Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Finalizes Its Desktop Search Software

Smelly Toejam writes "After a five month testing phase, Microsoft has released a final version of its much hyped desktop-search software. Major updates cited include the ability to pick and choose which files to index, and how often." From the article: "Microsoft is vying for new credibility in the multibillion-dollar Web search market dominated by Google and Yahoo--and central to its campaign is the desktop. With its Longhorn launch slated for next year, Microsoft is developing enhanced search software that combines navigation for Web and desktop files straight from the operating system. The toolbar is a step toward that goal."

244 comments

  1. Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly, is there anyone out there who is actually waiting around for this?

  2. How does it compare to Google's desktop search? by Karzz1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How does it compare to Google's desktop search? Has anyone compared them side-by-side? Alas, I don't have access to a Windows machine, so I cannot.

    --
    Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
    1. Re:How does it compare to Google's desktop search? by Stibidor · · Score: 5, Informative
      It's been a while since I tried Google's tool, so my memory of it is surely a bit foggy. The two differences I've noticed so far are:
      1. Google runs in the web browser on a special port, MS runs in Explorer, Outlook as toolbars.
      2. Maybe I haven't played around with it enough yet, but unfortunately, the MS tool doesn't seem to be capable of showing me where in the file it found my search term! It shows me a list of files it thinks are relevant, with lovely little stars indicating the level of relevance, but it doesn't show me where in the (potentially large) file, the term I searched for appears. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
    2. Re:How does it compare to Google's desktop search? by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Google Desktop search seems to be faster and index a wider variety of content. It also has the ability to view cached files in html form.

      The MSN Desktop search seems to do a better job of keeping the index consistant and up to date for Outlook. I haven't used it long enough to say. The interface looks nicer, but it is really poor as far as functionality.

      I am currently using MSN because the Google index would keep getting screwed up, but if they fix that I will switch back for sure.

    3. Re:How does it compare to Google's desktop search? by bdcrazy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The point is to not care where a file is. Then they can move everything to a server, and then to their systems so you have to pay to access everything, ie while saying it makes your life easier and more convienient. Knowing where a file is stored isn't as important as knowing how to find it which is their point.

      --
      Tonights forecast: Dark. Continued dark throughout most of the evening, with some widely-scattered light towards morning
    4. Re:How does it compare to Google's desktop search? by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Then they can move everything to a server, and then to their systems so you
      > have to pay to access everything

      They'll move items from my PC's hard drive to their servers? I don't think so.

      > Knowing where a file is stored isn't as important as knowing how to find it
      > which is their point.

      If I'm trying to find a file then it's pretty important to know where that file is, or I wouldn't be looking. I guess if I want to find a piece of music then perhaps I'd want to listen to it without caring where the search tool found it, but that's perhaps not an average search.

    5. Re:How does it compare to Google's desktop search? by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      The point is to not care where a file is.

      Have we sunk so low here that people aren't even reading the comments now before responding? Yes, we have sunk so low. RTFC!

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    6. Re:How does it compare to Google's desktop search? by Kalgash · · Score: 1

      Try reading from the grandparent again:
      "showing me where in the file it found my search term"

    7. Re:How does it compare to Google's desktop search? by ZeroZen · · Score: 1

      Okay, but what if i want to delete it?

      Or what if i'm looking for a file that's in the directory that i found that file in, (Say, quake.exe and i'm looking for the .pak files) and i look for quake but i can't find where the hell it is!?

    8. Re:How does it compare to Google's desktop search? by SenFo · · Score: 1

      "How does it compare to Google's desktop search?"

      The best desktop search engine I've used by far is Copernic Desktop Search. I was very disappointed in Google's desktop search utility.

    9. Re:How does it compare to Google's desktop search? by Ian+Peon · · Score: 1

      If you want both 1 & 2, here's a plug-in for Windows Explorer that replaces the old Windows File Search with Google Desktop Search:

      Google Desktop Search Enhancements

      Also on that page is a plug-in that makes GDS easily accessible in Outlook.

    10. Re:How does it compare to Google's desktop search? by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      Grandparent is talking about where within the matching file the search string is, not where on the hard drive the matching file is.

    11. Re:How does it compare to Google's desktop search? by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1
      Maybe I haven't played around with it enough yet, but unfortunately, the MS tool doesn't seem to be capable of showing me where in the file it found my search term! It shows me a list of files it thinks are relevant, with lovely little stars indicating the level of relevance, but it doesn't show me where in the (potentially large) file, the term I searched for appears. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
      It's very easy to see where the file is located. You see, you can scroll the output window to the right and see all sorts of details, including the name of the file and its folder. I know the idea of scrolling the contents of a window may seem like an abstract concept, but I'm sure you'll get used to it quickly.

      By the way, Microsoft's search is able to index network drives as well as local drives, which is a big bonus compared to Google's desktop search (which won't do this. You can edit the registry, but this doesn't really work all that well).

    12. Re:How does it compare to Google's desktop search? by Peeteriz · · Score: 1

      Note the difference between "where the file is" (which you answered) and "where in the file it is" (which was the question).

    13. Re:How does it compare to Google's desktop search? by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1
      Oops. Guess all that sarcasm blew up in my face ;).

      Hmf, this severely restricts the usefulness of MSN's desktop search. I do prefer this interface over Googles, but if you're not getting the location of the query, it's not all that great. I'll keep using Ultraedit's "search in files" a while yet, I guess...

    14. Re:How does it compare to Google's desktop search? by moishel · · Score: 1

      Click on the options button on the right-hand side, to the left of the help button, and select "Large Icons" view (or just press ctrl-L). This will give you snippets in each results row to show you where your search terms occurred.

      Yes: it would be nice to do the same in the preview pane.

      And for people wanting to perform various actions on the files they've found: context menus work in the results.

    15. Re:How does it compare to Google's desktop search? by Stibidor · · Score: 1

      Switching to Large Icons does give me a little preview of the file, and that is indeed useful. However, it only displays the first 150 bytes or so of the file, whereas the term I'm searching for could show up well beyond that first snippet. I've found that I can hit F4 in the preview pane to search, but then didn't I just barely run a search? Search once to find the file, search twice to find the word(s) you were looking for.

    16. Re:How does it compare to Google's desktop search? by bdcrazy · · Score: 1

      The search tool has found the file. What do you do with it? Open it with this tool or that tool to the spot where it found it?, or email it here or send it there or what not. Why would it matter where it is? Now maybe if it was on a floppy somewhere not backed up it would matter, but that is altogether different from searching i think.

      --
      Tonights forecast: Dark. Continued dark throughout most of the evening, with some widely-scattered light towards morning
    17. Re:How does it compare to Google's desktop search? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then you'd be searching for .pak files wouldn't you? or search for files related to 'quake.exe' and it should be able to find it... if it can't, then the search isn't good enough which is what they are working on, if the search gets 'good enough' it won't matter. currently, you're correct though

  3. Make sure it can exclude items... by rob_squared · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...so that parents can't find your porn.

    --
    I don't get it.
    1. Re:Make sure it can exclude items... by oKtosiTe · · Score: 1, Funny

      Or: ...so I don't keep running into my dad's porn.

    2. Re:Make sure it can exclude items... by rob_squared · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's best not to think where it comes from. Its when your mom has lesbo porn that you need to start worrying.

      --
      I don't get it.
    3. Re:Make sure it can exclude items... by DrEldarion · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, I think the far worse scenario is if you found your parents' porn.

      (Especially if it's more hardcore than anything you have.)

    4. Re:Make sure it can exclude items... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Even worse if it was homemade.

      *shudder*

    5. Re:Make sure it can exclude items... by jpetts · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Actually, I think the far worse scenario is if you found your parents' porn.

      (Especially if it's more hardcore than anything you have.)


      Worst of all is if your parents are the performers!!!

      --
      Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
    6. Re:Make sure it can exclude items... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or if it is your grandparents as the performers

    7. Re:Make sure it can exclude items... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Worst of all is if your parents are the performers!!!

      And even worse than that is if you were the result!

    8. Re:Make sure it can exclude items... by zootread · · Score: 1

      Worst of all is if your parents are the performers!!!

      put up a torrent, I love me some amateur porn.

      --
      Zoot!
    9. Re:Make sure it can exclude items... by John+Betonschaar · · Score: 1

      Well I don't know about your dad but I'm pretty sure mine's going to check what this setting to exclude c:\My Documents\school stuff\unimportant reports\drafts\xyz001 was for again...

      Not that I'm going to hear about it anyways, I guess ;-)

    10. Re:Make sure it can exclude items... by orasio · · Score: 1

      Worse than that would be if you happen to "enjoy" it.

  4. Interesting by oKtosiTe · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe this will finally put an end to the market domination of the evil Google?
    ;-)

    1. Re:Interesting by VJ42 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Google's not evil, it's a big and cuddly company, that just happens to be taking over the world. M$ on the other hand is a big, evil company bent on world domination. ;-D

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  5. Only issue is by anandpur · · Score: 4, Funny

    You need to upload your files to M$ cluster for indexing.

    1. Re:Only issue is by travellingmonk · · Score: 3, Funny

      Cool! Then I won't even have to do a search, I'll just pick up the phone and call Microsoft and ask them where my file is.

  6. Microsoft also announced... by rabblerabble · · Score: 1

    File search intergration bundled with web searches, and tabs on the browser. 90% of Windows users are too befuddled to read any further.

