Why doesn't search really SEARCH?!

[+Bob+]

It searches, doesn't it?

Not properly. It excludes many file types and folders by default.
Perhaps YOU should do some reading about it.

You don't HAVE to pull out the manual to get it to
search the way you want it to, you could play around with it until you find
the option if you have a brain.

Really? Explain how much poking around it takes to figure out how to
add a file type to the indexer. Let me know how the average user is
going to figure out the new language syntax by poking around (when the
previous syntax worked for many years across multiple OS's).

It just lets you know up front what you
need to do to make everything work exactly the way you expect it to work if
you read the manual first.

See above.

Do you buy a new toaster and complain the toast
doesn't come out perfect golden brown because you didn't read the manual or
check it for options and you didn't bother to adjust the darkness setting?
Do you buy a new cell phone and complain the default ringtone is different
than your old phone?

This is more like MS came out with a cell phone that you can't dial by
pushing the numbers on they keypad. They're still there, but they
don't work the way every other cell phone on the planet does. When you
call, the calls don't always complete and often give you a "number not
in service at this time" message. But, that doesn't mean the number
isn't right, it just means that you didn't follow the new (non
standard) procedure for dialing.

 

[+Bob+]

I am glad to hear you are as baffled by Search as I am. I'm afraid I've give
up on it, and instead:

1. Open the DOS box (command prompt)
2. Type "CD \" to get to the root of the drive
3. Type "DIR <file> /S | MORE" where <file> is the file I am looking for,
such as "mumble*.exe". The answers come back a screen at a time.

Crude, granted, but it works for me.

I think this is a case of too many Microsoft programmers without enough to
do.

Paul

http://www.mythicsoft.com/agentransack/ It's free and you can drop the
DOS box.

 

[Eric]

Not properly. It excludes many file types and folders by default.
Perhaps YOU should do some reading about it.

Define "properly". They believe they enhanced it. Maybe sometimes it's a
good thing to not search everything. Point is it does search something by
default, just not exactly what YOU expect it to. It says the stuff about
indexing and what exactly it searches by default if you'd bother to read the
manual.

Really? Explain how much poking around it takes to figure out how to
add a file type to the indexer. Let me know how the average user is
going to figure out the new language syntax by poking around (when the
previous syntax worked for many years across multiple OS's).

What syntax? The only thing search should be doing that might conflict with
what you expect it to do, is only search what is indexed. If all you want
it to do is search everything, I don't know how long it would take your
"average" (novice?) user to figure out, but anyone with moderate search
experience should notice the options. It was pointed out earlier in the
thread, there are 3 ways to disable the index. You either click on Advanced
when you search and tell it non-indexed, you select your hard drive
properties page and uncheck the index option, or you can disable the
indexing service.

See above.


This is more like MS came out with a cell phone that you can't dial by
pushing the numbers on they keypad. They're still there, but they
don't work the way every other cell phone on the planet does. When you
call, the calls don't always complete and often give you a "number not
in service at this time" message. But, that doesn't mean the number
isn't right, it just means that you didn't follow the new (non
standard) procedure for dialing.

Perhaps it's more like coming out with a phone where you have to push
numbers. You can't turn the rotary dial anymore. When these push button
phones first came out at least, there was a switch on them that gave you an
option to send the signal as if you had dialed a rotary phone.

 

[mazorj]

It searches, doesn't it? You don't HAVE to pull out the manual to
get it to search the way you want it to, you could play around with
it until you find the option if you have a brain. It just lets you
know up front what you need to do to make everything work exactly
the way you expect it to work if you read the manual first. Do you
buy a new toaster and complain the toast doesn't come out perfect
golden brown because you didn't read the manual or check it for
options and you didn't bother to adjust the darkness setting? Do you
buy a new cell phone and complain the default ringtone is different
than your old phone?

No, but I would complain if changing the ringtone on my new phone
meant drilling down through 3 or 4 levels of non-intuitive menus
buried on pages 46-49 of the manual, when the old one presented
exactly the action I wanted at an intuitive first-level menu. Even
more so if the old phone - or computer OS - was from the same
manufacturer as the new one. Then it's a case of the right hand
forgetting what the left hand already had gotten right.

