Recommended Posts

I've been struggling with this for real long, and as i skimmed through some posts, others seem to be as well. When i try to add a folder which is on my NAS drive in any of the 4 default libraries, i get the following error message:

'This folder cannot be included because it is on a share that is not indexed'

Anyone figure out how to get by this, as i remember Microsoft has said, you can add network locations in Libraries.

online helps says ou can but searches wil be slow asince it can't be indexed so it might be a bug.. or not added as a fucntion yet.

otherwise you coudl try mounting the network folder and try to add that...

Mounting the network folder, you mean mapping it as a drive?

i've already done that

My situation is a bit different to yours but I've had no problems adding shares on my WHS to my libraries. The difference is that the server is running Windows and the shares are all indexed.

I've really been looking forward to Libraries because I typically keep all my documents, music, videos, etc. on the WHS and Vista didn't handle replacing the default documents locations with network shares that elegantly. The new setup works perfectly for me.

My situation is a bit different to yours but I've had no problems adding shares on my WHS to my libraries. The difference is that the server is running Windows and the shares are all indexed.

I've really been looking forward to Libraries because I typically keep all my documents, music, videos, etc. on the WHS and Vista didn't handle replacing the default documents locations with network shares that elegantly. The new setup works perfectly for me.

They're indexed on the server. They're not indexed for your win7 computer, it doesn't have access to the serves index database,

They're indexed on the server. They're not indexed for your win7 computer, it doesn't have access to the serves index database,

That's not true actually. With Desktop Search 4.0 Windows can use indexes across the network. As a result Windows7 can use the index on the server to improve local search results.

I have a wireless NAS plugged into my router. I can map the drive fine, but it won't show up in the list of locations you can choose to index. Since you can't index it, Explorer won't let me add it to any Library. According to BrandonLive, there are no plans in place to implement indexing of network locations, which is pretty depressing. The workaround offered is to add these locations to your Library from within Windows Media Player.. just do the regular "Manage Libraries" and it won't complain when you pick the network drive.

The problems here are that the locations are still not indexed, so browsing in Explorer doesn't work as well as it should, and also this method only makes sense if you're dealing with Pictures, Music and Video. I can't add my Documents on the external drive to the Library.

BrandonLive also said that if the networked location is on a Vista PC you can index it and Windows 7 will pick it up (why it works on jakem1's WHS), but this useless for a simple networked hard drive.

The relevant quotes, for those interested:

The help text hasn't yet been finished. At this point, libraries only support indexed locations. There are ways around this (if you add it via WMP it will get added to your library, but it will severely degrade the Explorer libaries experience).

If the network share is on a Windows PC, you can install Windows Search 4 on it and index the share on the server side. Then your Win7 machine will be able to remotely query that index to provide the full rich libraries experience.

Another option that works for any network share is to use the Offline Files feature, which creates a local cache of the files that will always be indexed.

It's not planned to change at this time but we know it's a common concern. If you'd like to create one of those Win7 Taskforce pages for it (if there isn't one already) and give me the link, that may help track how many people want to use such functionality (basically, being able to index network shares).

At this point my recommendation would be to get a USB, Firewire, or eSATA drive.

In my case, I use a Windows Home Server PC that has its content indexed with WS4.

I can confirm that adding network location in Libraries for Music, Video and Pictures works through Windows Media Player. But still no luck for Documents library, which in my case is the most important!

Am sure there must be some workaround for Documents Library as well, just need to dig around!

I have a NAS using local network too. I have the same problem.

Since Windows Desktop Search 4 (for XP), it is possible to add remote locations to indexation list. However, Vista's default indexation engine does not allow that anymore.

Microsoft released an update for Windows Vista, allowing network indexation. It makes Windows Desktop Search look like XP's, with a UNC option.

This patch has no equivalent for Windows 7 yet. However, you shall be able to install it over official beta 1, as I did.

Evidence:

post-278494-1232150608_thumb.jpg

Afterwoods, my indexed places look like:

post-278494-1232150599_thumb.jpg

So that solves one part of the problem, but not all of it: even if you index your network shares, windows won't realize it, and you still won't be able to add them to any library...

One more thing: network indexation used to run smoothly over XP, but seems to be a little bit buggy over 7. Explorer.exe is likely to crash if you use the start menu real-time search.