  7. Whoopee! by JadeNB · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Microsoft is developing enhanced search software that combines navigation for Web and desktop files straight from the operating system.
    Great. Because, my biggest complaint about Microsoft is that the Web browsing isn't tightly integrated enough with the operating system yet. Now the innards of my computer can be thrown open to exploits like never before!

    P.S. Sorry. I forgot that Microsoft is now committed to security.

    1. Re:Whoopee! by shreevatsa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah. BTW, who wants to bet on how long it will be before Microsoft asserts that Desktop search is an "integral part of the operating system", and makes it impossible to uninstall MSDesktopSearch that will come preinstalled with every copy of Longhorn?

    2. Re:Whoopee! by nametaken · · Score: 1


      Yeah, seriously. ...and there was doomsday talk when Google did it, I can't wait to see the raukus over the MS version!

    3. Re:Whoopee! by MagPulse · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can you uninstall Spotlight from Tiger?

    4. Re:Whoopee! by patdabiker · · Score: 1

      Is there a way to uninstall Spotlight on 10.4?

    5. Re:Whoopee! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    6. Re:Whoopee! by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Can you uninstall the kernel? ;)

    7. Re:Whoopee! by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1

      Sounds about as easy a process as removing Internet Explorer from Windows ;)

  8. desktop search by Pike · · Score: 3, Funny

    next time I need help finding my desktop I'll give'em a jingle jangle.

    1. Re:Desktop Search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The results are shown in "EXPLORER" not "INTERNET EXPLORER". Your default browser is used for all website requests. The built in Windows Explorer (Viewing: C:\WINDOWS\) is what displaying the search results.

    2. Re:Desktop Search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think u may be confused. It is IE not File explorer. It is in the format of File Explorer

  9. Lookout? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this a replacement for Lookout? I have been using lookout for a while now and don't know how I lived without it.

  10. It's no Spotlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The organisation of the inital results looks awful - just a list. The results aren't divided into types like Spotlight.

    1. Re:It's no Spotlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even install it? It does sort by type in the initial results.

  11. Competition is GOOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even if it's from Microsoft, competition is _always_ good. I use linux so I don't really care who releases desktop searches for windows, but I support Microsoft's and Google's efforts to make the windows desktop easier to use.

    1. Re:Competition is GOOD by zkn · · Score: 1

      Well....
      Depends on the kind of competition. Microsoft isn't exactly known for "clean" comperition.
      If it was a case of the better product winning competione would be good but time has shown that the better marketing devision seems to win.

    2. Re:Competition is GOOD by l2718 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, MSR and Google Labs are starting a great rivalry. It will be fun to sit back and enjoy the results! (or at least eat some pop-corn).

    3. Re:COMPETITION is good by DrPizza · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except that Google could provide the exact same level of integration as MS have, if they so desired. MSN Desktop Search uses documented APIs in documented ways. The extensibility interfaces it uses are open to anyone who wants to use them. If Google's search doesn't use them, that's no-one's fault but Google's.

      You'll further notice that the search bar isn't integrated into the OS. It's a separate download from msn.com. It's doing nothing that third party developers couldn't do.

    4. Re:Competition is GOOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Even if it's from Microsoft, competition is _always_ good.

      Of course competition is great. But its only good utill microsoft starts intergrating its search into places google cant or using builtin OS resources not availible to google (or other competators). So in my opinion, compitition by microsoft on microsoft OS = nooooooo good.
  12. Privacy Issue by bhadreshl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have tried the Google Desktop Search and I was not impressed with the lack of options. I know google tries to simplify things, but this was way too simple. The main problem is the lack of Access Control Options. I don't trust anything indexing all my files. It just a privacy issue I have.

    1. Re:Privacy Issue by 14erCleaner · · Score: 4, Funny
      I have tried the Google Desktop Search and I was not impressed with the lack of options.

      Unlike Microsoft, who has a truly impressive lack of options.

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    2. Re:Privacy Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a multiuser system, your fears are not without warrant. Do you really want someone or a process with higher permissions to be able to search through all the files on a system? Do you want cookies, certificates, etc... to be searchable or possibly cached? Granted that users can find these on their own, but if the index is searchable by all users, including those with lower permissions, access to a cache is probably not a good thing.

    3. Re:Privacy Issue by Ours · · Score: 1

      Yeah I get that too. Actually, I'm rarelly impressed by lack of options on anything.

      --
      "You superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons" - The Simpsons
    4. Re:Privacy Issue by bigbigbison · · Score: 1

      I too am not impressed with google's desktop search. I find copernic's to be much more usefull. I haven't tried out the msn or yahoo ones, but google's desktop search is definitly nothing to write home about.

      --
      http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
    5. Re:Privacy Issue by mike518 · · Score: 0

      well at least the google search works... Trying to find files with existing windows search is about as useful as breaking the harddrive opening and trying to find it by hand on the platter.

      --
      Mike
      I heart the RIAA & MPAA, im sure its mutual...
  13. microsoft sites by millahtime · · Score: 1

    The searching for the web would of course direct you to microsoft sites just like smart tags.

  14. Another desktop search by ralphart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...That I've been using is Blinkx, which can be found at http://www.blinkx.com/overview.php. Very slick.

  15. As far as I can see... by solafide · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I want it to search my javascript files, my html page code, and other source code files. Other than that, there all the same. When a desktop-search tool does that, I'll pay 20 dollars for it.

    Otherwise... It's MS. Better not let it send anything through your firewall!

    1. Re:As far as I can see... by youngerpants · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Simple, google desktop search with the "Larry's Any Text File Indexer". On installation you have to specify what file extensions to include in the search (e.g. *.HTML) et voila!


      Both available from the GDS page


      younger

    2. Re:As far as I can see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I want it to search my javascript files, my html page code, and other source code files.

      %!/bin/bash

      for i in *.java *.htm* *.pl (etc)
      do
      for j in `find . -name "$i"`
      grep -H $j
      done
      done

      > I'll pay 20 dollars for it.

      That'll be $20.

  16. Zero interest in this... by Otter · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...but since we haven't had a Google story today (And it's nearly noon EDT! And the only Apple "news" is from 1981! Is something broken at OSDN?):

    1) I'm so used to the minimalist Google page that the Google Toolbar banner they're running now is as intrusive as a Punch The Monkey ad.

    2) Are the new Google ads here context-driven? If so, what on earth about "Microsoft Finalizes Its Desktop Search Software" makes their system think "Meet Eritrean Singles" is relevant?

    1. Re:Zero interest in this... by Vickor · · Score: 1

      I only see the new Toolbar banner when i view it using IE....yet another reason to switch to Firefox =) Until they make a toolbar for it...then we're all screwed...sigh...

    2. Re:Zero interest in this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you could just install Adblock (for firefox) and you don't have to be confused at all. it took me a few seconds to realise what you were on about at first. i don't see many ads at all any more. one day i was at a mate's place and he was using IE on a site i'd seen earlier that day and i was almost shocked to see it plastered with ads. you just forget they're being blocked after a while.

  17. It's about time. by unk1911 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Although this is clearly a direct response to Google's Desktop Search, I feel that Microsoft should have had this built-into the OS a long long time ago! It's their own OS for crying out loud.. The default Windows OS file search function was ridiculously slow and had severe limitations.

    1. Re:It's about time. by Vidael · · Score: 1

      Not to mention it's broken.

      Windows XP's default search function won't find text in the majority of file I tell it to search through... it's ridiculous. It is _not_ hard to code a program/script to go through a plain text file and find a string.

    2. Re:It's about time. by Dr.+Mutex · · Score: 3, Informative
      Microsoft should have had this built-into the OS a long long time ago!

      They did, it's been in the OS since Windows 2000. It's called Indexing Service. Most people never learn how to use it, though.

    3. Re:It's about time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No!

      That would be unfair competition. Users are too stupid to make their own choices as to what software to use, so Microsoft should be forced to not bundle such a tool with their OS!

    4. Re:It's about time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, I think it's your machine that is broken. On the umpteen 2k/xp machines I've had to use search, it has successfully brought up matches in text files.

    5. Re:It's about time. by NetNifty · · Score: 1

      What I think it does is if it's a plain text file with a .txt extension, it will search it, but if it's a plain text file with any other extension, it won't even try.

    6. Re:It's about time. by AlexTheBeast · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you name your text files with non-standard extensions (not *.txt), then the default search leaves them alone. Here's the hack one would need to get XP's default search to search all files...

      XP: Have Windows Perform Word or Phrase Searches within Unknown Filetypes

    7. Re:It's about time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to throw some linux bashing in here...

      The current search tools on linux are pretty awful as well. If I want to find a specific pdf doc for example I can use locate if I know something about the name, unless of course I've added the doc since the last time updatedb has run, or I can rgrep for text. Either way is fairly useless compared to copernic search or google search.

    8. Re:It's about time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually been there since NT4. The MSN search makes use of it, all it was really lacking was a decent interface.

    9. Re:It's about time. by brettski · · Score: 1

      All of this would be a non-issue if Microsoft would stop renigging on it's promis of a database based files system. The said it would be in 2003, well no. It will be in yucon, well no. Heck with secondary indexers, it's just a waist of cpu cycles and disk space. Are file searches needed that often? I rarely remember the names of the files I need anyway, so what good would the search do? I more often am looking at content within the file to find what I am looking for.

    10. Re:It's about time. by DrPizza · · Score: 2, Informative

      No and no.

      It wasn't there in NT 4. The NT Option Pack provided Index Server (or whatever its exact name is, something along those lines) as one of its components. The NTOP was an add-on released a long time after NT 4 itself.

