I have to
> explicitly tell Search to widen the search to Indexed Items or whatever. I
> find that very unintuitive and cumbersome. I much prefer a scheme like
> Apple Spotlight or Google Desktop, where *every* Search filed, searches
> the global search index.
>
> For finding strings in text files, such as source code, I *always* use
> Findstr at a command prompt - it is faster, more reliable and more
> flexible (I can pipe the output to a script) than Vista Search. So
> basically, I'm still using grep, the same as I did on Unix 20 years ago
> :-)
>
> Brandon Paddock seems like a hell of a nice guy, and I'm sure he's 20,000%
> (at least) a better programmer than me; likewise the other WDS team
> members. So I don't mean to bag them, personally. But something went
> terribly wrong in Microsoft's development process - between the early
> "FindMyStuff" utility which was awesome; WDS 3.x in XP which was pretty
> good, to Search in Vista; which is, well, less than useless, it is
> positively misleading, and returns bad, incorrect data. Meanwhile - and I
> absolutely don't wish to sound like a Google advocate, but - Google
> Desktop *Just Works*, and finds the data I need, every time. So whatever
> the other pluses and minuses of the Google solution, it is satisfactory.
> And Vista Search is not.
>
> I really (really, really, really (with sugar and ribbons on it) really
> hope that Search in Vista does reach a stage where it is actually a useful
> feature of the OS. There is no requirement for an operating system to
> provide built-in facilities to make home movies, play games, or watch TV.
> But in this present Age, a core requirement for any OS is a good search
> tool. Sadly, Vista falls down badly on this score (excepting findstr).
>
> PS 2 hours later - still no sign of plesiochronous, from Vista Search.
> Even Findstr finds it in a few seconds.
>
> --
> Andrew McLaren
> amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
>

Please tell all this to FRANK Jupiter Jones and other blind MS followers who
deny any such problem even though I have pointed them out again and again
numerous times...



