It's time to check Windows Update again because just a few moments ago, Microsoft has released Windows Search 4.0 to Windows Update as Recommended update for Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 based computers. Windows Search 4.0 lets you perform an instant search of your computer. Windows Search 4.0 helps you find and preview documents, e-mail messages, music files, photos, and other items on the computer. Improvements:
• Support for indexing encrypted documents of local file systems
• Reduced affect on Microsoft Exchange when you index e-mail in online mode, and there is no local cache (.ost)
• Support for indexing online delegate mailboxes
• Support for client-to-client remote query to shared indexed locations
• Improved indexing performance
• Faster previewer updates for Windows XP
• Per-user Group Policy settings
• Windows software updates for Watson errors
• You can view the complete KB article here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940157
Download: Vista and Windows Server 2008 (32-bit) | Windows XP (32-bit) | Vista (64-bit) | XP (64-bit)
Link: Redmond Pie
On XP it's oky, sorry same! But i have only one objection (not about Windows Search 4, about XP). XP doesn't have search Box beside address bar
Worst yet they use this same app for mail indexing in Outlook.
If only someone would redesign it and add these features.
UPDATED:
1. The ability to index filenames only and to do it immediatly not when the machine is idle.
2. Indexing all filenames on the hard drive, dozens of file types are left unchecked and it’s time consuming to try and include them.
3. Seperating Filename search from Content search. I would say 90% of all searches are just users looking for where they put a file.
4. The ability to schedule a index rebuild.
5. Speed: Avafind can index 200 gigs in a few minutes while Vista indexing takes days.
6. Better include and exclude: I’d like to include file types by groups like documents and pictures and also be able to exclude them as well.
7. The one thing I would love but will never happen in a million years is the ability to install a better indexer from another company and still use the front end search fields. I’m sure another company could build a faster more feature rich indexer but Microsoft would never allow them to implement it. This is the true fatal flaw of Windows and Microsoft, using their monopoly power to stop others from actually improving Windows features.
Last edited by hardgiant on 01 Aug 2008 - 10:35
Please don't FUD.
File contents indexing is disabled by default
Last edited by jamesVault on 26 Jul 2008 - 08:59
Please don't FUD.
File contents indexing is disabled by default
PWNED! LOL.
At any rate, I think what hardgiant wants is located in "Folder Options" on the "Search" tab.
Last edited by jamesVault on 27 Jul 2008 - 08:31
Then don't index any files at all. There's no point to the index if you aren't going to search against file properties or contents. The filesystem already is an index of file names. You can search against file names perfectly easily in Explorer in unindexed locations. Or you can use dir /s, etc.
Why is this "worse?" Worse than what? Worse than Outlook having their own indexer? I doubt that very much. Why would you want multiple applications to have to duplicate this functionality and code? Why is it bad that they leverage a well-designed, tested, and proven platform instead of rolling their own copy?
You didn't suggest any features...
At any rate, I think what hardgiant wants is located in "Folder Options" on the "Search" tab.
It still indexes the content of documents.
Last edited by hardgiant on 01 Aug 2008 - 10:44
Then don't index any files at all. There's no point to the index if you aren't going to search against file properties or contents. The filesystem already is an index of file names. You can search against file names perfectly easily in Explorer in unindexed locations. Or you can use dir /s, etc.
Why is this "worse?" Worse than what? Worse than Outlook having their own indexer? I doubt that very much. Why would you want multiple applications to have to duplicate this functionality and code? Why is it bad that they leverage a well-designed, tested, and proven platform instead of rolling their own copy?
You didn't suggest any features...
With Outlook 2003 I used lookout and then Microsoft bought it and it's block in Outlook 2007. I now use Xobni which is pretty good. I'd prefer Outlook have it's own separate indexer.
I updated my original post with a list of features.
Then don't index any files at all. There's no point to the index if you aren't going to search against file properties or contents. The filesystem already is an index of file names. You can search against file names perfectly easily in Explorer in unindexed locations. Or you can use dir /s, etc.
Why is this "worse?" Worse than what? Worse than Outlook having their own indexer? I doubt that very much. Why would you want multiple applications to have to duplicate this functionality and code? Why is it bad that they leverage a well-designed, tested, and proven platform instead of rolling their own copy?
You didn't suggest any features...
With Outlook 2003 I used lookout and then Microsoft bought it and it's block in Outlook 2007. I now use Xobni which is pretty good. I'd prefer Outlook have it's own separate indexer.
I updated my original post with a list of features.
Live Search is not an automatic update its a manual update. I noticed a speed increase after installing this. Other than that I would probably never use it.
This is an update to Windows Search, the search technology built into Windows. Windows has had file search technology for well over a decade now.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.