Windows Search 4.0 Hits Windows Update
Posted by Taimur Asad via Redmond Pie on 23 July 2008 - 02:16, updated 23 July 2008 - 02:22 · 21 comments & 8781 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: Taimur Asad
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: Taimur Asad
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by KavazovAngel on 23 Jul 2008 - 03:17
- Is this very CPU intense? (For Windows XP)
-
#2 Posted by +Si_ on 23 Jul 2008 - 12:47
- The previous version slowed my machine down a treat, so i'm quite cautious to try this. Anyone know what this versions like?
-
#3 Posted by +Yuxi on 23 Jul 2008 - 13:05
- Installing... I really hope this will fix my problem with Outlook never indexing emails.
-
#4 Posted by thealexweb on 23 Jul 2008 - 17:35
- I installed it manually as soon as it was released.
-
#5 [Guest] Posted by Guest on 23 Jul 2008 - 18:15
- I installed this yesterday, and searching my start menu seems a lot faster.
-
#6 Posted by Faisal Islam on 24 Jul 2008 - 08:04
- Works Greatly with Windows Vista. Love It.
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
-
(1 reply)
#7 Posted by
neufuse on 24 Jul 2008 - 16:54
- Is there anyway to get the search screen to show up in vista with out having to press Windows Key+F?
-
#7.1 Posted by +Brandon Live on 31 Jul 2008 - 06:13
- Well, you can type into the Start menu and then choose "Search Everywhere" (default action if there isn't a program match).
-
#8 Posted by Necrolicious on 25 Jul 2008 - 00:58
- I never had any issues with the previous version of Windows Search on Vista. The cataloguing/indexing process is slow at first, but after that, I almost forget about it. This new version actually indexed my system so fast that I didn't even know it was done. My searches seem a lot faster now too. It's always nice when updates work better than expected.
-
(8 replies)
#9 Posted by hardgiant on 26 Jul 2008 - 00:18
- Microsoft really screwed up when they made this app. You can't index all the file names only and it takes forever to index. I don't want or need content indexing/searching but I can't disable that aspect of it.
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 -
#9.1 Posted by jamesVault on 26 Jul 2008 - 07:23
- (hardgiant said @ #1)You can't index all the file names only. I don't want or need content indexing/searching but I can't disable that aspect of it.
Please don't FUD.
File contents indexing is disabled by default
Last edited by jamesVault on 26 Jul 2008 - 08:59 -
#9.2 Posted by thenonhacker on 26 Jul 2008 - 13:50
- (jamesVault said @ #9.1)(hardgiant said @ #1)You can't index all the file names only. I don't want or need content indexing/searching but I can't disable that aspect of it.
Please don't FUD.
File contents indexing is disabled by default
PWNED! LOL. -
#9.3 Posted by xiphi on 27 Jul 2008 - 04:30
- File content indexing IS enabled by default on text/documents such as .txt, .doc, .html, etc etc...
At any rate, I think what hardgiant wants is located in "Folder Options" on the "Search" tab.
-
#9.4 Posted by jamesVault on 27 Jul 2008 - 08:18
- .
Last edited by jamesVault on 27 Jul 2008 - 08:31 -
#9.5 Posted by +Brandon Live on 31 Jul 2008 - 06:18
- (hardgiant said @ #9)Microsoft really screwed up when they made this app. You can't index all the file names only and it takes forever to index. I don't want or need content indexing/searching but I can't disable that aspect of it.
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.Worst yet they use this same app for mail indexing in Outlook.
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?If only someone would redesign it and add these features.
You didn't suggest any features... -
#9.6 Posted by hardgiant on 01 Aug 2008 - 10:30
- (xiphi said @ #9.3)File content indexing IS enabled by default on text/documents such as .txt, .doc, .html, etc etc...
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 -
#9.7 Posted by hardgiant on 01 Aug 2008 - 10:40
- (Brandon Live said @ #9.5)(hardgiant said @ #9)Microsoft really screwed up when they made this app. You can't index all the file names only and it takes forever to index. I don't want or need content indexing/searching but I can't disable that aspect of it.
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.Worst yet they use this same app for mail indexing in Outlook.
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?If only someone would redesign it and add these features.
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. -
#9.8 Posted by hardgiant on 01 Aug 2008 - 10:42
- (Brandon Live said @ #9.5)(hardgiant said @ #9)Microsoft really screwed up when they made this app. You can't index all the file names only and it takes forever to index. I don't want or need content indexing/searching but I can't disable that aspect of it.
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.Worst yet they use this same app for mail indexing in Outlook.
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?If only someone would redesign it and add these features.
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.
-
(2 replies)
#10 Posted by Ender2070 on 26 Jul 2008 - 18:52
- FUD aside, I think Google should sue Microsoft for anti competitive practices. Why install Google Desktop when you have Live Search
-
#10.1 Posted by +Volatile on 27 Jul 2008 - 19:25
- (Ender2070 said @ #10)FUD aside, I think Google should sue Microsoft for anti competitive practices. Why install Google Desktop when you have Live Search
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. -
#10.2 Posted by +Brandon Live on 31 Jul 2008 - 06:14
- Huh? Live Search is a web site for searching the internet...
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.
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