Searching in Win7 is not better than Vista


Recommended Posts

Searching in Win7 seems to work even worse than in Vista

Suppose I search for a file named ABC, but only remmember BC

Win7 cannot find it !!

Even if I search ABC , Win7 will return a list with lots of irrelevant results !

So I will have to pick out the gem from the garbage.

From my experience, 7's search has been a lot better.

Say I have 2 files. One named "thisisatest.txt", the other "This is a test.txt" with both having the text "Will this work?"

1. Search for "this" and both files will show.

2. Search for "test" and only "This is a test.txt" will show.

3. Search for "work" and both files will show.

Works as expected, and provides accurate results. Now, do you know why "thisisatest.txt" was not included in the results of test #2? It won't look for words embedded within a word, but it will look for results starting with the search term. Which is why test #1 was able to find both files and not #2. Sure, it could look within a word, but most people look for the beginning of the file name. So, search works in the same way.

Troll is fail troll.

You have to set up indexing before 7 can do anything with it's searching.

Um, no setup is required.

Troll is fail troll.

You have to set up indexing before 7 can do anything with it's searching.

Nope, not at all. Search does not require indexing, that's just a feature that makes searching faster. Instead of calling him a troll, how about answering his actual question?

The actual answer is that if you want to search for partial words, you have to use a star. Type in *BC and it will find 123ABCDE.

Nope, not at all. Search does not require indexing, that's just a feature that makes searching faster. Instead of calling him a troll, how about answering his actual question?

The actual answer is that if you want to search for partial words, you have to use a star. Type in *BC and it will find 123ABCDE.

+1 to using wildcards. Totally forgot about that.

Nope, not at all. Search does not require indexing, that's just a feature that makes searching faster. Instead of calling him a troll, how about answering his actual question?

The actual answer is that if you want to search for partial words, you have to use a star. Type in *BC and it will find 123ABCDE.

There's just something suspicious about one post wonders coming in here with a wild rant about some new software. The rant doesn't contain a question in any form and seems like just another microsoft bash. Now if he really came in here expecting an answer to his "question" than I apologize. But something tells me we will never hear of this latabar again. If we do, he needs to learn some manners ;)

There's just something suspicious about one post wonders coming in here with a wild rant about some new software. The rant doesn't contain a question in any form and seems like just another microsoft bash. Now if he really came in here expecting an answer to his "question" than I apologize. But something tells me we will never hear of this latabar again. If we do, he needs to learn some manners ;)

Well I read it as someone whose first language is probably not English being upset about the search not working as one might expect and wondering how to make it go. It's not an unreasonable complaint, as I think most people would expect it to do partial word matches by default. Now he knows how to do it and everyone is presumably happy.

since this thread is about searching, how do I search through hidden files and folders? in windows xp you can just select that option but in windows 7 its nowhere to be seen.

From explorer click Organize >> Folder and Search Options

post-8011-1258456038_thumb.jpg

Nope, not at all. Search does not require indexing, that's just a feature that makes searching faster. Instead of calling him a troll, how about answering his actual question?

The actual answer is that if you want to search for partial words, you have to use a star. Type in *BC and it will find 123ABCDE.

+1 but the the search should work without the wildcard and it has worked for me.... I will test it when i get back home....

+1 but the the search should work without the wildcard and it has worked for me.... I will test it when i get back home....

If you don't use wildcards then it will only match the beginning of words. In other words, 123 will match the file Xyz 123.jpg or Xyz_123.jpg, but not Xyz123.jpg. It's somewhat confusing.

OK sir, that worked.

But what if I want to search only file names ? or only content ?

By the way: is there a button so I quickly can find my topics immediately on entering this site ? or perhaps get a message on my mail ?

From my experience, 7's search has been a lot better.

Say I have 2 files. One named "thisisatest.txt", the other "This is a test.txt" with both having the text "Will this work?"

