What is the currently best Desktop Search software?Since you've got the word search in your question, i'd say it was google :tellme:-masu (February 12, 2006, 05:27 AM)
The freebies are ok but for serious searching you need a more sophisiticated program.Oh? I'm very happy with Locate and GDS (see above) and can find everything I search for. GDS optionally allows you to search your Google Mails too, which is very helpful.-jdd (February 12, 2006, 03:54 PM)
I'm currently writing a review of search tools for the DC reviews :Thmbsup: :-[-Redhat (February 12, 2006, 04:16 PM)
Copernic Desktop Search 2.0 beta is now available.
The interface was completely redesigned :Thmbsup:
(http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/5423/mainmedium2id.gif)
http://www.copernic.com/en/products/desktop-search/beta/download.html-masu (May 05, 2006, 04:48 PM)
We plan to come out with a paid version of CDS with additional features for advanced users, as we did with our very successful Copernic Agent product
... I got rid of all of them because more and more apps want to index the crap out of my HD, and I'm sick of my HD platters spinning and spinning and spinning when I'm not there.
I agree with zridling's comments regarding the fact that a major difference between these search programs is the interface. However, I respectfully disagree with the issue of continually spinning HD's.
With X1, the user determines exactly when, if ever, the index should be updated, either on a scheduled or manually selected time. The initial indexing takes a while but incremental indexes are quite fast.-jdd (May 07, 2006, 05:28 PM)
Before purchasing our software you may try it in a fully functional version. The trial period is 30 days. If you need more time for testing, just ask us and we will gladly grant you free additional time!Right well that's the perspective on software that I've come to appreciate, Archivarius is definate going for a trial then.
Each of the two settings have 3 steps, and with Indexing set to "lazy", and Querying set to "High load", the system then waits for you to have stopped any activity for a period of time before it'll start indexing anything not already in the Catalog. As soon as you start to use the mouse or keyboard, *poof*, it stops and waits for you again. Makes a huge difference. :Thmbsup:
You may even get good performance with the Indexing at the middle position, but ....-Cavalcader (May 13, 2006, 01:09 AM)
What are your computers' specs like ?-Armando (May 19, 2007, 03:24 PM)
To my understanding, once the docs are indexed, the indexer will only look out for changes.-Curt (May 20, 2007, 02:59 AM)
I love the detailed search options I get with X1 and the accurate results.-Armando (May 20, 2007, 03:15 AM)
I love the detailed search options I get with X1 and the accurate results.-Armando (May 20, 2007, 03:15 AM)
I can truly understand this, because I tested X1 and was impressed.
But with WDS 3 being FREE.... ;)-Curt (May 20, 2007, 03:17 AM)
lol well i got rid of it when it was free, it slowed me down too much, and that was on a amd x2 3800 with 1 gb of ram, so go figure, it was obviously very good at what it did but it was overkill for my needs, i dont have a lot of files and i know where most of em are, but i do lose them sometime :-[ ive been trying that locate32 for a little now, its much more my style-Grorgy (May 20, 2007, 03:47 AM)
and locate works great on my little celeron 1.5 laptop :)-Grorgy (May 20, 2007, 03:48 AM)
I love the detailed search options I get with X1 and the accurate results.-Armando (May 20, 2007, 03:15 AM)
I can truly understand this, because I tested X1 and was impressed.
But with WDS 3 being FREE.... ;)-Curt (May 20, 2007, 03:17 AM)
well, X1 (client)iswas free too... :)
Might be a bit more of resource hug though.
I tend to prefere Copernic, for speed and resource consumption.
But X1 offers more options...
EDIT : WOW, that's weird. X1 client was free for a short while, and now it's 50$ !!! Sorry about that. I guess I'll keep a backup of my version somewhere!!
Edit#2 : Yup. It used to be called "Enterprise Client" (mine is version 5.6.2), and now its "Professional Client" (v5.6.4)-Armando (May 20, 2007, 03:19 AM)
so i can concentrate on using all this stuff instead of forever changing things, actually do something with it lol-Grorgy (May 20, 2007, 05:00 AM)
If you want the final free version (5.6.3) grab it quick from http://www.snapfiles.com/get/x1.html-Carol Haynes (May 20, 2007, 05:24 AM)
Your free desktop search tool should begin downloading immediately. As a preferred partner of Yahoo!, we now offer the free version of our award-winning desktop search product to all Yahoo! users (X1 Professional Client v5.6.4 Build 3470 ).
