Desktop Search Engines Compared
nutterButter writes "After Google created a stir with its desktop search engine, other engines gained more awareness in the public eye. Slate did a comparison of them and Google was not their top pick; Copernic was. I tried it - and am quite impressed."
Copernic is also the only one on TFA that can search Firefox.
I assume you get the picture :-)
---
Yeah, I'm like this on my blog too ;-)
It's called Mac OS X Tiger. If you've used iTunes, you know how good and how fast searching can be. It's going to be pretty awesome when it comes out.
The CB App. What's your 20?
The biggest use (and what makes it a necessity for me now) I have for a desktop search tool is searching for a webpage I partially remember visiting a few weeks ago, but need more information from. GDS indexes the content of all pages as you visit them, making finding them relatively easy - as far as I could tell (tested over half an hour), Copernic only indexed title and URL, which was of much less use.
A minor point for the geekier here - GDS can also be activated using quicksearch URLs from IE or Firefox, which is handy for those used to getting everything from one field.
is that i can only open the file i search for!
i planned to sort out my music collection - so i searched for an artist - 87 results.
can i select them all and move them to a folder in one go? no.
for this kind of thing it's useless - i wonder if i can with copernic..
Maybe it is just me, but for home users, is a tool like this really necessary?
If you do not put things in directories, and are really disorganized, I suppose it would be, but I suspect that most people are at least somewhat organized when it comes to computer files...
Then again, my perception may be skewed, since most people I come in contact with who use computers a lot are my college friends, and they are all pretty computer literate.
I've tried these so-called "Desktop Search" apps like Google and Copernic, but they're all crap. If you want serious desktop search, get something like DTSearch (http://dtsearch.com/PLF_desktop_2.html).
Only problem is DTSearch is hella expensive at $200.
But if you've got serious amounts of text that you need to search (I use it to search through 80gb of text on an external HD), its the only way to go.
Beagle is a search tool that ransacks your personal information space to find whatever you're looking for. Beagle can search in many different domains.
The latest edition of the Beagle newsletter has just been released.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
The search that comes with Windows XP is a)ungodly slow b)often unable to find what you need and c)only searches file names. It can't search within chat transcripts, e-mails, or documents. Even if it could, Windows search does a terrible job of arranging the results once they have been found. There is great potential to improve upon the current local search.
So, do you trust your OS vendor? If so, why, exactly? For that matter, do you really trust your antivirus vendor?
-- Old Man Kensey
Actually, it CAN search inside of files, contrary to your post. The results can then be arranged by size, type, folder, date, etc. Isn't that enough?
A blog like any other.
Every try using windows search to locate some piece of source code? Using Windows to find a document containing some piece of text is not very good. If you are just looking for a file named yyy or even *.jpg it is somewhat ok, but even then it has to traverse your entire directory structure.
.mp3. That is going to be alot of disk access, so I hope you defragged your hard drive lately so that the File allocation table is all residing in one section, if not it is going to be awhile.
This means that if you want to find all mp3's on your in the twenty different file sharing programs, and didn't have the foresight to organize them all into one set of directories. Than windows is going to search every file and check if it matches the extension
The google search tool (and I assume others) keep an indexed structure of your files for fast and intelligent searching.
It would be likely searching an entire SQL table for a record when really the record you want should be indexed to allow quick lookup.
This may not be an issue if microsoft and Apple get their relational file systems implemented. I am pretty sure Microsofts system is far away though, although I think I heard apple and linux are closer.
slate is already sold to washington post. . and here
All desktop searches are redundant; well, under Windows at any rate.
Simply use Google, which will have visited the web server on your compromised Windows PC- the same web server that is sharing everything on your hard drive with the rest of the world.
I bet those Linux weenies are jealous now.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
This is gonna make it really easy for your spouse to figure out what porn sites you visit....
Even the sale of Slate notwithstanding, the journalistic independence Slate had was quite admirable on the part of MS; few companies would keep a news source like that on a looser leash.
Slate was very critical of MS during the anti-trust trial, has been reasonably critical of their software (even going so far, as another user mentioned, as to reccomend Firefox).
Copernic's Privacy Policy reveals that, "Copernic Technologies, Inc. works with third parties that transmit advertisements to the Copernic Agent and Copernic Desktop Search product families and Copernic Meta."
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
I have about 6 years worth (10 gigs) of old project files sitting on my hard drive. I use X1 and think its an absolute god send. Just type in a few keywords and X1 pulls up the file. I used to have to pour through a dozen levels of directories and rely on my rusty memory to try to find files.
Please, the Mac shareware developers practically invented this genre:
Launchbar (the first)
Quicksilver The current favorite, and free.
Butler About the same as Quicksilver, more features but not as slick.