Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Finalizes Its Desktop Search Software

Posted by Zonk on from the nope-no-influences-here-none-at-all dept.

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."

54 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. 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.
      --
      http://nerdfortress.com/
    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
  2. 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 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.)

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

      Even worse if it was homemade.

      *shudder*

    3. 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!

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

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

    --
    It will happen.
    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
  4. 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.

  5. 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 MagPulse · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can you uninstall Spotlight from Tiger?

    3. Re:Whoopee! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The answer is yes... http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20050 504012104186&query=spotlight

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

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

  7. 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 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.

  8. 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?
  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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?

    --
    What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
  12. 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 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.

    2. 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

    3. 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.

    4. 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?
    5. 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.

      --
      == Jez ==
      Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
  13. Just remember by killmenow · · Score: 2, Informative

    Disable this on your IIS servers, mmmkay...

  14. 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 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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?
  17. 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)
  18. 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.

  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 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

  22. 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.
  23. 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
  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

    --
    Please help metamoderate.
  27. 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!!

  28. 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
  29. 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. :)

  30. 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.