During the 30 day trial period, all features and functions are enabled; including support for the following advanced capabilities:
Lotus Notes Email and Contacts
Uncached Exchange Folders
Exchange Public Folders
Archived PST Files
Network File Servers
After 30 days, the above features will be disabled, although basic free client functionality will remain.
Complete and submit the form to download the X1 Professional Client 30 day trial or Buy Now for full, unlimited access to all features, upgrades, and access to X1 Standard Support for 1 full year.
- Search Outlook & Thunderbird Email
- Search Outlook Contacts, Tasks & Calendar
- Search Local Files (over 400 formats)
- Full Fidelity Preview & Print w/Highlighting
- Robust Post Search Actions
- Search Lotus Notes Email & Contacts
- Search Uncached Exchange Folders
- Search Exchange Public Folders
- Search Archived PST Files
- Search Network File Servers
- Manageable via Group Policy
- Support & Maintenance
Dang - the archived pst files is a deal breaker for me, too.-Darwin (May 20, 2007, 10:23 AM)
It is strange that they changed their policy like that. I can understand charging business users but home users have so many other free choices these days who would pay $50 when you can use dozens of other apps for free.-Carol Haynes (May 20, 2007, 05:29 AM)
For me X1 is ideal because I have about 10 archived PST files from MS Outlook and it is great to be able to search my entire email archive instantly without having Outlook waste time opening all the PST files every time.-Carol Haynes (May 20, 2007, 05:29 AM)
Armando - I really miss X1 for this reason, but find that the length of time it takes to open up and then to preview hits on my searches render it almost unusable. This problem got worse with each build that I tried and was compounded in the PIA factor by the issue that I note above WRT setting a notebook to standby or hibernate with Outlook 2003 minimized to tray. The latter problem seems to hold regardless of hardware while the former isn't really an issue on my wife's newer notebook (AMD Athlon 64 3500+ with a gig of RAM and dedicated graphics memory).-Darwin (May 20, 2007, 03:55 PM)
Armando - I really miss X1 for this reason, but find that the length of time it takes to open up and then to preview hits on my searches render it almost unusable. This problem got worse with each build that I tried and was compounded in the PIA factor by the issue that I note above WRT setting a notebook to standby or hibernate with Outlook 2003 minimized to tray. The latter problem seems to hold regardless of hardware while the former isn't really an issue on my wife's newer notebook (AMD Athlon 64 3500+ with a gig of RAM and dedicated graphics memory).-Darwin (May 20, 2007, 03:55 PM)
(edit : tried to make my English more English)
Re: v5.6.4 X1 Professional Client - Free Version
Any PST file that has been added directly to your default Outlook profile will continue to be indexed and searchable via X1.
However, the free client will not index any PST files that have been added using the X1 [Tools > Options > Emails > Outlook > Select Folders To Scan > Add PST Files(s)] dialog.