RTFM *can be* a good response for the user. At the least, explore
whatever options are available in a program window before calling for
help. The helpful replies in this thread prompted me to learn some
very useful information about using the Vista search function, all of
which I discovered just by clicking on menus and option buttons.
Vista's Search is now much more useful to me and I will be using it
more now that I've looked past the defaults. My thanks to all who
contributed to this. OTOH, I fully understand the frustration when
some engineer takes an easy task and makes it harder (or sometimes
even less functional!) than it used to be in the previous version.

What was the reason for that? Why not always show menus by default
and have a drop-down menu pick item to hide/show the menu bar per the
user's preferences? If security is an issue, give the administrator
the ability to block showing certain menus or menu actions in certain
windows. But what's the point of not showing menus? They've been a
standard feature of Windows since its inception.

And while I'm on a rant about stupid defaults and restrictions on
certain windows, a pox on every coder who creates a window that cannot
be enlarged by dragging the edges and corners. "May the Bird of
Paradise fly up their nose, may an elephant caress them with its toes,
may they all be struck with carpal tunnel nodes, so they can't type
any more bad code."

Yep.

 

[mazorj]

Many things in Vista are hidden. Many Vista included apps don't
have menu bars by default. If you read the manual maybe you can
find a way to unhide them.

True... but why should you have to do that? Menus have been standard
in Windows since the very beginnings. It would be like having to RTFM
to discover that you now need to do Control-Right Click exactly on the
Minimize/Maximize icon in order to drag a window around - just because
MS decided to change it from the universally known, simple Left-Click
dragging from the top bar of any window.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Perhaps it's more like coming out with a phone where you have to push
numbers. You can't turn the rotary dial anymore. When these push button
phones first came out at least, there was a switch on them that gave you an
option to send the signal as if you had dialed a rotary phone.

That wasn't for user friendliness, that was for compatibility with
equipment that didn't understand tones...

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Not properly. It excludes many file types and folders by default.
Perhaps YOU should do some reading about it.


Really? Explain how much poking around it takes to figure out how to
add a file type to the indexer. Let me know how the average user is
going to figure out the new language syntax by poking around (when the
previous syntax worked for many years across multiple OS's).


See above.


This is more like MS came out with a cell phone that you can't dial by
pushing the numbers on they keypad. They're still there, but they
don't work the way every other cell phone on the planet does. When you
call, the calls don't always complete and often give you a "number not
in service at this time" message. But, that doesn't mean the number
isn't right, it just means that you didn't follow the new (non
standard) procedure for dialing.

All in all, a pretty good description...

For instance, I have no idea how long it would have taken me to stumble
across "ext:doc", unless I hired 50 million monkeys & rented 50 million
keyboards. I found it by reading help on the MS web site, IIRC (although
people have posted that info in this NG).

I'm using Super Finder on those occasions when I don't use Vista Search, as
well as on many occasions when I *do* use Vista Search

I don't particularly like the free version of Agent Ransack.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Strange, I wrote replies to this thread 3-4 hours ago and they're not
showing. They are showing in my Sent Items folder, and replies I made after
them in other threads are showing.

That has happened to me in this NG. Apparently you and I are personnae non
gratae.

There even was a post (or two) that I reposted several times and it never
appeared.

No answer...

 

[Paul Randall]

I once made a similar post in a rude manner. It seemed as if one particular
poster had the power to make my posts not appear.

It turned out to be a combination of factors:
1) the newsgroup was heavily used -- lots of posts like this group.
2) I had my Outlook Express Newsreader set up to get 300 or some other
specific number of headers at a time.
When I menued to Tools -> options -> Read and about half way down, in the
News section, unchecked the Get box, the newsreader started getting all
headers, and my postings were not lost any more.

Let us know if this help and if it doesn't.

-Paul Randall

 

[+Bob+]

For instance, I have no idea how long it would have taken me to stumble
across "ext:doc", unless I hired 50 million monkeys & rented 50 million
keyboards.

They'd likely produce Shakespeare first