"Andrew McLaren" <andrew@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
news:F2CDD26A-4309-4181-AB9F-6F80768180DA@microsoft.com...
> "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote...
>> Despite Vista search being hailed (by Microsoft) as 'a main feature',
>> Vista search has bugs - such that some things it simply can not find
>> A search system that can not find 'some' things is as useless as one that
>> can not find 'any' things
>> Are Microsoft working around the clock to fix it? Will it be fixed by
>> Monday? Am I the only person that thinks this renders the whole O/S close
>> to scrap?
>
> I'm inclined to agree. I have found Search in Vista to be very unreliable,
> almost useless.
>
> I used Windows Desktop Search in XP and generally, it gave pretty good
> results; at least by WDS 3.0.1. But Search in Vista seems to have gone
> considerably *backwards* in reliability, usability and performance.
>
> To give a concrete example: On machine one, with Google Desktop installed,
> I went to my Documents folder, and with Notepad created a new, plain text
> document called "searchme.txt" containing a single word "plesiochronous"
> (I was pretty sure I wouldn't have too many "plesiochronous" docs on the
> system :). I went straight back to the desktop, clicked on the Google
> search bar and entered "plesiochronous". Google Search had found the
> searchme.txt file, even before I had finished typing the word. It had been
> indexed in near real-time, and located as I typed in the search box.
>
> On Machine 2, pretty much the same physical and software configuration, I
> went to my Documents folder, and with Notepad created a new, plain text
> document called "searchme.txt", containing a single word "plesiochronous".
> I went straight back to the desktop, and went to Start, Search. I entered
> text "plesiochronous" in the search field. I was able to finish typing the
> whole word. Then, the grey-coloured "searching" bar slowly chugged its way
> across the "Search Results in Indexed Locations". After 30 seconds or so,
> it reported "No items match your search". Hmm, okay. So I changed the
> search location from "Indexed Locations", to an explicit "Documents", and
> I also checked the "Include non-indexed, hidden and system files" check
> box. Again, the slow grey bar across the screen and after a shorter
> period, the answer "No items match your search". Finally, I checked the
> "search in file contents" just in case, and started the search again. That
> was 5 minutes ago, and it's still running. Even if it eventually finds the
> file ... it took Google Desktop about 2 seconds to find it, just seconds
> after I created the file.
>
> But this slightly artificial test was only to confirm what I've seen in
> routine daily operations, over and over: I search for a expression which I
> *know* is in there somewhere, in the ~300 subdirectories and ~14,000 files
> in my Documents folder. I can even have the file open in Word or Acrobat,
> in front of me, while I'm searching for it - still "not found"! After I
> installed Google Desktop, I could find the same files in a second.
>
> Possibly this is operator error, maybe I'm doing something wrong. But if
> so, Vista Search must be unreasonably fragile and dificult to use. I'm a
> reasonably proficient PC user - I can run all the main business and
> developer applications, configure my own network settings etc (I've read
> the iFilter API docs in MSDN; I can even debug my own kernel dumps ...
> but, that's just skiting). If the problem is that I'm doing something
> wrong, then Search shouldn't be that hard or complex to use. Google
> Desktop "just works" every time, with no special effort or consideration
> on my part.
>
> If it's not "operator error" causing the nil hits, and in fact Search
> isn't locating the file then ... well, Search is just broken.
>
> Furthermore, when using Google Desktop, I can easily and happily index
> documents on network shares. Since the majority of my documents are
> sitting on a file server not my local hard disk, that is more or less
> essential functionality. So far, I have not been able to coax Vista WDS
> Search to index anything except local drives. So at very best, Vista's
> Search is a 50% solution. I must use an additional, 3rd party tool to
> search shares anyway.
>
> I could go on ... Search might "be everywhere" in Vista; but I don't like
> the way a search is parameterised, depending on where you start your
> search. For example, I have my Pictures folder open and I'm looking at
> photos of my last holiday. That makes me think "I wonder if there are any
> plesiochronous cables runnning from Sydney out to Cootamundra? I might
> have a doc about that" so I go to the Search box staring me in the face,
> and search on "plesiochronous". But because I'm in the Photos folder,
> Search only looks for *photos* with a "plesiochonous" tag. I have to
> explicitly tell Search to widen the search to Indexed Items or whatever. I
> find that very unintuitive and cumbersome. I much prefer a scheme like
> Apple Spotlight or Google Desktop, where *every* Search filed, searches
> the global search index.
>
> For finding strings in text files, such as source code, I *always* use
> Findstr at a command prompt - it is faster, more reliable and more
> flexible (I can pipe the output to a script) than Vista Search. So
> basically, I'm still using grep, the same as I did on Unix 20 years ago
> :-)
>
> Brandon Paddock seems like a hell of a nice guy, and I'm sure he's 20,000%
> (at least) a better programmer than me; likewise the other WDS team
> members. So I don't mean to bag them, personally. But something went
> terribly wrong in Microsoft's development process - between the early
> "FindMyStuff" utility which was awesome; WDS 3.x in XP which was pretty
> good, to Search in Vista; which is, well, less than useless, it is
> positively misleading, and returns bad, incorrect data. Meanwhile - and I
> absolutely don't wish to sound like a Google advocate, but - Google
> Desktop *Just Works*, and finds the data I need, every time. So whatever
> the other pluses and minuses of the Google solution, it is satisfactory.
> And Vista Search is not.
>
> I really (really, really, really (with sugar and ribbons on it) really
> hope that Search in Vista does reach a stage where it is actually a useful
> feature of the OS. There is no requirement for an operating system to
> provide built-in facilities to make home movies, play games, or watch TV.
> But in this present Age, a core requirement for any OS is a good search
> tool. Sadly, Vista falls down badly on this score (excepting findstr).
>
> PS 2 hours later - still no sign of plesiochronous, from Vista Search.
> Even Findstr finds it in a few seconds.
>
> --
> Andrew McLaren
> amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
>

> add me to the list of unhappy index users. or FORMER index users. I've
> turned off the service.

You did a wise thing...