I'm still delighted with Archivarius - the longer I use it/get accustomed to the way things are done in it the more I appreciate how quick and light on its feet it is and the less I miss X1.-Darwin (May 23, 2007, 04:17 PM)
Support for popular documents
Archivarius 3000 understands the following document formats:
1C:Enterprise, External Reports (.ert)
1C:Enterprise, Moxcel Spreadsheets (.mxl)
Adobe Acrobat Reader (.pdf)
Adobe PageMaker 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 6.5 (.pm4, .pm5, pm6, .p65, .pmd)
ChiWriter (.chi)
Comma Separated Values (.csv)
Compressed HTML (.chm)
Corel Word Perfect (.wpd)
DjVu book with text layer (.djv, .djvu)
Embiid Reader book (.ubk, .ebk)
Hangul Word Processor (.hwp)
Help files (.hlp)
HieBook book (.kml)
Hyper Text Markup Language (.htm, .html)
IBM Final Form Text (.fft)
IBM Lotus 1-2-3 Spreadsheets (.wk1, .wk2, .wk3, .wk4, .wks)
IBM Lotus Ami Pro (.sam)
IBM Revisable Form Text (.rft)
InfoSelect data file (.wd)
Internet Location (.url)
Microsoft Excel 2/3/4/5/95/97/2000/XP/2003 (.xls, .xlw)
Microsoft InkWriter (.pwi)
Microsoft Power Point (.ppt)
Microsoft Word (.doc)
Microsoft Word for Macintosh (.mcw)
Microsoft Word templates (.dot)
Microsoft Works databases (.wdb)
Microsoft Works documents (.wps)
Microsoft Works spreadsheets (.wks, .xlr)
Microsoft Write (.wri)
MIME HTML (.mht)
MIME mail (.eml)
Mirabilis ICQ Chat (.cht)
Norton Guide database (.ng)
Outlook message (.msg)
Palm Database (.pdb)
Plain Text (.txt, .asc, .lex)
PROMPT translator (.std)
Psion TCR book (.tcr)
Psion ZVR book (.zvr)
Rich Text Format (.rtf)
Squish message base (.sqd)
StarWriter documents (3.0/4.0/5.0) (.sdw)
The Bat! mail archive (.tbk)
TRichView documents (.rvf)
WinOrganizer databases (.gso)
Wizissoft CyberArticle book (.book)
Wjjsoft Mybase database (.nyf)
Word and Deed (.w&d)
XML Extensible Markup Language (.xml)
Zinio Reader magazine (.zno)
Support for popular e-mail formats
Archivarius 3000 understands the following e-mail messages:
IBM Lotus Notes/Domino (.nsf)
Microsoft Exchange 95/97/98/2000/2001/2002/2003 (.ost)
Microsoft Outlook 97/98/2000/2002(XP)/2003 (.pst)
Microsoft Outlook Express (.dbx)
The Bat! (.msb, .tbb, .tbk)
Opera 5/6/7/8 (.mbs)
Netscape mailbox
Mozilla mailbox
Firebird mailbox
Firefox mailbox
Thunderbird mailbox
PocoMail mailbox
Unix mailbox (.mbx, .mbs)
E-mail message (.eml, .msg)
Searching in e-mail messages attachments is also supported.
Support for popular Internet messenger formats
Mirabilis ICQ
Miranda IM
Odigo IM
Search in popular archives
Archivarius 3000 supports searches in the following type of archives:
ACE (.ace)
ALZ ALZip by ESTsoft (.alz)
ARC PKARC by PKWARE (.arc)
ARJ by ARJ Software (.arj)
BH (.bh)
CAB Cabinet by Microsoft (.cab)
CPIO package (.cpio)
DEB Debian Software Package (.deb)
GZIP (.gz)
HA by Harri Hirvola (.ha)
IMA floppy disk image (.ima, .img, .vfd, .dsk)
IMP by Technelysium Pty (.imp)
ISO 9660 disk image (.iso, .img, .nrg, .bin, .cue)
JAR by ARJ Software (.jar)
LHA by H. Yoshizaki (.lha)
LZH by H. Yoshizaki (.lzh)
RAR by E. Roshal (.rar)
RPM package (.rpm)
TAR Tape ARchive (.tar)
ZIP PKZIP by PKWARE (.zip)
ZOO (.zoo)
Thus Archivarius 3000 contains own module for unpacking all archives. This means that presence of external archivers is not required.
I just checked Armando and Archivarius has indexed the comments in a word document on my harddrive. It's not very pretty in terms of formatting but it's there!
Here's the comment I searched for in word:-Darwin (May 24, 2007, 01:57 AM)
A handy list of some of the best desktop search tools
http://www.goebelgroup.com/desktopmatrix.htm-Goebel Group (May 24, 2007, 09:22 AM)
Anybody uses SearchInform and would like to comment?
http://www.searchinform.com/index.html
Looks like a nice Desktop Search software.-Armando (July 28, 2007, 05:08 PM)
Functions: Free/Standard/Professional/Trial
I have a question (for anyone that's used Beagle in Linux). Is there a "Beagle" for Windows? By that I mean something like Beagle. I like how I can search and it shows the results in its window split up by pictures, music, documents, etc..
