Microsoft Finalizes Its Desktop Search Software 244
Smelly Toejam writes "After a five month testing phase, Microsoft has released a final version of its much hyped desktop-search software. Major updates cited include the ability to pick and choose which files to index, and how often." From the article: "Microsoft is vying for new credibility in the multibillion-dollar Web search market dominated by Google and Yahoo--and central to its campaign is the desktop. With its Longhorn launch slated for next year, Microsoft is developing enhanced search software that combines navigation for Web and desktop files straight from the operating system. The toolbar is a step toward that goal."
How does it compare to Google's desktop search? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How does it compare to Google's desktop search? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How does it compare to Google's desktop search? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How does it compare to Google's desktop search? (Score:2)
"showing me where in the file it found my search term"
Re:How does it compare to Google's desktop search? (Score:2)
Google Desktop Search Enhancements [bytegems.com]
Also on that page is a plug-in that makes GDS easily accessible in Outlook.
Re:How does it compare to Google's desktop search? (Score:3, Informative)
The MSN Desktop search seems to do a better job of keeping the index consistant and up to date for Outlook. I haven't used it long enough to say. The interface looks nicer, but it is really poor as far as functionality.
I am currently using MSN because the Google index would keep getting screwed up, but if they fix that I will switch back for sure.
Ars review (Score:5, Informative)
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/desktop-searc
Of course it has the beta of the MS search, but a pretty good guide I think.
GDS 1 GB index (Score:2)
I was trying to free room on my 36GB laptop HD and discovered GDS taking 1 GB of disk space for it's index's. On my desktop that'd be fine, but it's way too much for my laptops small hard drive. though I then turned around and installed 4GB of WoW...
It actually supports multiple users, for one thing (Score:3, Informative)
"Google Desktop Search can be installed under only one Windows username per computer" [google.com]
Pretty sad, really. Google may produce nice web apps, but they apparently have no clue how to program for Windows.
Maybe they're not bothering to learn Windows programming because everybody will be using GoogleOS in a few years anyway.
Re:Link to the Google Toolbar (Score:2, Informative)
from toolbar.google.com [google.com]. There's no point to waste a ff visit to direct them to a page that has no use for them.
Make sure it can exclude items... (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Make sure it can exclude items... (Score:2, Funny)
*shudder*
Re:Make sure it can exclude items... (Score:2, Redundant)
(Especially if it's more hardcore than anything you have.)
Worst of all is if your parents are the performers!!!
Re:Make sure it can exclude items... (Score:2, Funny)
And even worse than that is if you were the result!
Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Funny)
Only issue is (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Only issue is (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Don't forget: (Score:2)
Whoopee! (Score:5, Insightful)
P.S. Sorry. I forgot that Microsoft is now committed to security.
Re:Whoopee! (Score:3, Insightful)
I see you read the dev docs (Score:2)
I see you've been reading about WinFS.
Re:Whoopee! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Whoopee! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Whoopee! (Score:2)
Re:Whoopee! (Score:2)
Yeah, seriously.
desktop search (Score:4, Funny)
Competition is GOOD (Score:5, Insightful)
COMPETITION is good (Score:2)
Neither solution is good, and will probably end up with more people using a toolbar. These toolbars will be open to exploits, therefor they are bad.
Re:COMPETITION is good (Score:2, Informative)
You'll further notice that the search bar isn't integrated into the OS. It's a separate download from msn.com. It's doing nothing that third party developers couldn't do.
Re:Competition is GOOD (Score:2)
Privacy Issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Privacy Issue (Score:5, Funny)
Unlike Microsoft, who has a truly impressive lack of options.
Easy to fix (Score:2)
Wait. I bet you're running Windows XP with a FAT filesystem, aren't you.
Re:Privacy Issue (Score:2)
microsoft sites (Score:2)
Another desktop search (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as I can see... (Score:2, Insightful)
Otherwise... It's MS. Better not let it send anything through your firewall!
Re:As far as I can see... (Score:5, Interesting)
Both available from the GDS page
younger
You can do that for free (Score:2)
Re:You can do that for free (Score:2)
I tried Copernic for awhile. I had very little luck with it.
It missed over half the files (of multiple types) on my workstation and it routinely dragged my workstation to a screeching halt. I tried setting it to only index when idle, but it's never idle. There didn't seem to be an option to s
Zero interest in this... (Score:4, Funny)
1) I'm so used to the minimalist Google page that the Google Toolbar banner they're running now is as intrusive as a Punch The Monkey ad.
2) Are the new Google ads here context-driven? If so, what on earth about "Microsoft Finalizes Its Desktop Search Software" makes their system think "Meet Eritrean Singles" is relevant?
It's about time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's about time. (Score:3, Informative)
They did, it's been in the OS since Windows 2000. It's called Indexing Service. Most people never learn how to use it, though.