Wise as in things Vista fanboys are incapable of! lol

"David" <david@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:gLqdndgLV6ZDQnDbnZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Charlie Tame wrote:
>> And I thought it was just me.
>>
>> If you right click on a disk drive Icon there's another form of indexing
>> going on, seems like they really didn't want you to turn it off, but
>> unless you search constantly what's the point? If you search say once a
>> week for something you lost it takes 5 minutes with XP, with Vista the
>> ****ed indexing takes weeks. That adds up to an awful lot of 5 minute
>> sessions.
>>
>> It's even more ridiculous when the resulting search can't find anything
>> :)
>>
>>
>> Wala Wala wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:16:04 -0700, nlreeves
>>> <nlreeves@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You are not the only one.
>>> Vista search tool is BLIND. I'm looking at a file which I had to
>>> search manually, and still vista cannot find it. All this hoopla about
>>> indexing and disk thrashing that I had to endure for months was all in
>>> vain.
>>> Vista Search is totally worthless.
>>>
>>>> I have been extremely frustrated with the new, "improved" search tool.
>>>> I routinely search for dates and times files were accessed, created, or
>>>> modified. The search for "accessed" no longer exists, as near as I can
>>>> tell. What I am searching for, often, is creation, access, or
>>>> modification of system files. There have been numerous times when I
>>>> use the Advanced Search capabilities to search everything (including
>>>> hidden and system files) , it takes forever (since much of that stuff
>>>> is not indexed) and comes up blank. I take a look manually (after
>>>> jumping through all sorts of hoops to be granted access to even look at
>>>> my own files), and easily find a dozen files that fit the search
>>>> criteria.
>>>>
>>>> It may be better at searching within files (which the old search tool
>>>> only pretended to be able to do), but is is a shadow of its former self
>>>> with respect to the functions I routinely used it to perform.
>>>>
>>>> Nancy
>>>>
>>>> "JethroUK©" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Despite Vista search being hailed (by Microsoft) as 'a main feature',
>>>>> Vista search has bugs - such that some things it simply can not find
>>>>>
>>>>> A search system that can not find 'some' things is as useless as one
>>>>> that can not find 'any' things
>>>>>
>>>>> Are Microsoft working around the clock to fix it? Will it be fixed by
>>>>> Monday? Am I the only person that thinks this renders the whole O/S
>>>>> close to scrap?
>>>>>
> add me to the list of unhappy index users. or FORMER index users. I've
> turned off the service.

> add me to the list of unhappy index users. or FORMER index users. I've
> turned off the service.

You did a wise thing...

Wise as in things Vista fanboys are incapable of! lol

"David" <david@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:gLqdndgLV6ZDQnDbnZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Charlie Tame wrote:
>> And I thought it was just me.
>>
>> If you right click on a disk drive Icon there's another form of indexing
>> going on, seems like they really didn't want you to turn it off, but
>> unless you search constantly what's the point? If you search say once a
>> week for something you lost it takes 5 minutes with XP, with Vista the
>> ****ed indexing takes weeks. That adds up to an awful lot of 5 minute
>> sessions.
>>
>> It's even more ridiculous when the resulting search can't find anything
>> :)
>>
>>
>> Wala Wala wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:16:04 -0700, nlreeves
>>> <nlreeves@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You are not the only one.
>>> Vista search tool is BLIND. I'm looking at a file which I had to
>>> search manually, and still vista cannot find it. All this hoopla about
>>> indexing and disk thrashing that I had to endure for months was all in
>>> vain.
>>> Vista Search is totally worthless.
>>>
>>>> I have been extremely frustrated with the new, "improved" search tool.
>>>> I routinely search for dates and times files were accessed, created, or
>>>> modified. The search for "accessed" no longer exists, as near as I can
>>>> tell. What I am searching for, often, is creation, access, or
>>>> modification of system files. There have been numerous times when I
>>>> use the Advanced Search capabilities to search everything (including
>>>> hidden and system files) , it takes forever (since much of that stuff
>>>> is not indexed) and comes up blank. I take a look manually (after
>>>> jumping through all sorts of hoops to be granted access to even look at
>>>> my own files), and easily find a dozen files that fit the search
>>>> criteria.
>>>>
>>>> It may be better at searching within files (which the old search tool
>>>> only pretended to be able to do), but is is a shadow of its former self
>>>> with respect to the functions I routinely used it to perform.
>>>>
>>>> Nancy
>>>>
>>>> "JethroUK©" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Despite Vista search being hailed (by Microsoft) as 'a main feature',
>>>>> Vista search has bugs - such that some things it simply can not find
>>>>>
>>>>> A search system that can not find 'some' things is as useless as one
>>>>> that can not find 'any' things
>>>>>
>>>>> Are Microsoft working around the clock to fix it? Will it be fixed by
>>>>> Monday? Am I the only person that thinks this renders the whole O/S
>>>>> close to scrap?
>>>>>
> add me to the list of unhappy index users. or FORMER index users. I've
> turned off the service.

