here's the comment area for today's blog post found at
http://zabkat.com/blog/desktop-search-precautions.htm
blog: the misunderstood windows search
Moderators: fgagnon, nikos, Site Mods
I'm thinking this blog was given the wrong title... back in 1942 Albert Camus wrote The Myth of Sisyphus, wherein he formulated (in typical French defiance of the Germanic Nietzsche) a defence of Hope in a world of absolute Hopelessness, stating "The struggle itself [...] is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
Power Users have been conditioned by experience, education, and worthy advice to dismiss MS's attempts at helping them find things, and have since time immemorial turned to 3rd-party applications to soothe the savage itch (from the ever-popular Agent Ransack/FileLocator Pro variants, to every file manager on the planet creating its own bespoke search-algorithm.).
And now, Sisyphus (Nikos) is appealing with a Mueslix/Granola-esque zeal that we should go back to nature and take a more homogeneous two-step approach to finding stuff (and they consider me nuts for trying to introduce a little free-thinking in a world of control-freaks).
I've been playing with this hybrid-idea for the last month or so, and I'm still not sold. I understand the concept, and can see superficial benefits here and there, but (just like with a Cancer operation) I can't shake the surgeon's nagging doubt that he didn't quite cut away all of the offending tissue the first time, and so feels the constant need to "go back in" just to be safe.
The trouble is WDS comes with caveats - lots of them ("whole words only, local drives only, must use Indexing", etc, etc.), whereas the whole point of 3rd-party programmes was that they all sought to (specifically!) eliminate the caveats and present a single reassuring consistent reliability to their results, thus earning the trust of the power-user. But the really weird part is that x2's interpretation of WDS results aims to integrate them into the ever-useful scrap-container paradigm (which is a fine idea, but...) - the only decent thing about WDS on Explorer is how it graphically highlights the keyword-results in situ thus making it immediately clear to the user exactly why something was flagged in the first place, rather than in the scrap-container I'm using my eyes to filter through the results with nothing but my brain to help me figure out why an object is there. Using Robust Search, since I'm the one who defined the parameters, I instinctively know why something is there, and thus need not suffer momentary bouts of mystical confusion and clutter as I'm so prone to anyway.
If I must assume the original Sisyphus to be happy (that is, WDS to be a "good thing") before I can fully appreciate its hidden gifts, then I'm afraid I may have been too negatively conditioned by the cruel cruel world of desktop search up to this point to take it seriously - and I inevitably feel the need to click the "Use Robust Search" button no matter what sweets WDS may superficially promise - it just doesn't "feel" complete without x2 properly verifying the results first - as I know I can trust those results without any second-guessing.
And no matter what anyone will say, all power-users know that Windows Indexing Service is best treated like a mother-in-law... kept in a home as far away as possible, without a hope of ever being allowed to move in and live under the same roof and eat at the same table as the rest of us.
There is a reason Camus viewed the world with an overwhelming pessimism (without the sugar-coating self-aggrandisement of Sartre) in 1942, and any attempt at using WDS these days to foment "Hope and Optimism" is - ultimately - the embodiment of Sisyphean/Tantalusian deprivation all rolled into one - for the world really hasn't changed as much as the optimists claim it has in the intervening 70 years.
(I do so love a good stab at anti-blogging on a Sunday morning.
)
Power Users have been conditioned by experience, education, and worthy advice to dismiss MS's attempts at helping them find things, and have since time immemorial turned to 3rd-party applications to soothe the savage itch (from the ever-popular Agent Ransack/FileLocator Pro variants, to every file manager on the planet creating its own bespoke search-algorithm.).
And now, Sisyphus (Nikos) is appealing with a Mueslix/Granola-esque zeal that we should go back to nature and take a more homogeneous two-step approach to finding stuff (and they consider me nuts for trying to introduce a little free-thinking in a world of control-freaks).
I've been playing with this hybrid-idea for the last month or so, and I'm still not sold. I understand the concept, and can see superficial benefits here and there, but (just like with a Cancer operation) I can't shake the surgeon's nagging doubt that he didn't quite cut away all of the offending tissue the first time, and so feels the constant need to "go back in" just to be safe.