Re:It's about time. (Score:2)
Is the Indexing Service different from fastfind.exe? I think fastfind.exe might have been Office's own file indexer that would use 100% CPU, but was programmed only to do so at maximally inconvenient times.
Re:It's about time. (Score:2, Informative)
It wasn't there in NT 4. The NT Option Pack provided Index Server (or whatever its exact name is, something along those lines) as one of its components. The NTOP was an add-on released a long time after NT 4 itself.
Index Server is exensible using an API known as IFilter. Third-party filters allow the indexing of, for example, PDFs.
The IFilter API is used by various MS search tools. Index Server is one. "MSSearch" (used for SQL Server and Exchange full text indexing) is another. SharePoint
Re:It's about time. (Score:3, Informative)
Right. That's because of this piece of stupidity from someone as MS: Using the "A word or phrase in the file" search criterion may not work [microsoft.com]
Re:It's about time. (Score:2)
Re:It's about time. (Score:4, Informative)
XP: Have Windows Perform Word or Phrase Searches within Unknown Filetypes [tech-recipes.com]
Re:It's about time. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's about time. (Score:2)
Just remember (Score:2, Informative)
Err...how often? (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting...Apple's implementation is integrated into the filesystem layer, so it indexes everything as it is written to disk (or at least, very soon after, once I/O load has gone down).
This doesn't seem to generate much of a performance hit, so I wonder why Microsoft is going for a different approach? Apple's seems to make more sense.
Re:Err...how often? (Score:2)
They aren't. Both MSN desktop search and the fast search in Longhorn use the built-in API calls in Windows that allow you to monitor filesystem operations. There's no need for integration into the "filesystem layer" because that functionality is already built into the OS.
Re:Err...how often? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Err...how often? (Score:2)
So if I tell Microsoft Search to update every ten minutes, I have to wait a while before I can figure out where I put that document I just saved.
OTOH if you have it update too often, you get a performance hit.
I really like Apple's solution better. You update the index when the file changes and only worry about indexing if a file changes. The difference is we
Re:Err...how often? (Score:2)
If you want near-instant indexing then you would turn the prioritize option on.
permissions flaw and other Spotlight problems (Score:5, Informative)
As a mac user (not "Mac nutjob"), there are several caveats to Spotlight and its indexing.
In short, Spotlight is nice, but infuriatingly dumbed down more than usual.
Re:permissions flaw and other Spotlight problems (Score:2)
But about your first point... couldn't MS just make a Spotlight plugin that allows Spotlight to search within its Email database file? You'd think Apple would have anticipated such a case, and included some hoo
MS could make it work the same way Apple does (Score:2)
Kind of. The way Calendar (and I think Mail) cheatss to make this work is to create a file in a hidden directory for every contact/calendar/mail. Now note these files do not actually have to have content in them - they can be empty, they just need to exist so Spotlight can "index" them. When it does then the metadata rreader can look in the real store.
So it's a bit of a hack but at least it's not al
Re:MS could make it work the same way Apple does (Score:2)
Its iCal and the Address book that do this, Mail just stores messages as individual files.
take a broader view (Score:2)
Both designs have been around for quite some time. Updating the index immediately when a file changes may be OK for desktop use, but it has unpredictable consequences for other kinds of uses. The conservative and safe thing is to update on a schedule unless the user explicitly requests otherwise.
Apple's implementation is integrated into the filesystem l
Re:Err...how often? (Score:2)
Spotlight is a completely file based technology. It can only index files. Apple knows this is stupid. Just look at iTunes and iPhoto. Both of these are great tools for organizing large numbers of files, but both of these tools create data
Doesn't work (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Doesn't work (Score:5, Funny)
You're lucky: mine keep slipping away quietly through wormholes in space to a world where they know they can enjoy a uniquely biroid lifestyle, responding to highly biro-oriented stimuli, and generally lead the biro equivalent of the good life.
Speed performance? (Score:5, Interesting)
We already have this... (Score:4, Interesting)
I turn off this indexing feature every single time on every single machine to improve speed of use by a good 5%-10%.
A full-depth indexing and searching service covering my entire machine would take up more space than the registry, be single massive point of failure for privacy should my machine be compromised, and a drain on my resources. If I am fairly competent at deciding where to put files and keep to that scheme, I shouldn't need to worry about indexing them.
MS if anything should come up with a system file indexer to keep track of every copy of every
Somebody Gotta Do It (Score:2)
Stop the madness (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's first priority should be to close the holes in its products that let viruses, spyware, spambots, mushrooms, toadstools, or whatever grow in their customers' computers.
This desktop search tool will just be one more thing to have to shut off.
If left on, it will
That last point is arguably Not Completely Bad, since the machines are supposed to work for us, and not the other way around. The trouble is that it encourages the user to be lazy, putting all of their files into one big bucket. Then, when it comes time to upgrade or migrate to another machine, you've got to move all of that stuff, whether it's needed or not.