      Index Server is exensible using an API known as IFilter. Third-party filters allow the indexing of, for example, PDFs.

      The IFilter API is used by various MS search tools. Index Server is one. "MSSearch" (used for SQL Server and Exchange full text indexing) is another. SharePoint Portal Server's FTS tool is another.

      The engines of these products are all pretty similar; all seem to use BM25 as their ranking algorithm.

      However, they're all different, and they all store their indices and configuration information slightly differently.

      It's long surprised and dismayed me that MS hasn't built into Windows a decent front-end to Index Server, because it's actually a very effective and useful tool. It's just a pain in the ass to configure and use.

    11. Re:It's about time. by Kevin_Peters · · Score: 2, Informative

      Clearly, you haven't tried Beagle.

      --
      The music is all around us. I can hear it. Can you?
    12. Re:It's about time. by mzwaterski · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly the point of these desktop searches. They search the contents of the file rather than just the filenames.

    13. Re:It's about time. by jez9999 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Windows XP's default search function won't find text in the majority of file I tell it to search through... it's ridiculous.

      Right. That's because of this piece of stupidity from someone as MS: Using the "A word or phrase in the file" search criterion may not work

      ... and it's why I always use Windows Grep to search through a bunch of text files. Actually, Windows search worked identically to Windows Grep back in Win9x.

    14. Re:It's about time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or Spotlight...

      kind:pdf

      Sheez. That was tough.

      For more information:

      http://www.apple.com/macosx/tips/spotlight.html

      Enjoy!

    15. Re:It's about time. by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      Is the Indexing Service different from fastfind.exe? I think fastfind.exe might have been Office's own file indexer that would use 100% CPU, but was programmed only to do so at maximally inconvenient times.

    16. Re:It's about time. by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      I had this exact problem with ".java" files and eventually googled the same hack.

      I've also discovered since that ".asp" files are searched in a *special* way. The scripted parts of an ASP file cannot be searched whilst the markup can!

      I don't know of any work-around for this though, so I've just been using the directory search function in my editor (jEdit).

      I know there is likely a good reason... probably because the same search functionality is available on IIS websites and therefore shouldn't index the scripts. But that doesn't help me as a desktop user searching my own files! Bloody Microsoft! ;)

  18. Just remember by killmenow · · Score: 2, Informative

    Disable this on your IIS servers, mmmkay...

  19. The important stuff by zkn · · Score: 1

    What about the seachdog? How has it been improved?

    1. Re:The important stuff by Yankel · · Score: 1

      Ol' Yeller's been put down. Choked on a paperclip or something...

      --
      --- Dan
  20. Err...how often? by avalys · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Major updates cited include the ability to pick and choose which files to index, and how often

    Interesting...Apple's implementation is integrated into the filesystem layer, so it indexes everything as it is written to disk (or at least, very soon after, once I/O load has gone down).

    This doesn't seem to generate much of a performance hit, so I wonder why Microsoft is going for a different approach? Apple's seems to make more sense.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:Err...how often? by grub · · Score: 1


      Apple's approach is built into the filesystem, MS' is glued on top. They were in a rush to get out a desktop search engine and an OS retrofit would have taken a far longer.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:Err...how often? by zkn · · Score: 1

      As you yourself say: Apple's spotlight is integrated into the filesystem layer. This is a googledesksearch "killer" just software level indexing. The spotlight"killer" is gonna be in Longhorn(Or possibly be released sometime after Longhorn.

    3. Re:Err...how often? by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      "This doesn't seem to generate much of a performance hit, so I wonder why Microsoft is going for a different approach?"

      They aren't. Both MSN desktop search and the fast search in Longhorn use the built-in API calls in Windows that allow you to monitor filesystem operations. There's no need for integration into the "filesystem layer" because that functionality is already built into the OS.

    4. Re:Err...how often? by avalys · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but the fact that Microsoft is talking about letting the user specify how often indexing occurs makes it sound like they're not indexing on the fly, as content is created / changed on the filesystem, but rather on a fixed schedule.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    5. Re:Err...how often? by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      And one of the cool demos of Spotlight shows a "Smart Search" being updated the second a new file fitting the search parameters is saved on the disk.

      So if I tell Microsoft Search to update every ten minutes, I have to wait a while before I can figure out where I put that document I just saved.

      OTOH if you have it update too often, you get a performance hit.

      I really like Apple's solution better. You update the index when the file changes and only worry about indexing if a file changes. The difference is wether the OS has to poll for changes at a regular interval, vs. the filesystem notifying the OS when there's a change.

    6. Re:Err...how often? by Deviate_X · · Score: 1

      There is no option to "tell Microsoft Search to update every ten minutes". The option is to prioritize indexing, this means that indexing takes places as soon as a new file appears or is modified. By default indexing only the computer is not busy or being used.

      If you want near-instant indexing then you would turn the prioritize option on.

    7. Re:Err...how often? by fupeg · · Score: 1

      I've been using GDS for awhile, and have played with MSN's equivalent. I have complaints for both, but that's a different post. As a Mac user, I was very excited about Spotlight. I thought "finally Apple will show these guys how to do this right!" I was very disappointed.

      Spotlight is a completely file based technology. It can only index files. Apple knows this is stupid. Just look at iTunes and iPhoto. Both of these are great tools for organizing large numbers of files, but both of these tools create databases to do all their cool organizational functions. Making a search that is completely file based is basically saying that the file is the smallest unit of data that you want to deal with.

      Now I'm not saying that GDS and MSN have it right, but they also did not have the luxury of complete OS integration. MS may have this luxury with the release of Longhorn, but Apple had it (and made use of it) with 10.4. I don't really think Spotlight has any great advantages over MSN, and its only advantage over GDS is its interface.

  21. Give MS time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to copy it from Apple.

    I mean, Tiger just came out, so how can you expect MS "programmers" to copy Apple's innovations so quickly.

  22. Doesn't work by The+13th+Duke · · Score: 5, Funny

    This software was unable to find the biro on my desktop. I had to search for it manually and eventually found it on the floor behind a piece of pizza crust.

    1. Re:Doesn't work by jpetts · · Score: 4, Funny

      eventually found it on the floor behind a piece of pizza crust

      You're lucky: mine keep slipping away quietly through wormholes in space to a world where they know they can enjoy a uniquely biroid lifestyle, responding to highly biro-oriented stimuli, and generally lead the biro equivalent of the good life.

      --
      Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
    2. Re:Doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My god, you have one of these under your desk? I'm surprised you have any toes left!

    3. Re:Doesn't work by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      They write to you often then do they?

  23. Speed performance? by rkischuk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does it take less than a half hour to search a full disk drive? If so, why not wire it into the OS in a service pack? The current Win XP search capability is abysmal and borderline useless. I don't care whether the search is on the desktop or not (I'd probably prefer not), but I'd like it to work.

    --
    Seen any BadMarketing lately?
    1. Re:Speed performance? by zkn · · Score: 1

      Because this isn't an attempt at improving the OS. This is advertisment for MSN search trying to take over the search market.
      It would be considert misuse of their monopoly if they put it in a servicepack(Since it shows msn seach in a desktopverion when you search, like google's shows you a google search).

    2. Re:Speed performance? by SleeknStealthy · · Score: 1

      You just need to select index files in XP and it will be much faster. It just isn't the default.

      --
      Math
  24. We already have this... by suitepotato · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...it's part of MS Office, and it slows a machine as it constantly indexes the living fark out of your machine's docs and everything else for no better reason than MS thinks it should and that it should be part of the default Orifice install.

    I turn off this indexing feature every single time on every single machine to improve speed of use by a good 5%-10%.

    A full-depth indexing and searching service covering my entire machine would take up more space than the registry, be single massive point of failure for privacy should my machine be compromised, and a drain on my resources. If I am fairly competent at deciding where to put files and keep to that scheme, I shouldn't need to worry about indexing them.

    MS if anything should come up with a system file indexer to keep track of every copy of every .dll and other code file on a machine and note their versions, CRCs, signatures, etc...

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  25. Somebody Gotta Do It by RealityMogul · · Score: 2

    Ok, I think we'll need to draw straws to figure out who here is going to install it first.

  26. Link to the Google Toolbar by French+Mailman · · Score: 1

    I noticed yesterday that Google's front page shows a big link to the "Google Toolbar" when loaded in IE, but not when loaded in Firefox.

    1. Re:Link to the Google Toolbar by muszek · · Score: 2, Informative
      "Requires Windows 98/ME/2000/XP and Internet Explorer 5.5+"

      from toolbar.google.com. There's no point to waste a ff visit to direct them to a page that has no use for them.

    2. Re:Link to the Google Toolbar by simcop2387 · · Score: 1

      theres a firefox extension i like even better than that anyway, Googlebar extension theres also a clusty bar and a few others in there if you look around a bit.

  27. Ars review by enjahova · · Score: 5, Informative

    Arstechnica has a nice review of all the windows desktop search tools:

    http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/desktop-search .ars

    Of course it has the beta of the MS search, but a pretty good guide I think.

    --
    "how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
  28. where have i seen that before? by namekuseijin · · Score: 1

    a desktop and web search software integrated and bundled with Longhorn. Bye, GoogleDesktop and competition...

    --
    I don't feel like it...
  29. Stop the madness by RealProgrammer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft's first priority should be to close the holes in its products that let viruses, spyware, spambots, mushrooms, toadstools, or whatever grow in their customers' computers.

    This desktop search tool will just be one more thing to have to shut off.

