|
johnk
|
 |
« Reply #225 on: February 22, 2008, 11:13:21 AM » |
|
I've been testing out Archivarius, and I was delighted to discover that it indexes IMAP accounts.
Is that a standard feature in search software these days? Last time I explored this area (which was admittedly a long time ago), I don't remember any software I tested offering to index my IMAP email.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Curt
|
|
« Reply #226 on: February 22, 2008, 11:44:17 AM » |
|
I've been testing out Archivarius, and I was delighted to discover that it indexes IMAP accounts. I can tell that Archivarius now also supports .surfulater files |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Remember what you said, because in a day or two, I'll have a witty and blistering retort! You'll be devastated THEN!
|
|
|
|
Darwin
|
|
« Reply #227 on: February 28, 2008, 09:11:42 PM » |
|
Hmm... I was wrong - Windows Desktop Search HAS been indexing My Documents (view this thread to see what I'm talking about  ) and I quite like it. It's light on resources, can be configured to truly lurk in the background and it runs searches very quickly. I also love the fact that it displays many documents with their formatting preserved. A nice option, I think. I still love Archivarius and doubt that WDS will replace it, but I think that until Archivarius' PST file support if solved WDS will COMPLEMENT it... EDIT: posted link to the correct thread... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 28, 2008, 09:15:03 PM by Darwin »
|
Logged
|
"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin
|
|
|
|
|
Darwin
|
|
« Reply #228 on: February 28, 2008, 09:21:01 PM » |
|
Sorry to report, Armando, that (at least out of the box) WDS does NOT index comments in Word documents... I'll play with the settings and see if I can get it to do so... Archivarius DOES do this. I wish I could get Archivarius to use Stellent viewers and to index PST files in a timely manner  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin
|
|
|
|
Armando
|
|
« Reply #229 on: February 28, 2008, 09:25:44 PM » |
|
 Darwin, you're amazing. You remember my obsession for all these details. Thanks Darwin. I might give it a try anyways. I really wonder how it plays with mdb (access databases) -- I'm really interested to know because, well, SQL-Notes current database backend is based on JET 4.0 (.mdb).  PS : I wish archivarius was able to use Stellent viewers too... But at the same time, the plain text approach makes it very very fast for huge documents/databases and this is what I like about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I suppose it can be said that I'm an absent-minded driver. It's true that I've driven through a number of red lights on occasion, but on the other hand, I've stopped at a lot of green ones but never gotten credit for it."
Glenn Gould
|
|
|
|
Darwin
|
|
« Reply #230 on: February 28, 2008, 11:02:38 PM » |
|
Nope. No database support either, as far as I can tell. At least not with default settings (I tried searching for some stuff in some Access files. No joy. One thing that irks me a bit about WDS is the lack of options... it's hard to tweak it. Anyway, I'm enjoying it as an Outlook indexer and still love Archivarius. As you note, the plain text approach does make it lightning fast  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin
|
|
|
|
Armando
|
|
« Reply #231 on: February 28, 2008, 11:10:22 PM » |
|
Thanks... OK then. At least Archivarius will index databases... It looks a bit "dirty" and it's a bit hard to read... but better than nothing I guess. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I suppose it can be said that I'm an absent-minded driver. It's true that I've driven through a number of red lights on occasion, but on the other hand, I've stopped at a lot of green ones but never gotten credit for it."
Glenn Gould
|
|
|
|
PPLandry
|
|
« Reply #232 on: February 29, 2008, 11:13:17 PM » |
|
Nope. No database support either, as far as I can tell. At least not with default settings (I tried searching for some stuff in some Access files. No joy. One thing that irks me a bit about WDS is the lack of options... it's hard to tweak it. Anyway, I'm enjoying it as an Outlook indexer and still love Archivarius. As you note, the plain text approach does make it lightning fast WDS indexes MDB files (and hence SNDB). However, it only gives you the filename. Once you've identified the file, you then repeat the search with SQLNotes. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Real generosity toward the future lies in giving all to the present -- Albert Camus -- www.InfoQube.biz |
|
|
|
Darwin
|
|
« Reply #233 on: February 29, 2008, 11:54:16 PM » |
|
That's odd - it (WDS) is not turning up any of the *.mdb filenames I search for but it IS turning up xls files from the same folder. I'll have to look at how I've got it set up.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin
|
|
|
|
johnk
|
|
« Reply #234 on: March 08, 2008, 06:42:31 PM » |
|
I know there's been quite a bit of chat in this thread about support for Outlook in desktop search programs, so some of you might be interested in news of the latest version of Archivarius (from the web site):
March 08, 2008 – Archivarius 3000 (Version 4.00)
* Visio diagrams are now supported (.vsd).