Microsoft as a company can't stand it if someone else has a feature they don't have. Couple that with the mindset that adding a security applet or layer on top of what's there already is the way to go, and you get insecure bloatware.
How long before Windows collapses under its own weight?
Re: Stop the madness (Score:2)
Let me guess. You're one of those people who believe the FBI and CIA should stop doing everything they do because the #1 priority should be to catch Osama?
Software is a complex beast. They probably have as many people working on security as the codebase can handle. You can't expect to increase productivity simply by throwing mor
Re: Stop the madness (Score:2)
That's not my point at all. Their mindset is all wrong. They're driven by features, because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that features are what sell. Since their focus is on generating revenue with features, and not by improving their product as a whole, you get this patchwork system of add-ons and "security features".
Consider the "firewall" feature in Windows 2K/XP. You can enable o
Re:Stop the madness (Score:2)
expose private data
Actually, Google Desktop Search is the one guilty of this. It indexes the whole system, including every user's folders. With Google Desktop, user A can search for a term and through the result preview peer into the contents of user B's folder, even if A is a limited user and is normally denied access to the folder.
Re:Stop the madness (Score:2)
Re:Stop the madness (Score:2)
No, it's the fault of short-sighted executives who care what their stock price is from day to day.
Make good stuff and your stock price will do fine.
Companies that are shareholder-driven are doomed to fail both their shareholders and their customers.
Companies that are customer-driven will delight both customer and shareholder.
Offtopic (Score:2)
Is it me? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Is it me? (Score:3, Interesting)
I seriously think that Microsoft WANTS its built-in search engine to suck. That way it can hype the search feature in Longhorn and get us to switch.
Thankfully, third parties such as Google as showing us we don't need a new file system to search our own hard drive. That is forcing Microsoft to fix its own sea
Re:Is it me? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is it me? (Score:3, Interesting)
The default XP just expects people to always name their text files either *.txt, *.doc, or whatever. For the rest of us... you need to tell it to search everything:
XP: Have Windows Perform Word or Phrase Searches within Unknown Filetypes [tech-recipes.com]
Just one question... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just one question... (Score:2)
Re:Just one question... (Score:2)
What's shocking is that people consider Microsoft to be good at marketing. Yet they intentionally and seriously attempted to sell Bob to ADULTS!!! Do they even have brains on the MS campus?!
Why link desktop and web searches? (Score:3, Interesting)
What I would really like to see on my lone Windows machine is something like:
Re:Why link desktop and web searches? (Score:2)
Re:Why link desktop and web searches? (Score:2)
WARNING Sticky Software (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sticking with Copernic Desktop, which indexes at least as well, doesn't require IE (I use Firefox), and has a fast, integrated document viewer.
Prediction... (Score:2)
Microsoft decision process:
Security is number one for Longhorn.
A Microsoft branded search is TOP priorty for Microsoft.
Software issues continue to push back the release date, resources are limited.
OK, drop the security features and keep working on the search addition...
Let's see if I am wrong...
Hope it's better than Apple's Spotlight... (Score:2)
I've no doubt the technology under the hood is good, but the user interface is awful.
I and many other users have noticed that Spotlight frequently fails to find files that I know are on my hard drive. I don't know how much of that is because nobody understands what, exactly you're searching for (does a query for "time" match QuickTime or not?); how much is because of poorly documented exclusions (big areas, like the Library and System folders, that are excluded by default); and
Re:Hope it's better than Apple's Spotlight... (Score:2)
I'd recommend forcing Spotlight to reindex your drive after installing the patch. I imagine it would get around to doing that eventually, but do so by opening Spotlight's preferences and adding your Macintosh disk to the privacy list, then closing pref
Welcome to last year (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it me... (Score:2)
If it is, I think it's a rather short-sighted "feature." You wouldn't necessarily want to index your system files, but it seems to me that other files you choose not to index are the ones you're bound to want to search some day, some time.
Can you choose the database folder? (Score:2)
Useless! (Score:2)
Let me check something here... (Score:2)
Nope, don't care.
Re:Let me check something here... (Score:2)
If MS bundles Search with IE (Score:2)
If this happens, and if IESearch works easily, then Google will slowly be replaced on he Desktop, just Like Netscape was replaced. (By standard, I mean most used by default, good or bad)
They still can't implement one stupid option... (Score:2)
Morons. All those brilliant engineers and they can't figure out simplicity.
Why/usefullness/end users/UI (Score:2)
a) MS will copy Gnome in future versions and users will be stuck with Spatial file navigation.
- rendering any file/folder deeper then 3 levels a nightmare to get to.
b) Mom&Pop Users have become such cattle that they refuse to learn how to find stuff that they download or save, and search companies see $$ with all those helpless Baby Boomers now that the geeks hav
Try it out and you will care. (Score:5, Interesting)