    If left on, it will

    • slow down the system
    • form another avenue to attack the OS
    • expose private data
    • facilitate user lock-in, since the user is trained to use the Microsoft interface and not the universal file/folder metaphor
    • further separate the user from how things work

    That last point is arguably Not Completely Bad, since the machines are supposed to work for us, and not the other way around. The trouble is that it encourages the user to be lazy, putting all of their files into one big bucket. Then, when it comes time to upgrade or migrate to another machine, you've got to move all of that stuff, whether it's needed or not.

    Microsoft as a company can't stand it if someone else has a feature they don't have. Couple that with the mindset that adding a security applet or layer on top of what's there already is the way to go, and you get insecure bloatware.

    How long before Windows collapses under its own weight?

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
    1. Re:Stop the madness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How long before Windows collapses under its own weight?"

      It already did, and it was called Windows 95. And every new version since that time.

    2. Re: Stop the madness by donutello · · Score: 1

      Microsoft's first priority should be to close the holes in its products that let viruses, spyware, spambots, mushrooms, toadstools, or whatever grow in their customers' computers.

      Let me guess. You're one of those people who believe the FBI and CIA should stop doing everything they do because the #1 priority should be to catch Osama?

      Software is a complex beast. They probably have as many people working on security as the codebase can handle. You can't expect to increase productivity simply by throwing more developers at a problem because pretty soon you'll get to a point where the devs are just stepping on each others toes instead of being productive.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    3. Re: Stop the madness by RealProgrammer · · Score: 1
      Software is a complex beast. They probably have as many people working on security as the codebase can handle.

      That's not my point at all. Their mindset is all wrong. They're driven by features, because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that features are what sell. Since their focus is on generating revenue with features, and not by improving their product as a whole, you get this patchwork system of add-ons and "security features".

      Consider the "firewall" feature in Windows 2K/XP. You can enable or disable TCP/IP traffic in lots of ways, most of which are annoying to the user. They had to put that there because spambots and spyware abuse the network. But because so many legit applications need to use the network, the user ends up granting access to everything anyway.

      Instead of layering the "security feature" into the network stack, they should have done the harder job of plugging the holes that allow the spyware and spambots to install themselves in the first place. But plugging the holes would have meant disabling features (such as opening email attachments with a click), so it couldn't be done.

      --
      sigs, as if you care.
    4. Re:Stop the madness by corblix · · Score: 1
      Microsoft's first priority should be to close the holes in its products that let viruses, spyware, spambots, mushrooms, toadstools, or whatever grow in their customers' computers.

      Tell that to your Aunt Mabel, who has her retirement fund invested in Microsoft stock. She thinks that Microsoft's first priority should be to increase shareholder value. That's done by making new products that generate revenue, not working on old things to improve them.

      Sure, I wish Microsoft had the priorities you say they ought to have. But don't blame Bill; it's your Aunt Mabel's fault.

    5. Re:Stop the madness by RealProgrammer · · Score: 1

      >Aunt Mabel's fault

      No, it's the fault of short-sighted executives who care what their stock price is from day to day.

      Make good stuff and your stock price will do fine.

      Companies that are shareholder-driven are doomed to fail both their shareholders and their customers.

      Companies that are customer-driven will delight both customer and shareholder.

      --
      sigs, as if you care.
    6. Re:Stop the madness by kihjin · · Score: 1

      Microsoft as a company can't stand it if someone else has a feature they don't have.

      Tell that to the W3C...

      --
      This slashdot-related signature is a stub. You can help kihjin by expanding it.
    7. Re:Stop the madness by dioscaido · · Score: 1

      expose private data

      Actually, Google Desktop Search is the one guilty of this. It indexes the whole system, including every user's folders. With Google Desktop, user A can search for a term and through the result preview peer into the contents of user B's folder, even if A is a limited user and is normally denied access to the folder.

    8. Re:Stop the madness by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft software enables spywhere, but Google software IS spyware. Google reads your email via GMail, monitors your browsing behavior via search history & Google Web Accelerator, and likely logs searches for data on your own PC with Desktop search!

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  30. Offtopic by Timesprout · · Score: 1

    but theres a nice version of locate which runs in the windows taskbar. I cant remember what it was called anyone know?

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  31. Linux Desktop Search Alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I've been using CollectiveCortex on Linux and it works very well. A lot of useful tools built in for free which actually cost a fair bit in competing products. Should be a revamped new version out shortly apparently.

  32. Don't forget: by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    "You need to reboot your computer for these changes to take effect."

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:Don't forget: by jocknerd · · Score: 1

      Will that be after every reindexing?

  33. Is it me? by sn0wflake · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it me or is the standard Windows search utterly useless? Searching for text in files *never* return results even though I'm sure the text exist. That's why I've switches to Agent Ransack that does the job right. I'll bet this new super search enginge is nothing more than a fix to the pointless search tool in Explorer.

    1. Re:Is it me? by Anita+Coney · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I find it hilarious that Windows' built in search ignores the "Program Files" folder by default. That's where most programs store their files by default. Also it won't search subfolders by default.

      I seriously think that Microsoft WANTS its built-in search engine to suck. That way it can hype the search feature in Longhorn and get us to switch.

      Thankfully, third parties such as Google as showing us we don't need a new file system to search our own hard drive. That is forcing Microsoft to fix its own search app for free.

      Competition is a good thing, when it exists.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    2. Re:Is it me? by sn0wflake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Another funny thing about Windows is the calculator. Try to calculate 1+2*3 in standard mode and the repeat the process in scientific mode. Different results :)

    3. Re:Is it me? by AlexTheBeast · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Gesh people... this hack has been around forever. Just "Change Indexing Service Settings" in XP's search... and it will happily search through every file on your computer...

      The default XP just expects people to always name their text files either *.txt, *.doc, or whatever. For the rest of us... you need to tell it to search everything:

      XP: Have Windows Perform Word or Phrase Searches within Unknown Filetypes

    4. Re:Is it me? by sn0wflake · · Score: 1

      Sorry to sound obnoxious but that is just plain Microsoft stupidity. If I specify no files types then I'd expect it to search all files. Geesh!

    5. Re:Is it me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's standard calculator behavoir.
      Grab a normal 4 function calculator and a scientific calculator, type in the expression as stated. What do you know know different results. But the same as the Windows calc differences.

    6. Re:Is it me? by JoshRosenbaum · · Score: 1

      Another funny thing about Windows is the calculator. Try to calculate 1+2*3 in standard mode and the repeat the process in scientific mode. Different results :)

      Hmm, apparently standard mode is for normal users that don't want the order of operations to matter.
      It's doing 1+2 = 3 * 3 = 9

      where as scientific is using the standard mathematical order of operations where multiplication is more important.
      ie:
      1 + (2*3) = 7

      This sort of makes sense as math dudes might want to enter their stuff in real quick like in scientific mode.

    7. Re:Is it me? by sn0wflake · · Score: 1

      Call it whatever you like but normal mode still produce an incorrect result so why no just calculate the scientific way? I'm sure current computers can handle it without any noticeable delay.

    8. Re:Is it me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand why people have problems with Windows Search.

      People complain some filetypes aren't being searched, some folders are overlooked, and it doesn't find what it's looking for.

      I installed XP, set the Search settings, and it searches all files, in all folders, even in a mounted volume. Better, it finds everything it needs. MS could have made it faster, but I disabled the indexing (maybe that's the kicker!), so it always needs to do a filesystem-scan.

    9. Re:Is it me? by JoshRosenbaum · · Score: 1

      Standard mode follows the behavior of standard calculators. Get a non TI-85/86/92 etc calculator that is just basic, and you will see the same standard behavior.

    10. Re:Is it me? by llamaluvr · · Score: 1

      I find it hilarious that Windows' built in search ignores the "Program Files" folder by default. That's where most programs store their files by default. Also it won't search subfolders by default.

      Um, what are you using? Windows 95?

      My programs generally default configuration files to Local Settings or Application Data, and documents to My Documents.

      If anything, by not including those folders, MS is doing a service. Maybe those few lame programs that still stick things in Program Files that should not be there will start to move them in to users' folders, where they should be.

      --
      Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
    11. Re:Is it me? by sn0wflake · · Score: 1

      You forgot the TI-82 :) I'm no math genius but I just like that the chances for errors are reduced.

  34. Just one question... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is the puppy still there?! It's gots to have a puppy! EVERYONE knows that puppies are great at finding stuff. I hope Microsoft doesn't screw this up and use a kitten instead!

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    1. Re:Just one question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG IT'S A PAPER CLIP!

    2. Re:Just one question... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but at least I don't live in my parents' basement and worship a console.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    3. Re:Just one question... by emilv · · Score: 1

      The puppy were introduced in the big flop MS Bob. It's actually pretty nice :) (no, not Bob - the puppy of course!)

    4. Re:Just one question... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd love to get a copy of Bob for my 4 year old. I think he'd really enjoy it.

      What's shocking is that people consider Microsoft to be good at marketing. Yet they intentionally and seriously attempted to sell Bob to ADULTS!!! Do they even have brains on the MS campus?!

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    5. Re:Just one question... by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Funny, puppies are also good at chewing up and destroying what they found. I wonder if that was a good metaphor for Microsoft.... :-)

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  35. related resource - deskbar shortcuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    hi

    you can find a whole slew of deskbar shortcuts for microsoft desktop search at:
    deskbarshortcuts.com

    peace

  36. Why link desktop and web searches? by Mille+Mots · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I can't really see much point in integrating desktop searching with 'web' searching. For instance, if I'm looking for files on my local drive that contain the words 'weekend' and/or 'beach,' I don't really want results linking me to this or, worse yet, this.