I got so excited when you said the Vista patch worked for you... until you said "Windows won't realize it". Regardless, since I already added stuff to my Libraries via WMP, I'll try it and see what happens.

Were you able to add a network location in your Documents Library?

Were you able to add a network location in your Documents Library?

No.

I downloaded the patch and it installed, then my mapped drive showed up in the index locations list. It looked nothing like Alvine's; I just got an extra checkbox. See:

post-275646-1232240537_thumb.png

However I'm not sure that indexing is actually occuring at all. You can see the screenshot says 'indexing complete', and I'm not sure if the network stuff was ever done. I don't have a way to see when it's actually indexing; I'd try that desktop gadget but 1) gadgets won't work for me and 2) I had to turn off my video driver and Aero.

Back to your question, when I try to add one of these locations to the Library, I get the same error as always (not indexed location). Also, when I try to do things with the WMP-added folders (Pictures, for eg.) like Arrange by Tag, it still tells me that the location is slow.

I dunno what to do man. Here's a thread on Channel 9 that seems to give evidence of what Microsoft was thinking when they left this out: http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehous...ommentID=453315

Edited by burnblue
  • 2 weeks later...

To add a non-indexed UNC as a library to Windows 7 Beta:

1. Create a folder on your hard drive for shares. i.e. c:\share

2. Create another folder in the above share. i.e. c:\share\music

2. Link the Library to this folder.

3. Delete the folder.

4. Use the mklink in a command window(administrator access needed) to make a symbolic link. Name the link the same as the folder you created above. i.e - mklink c:\share\music \\server\music

5. Done. Now you have non-indexed UNC path as a library.

If you use symbolic links at a local folder and have the local indexing service work that ... you will increase network traffic possibly in an unefficient way.

Thnik like having your av-shield traversing local folders which are really remote.

But may be it can work if the indexer is optimized to understand that its working a networked and not local file system.

Usually it will not be so.

Mapped network drives are working as local volumes thus network traffic not optimized. So thats why mapped drives have performance issues and shares (networked file system) should be used instead (dynamic performance and can be configured in several ways for better performance either way).

Anyway - use process monitor to find out if indexer scans the network like it was local (if so you need to disable the links - or put those links on a local volume excluded from local indexer)

To add a non-indexed UNC as a library to Windows 7 Beta:

1. Create a folder on your hard drive for shares. i.e. c:\share

2. Create another folder in the above share. i.e. c:\share\music

2. Link the Library to this folder.

3. Delete the folder.

4. Use the mklink in a command window(administrator access needed) to make a symbolic link. Name the link the same as the folder you created above. i.e - mklink c:\share\music \\server\music

5. Done. Now you have non-indexed UNC path as a library.

FYI

About Windows Search 4.0 network performance (so the search services can be configured and are optimized for network traffic) ...

However, Windows Search services work client/server - and if you use symbolic links you make trick it into local file system performance behaviour and pay a penalty.

However, it would be smart if such services would discover using the network redirector across the link and go to network mode. I don't if they do that somehow - but know that last year my kaspersky Antivirus definitely did not do so when it walked the symbolic links to remote shares as if were local file system.

Anyone knows for sure?

Ref. Admin Guide 4.0:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc770334.aspx

Network Performance

Enabling users to index network shares may temporarily increase the network traffic to these locations. The greatest impact on servers is seen building the initial index, and less impact is seen during subsequent incremental updates. Windows Search uses back-off logic to mitigate network traffic, and Group Policy further controls what Windows Search can index. For example, you can set a policy that disables indexing network paths to high volume servers.

  • 2 weeks later...
4. Use the mklink in a command window(administrator access needed) to make a symbolic link. Name the link the same as the folder you created above. i.e - mklink c:\share\music \\server\music

Hi.

Have you tried do that yourself?

I have the same problem, and unfortunately mklink cannot works with shares.

cmd> mklink C:\Users\Godfather\Libraries\Music \\Server\Music

The syntax of the command is incorrect.

The same said here, for example.

Hi.

Have you tried do that yourself?

I have the same problem, and unfortunately mklink cannot works with shares.

The same said here, for example.

Have you tried

mklink /d <target> <source>

?

default para is symbolic file link. you need to specify symbolic directory link with /d.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!