The trouble is WDS comes with caveats - lots of them ("whole words only, local drives only, must use Indexing", etc, etc.), whereas the whole point of 3rd-party programmes was that they all sought to (specifically!) eliminate the caveats and present a single reassuring consistent reliability to their results, thus earning the trust of the power-user. But the really weird part is that x2's interpretation of WDS results aims to integrate them into the ever-useful scrap-container paradigm (which is a fine idea, but...) - the only decent thing about WDS on Explorer is how it graphically highlights the keyword-results in situ thus making it immediately clear to the user exactly why something was flagged in the first place, rather than in the scrap-container I'm using my eyes to filter through the results with nothing but my brain to help me figure out why an object is there. Using Robust Search, since I'm the one who defined the parameters, I instinctively know why something is there, and thus need not suffer momentary bouts of mystical confusion and clutter as I'm so prone to anyway.
If I must assume the original Sisyphus to be happy (that is, WDS to be a "good thing") before I can fully appreciate its hidden gifts, then I'm afraid I may have been too negatively conditioned by the cruel cruel world of desktop search up to this point to take it seriously - and I inevitably feel the need to click the "Use Robust Search" button no matter what sweets WDS may superficially promise - it just doesn't "feel" complete without x2 properly verifying the results first - as I know I can trust those results without any second-guessing.
And no matter what anyone will say, all power-users know that Windows Indexing Service is best treated like a mother-in-law... kept in a home as far away as possible, without a hope of ever being allowed to move in and live under the same roof and eat at the same table as the rest of us.
There is a reason Camus viewed the world with an overwhelming pessimism (without the sugar-coating self-aggrandisement of Sartre) in 1942, and any attempt at using WDS these days to foment "Hope and Optimism" is - ultimately - the embodiment of Sisyphean/Tantalusian deprivation all rolled into one - for the world really hasn't changed as much as the optimists claim it has in the intervening 70 years.
(I do so love a good stab at anti-blogging on a Sunday morning.
)the mistake microsoft did with older WDS versions was that even simple text files (e.g. CPP/LOG/INI what have you) were not indexed 'because there was no appropriate filter installed'. Nowadays everything works as it should
also you must make a distinction between content and attribute search. Most of the 3rd programs you mention just search for filenames, the real time gain comes from searching text in files. WDS really flies here
as for the whole words limitation, that is true for content searches. For filenames and other file attributes I use a slower WDS variant that can search for any part of the string, search for brackets and whatever else's missing from content search.
also you must make a distinction between content and attribute search. Most of the 3rd programs you mention just search for filenames, the real time gain comes from searching text in files. WDS really flies here
as for the whole words limitation, that is true for content searches. For filenames and other file attributes I use a slower WDS variant that can search for any part of the string, search for brackets and whatever else's missing from content search.
You'll note that I specifically did not mention the (otherwise popular) "Everything" engine, which is indeed limited to filenames - I was not limiting myself to "freeware", in much the same way as x2 Lite does not provide content search either. People like "Everything" because it's simple, fast, and doesn't require jumping through installation hoops - but if you've ever played with FileLocator Pro for any length of time, you'd see that the ecosystem does not wholly depend on the limitations of freeware to satiate its thirst. And I doubt any self-respecting File Manager's in-built search would rule out content-awareness.nikos wrote:also you must make a distinction between content and attribute search. Most of the 3rd programs you mention just search for filenames, the real time gain comes from searching text in files. WDS really flies here
Content-awareness is also not especially a wonderful thing when it's "not asked for" - it tends to bring up things I could care less about and only serve to make me waste time figuring out why they're in my scrap-container, so ironically I have to filter them out!
Eh? Don't you feel a tinsy bit dirty dressing up as a Windows apologist? Since when did the world become a rosy place? Apple has dumbed-down its users into expecting a Shiny God to solve all their ills so they are but cannon-fodder in the ghetto (and don't even know it), but you of all people should know better than to think Redmond has really gotten its act together! The Corporation is not here to make our lives better! (I decided that every post must include at least one hippie-rant from now on.)nikos wrote:Nowadays everything works as it should.
(Besides, I've still got an inexplicable ICO search bug that makes me eternally distrustful.)
I stopped using the start menu when Microsoft decided it would need a search bar, 2 or 3 columns and a bling-bling GUI.One of the best features of Windows 7 is its Start menu, where you can type in a few characters of the program or document you are looking for, and within seconds you will find it, with some luck!