    What I would really like to see on my lone Windows machine is something like:

    C:\> find ./ -type f -exec egrep "weekend|beach" {} \; -print
    1. Re:Why link desktop and web searches? by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

      If you install Cygwin you can do that.

    2. Re:Why link desktop and web searches? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a technical person, the distinction between those two physical locations makes sense to you. For many less tech-savvy users, they might not know the difference. Furthermore, as websites increasingly become the "applications" we work in, the line between desktop and web will further blur.

    3. Re:Why link desktop and web searches? by radish · · Score: 1
      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    4. Re:Why link desktop and web searches? by gothfox · · Score: 1

      Cygwin is too slow for it's own good because of all this userspace virtual-unix compatibility shit.

      I suppose grandparent would like his find/grep function fast, so native win32 versions of gnu textutils, which actually do exist, are much more appropriate.

  37. COMPETITION is good by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

    You missed the key word. Microsoft uses their illegal monopoly to further integrate a tool into their own operating system (which btw does give independant developers trouble). Google has to settle for integration in IE.

    Neither solution is good, and will probably end up with more people using a toolbar. These toolbars will be open to exploits, therefor they are bad.

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
  38. Thanks Microsoft! by arose · · Score: 0, Redundant
    Major updates cited include the ability to pick and choose which files to index, and how often.
    Now instead of manualy keeping files tidy users are expected to keep their search software tidy. What a major improvement in computer assisted file management...
    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  39. Easy to fix by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Cos you can simply run the indexing under a less privileged user account and set up the filesystem permissions on your files to disallow other people from reading them, keep your own documents to yourself.

    Wait. I bet you're running Windows XP with a FAT filesystem, aren't you.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Easy to fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't seen it yet, but my guess would be that they have a check to see if you are running with administrative privileges. If you aren't, the indexing service won't work.

  40. maybe soon... by tont0r · · Score: 0, Troll

    i can keep search my desktop like i have been for the past 6+ months with google desktop! oh that would be awesome! cant wait to get tabbed browsing in IE 7 like ive had for the past year or so with firefox! yay for innovation!

    its nice to see MS being the ones who have to play catchup for once. see is what happens with a monopoly. they start dragging their asses around and you end up with shit products. but atleast they are unofficially acknowledging it.

    1. Re:maybe soon... by El_Servas · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But Microsoft has a history of always having to catchup right?

      I mean, Microsoft is not a great leader, but a great follower, and then it crushes it's competition with it's monopolistic practices.

      What chance really does have GDS and the others, if MS integrates this into the OS?
      Most of the folks use the things because they are already there.

      Most of my friends use Windows Media Player because it's already there, IE because it's already there, and don't bother looking around because the're used to them, even if the features they have are not great or even insecure.

      Why spend 5 minutes opening IE (It's already there, remember?), browse to www.getfirefox.com, wait for the installable to download and *then* start browsing?
      They don't care it's more "secure", nor want to wait the download.

      It even happened to me. I was an avid ICQ user, and once, just once, tried messenger because i was on dialup and didn't want to download ICQ. Now, i don't use ICQ anymore, but messenger. Damn it. And I like it.

      So, even if a piece of program has nice features, and *it's free* (thats important), how can it compete if the average user don't care about the "niceness" of it?

      Fiu.

  41. RIGHT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With Linux and teh Mac combining to form a whopping 6% of the desktop market, it's a mystery why Microsoft doesn't just close up shop already.

    NEWS FLASH MICROSOFT, WE WON! GO HOME!

  42. Yahoo is beta testing desktop search as well by msbmsb · · Score: 1

    http://desktop.yahoo.com/

    So competition is looking up on this item, at least.

  43. It's Free by eno2001 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I noticed in the article that this new search software is being offered for free. That's quite a dangerous precedent to set seeing how people react to "free" things. For instance, think about the free iPod and free Mac Mini and free PSP offers that have been flooding the internet. You know how there are all those people who are more than willing to add links to their SIGs on various online forums just to get something "free"? Putting aside all the possible connotations of the word "free" (as in beer vs. speech), think about the power of that word. With the free iPod and other offers, spammers managed to "zombie" a bunch of humans into service.

    Microsoft even did this in the past with IE when Netscape was king of the intarweb. Netscape charged for their browser and MS put theirs out at no charge (ie. free!). It's worked for them before and they know the power that using the word free can give them. Really think about this... If, otherwise normally intelligent people, can be turned into web spam zombies by being offered the possibility of free Mac Minis and iPods... And businesses can be taken down by offering a free alternative that is already included with a computer by default... Then the offer of a free personal search tool that is also included with a computer by default is likely to make people do crazy things.

    Don't even get started on the free software movement. Think about the insanity that pervades that world. People are actually willing to work for FREE because they are abel to get software for FREE!!! It's totally insane. Then people like Stallman take hold of the power of FREE and they use it to further their cause! Can you believe it? If this whole "free" thing had never been invented/discovered, our world would be safer today. We wouldn't have to worry about people who "hate our freedoms" because there wouldn't be any such concept (free, that is). Let's stop this cancer of "free" this and "free" that and call it out for what it really is. Dangerous.

    BTW, has anyone noticed how heavily the editors have been trolling the Slashdot readers lately? I mean, seriously... Microsoft buying Redhat? That's like saying that the Republican party is going to allow Kerry a position in the Senate! Who ever heard of such a thing!

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  44. Maybe I'm getting old.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    But can someone explain to me what this stuff does that is better than:

    DIR /s PATTERN.*

    ???? Because I don't get it. Give your files meaningful names, and what more do you need? When I back up to DVD, I do a dir /s >textfile, then I grep in the textfile and I know where the file is. Why would I need yet another application??

    1. Re:Maybe I'm getting old.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Desktop search tools search for your keywords inside the files not just in the file names!

    2. Re:Maybe I'm getting old.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy crap, you mean like FIND ??? OMG, now I know why so many people have to go to university! To program 300 megabytes of graphical shit to run a 5K DOS command!!!

  45. WARNING Sticky Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I installed it, let it index overnight, tried it, and not satisfied I then tried to uninstall it. Add/Remove said it couldn't uninstall because the installer was still running. Restart stalled and the Task Manager could not be invoked, so a forced powerdown was necessary. After rebooting, Add/Remove would let me uninstall, but the uninstall progress stuck at 100% for 30 minutes with no disk activity. Task Manager could be accessed this time, though, and the "running" MSN Toolbar was killed. What a pain!

    I'm sticking with Copernic Desktop, which indexes at least as well, doesn't require IE (I use Firefox), and has a fast, integrated document viewer.

    1. Re:WARNING Sticky Software by jdub_dub · · Score: 1

      I installed it yesterday, and decided today to get rid of it quickly. I have a reasonable developer's machine and whilst indexing, I ran out of disk space. 20% through the process (after 16,000 files) MSN Desktop Search was using over 1GB of files. I don't really want a 5GB index (for 140 GB of disk space)!

      Google Desktop Search used MUCH less space than this.

      (Oh, and don't forget to mention that the search process was using 160+320MB of memory ;))

  46. Prediction... by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 1

    With its Longhorn launch slated for next year, Microsoft is developing enhanced search software that combines navigation for Web and desktop files straight from the operating system.

    Microsoft decision process:
    Security is number one for Longhorn.
    A Microsoft branded search is TOP priorty for Microsoft.
    Software issues continue to push back the release date, resources are limited.
    OK, drop the security features and keep working on the search addition...

    Let's see if I am wrong...

    --
    The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
  47. You can do that for free by WARM3CH · · Score: 1

    Copernic desktop search let's you select the extension of the files to search for each category. It has a very nice and polished interface and personally like it more than google or msn or yahoo desktop searches.

    1. Re:You can do that for free by Scutter · · Score: 1

      Copernic desktop search let's you select the extension of the files to search for each category. It has a very nice and polished interface and personally like it more than google or msn or yahoo desktop searches.

      I tried Copernic for awhile. I had very little luck with it.

      It missed over half the files (of multiple types) on my workstation and it routinely dragged my workstation to a screeching halt. I tried setting it to only index when idle, but it's never idle. There didn't seem to be an option to schedule an index for, say, 3am.

      I'd like to see a desktop search tool that first and foremost indexes *all* file names (not just ones with supported extensions), then indexes *all* supported file types (not just half the .jpgs on my system).

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
  48. permissions flaw and other Spotlight problems by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Informative
    This doesn't seem to generate much of a performance hit, so I wonder why Microsoft is going for a different approach? Apple's seems to make more sense.

    As a mac user (not "Mac nutjob"), there are several caveats to Spotlight and its indexing.

