Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
What is the currently best Desktop Search software?
Darwin:
BTW, AutoFocus is also base partially on Lucene so that should make it quite familiar to you...
All the best.
-aenache36 (February 10, 2009, 09:14 AM)
--- End quote ---
It looked fairly interesting until I read the hardware requirements section...
-qforce (February 10, 2009, 10:51 AM)
--- End quote ---
Hardware requirements
* CPU: the absolute minimum is a Pentium II at 400 MHz, a Pentium III at 1 GHz or better is recommended.
* main memory: minimally 128 MB, 256 MB is recommended.
* disk space requirements: 100 MB + 2 MB per 1000 scanned items.
--- End quote ---
They don't seem that bad to me...
cyberdiva:
Which is exactly why I'm obsessed with Powermarks and related bookmark managers like Linkman. I just want to dump everything in a container and find it almost instantly. No tagging or organizing.
-superboyac (February 10, 2009, 10:43 AM)
--- End quote ---
For the same reason, I too was a big fan of Powermarks and am now an even bigger fan of Linkman. But that still leaves me with thousands of digital photos on my computer. I wish I could locate individual photos as easily as I can my bookmarks in Linkman. In theory, metadata tags would probably do what I need, but I can't imagine trying to retro-tag thousands of photos. :(
superboyac:
Which is exactly why I'm obsessed with Powermarks and related bookmark managers like Linkman. I just want to dump everything in a container and find it almost instantly. No tagging or organizing.
-superboyac (February 10, 2009, 10:43 AM)
--- End quote ---
For the same reason, I too was a big fan of Powermarks and am now an even bigger fan of Linkman. But that still leaves me with thousands of digital photos on my computer. I wish I could locate individual photos as easily as I can my bookmarks in Linkman. In theory, metadata tags would probably do what I need, but I can't imagine trying to retro-tag thousands of photos. :(
-cyberdiva (February 10, 2009, 12:40 PM)
--- End quote ---
Yeah, I don't know how professional photographers deal with all their photos. Especially when they come back with hundreds of photos per session. I'm sure someone has figured out a way of doing it. I don't have that many photos, but if I did, I would almost have to use some kind of tagging system that had thumbnails in the cache so I can see a group of pictures very quickly.
J-Mac:
Some people are just too lazy to add half a dozen tags to each and every image they store on their computer. Do you really do that? :o
-qforce (February 10, 2009, 10:40 AM)
--- End quote ---
Actually ACDSee Photo Manager makes adding tags/categories very simple and easy to do for entire folders very quickly. I upgraded recently to their 2009 version and started a new database fresh, so I had to tag them all again. Since I have a good folder hierarchy already built I was able to tag more than 6,000 photos in less than an hour. Still have a ways to go though - I have a total of just under 20,000 photos!
Jim
CWuestefeld:
I upgraded recently to their 2009 version and started a new database fresh, so I had to tag them all again.
-J-Mac (February 10, 2009, 05:04 PM)
--- End quote ---
Doesn't ACDSee let you save your tags into EXIF or IPTC, so that they never need to be re-entered (even if you switched over to a competing product)?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version