* TNEF messages are now supported (.tnef).
* Search duplicate documents feature have been added.
* Lotus Notes/Domino databases support was improved (.nsf).
* Outlook mailboxes support was improved (.pst).
* Minor changes.
I don't use Outlook these days, so I can't say if the improvements in PST support are significant.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Darwin
|
|
« Reply #235 on: March 08, 2008, 07:01:51 PM » |
|
Hooray! I'll be looking into this immediately - thank you for bringining it to our attention, johnk. I"m hoping this means that the author has changed the way in which PST files are handled... if it does, it will DRAMATICALLY (and that is truly an understatement) improve the speed with which PST files are indexed...
Right. Off to check this out now.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin
|
|
|
|
Darwin
|
|
« Reply #236 on: March 08, 2008, 07:26:20 PM » |
|
Hmph. I'm indexing Outlook with Archivarius for the first time in a long time but without a lot of optimism - it's still done using the OLE method, which is s-l-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-w. Still, it's supposed to have been improved, so I'll reserve judgement. If it proves to be too slow, I'm going to try this: A3000 also support direct access (via "Custom mails"), it is useful if PST file is not connected to Outlook (e.g. just stored somewhere as backup) The author made that note to me a long time ago and I've never explored that as an alternative. Truth be told, I'd never really picked up on its significance! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin
|
|
|
|
Darwin
|
|
« Reply #237 on: March 08, 2008, 07:51:13 PM » |
|
Oh, another thing... re: WDS - I've reverted to having it index Outlook only. It works on other folders/drives only if the Properties - Advanced setting: "For fast searching, allow Indexing Service to &index this folder" is enabled. I'd rather use Archivarius... Incidentally, I managed to crash Outlook while indexing it with Archivarius (see above) and am redoing it now. So far, 9% of the PST has been indexed (15000 documents total) and 4:45 minutes have elapsed. It *looks* like OLE might be quick enough to make this worthwhile. If it will update the index in under 20 minutes without barfing out error messages (as it did in the past) I might even be moved to uninstall WDS. EDIT: the crash was not Archivarius' fault - I was messing about with COM add-ins in Outlook. See this posting for the whys and the wherefores! Note that I did this WHILE having Archivarius index the PST. Not a bright thing to do... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 08, 2008, 07:53:55 PM by Darwin »
|
Logged
|
"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin
|
|
|
|
Darwin
|
|
« Reply #238 on: March 09, 2008, 12:35:58 AM » |
|
Bummed. My PST was initially indexed - from scratch - in about 2 hours (virus scan kicked in and slowed everything down). This compares favourably with my experience ten months ago when I first installed Archivarius and it took 34 hours to index my PST! That index was then updated in about 17 mintues. I decided to test this with version 4 and gave up at 26% indexed and 40 minutes of elapsed time |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin
|
|
|
|
masu
|
|
« Reply #239 on: March 09, 2008, 08:36:23 AM » |
|
Does someone knowhow I can index files of a PORTABLE thunderbird version?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Find+Run Robot 2.90.01
Windows 7
|
|
|
|
Armando
|
|
« Reply #240 on: March 09, 2008, 10:14:04 AM » |
|
Bummed. My PST was initially indexed - from scratch - in about 2 hours (virus scan kicked in and slowed everything down). This compares favourably with my experience ten months ago when I first installed Archivarius and it took 34 hours to index my PST! That index was then updated in about 17 mintues. I decided to test this with version 4 and gave up at 26% indexed and 40 minutes of elapsed time annoying... Was waiting impatiently for that update too.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I suppose it can be said that I'm an absent-minded driver. It's true that I've driven through a number of red lights on occasion, but on the other hand, I've stopped at a lot of green ones but never gotten credit for it."
Glenn Gould
|
|
|
|
jiffener
|
|
« Reply #241 on: March 09, 2008, 10:23:23 AM » |
|
Does someone knowhow I can index files of a PORTABLE thunderbird version?
I have that same question. But no answer. Another question too, is there any desktop search that can index Outlook on an Exchange server, such as accessed by Outlook Web Access? That is, by connecting to a server instead of searching on a PC--because the PC does not actually have the program installed? Those capabilities would be uber-cool. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Darwin
|
|
« Reply #242 on: March 09, 2008, 05:38:09 PM » |
|
Ahem (Darwin clears throat nervously): anyone here (other than Babis and Armando) every try dtSearch? It just indexed 30GB of my harddrive in under two hours, while I was using my computer, and handled Outlook flawlessly. It's awesome, but comes with an awesome price. I'm going to run the 30 day trial and see how I get on with it... I might be in trouble if I fall in love with it, though - $199! Hopefully there are discount codes floating around on the web or academic pricing options (though if there are I haven't found them yet).