    • there can't be a one-to-many relationship, ie, no database files. This is why you don't have any access to Entourage email. Apple said "redo your storage of email", MS said "take a flying leap". I'm with MS on this one. You don't tell people to redesign their data storage because your architecture was short-sighted.
    • Indexing is pretty clever about waiting until things are quiet (and happens quickly enough even on a 1Ghz G4 powerbook) but it doesn't come with a set of built-in rules of what NOT to index, so things like web browser cache files are included in the index. If you're on battery power, that's wasted CPU cycles and disk I/O.
    • You can't exclude directories you don't have write permission to. Want to exclude all of /Developer, /Library, and /System, because most likely you won't be looking for files in there? Too bad.
    • The Spotlight index tends to get extremely fragmented within a week or two of initial use, even if there's plenty of free disk space and gigabytes of contiguous disk. It's not clear why, but after two weeks, the two spotlight index files were in over 400 fragments. A quick "on line" defrag with one of several defrag tools will fix this and it doesn't seem to get as bad from then on.
    • Smart Folders in both the Finder and programs like Mail are half-assed. For example, I made a Smart Folder that was "every file opened today", which worked -mostly- OK (there was stuff opened by the system, but that's OK). Except then I couldn't sort by atime, no matter what view I picked. It gets worse- you can't use nested conditions like you can in, say, Eudora or Firefox. Nor can you do a smart folder on arbitrary headers. It gets even worse- you can search for "read" as a boolean, not 'status' being either read, unread, replied, or forwarded. Want a smart folder that contains messages today you haven't replied to? Tough shit.
    • Want to see more than the document name? Have to click on the + every single time. There's no "show more info" view.
    • Spotlight isn't attached to any program, which makes managing its widow a royal pain in the ass.

    In short, Spotlight is nice, but infuriatingly dumbed down more than usual.

    1. Re:permissions flaw and other Spotlight problems by GizmoToy · · Score: 1

      I really like Spotlight, but you've hit on a couple of the things that annoy me as well. I mean, why in the hell doesn't Command-Q work on the full Spotlight window? Oh yea, because you can't close it. It really IS a pain to manage. The fact that I can't easily see the path is a major shortfall.

      But about your first point... couldn't MS just make a Spotlight plugin that allows Spotlight to search within its Email database file? You'd think Apple would have anticipated such a case, and included some hooks that allow such access. Maybe not, though, I'm no expert.

    2. Re:permissions flaw and other Spotlight problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Mac nutjob, let me just say you can take these perfectly valid arguments and shove them, buddy.

    3. Re:permissions flaw and other Spotlight problems by fani · · Score: 0

      Instead of bitching about it here, why don't you post this to Apple so those smart guys can fix it in the time it takes you to bitch and you'll have to bitch no more.

    4. Re:permissions flaw and other Spotlight problems by KH · · Score: 1

      I mean, why in the hell doesn't Command-Q work on the full Spotlight window?


      Command-W works though.
  49. take a broader view by cahiha · · Score: 1

    This doesn't seem to generate much of a performance hit, so I wonder why Microsoft is going for a different approach? Apple's seems to make more sense.

    Both designs have been around for quite some time. Updating the index immediately when a file changes may be OK for desktop use, but it has unpredictable consequences for other kinds of uses. The conservative and safe thing is to update on a schedule unless the user explicitly requests otherwise.

    Apple's implementation is integrated into the filesystem layer, so it indexes everything as it is written to disk

    "Integrating" any of this in the file system layer is unnecessary. All you need is update notifications from the kernel to a user mode index server, a tiny addition to most kernel, and one that Linux has supported for a while now.

  50. Hope it's better than Apple's Spotlight... by dpbsmith · · Score: 1

    ...which IMHO is a disaster.

    I've no doubt the technology under the hood is good, but the user interface is awful.

    I and many other users have noticed that Spotlight frequently fails to find files that I know are on my hard drive. I don't know how much of that is because nobody understands what, exactly you're searching for (does a query for "time" match QuickTime or not?); how much is because of poorly documented exclusions (big areas, like the Library and System folders, that are excluded by default); and how much is because it hasn't actually completed indexing when it says it has.

    It has a weird habit, even on a fast machine, of locking up the entire Finder and spinning the pizza wheel after you type about three characters. Apparently it insists on finding every file that matches the search fragment before it will let you type more characters to refine the search. The lockups can take a big fraction of a minute.

    In many cases Spotlight will fail to find files that the old Find facility would have found... and take longer to do it.

    1. Re:Hope it's better than Apple's Spotlight... by Winterblink · · Score: 1

      Before you break out the pitchforks with regards to Spotlight, I have to ask the question: have you tried the newly released 10.4.1 patch for Tiger? A LOT of the Spotlight problems that I had are now no longer an issue at all after applying the new patch.

      I'd recommend forcing Spotlight to reindex your drive after installing the patch. I imagine it would get around to doing that eventually, but do so by opening Spotlight's preferences and adding your Macintosh disk to the privacy list, then closing preferences. It will wipe clean all the indexes for that drive. Then reopen preferences, remove the disk, and close again. Spotlight will go nuts for a while as it reindexes the whole works, but afterwards things should be working as expected. Hope that helps!

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
  51. Desktop Search by EnsilZah · · Score: 1, Funny

    I've tried it, apperantly it's just a textbox that says "Right infront of you, dumbass!"

  52. Is it just me? by kissyfish · · Score: 0, Troll

    Or are other people getting the Google Ads featuring. Christian Singles Eritrean Singles (seems pretty specific) Eritrean couples (hmmmm) I see a theme

  53. Give them time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They only started talking about WinFS which would implement this at file system level in 1995, so it's understandable that they are not ready yet. However, it will ship shortly.........
    after Longhorn that is, as it will not be included in Longhorn.

    But while we are at it, as Beagle shows, you can achieve the same thing that spotlight achieves without integration into the filesystem, which is very impressive imho. And don't worry, incidently the beagle devs are working on a windows port, so maybe Windows will really get something similar to spotlight soon.

  54. Eritrean Guys & Gals by msbmsb · · Score: 1

    The ad about multiple sclerosis (MS) I can understand, but the Italian travel and Eritrean single ads I just don't get. I don't see any keywords or related keywords that would be triggering those particular ads, unlike the MS one.

    1. Re:Eritrean Guys & Gals by Otter · · Score: 1

      Eritrea and Italy are connected, I suppose -- maybe the Google algorithm confuses "Microsoft" with "Mussolini"?

  55. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally I think it would be very convenient together with IE and the Windows Media Player, both of which are an integral part of any Windows server.

  56. Welcome to last year by netsavior · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Between this and tabbed browsing, MS will be up on all the latest trends of 2004(and earlier)! We are so proud of you guys!!

  57. Try it out and you will care. by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The thing about these Desktop search features is that you don't think they are worth all that much until you acutally start using them. Being a Mac user didn't sit around holding my breath waiting for 'Spotlight'. I Installed OS.X 10.4 mainly in the hope for more stability, obtimization and bugfixes. Now that I do have 'Spotlight' at my fingertips I can not tell you how much time it saves to just hit [Command]+[Space, inputing the name of a file, folder, Application etc.... scrolling down the list with the arrow keys and hiting [Enter]. Compare this to clicking your way through an endless sequence of directories or menus or trying to find what ever it is you want on an overcrowded desktop. Desktop searching is easily one of the best time savers I have yet come across. I imagine this applies equally on a Windows or Linux boxen.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
    1. Re:Try it out and you will care. by Omniscientist · · Score: 1

      Definitely. I require a good search program/function to locate random crap on Linux; its hard to keep track of the various library files in lib32 lib64 /usr/lib32 and /usr/lib64.
      I'm sure KDE and Gnome have their own search thingy, but I'm fine using "locate filename". Its really really fast, but you have to put in the exact filename or you'll get a thousands of files that bear any resemblance to it. Only thing that sucks is that once in awhile you have to do a "locate -u", but I really don't need anything more; it serves its purpose well.
      Of course, locate is on about any Unix, so OS X has that too, although I'm sure Spotlight is a much better utility for searching (OS X's search bar in Finder always worked very nicely for me).

    2. Re:Try it out and you will care. by Dolda2000 · · Score: 1
      Compare this to clicking your way through an endless sequence of directories or menus or trying to find what ever it is you want on an overcrowded desktop.
      Of course, I don't expect others to follow my example, but this is one of the foremost reasons as to why I tend not to be using point-and-click GUIs. With CLIs, you haven't needed to do that, ever. Of course, the learning curve may be steeper, but since your possible actions are layed out linearily (rather than hierarchically as in a GUI), you save a lot of steps when using a CLI.
    3. Re:Try it out and you will care. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Linux has had "locate" for years. That said, Spotlight is nicer because its index is updated on every disk write, not by a cron job.

      I do like the idea of this feature, especially the "search folders" thing. I probably would use it, but not very much. I can certainly live without it.

      Why?

      I don't use Gmail, either, except for backup. What I found while I was trying "Search, don't sort" compared to my own maildrop-based server is this:

      - I can "sort" things pretty well. My .mailfilter isn't very long, but everything goes where it's supposed to go. I have maybe 10-20 folders, which is really all I need, and drag-n-drop is nothing when I'm already reading the email anyway.
      - When I need to find something recent, Thunderbird's search function is easy enough, and doesn't take too long, even on fairly large IMAP folders.
      - I never need to find anything too old or I'd already have sorted it, either manually (while I read it) or automagically (with the filters).
      - I would tune "searching" to my needs anyway, with saved searches and such, just as much as I would tune

      On my desktop, I take the same attitude, only more so. I can type ~80 wpm, so I use bash for a file manager. It never takes me more than two or three clicks to find some nice place to save a file, and I can go through this "endless" sequence of directories or menus in about as much time (using tab-completion) as I imagine Spotlight taking. Plus, once I'm there, that's where my "current directory" is, my pwd. It's a context, and I usually am working within a context.

      Since everything that I use a lot is sorted so well, Spotlight really only helps when I don't know where something is, which is so rare that I can afford to wait a few minutes.