1. Search for "this" and both files will show.

2. Search for "test" and only "This is a test.txt" will show.

3. Search for "work" and both files will show.

Works as expected, and provides accurate results. Now, do you know why "thisisatest.txt" was not included in the results of test #2? It won't look for words embedded within a word, but it will look for results starting with the search term. Which is why test #1 was able to find both files and not #2. Sure, it could look within a word, but most people look for the beginning of the file name. So, search works in the same way.

Um, no setup is required.

OK sir, that worked.

But what if I want to search only file names ? or only content ?

By the way: is there a button so I quickly can find my topics immediately on entering this site ? or perhaps get a message on my mail ?

You should already get e-mails of replies to your topic or posts.

Anyway, here's a list of search syntax's you might find handy: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/...s/advquery.mspx

Search in Win 7 is much better than Vista.

Does anyone know though if you can search network drives on Win 7 without installing that UNCsomething patch in Vista (to be able to automatically search in mapped network drives)?

+1 but the the search should work without the wildcard and it has worked for me.... I will test it when i get back home....

Search does prefix matching by default. This is far and away the most common design for fairly obvious reasons. Google and everyone else does the same thing. You don't want a search for "rum" to return a hit against the word "forum." The signal-to-noise ratio becomes just appalling. Plus we return results as you type, so you're usually searching against the first few letters of the word or phrase you're typing.

If there is a word breaking character like a space, hyphen, period, etc - then of course you can match against the beginning of the next word.

Search in Win 7 is much better than Vista.

Does anyone know though if you can search network drives on Win 7 without installing that UNCsomething patch in Vista (to be able to automatically search in mapped network drives)?

You can search them using the normal "grep" (i.e. slow) search if they aren't indexed. If they are indexed on the server side, Windows 7 (and Vista) will use the remote machine's index automatically.

Why can I not find a file or subfolder under say e.g. AppData even if I've turned on hidden and system files and checked "Include subfolders in search results..."??, "Include system dirs and compressed files" I had to check "Dont use the index when searching in file folders for system files" for it to find non-indexed files properly. Indexed search is great. Real time search is a total disaster and definitely slower to the search in XP and sometimes ends up without finding files (I think especially if they are several folder levels deep). And even after dozens of complaints that we need a more comprehensive UI for building advanced searches, Windows 7 comes along and removes the advanced Vista UI and moves bits and portions of it to a search box dropdown. We need a separate classic fast real time search as well like this and sadly Windows Search doesn't live up to the real-time part since it tries to do indexed and non-indexed simultaneously which makes it slow.

So wait, you want them to show up when searching but not when browsing?

Generally "hidden files" are files you don't want to see, like random configuration or log files, temporary files, etc. What are you trying to use them for that the current show/hide option doesn't enable?

Searching in Win7 seems to work even worse than in Vista

Suppose I search for a file named ABC, but only remmember BC

Win7 cannot find it !!

Even if I search ABC , Win7 will return a list with lots of irrelevant results !

So I will have to pick out the gem from the garbage.

troll force is weak with in this one

Why can I not find a file or subfolder under say e.g. AppData even if I've turned on hidden and system files and checked "Include subfolders in search results..."??, "Include system dirs and compressed files" I had to check "Dont use the index when searching in file folders for system files" for it to find non-indexed files properly. Indexed search is great. Real time search is a total disaster and definitely slower to the search in XP and sometimes ends up without finding files (I think especially if they are several folder levels deep). And even after dozens of complaints that we need a more comprehensive UI for building advanced searches, Windows 7 comes along and removes the advanced Vista UI and moves bits and portions of it to a search box dropdown. We need a separate classic fast real time search as well like this and sadly Windows Search doesn't live up to the real-time part since it tries to do indexed and non-indexed simultaneously which makes it slow.

This and also remove the nagger "this drive is not indexed plz index it" thing. It is annoying.

Classic Search is best feature that M$ removed >:(

This and also remove the nagger "this drive is not indexed plz index it" thing. It is annoying.