"Andrew McLaren" <andrew@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
news:F2CDD26A-4309-4181-AB9F-6F80768180DA@microsoft.com...
> "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote...
>> Despite Vista search being hailed (by Microsoft) as 'a main feature',
>> Vista search has bugs - such that some things it simply can not find
>> A search system that can not find 'some' things is as useless as one that
>> can not find 'any' things
>> Are Microsoft working around the clock to fix it? Will it be fixed by
>> Monday? Am I the only person that thinks this renders the whole O/S close
>> to scrap?
>
> I'm inclined to agree. I have found Search in Vista to be very unreliable,
> almost useless.

There's a Vista blog about "Advanced search techniques"
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...echniques.aspx,
but what's "Advanced" about not being able to find some files in Vista that
one could find in Windows 2000, 98 or 95? Oh, I forgot, Vista search is
fast even though it's flawed. Microsoft optimized its search for speed but
didn't care about being correct or complete.

The bottom line is if you work in a multi-platform environment (like Windows
and Linux), or have a variety of scientific or special file formats (some
programs even create files with extensions like .001, .002, .003, ...),
Vista file search is truly worthless since it doesn't look at "unapproved"
file extensions. "Unapproved" file extensions will never be searched or
indexed. Once you find out something isn't searched/indexed you then need
to tell Windows about that file extension so it's indexed/searched. You
have to let each file type fail (assuming you know), and then you tell
Windows about that extension. Then you do this again and again as other
filetypes are discovered (unless you're all knowing, but then you probably
don't need search). This is progress? Many users will think their search
didn't have any hits before they realize the files are really there but
Microsoft's Vista just can't find them.

Windows Vista file search is simply AWFUL, unreliable, and I don't
understand why Microsoft isn't embarrassed enough to fix it. But when has
Microsoft ever been embarrassed by bad software? Microsoft can provide
several ways of doing many things I don't need or want, but it won't give me
one 100% reliable way to do one thing I truly need: file search. I don't
need this every day, but I might as well throw away a lot of old files on my
Vista machine since Vista refuses to search them. The example I gave that
failed was finding an old Bourne shell script (a .sh file) that had the word
"uname" in it -- I had archived this file under Windows. Vista won't
index/search .sh files without some sort of software that knows how to deal
with them. I'm not sure why there isn't an option to treat all other files
as ASCII (or even binary) if they have an unknown extension. Just give me
an option that says "search all files and forget the index". Let me use the
fast search when it makes sense, but give me a way to find ANY FILE on my PC
when I need to.

It's truly unbelievable how hard it is to get Microsoft to listen

C. elegans

"Andrew McLaren" <andrew@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
news:F2CDD26A-4309-4181-AB9F-6F80768180DA@microsoft.com...
> "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote...
>> Despite Vista search being hailed (by Microsoft) as 'a main feature',
>> Vista search has bugs - such that some things it simply can not find
>> A search system that can not find 'some' things is as useless as one that
>> can not find 'any' things
>> Are Microsoft working around the clock to fix it? Will it be fixed by
>> Monday? Am I the only person that thinks this renders the whole O/S close
>> to scrap?
>
> I'm inclined to agree. I have found Search in Vista to be very unreliable,
> almost useless.

There's a Vista blog about "Advanced search techniques"
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...echniques.aspx,
but what's "Advanced" about not being able to find some files in Vista that
one could find in Windows 2000, 98 or 95? Oh, I forgot, Vista search is
fast even though it's flawed. Microsoft optimized its search for speed but
didn't care about being correct or complete.

The bottom line is if you work in a multi-platform environment (like Windows
and Linux), or have a variety of scientific or special file formats (some
programs even create files with extensions like .001, .002, .003, ...),
Vista file search is truly worthless since it doesn't look at "unapproved"
file extensions. "Unapproved" file extensions will never be searched or
indexed. Once you find out something isn't searched/indexed you then need
to tell Windows about that file extension so it's indexed/searched. You
have to let each file type fail (assuming you know), and then you tell
Windows about that extension. Then you do this again and again as other
filetypes are discovered (unless you're all knowing, but then you probably
don't need search). This is progress? Many users will think their search
didn't have any hits before they realize the files are really there but
Microsoft's Vista