      Now, I probably would use desktop searching anyway, but only if it's done the Reiser way. I want to be able to do something like "cd '/search/a few keywords'; ls" and see a list of symlinks to the relevant files, sorted by relevancy, maybe with a number attached to the front to allow multiple copies of the same filename. I want symlinks so that I know where the file actually was, and so that I can use this from any app. Looking for a word-processing-type doc which contains the word "goldfish"? Go to OpenOffice's "open" dialog, type "/search/goldfish" as a filename, then you can browse through it like an ordinary folder, no need to bodify OpenOffice -- only to add a plugin to the search functionality for sxw files.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    4. Re:Try it out and you will care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You aren't understanding the problem, at all.
      If you already know where the file is, you can just type the full path into your file browser, just like you would with a CLI. But how do you locate a file when you don't remember where you put it? If you memorize the full path to every file you might every want, you wouldn't need a search utility, would you?

      The CLI version of searching for a file:
      cd /most-likely "hmm nope"
      cd /2nd-most-likely "hmm maybe"
      cd /2nd-most-likely/this-looks-promising
      cd /2nd-most-likely/this-looks-promising/docs ...

      Is that really faster than clicking? I doubt it.

  58. Is it me... by trudyscousin · · Score: 1

    ...or is the ability to selectively index file system objects just a way to avoid the long initial indexing process that would otherwise take place, as it does in Apple's Mac OS X 10.4?

    If it is, I think it's a rather short-sighted "feature." You wouldn't necessarily want to index your system files, but it seems to me that other files you choose not to index are the ones you're bound to want to search some day, some time.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, write technology blogs.
  59. i made it crash immediately by promantek · · Score: 1

    i typed korean into the search box and it immediately crashed the language bar, explorer, and MSN search.

    XP's foreign language support could be improved. my mac handles it much better. don't know about linux...

  60. Appears to be Buggy by duerra · · Score: 1

    I uninstalled Google's desktop search and went to give this one a shot. However, after I installed it, it said that the search failed to start and to uninstall and reinstall it again. I did so, only to be presented with the same message yet again. When I tried to manually invoke the indexing, the only thing it would index is subdirectories of "My Documents".

    It looks like Microsoft has dropped the bomb yet again. At least, for me....

  61. I see you read the dev docs by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Yeah. BTW, who wants to bet on how long it will be before Microsoft asserts that Desktop search is an "integral part of the operating system".

    I see you've been reading about WinFS.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  62. Copernic Destop Search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I've been using this for the past half year and it works fantastically well. It had all the features that was missing from Google.

    It integrates very well with Outlook, supports firefox, is extensible by allowing the addition of new filetypes, very fast, and has a slick interface. I must use it dozens of times a day.

  63. Can you choose the database folder? by ...+James+... · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know if you can choose the database folder location? The beta is fixed to c:\documents and settings\... My c: drive is just about out of space.

  64. Can we trust those optional plug-ins vendors? by aggles · · Score: 1

    I went to the MS site and considered downloading the new search tool. There was a whole list of "partners" offering plug-ins to the search tool so I could index other types of files. I have enough trouble trusting MS - now they are asking me to trust all the plug-in vendors to not abuse me. No thanks MS! I'll stick with my Google Desktop search.

  65. Find it by McGiraf · · Score: 1

    They did not test for five month, they tested for one month and then it took four month to find the executable on the drive ... mmm

  66. you can do it in windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can do it natively in windows if you install Services For Unix (SFU, free download from microsoft).

  67. MS could make it work the same way Apple does by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    couldn't MS just make a Spotlight plugin that allows Spotlight to search within its Email database file?

    Kind of. The way Calendar (and I think Mail) cheatss to make this work is to create a file in a hidden directory for every contact/calendar/mail. Now note these files do not actually have to have content in them - they can be empty, they just need to exist so Spotlight can "index" them. When it does then the metadata rreader can look in the real store.

    So it's a bit of a hack but at least it's not all that detrimental to storage.

    Apple may add in support later for finding parts in large files though, I think it's pretty inevitable as a next step as many things could make use of it.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:MS could make it work the same way Apple does by ian+mills · · Score: 1
      This is explained in detail in the ArsTechnica review of Tiger.

      Its iCal and the Address book that do this, Mail just stores messages as individual files.

  68. Useless! by Sierpinski · · Score: 1

    All that computing power, and it still can't find my car keys. They were on the desktop, after all.

  69. Let me check something here... by truthsearch · · Score: 1

    Hang on, let me use Spotlight to search my new Mac to see if I have any more info on this...

    Nope, don't care.

    1. Re:Let me check something here... by Winterblink · · Score: 1

      Yet you cared enough to read at least the article posting, and you took time to post a reply.

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
  70. Um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the hell is a "deskbar"?

  71. Stup thees medness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meecrusufft's furst preeurity shuoold be-a tu cluse-a zee hules in its prudoocts thet let furooses, spyvere-a, spembuts, mooshruums, tuedstuuls, oor vhetefer groo in zeeur coostumers' cumpooters.

    Thees desktup seerch tuul veell joost be-a oone-a mure-a theeng tu hefe-a tu shoot ooffff.

    Iff lefft oon, it veell

    * sloo doon zee system
    * furm unuzeer efenooe-a tu etteck zee OoS
    * ixpuse-a preefete-a deta
    * feceelitete-a user luck-in, seence-a zee user is treeened tu use-a zee Meecrusufft interffece-a und nut zee uneefersel feele-a/fulder metephur
    * foorzeer seperete-a zee user frum hoo theengs vurk

    Thet lest pueent is ergooebly Nut Cumpletely Bed, seence-a zee mecheenes ere-a sooppused tu vurk fur us, und nut zee oozeer vey eruoond. Zee truooble-a is thet it incuooreges zee user tu be-a lezy, pootteeng ell ooff zeeur feeles intu oone-a beeg boocket. Zeen, vhee it cumes teeme-a tu upgrede-a oor meegrete-a tu unuzeer mecheene-a, yuoo'fe-a gut tu mufe-a ell ooff thet stooffff, vhezeer it's needed oor nut.

    Meecrusufft es a cumpuny cun't stund it iff sumeune-a ilse-a hes a feetoore-a zeey dun't hefe-a. Cuoople-a thet veet zee meendset thet eddeeng a secooreety epplet oor leyer oon tup ooff vhet's zeere-a elreedy is zee vey tu gu, und yuoo get insecoore-a bluetvere-a.

    Hoo lung beffure-a Veendoos cullepses under its oovn veeeght?

  72. Linux Search Options by killtherat · · Score: 1

    What about our linux indexing options?
    I've looked at Beagle, but it seems to require the whole mono install (haven't gotten around to that yet), and some kernel patching, meta info enabled file systems, and doesn't quite help when dealing with NFS mounted home directories.
    Are there any other choices?

  73. Huh? by twosmokes · · Score: 1

    Why is MS making a desktop search tool? They ARE the desktop. Why don't they just improve the Windows search tool?

  74. Search?? by jrushton · · Score: 1

    I dont have any files you insensitive clod!!

  75. Along the Same Lines by Analogy+Man · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    With its Longhorn launch slated for next year

    Haven't MS lock-ins been waiting for next years release of "Long-in-the tooth-before-it ships" for about 4 years?

    --
    When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
  76. free download in my ars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That free download that your are talking about is broken since JANUARY at this point you have register have passport and give a credit card info - then they will ship you a CD !

  77. Comparison To Spotlight by mgbaron · · Score: 1

    I am a mac user and of course I am seeking some sort of comparison to spotlight.

    Has anyone used both? Are there any articles on this out there?

  78. GDS 1 GB index by Flamesplash · · Score: 1

    I'd be curious as to the size of MS's indexes.

    I was trying to free room on my 36GB laptop HD and discovered GDS taking 1 GB of disk space for it's index's. On my desktop that'd be fine, but it's way too much for my laptops small hard drive. though I then turned around and installed 4GB of WoW...

    --
    "Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
  79. If MS bundles Search with IE by lcsjk · · Score: 1
    If MS bundles a search function into IE, it will become the same "standard", just as IE became the standard when they bundled it with windows.

    If this happens, and if IESearch works easily, then Google will slowly be replaced on he Desktop, just Like Netscape was replaced. (By standard, I mean most used by default, good or bad)

  80. Could someone google me a few links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm all hyped out, can't even press a google button, so can someone copy the reference above and return me a list of googlized links on ms search - thanks

    So what does it do that "locate" does not? Or is this just another case of MS followingLinux around again.

  81. It actually supports multiple users, for one thing by Kagami001 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sorry, this is more of a Google search bash than a comment on MS's, since none of the other desktop search utilities have this problem, either:

    "Google Desktop Search can be installed under only one Windows username per computer"

    Pretty sad, really. Google may produce nice web apps, but they apparently have no clue how to program for Windows.

    Maybe they're not bothering to learn Windows programming because everybody will be using GoogleOS in a few years anyway. :)

  82. They still can't implement one stupid option... by HerculesMO · · Score: 1

    I want to index at 3am... why can't they just let me set a @#%@#$@#ing time?!?!?!?!?!??!

    Morons. All those brilliant engineers and they can't figure out simplicity.

    --
    The price is always right if someone else is paying.
  83. It's free ... by Das+Auge · · Score: 0

    and I still don't think it's worth the price.

  84. How does it compare with Copernic? by theurge14 · · Score: 0, Informative

    Google Desktop Search pales in comparison. Copernic really deserves to be mentioned more than it has.

  85. No Thanks by uberjoe · · Score: 1

    I've got ls, grep, whereis, and locate. They seem to work okay.

    --

    The days of the digital watch are numbered.