So, you'd rather a user wonder why searches are fast in one folder, and slow in others? Sounds like a good idea to me! :rolleyes: Please, next time you have a thought, let it go.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • It's requesting a login code as if I was signing into my account on my Windows machine. 
    • And Microsoft got walloped on here for what they were charging for the new Surface book. Not looking as bad now. This was inevitable as they have to maintain those Apple margins.
    • Now 8GB of ram looks even worse in the Neo. I'm so happy I purchased 128GB of DDR 4 when I did.... paid $174. Upgraded my parents laptop to 32GB around the same time for $48. Luckily I have a TON of spare laptops. So i'm good on laptops for a while. I also have a lot of desktops too that I could use if i had to. Lets just hope nothing happens to my main 4 monitor couch workstation.
    • I will keep my current devices for several years... no planning in upgrading until these devices stop working. Too pricey.
    • Apple raises MacBook and iPad prices as memory costs surge by Karthik Mudaliar Apple has raised the U.S. prices of several MacBook and iPad models, including the MacBook Neo, which it launched for $599 less than four months ago. The company’s cheapest laptop now starts at $699, while some MacBook Pro configurations have increased by $300. The changes affect the MacBook Neo, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iPad Air, and iPad Pro. Apple has not changed the hardware or storage included with these models, so customers are simply paying more for the same configurations. Here is how the new US pricing compares with the previous starting prices: Product Previous price New price Increase MacBook Neo $599 $699 $100 13-inch MacBook Air, 512GB $1,099 $1,299 $200 14-inch MacBook Pro, 1TB $1,699 $1,999 $300 16-inch MacBook Pro $2,699 $2,999 $300 11-inch iPad Air, 128GB $599 $749 $150 13-inch iPad Air, 128GB $799 $949 $150 11-inch iPad Pro, 256GB $999 $1,199 $200 13-inch iPad Pro, 256GB $1,299 $1,499 $200 The updated prices are already appearing on Apple’s U.S. online store. The MacBook Neo increase will probably attract the most attention. Apple introduced the laptop in March for $599, pitching it as a more affordable Mac for students and buyers considering Windows laptops or Chromebooks. It uses an A18 Pro processor and originally undercut Dell’s new $699 XPS 13 by $100. Following the increase, the two laptops now have the same starting price. The M5 MacBook Air has also lost the price Apple promoted when it launched in March. The 13-inch model arrived with 512GB of storage for $1,099, while Apple’s store now lists the MacBook Air range as starting at $1,299. The 14-inch MacBook Pro with an M5 chip and 1TB of storage has gone from $1,699 to $1,999. Apple has made similar changes to its iPads. The recently released M4 iPad Air, which launched at the same $599 starting price as its predecessor, now starts at $749 for the 11-inch version. The 13-inch version has risen from $799 to $949. The iPad Pro increases are larger in dollar terms. Apple’s 11-inch M5 iPad Pro now starts at $1,199, up from $999, while the 13-inch version has moved from $1,299 to $1,499. Both base models still include 256GB of storage. Apple blamed the increases on the rapidly rising cost of DRAM and NAND flash, which provide system memory and device storage. The company told Reuters that it had tried to shield customers from the increases but could no longer absorb them. “We have never seen a component price increase this much, this quickly,” Apple said. Tim Cook had already warned that price increases were coming. Cook said Apple’s existing component inventory had softened the immediate impact, but that higher memory costs would increasingly affect the company after the June quarter. Much of the pressure comes from the construction of AI data centers. Memory manufacturers are directing more production toward high-margin server products, leaving PC, tablet, and smartphone makers competing for the remaining supply. Apple has not said whether the new prices are temporary or whether further increases are planned. For now, the changes show that even Apple’s purchasing power has not been enough to keep the AI-driven memory shortage away from consumer devices.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      kinowa earned a badge
      First Post
    • Rookie
      krychek57 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      450
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      169
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      133
    4. 4
      Xenon
      77
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      75
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!