This replacement (Classic Shell) "works" for me:
When it comes to quick access of applications, I use a combination of the quick-start bar and Launchy. Anyway, I can not understand people who use Windows Search. The time it takes them to launch a search and click through the results is not really efficient.
I don't have to search for documents. I use folders and sub-folders. A well-organized folder structure is essential IMO.
Tux. ; tuxproject.de
registered xplorer² pro user since Oct 2009, ultimated in Mar 2012
registered xplorer² pro user since Oct 2009, ultimated in Mar 2012
Indeed, Classic Shell's developer made a conscious choice to avoid the Windows service - he wrote his own search delimiter so it doesn't return all the rubbish no one wants - it intentionally limits itself to the Start Menu, %PATH% variables, and a few system folders so it's faster, more efficient at finding the stuff one actually uses the Start Menu for in the first place, and is independent of indexing.
-
longfellow
- Silver Member
- Posts: 244
- Joined: 2004 Jun 16, 15:09
Okay, I've been using the beta for a month now, and I'm not so impressed by the new, improved desktop search. I mean, it's fine, it does what it says on the tin, but I'm not finding any significant advantages using it over the old robust search. Sure, it's faster searching for text in files in large folders with many filetypes, but we're talking milliseconds here; it's not as if I get to quit work five minutes earlier because I used the new search instead of the old search. Maybe I'm simply not seeing the advantages because I, like others here, maintain an organized folder structure.
BTW, Nikos, it's odd hearing you discount Robust search by referring to as "choo-choo" search. For years Robust search was hands-down better than Windows search. Now you're so into WDS that the only good thing you can say about Robust search is that's "trustworthy"? Ouch.
BTW, Nikos, it's odd hearing you discount Robust search by referring to as "choo-choo" search. For years Robust search was hands-down better than Windows search. Now you're so into WDS that the only good thing you can say about Robust search is that's "trustworthy"? Ouch.
To be fair to Nikos, he's between a rock and a hard place; using WDS was partially his response to user-complaints about the slowness of Robust Search and he did put a lot of effort into integrating it, and for all that, he's not seeing a lot of love from us cynical old hands.longfellow wrote:BTW, Nikos, it's odd hearing you discount Robust search by referring to as "choo-choo" search. [...] Now you're so into WDS that the only good thing you can say about Robust search is that's "trustworthy"? Ouch.
You can't blame him for trying to drum up interest - no doubt someone somewhere will find it useful - we just have to pretend "not to notice" that he is indeed simultaneously denigrating the Robust Search.
I don't believe for a moment that he's "so into WDS", but appearances must be kept up for the sake of it. Sooner or later he'll hit on something to really light us on fire, but we're not quite there yet. On the other hand, it's not impossible that he does actually see something in it that the rest of us don't.
Or, as you say, the greater irony could be that he is in fact one of those who don't "maintain an organized folder structure." And wouldn't that be a kicker!
(He is a Jazz-fan, after all... perhaps improvisational file-storage is all the rage these days?)
I'm glad nikos integrated WDS into Xplorer2, especially in the way he did. I'm perfectly happy to have it start with a fast WDS test, as long as it falls back to the trusty robust seach when things get missed or RegEx are needed.nikos wrote:I personally like the new search...
Good Work, nikos!
-Thracx
"Man wants to know, and when he ceases to do so, he is no longer a man."
-Fridtjof Nansen
"Man wants to know, and when he ceases to do so, he is no longer a man."
-Fridtjof Nansen
My problem with Windows Search is security. Microsoft says the search index is "lightly obfuscated", but recommends against using it if security is a concern. I keep most of my documents in a Truecrypt-encrypted partition. If I leave the Windows Search index in its default location, I've blown a big hole in my security strategy.
It's possible to move the Windows Search index to a different location, but that location needs to be immediately available when the Search service starts up and then remain available at all times. The moment Windows can't find the index, it attempts to relocate it--and you end up needing to fix settings and then rebuild it--a major pain.
One thing I've appreciated about xplorer2 is that its search function is so fast that I can live without Windows Search. I hope that doesn't change in the new version.
It's possible to move the Windows Search index to a different location, but that location needs to be immediately available when the Search service starts up and then remain available at all times. The moment Windows can't find the index, it attempts to relocate it--and you end up needing to fix settings and then rebuild it--a major pain.
One thing I've appreciated about xplorer2 is that its search function is so fast that I can live without Windows Search. I hope that doesn't change in the new version.