  86. Desktop Search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to use google. Compared to google this is much better solution. I like the filters add-ons capability. Adobe already has a filter for searching pdfs and so does some third party vendors with filters for chms, xml and other formats. You can also create shortcuts which I think is cool. The problem I see is that it only works with IE which I dont use very often. I think if MS selects the default browser to show the results I think I will use this toolbar.

  87. Why/usefullness/end users/UI by B5_geek · · Score: 1

    I am honestly trying to wrap my brain around why "desktop searching" is such a big deal, and I can only think of a few possibilities.

    a) MS will copy Gnome in future versions and users will be stuck with Spatial file navigation.
    - rendering any file/folder deeper then 3 levels a nightmare to get to.

    b) Mom&Pop Users have become such cattle that they refuse to learn how to find stuff that they download or save, and search companies see $$ with all those helpless Baby Boomers now that the geeks have moved out of the home (or they are now in nursing homes and we got kicked out).

    c) Through a magical process that has eliminated the need for human intervention and good IDv3 tags, these new searches have indexed all the lyrics to your MP3/movie collections so you can now search your collection for:

    "That song with the girl who tries to act like an '03 version of Madonna"

    "that tune that had "some day I'll get laid" in the chorus".

    Programs like iTunes that are a Db are fine and good, but only if all the data needed to search is there in the first place.

    Teaching end users proper file structure will last a lot longer then this hand-holding, because at the end of the day the folks being "helped" are still idiots.

    Lets just give them a remote controll, and scroll the programs/files on the PC like the TV-Guide does for thier TV shows. "OOh, freecell is on at 7:30!"

    -------------
    c:\mp3\rock\ACDC\Who Made Who\ACDC - Shook me all night long.mp3

    Result: music (to some)

    Start -> New Search -> Music -> ACDC -> Who Made Who -> Shook Me all night long.

    Result:
    Would you like to buy ACDC music online?
    Are you interested in an ACDC Concert?
    Search Ebay for ACDC stuff?
    Would you like to know who made you?
    Are you searching for God?
    Would you like to meet others who have bad taste in music too?
    Are you stuck in the 80's and need help?
    Do you want $$ to get out of your parents basement?

    yeah I can't wait to see the financial models that predict Desktop Searching being profitable.

    A little education sure will go a long way to avoiding pain.

    Yes I am biased, I hate stupid people. Can somebody please help me to understand WHY?

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
  88. Other stories get the same set of ads by msbmsb · · Score: 1

    Seems like some are contextual, others aren't. I get the Eritrean / Christian dating ads on other stories.

  89. One small comment? by Ecko7889 · · Score: 1

    Isn't this supposed to be when you go Start Menu> Find> Find Files? Did I miss something here. This is supposed to be implemented into Windows?

    --
    $sig$
  90. I just used it, and its quite good.. by dwipal · · Score: 2, Informative

    So M$ bashing aside, i installed the app. and used it, and i found it quite good. Its too early to say a lot, but have surely made me switch atleast for evaluating it.

    Here are the main advantages i found over google desktop search:

    1. Its an application, so dosent open browser pages for search.
    2. It has search-as-you-type
    3. It has an awesome support for shortcuts, i have programmed all my firefox keywords in search desktop
    4. It has a very good feature for previewing the documents in search application itself, so you dont have to open it at all (Preview of office docs. is disabled by defualt, u will have to add the extensions).
    5. You can change the default web search engine to google, so dosent suck that much. It also dosent pop IE, uses the default browser.
    6. You can start applications from it by creating shortcuts.

    So basically, this feels more like a decent "application" than just a "web page", and has a few really neat tricks for keyboard users.

  91. Reviews are almost useless by Nik13 · · Score: 1

    Reviews are nice, but so far, all of the search apps I've tried had serious limitations, and they never seem to be mentionned in any of those reviews. They only seem to scratch the surface.

    What they index: some make use of the installed 3rd party IFilters, some just don't-like GDS (although they have their own extensions now). It's pointless if it only indexes a small portion of your files.

    What you can search: PUNCTUATION or SYMBOLS!!! That's by FAR the biggest limitation of those apps. Ever tried to search for a chunk of code/script/css or something like it? Most just strip everything else than the letters (sort of like searching on google). That alone makes the whole thing mostly worthless to me. I've tried them all (MS Desktop Search, GDS, Coppernic, X1, ...) and none of them could do that (even tried some document indexing/storage systems). And very few would actually index "code" files.

    Some can't (or not easily) index mapped drives (over network). Some only seem to work for a single user. Lots of issues like that...

    It's nice to have something that can index my email, word documents or EXIF/IPTC info, but quite honestly, I don't use those features at all (and I already have other apps that do it anyways that I don't use either). That's the stuff those reviews seem to cover mostly, and all seem to do a half-decent job at it.

    These apps will hopefully mature and get more useful features. Like perhaps central/shared indexes? I have several gigs worth of stuff on a server which is mapped on several workstations. Even if the app can search it (or be forced/tricked into doing it), do you still want several PCs indexing many many gigs of stuff across your LAN? My workstations * size of documents makes about 200GB of data to index over the network (and it's really redundant). If you format (or dual boot) then you'll have to reindex everything again (no ways to back the indexes up AFAIK). That's why I'm using a homemade solution using the old MS Indexing Service (and it also searches some SQL tables on the same page). One index kept on the server, only need to index the data once.

    I'd like other functions like indexing/searching SQL servers, FTPs, shares, LANs, intranets, ... but I know that's asking a bit much.

    If GDS could make use 3rd party IFilters and search code (text with symbols and punctuation) then it would be a invaluable tool. Until then I have no use for it and will stick to my (better imho) homemade solution :(

    --
    ///<sig />
  92. Re:Conversation with a moron, Paul Thurrott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh great expert in copyright, isn't the above a violation of Thurrott's copyrights?

    Isn't that a bit hypocritical? Or is it only Bonch that is allowed to highlight hypocrisy regarding copyrights on /.?

  93. iso by jlebrech · · Score: 1

    Now you can find the linux iso you want to install on top of windows much more easily.

  94. Submarine by Dolda2000 · · Score: 1
    How funny that they decided to integrate web searches into this desktop search tool. I'm guessing that now that MSN Search will be integrated into the Windows desktop, we might see an otherwise unexpected drop in Google's traffic.

    Isn't this suspiciously similar to how Internet Explorer took market share from Netscape?

    "Oh, I'm sorry. MSN Search is so tightly integrated into Longhorn that our customers cannot use Google without crashing Windows. That's why we're blocking Google by default in the Longhorn firewall. No other reason."

    1. Re:Submarine by dwipal · · Score: 1

      Actually, you can change the default search engine to google. Also, it dosent open IE only, but opens the actual "default" browser (firefox).

  95. Not falling for it. by certel · · Score: 1

    'What ever Google does I can do better!' -- What a joke.

  96. who cares? by SolusSD · · Score: 1

    Google already has it available. As I write this I am using MACOSX Tiger with spotlight, and when I get to work tomorrow I'll have Beagle and Kat (gnome and KDE respectively) at my disposal. There is nothing revolutionary about this and its hardly news that m$ would be ripping this off.

  97. It wiped out my data directory by unk1911 · · Score: 1

    I can not believe what happened -- I installed the Microsoft desktop search engine today and was playing around with it, setting various starting points for the indexing. The last marker I set it at was the root of my data directory. For some reason it would only scan about 600 files and then stop (I had about 18000 files there) So i figured maybe I should delete the temp index directories that it created in an effort to get it to start fresh. When I did that the desktop search application crashed and so I tried to start it up several times. Sometimes it would actually stay up for a while and then crash when I would get ot the settings page.

    Then I got tired of it and decided to go back to what I was doing before I got mixed up with this piece of shit. Before I know it, my editor pops up a message saying the file I was modifying has been deleted! WTF? I look at my c:/data directory and realize it's fucking gone. I could not believe my eyes.

    I have been undeleting my files ever since :( ... And so to the genius who engineered this piece of shit -- all I have to say is FUCK YOU and FUCK YOU again, for ruining my beautiful afternoon/evening and fucking up my files.

  98. Mod Parent UP by objekt · · Score: 1

    Mod Parent UP

    --
    -- Boycott Shell
  99. Fuck off you Maczealot by Sebhelyesfarku · · Score: 0

    Ya Macfag!

  100. Yea you live on the street ya cocksuckin' hooker by Sebhelyesfarku · · Score: 0

    Suck my dick, bitch!

  101. Linux Search - Collective cortex, Nariva, Terrier by Tincan2k · · Score: 1

    Collective cortex - Java based, but not open source, http://www.collectivecortex.com/ Nariva - Java based, GPL, http://nariva.sourceforge.net/ Terrier - Java based, MPL, http://ir.dcs.gla.ac.uk/terrier/

  102. Re:It actually supports multiple users, for one th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tried using GDS once (about 2 months ago).

    Let's just say that it's only suitable for indexing less then 1000 items (okay, maybe 10,000).

    On my laptop, a conservative estimate puts me at 100k emails and 100k files that would need to be indexed.

    GDS basically fell over with a heart attack after eating up all of my CPU/memory for a few days. Most definitely not ready for the power users.

  103. Re:Conversation with a moron, Paul Thurrott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, still pissed that someone pointed out the downright moronic, hypocritical, high-school level mental justifications of idiotic pirates who think they're entitled to pirate anything they want?

    LOL

  104. Prepare to be assimilated by deetsay · · Score: 1
    --
    "The looser the waistband, the deeper the quicksand", or so I have read.
  105. Re:Conversation with a moron, Paul Thurrott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, just pointing out the fact that bonch is a liar, hypocrite and troll.

    YMMV