Armando - what didn't you like about dtSearch (other than the price!)?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin
|
|
|
|
Armando
|
|
« Reply #243 on: March 09, 2008, 06:59:23 PM » |
|
IIRC  : - a bit more difficult to find what I was looking for -- - couldn't enter search queries as quickly - not as quick as archivarius, copernic or X1 - not as accurate - Index was taking a lot of space, - RAM hungry But, it's been a while... It might have improved. I also had a bit less RAM back then, so that was an issue. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I suppose it can be said that I'm an absent-minded driver. It's true that I've driven through a number of red lights on occasion, but on the other hand, I've stopped at a lot of green ones but never gotten credit for it."
Glenn Gould
|
|
|
|
Darwin
|
|
« Reply #244 on: March 09, 2008, 10:29:46 PM » |
|
I reconfigured Archivarius to *look* more like dtSearch (stupid stuff I hadn't thought to try before, like placing the viewing pane at the bottom of the screen) and re-indexed my Outlook files. Took a hair over 2 hours All I want for Christmas is an Archivarius COM add-in for Outlook. I'll never ask for anything else, ever. Promise! Thanks for your insights on dtSearch. With 2GB RAM on my system, I didn't notice it being particularly memory intensive and, as mentioned, it indexed everything in two hours flat. I'll try updating the index in a day or two and see how it does. However, I'm already blanching at the prospect of paying $200 for it... Archivarius does everything that I need it to. I'm going to try indexing Outlook as "other e-mail" and see where that gets me. For now, I intend to continue with WDS and Outlook and Archivarius for everything else. Will keep you posted on my experience with dtSearch. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin
|
|
|
|
Armando
|
|
« Reply #245 on: March 09, 2008, 10:35:54 PM » |
|
Thanks Darwin. Always interesting to see how are these Desktop Search tools work for others in specific contexts.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I suppose it can be said that I'm an absent-minded driver. It's true that I've driven through a number of red lights on occasion, but on the other hand, I've stopped at a lot of green ones but never gotten credit for it."
Glenn Gould
|
|
|
|
Darwin
|
|
« Reply #246 on: March 09, 2008, 10:47:01 PM » |
|
Yippee! I tried the alternative method (New Index - E-mail - Custom Mailboxes)  to index my PST files and Archivarus indexed both my archive.pst and my outlook.pst files in less than 15 minutes (no idea how long because I left the room and have just returned). AFAICT the information gleaned is identical to using the OLE menthod, the only difference is that Outlook can't be running while the indexing is being done. I can live with that! I'll keep playing with dtSearch, but I'm happy with Archivarius  EDIT: added screenshot |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 09, 2008, 10:51:02 PM by Darwin »
|
Logged
|
"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin
|
|
|
|
iphigenie
|
|
« Reply #247 on: March 10, 2008, 03:48:36 AM » |
|
I tried archivarius but it couldnt index my Outlook files - although this might be because my mail is all on the exchange server, but there is still a local cache
I will try your trick, it might work
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Babis
|
|
« Reply #248 on: March 10, 2008, 06:27:37 AM » |
|
Hello and sorry for late response. - not as quick as archivarius, copernic or X1 - a bit more difficult to find what I was looking for -- - couldn't enter search queries as quickly I doubt it. Consider that it finds as you type – it can’t be faster than that, just type anything you want and from the second letter it displays results - not as accurate Why? Here are the some on the fly search options, that making searching personalized and easier:  - Index was taking a lot of space Not if you exclude binary files from the options  - RAM hungry RAM hungry? Exactly the opposite is the reason that I am using it. Just schedule updates (which are executed through Windows’ Scheduled tasks, usually in high speed if you exclude binary files, as above and if its not the initial index . No hidden processes, actually when you don’t use the program there is not even a single process running on the PC A feature that I would like to be added is to be able to exclude certain file types from one index and to include them in another index (like copernic’s). For example I want to exclude pdf files from one index only (out of many indexes). I am not able to do it – as filtering options are universal and apply to all indexes. Try the latest beta and you won't be disappointed. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Darwin
|
|
« Reply #249 on: March 10, 2008, 08:42:34 AM » |
|
<Sigh> I believe I should uinstall dtSearch. Immediately. I'm a software junkie and I'm mainlingin dtSearch right now. It is SWEET. As I learn how to use it effectively, I appreciate its power... and, despite Armando's experience, it's small footprint.
However, I can ill afford the asking price AND Archivarius does not yield much to dtSearch (nothing, really, if you factor in the way I tend to use Desktop Search applications). And yet I hesitate. Give me strength...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin
|
|
|
|
Poll