I use Google Desktop Search and Windows Desktop Search right now. WDS is pretty close to what I want. But I can't remember why I don't use it (indexing TB emails maybe?). I remember there was a reason why I installed GDS on there..-Laughing Man (July 30, 2007, 04:35 PM)
At the link you provided there's no checkmark for the Vista search (which is what my laptop has). Would it still be compatible?-Laughing Man (July 30, 2007, 08:04 PM)
Are you sure X1 is free? I thought those days were over; 50 bucks. :huh:-jdd (July 31, 2007, 10:18 PM)
AFAIK/CT from the forum,-Darwin (July 31, 2007, 11:13 PM)
AFAIK/CT from the forum,-Darwin (July 31, 2007, 11:13 PM)
"CT" ?? I have come to learn that AFAIK means As Far As I Know, but what is the translation of CT ??
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ] [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]-Curt (August 01, 2007, 07:38 AM)
Are you sure X1 is free?-jdd (July 31, 2007, 10:18 PM)
I voted for locate, because its the general purpose all in one file folder finder for me, but i use archivarius for document i just know are there somewhere but cant remember the name but remember what they are about, gets quite a bit of use really :-[-Grorgy (October 13, 2007, 03:16 PM)
Out of curiosity, has anyone tried the latest beta of X1 v.6? I haven't as I am very happy with Archivarius 3000, but my wife loved X1 until it started messing up Outlook and I've tried her on both WDS (I hated it - she didn't mind) and Copernic (I like it a lot, she keeps complaining about it not indexing some of her files/e-mail). Just wondering if it is an advance over version 5.6x... the users forum isn't very informatiive on this.-Darwin (October 02, 2007, 08:57 AM)
IMO, locate shouldn't be put in the same category as software like X1 or Archivarius. AFAICT, Locate doesn't index content at all. No?
Currently A3000 use OLE to access Outlook mailboxes. 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).
But OLE access is slow and not good for latest version of Outlook. We should
switch to COM method (it is used in other search systems). We are planning
to switch in the future.
I just tried archivarius again - it doesn't seem to behave well with Outlook 2003 !!
- after indexing my PST had errors when I scanned it,
- it loaded Outlook into memory to index and then refused to unload it again - consequently I had Outlook running in the background permanently (that was even after I exited Archivarius),
- there didn't seem any way to index PST files without loading them into Outlook first - which is a complete pain and impractical - esp. if Outlook is permanently locked in memory ... I would be using about 75% of my memory just to search my emails!
- the help file is useless - there is no useful index and no obvious way to search it - which for a search app seems a bit daft
Am I missing something? Quickly finding stuff in emails (and esp. the hundreds of megabytes of archived mail) would be a primary reason for me to keep a search engine on my system - as it is I have uninstalled it again and will just use the slow outlook search function.
Anyone found anything that works with multiple PST files in a sensible and proper manner (ie. it doesn't damage the file, like Archivarius and X1 seem to, and doesn't require Outlook to be permanently loaded to access the index, and doesn't require all the PST files loaded into the default profile)-Carol Haynes (October 14, 2007, 05:08 AM)
I don't like having to regularly repair my Outlook data files.-Carol Haynes (October 14, 2007, 09:51 AM)
What about Lookout (http://www.majorgeeks.com/Lookout_d4808.html)?-Darwin (October 14, 2007, 10:17 AM)
No privacy policy, though Angry
I am curious to know if anybody has found any program, pay or not, that works well, indexes all MS Office documents, including PSTs, PDFs, inside compressed archives, etc.-tinjaw (October 14, 2007, 12:44 PM)
I am curious to know if anybody has found any program, pay or not, that works well, indexes all MS Office documents, including PSTs, PDFs, inside compressed archives, etc.-tinjaw (October 14, 2007, 12:44 PM)
I wonder, did anyone try Exalead (http://www.exalead.es/download/exaleadDesktop)?-Lashiec (October 14, 2007, 05:37 PM)
KNOWN LIMITATIONS
Installation and Configuration:
- You must have the Administrative Rights on your machine to install Exalead Desktop.
Hard Drives:
- Metadata Quicktime files media files are not indexed
- Only the first 100 pages of big office files are indexed.
- If your hard drive contains many files with inconsistent modifications times (modification in the future for instance), these files might be indexed again each time Exalead Desktop restarts, leading to bad overall performance.
Performance:
- “As Soon As Possible” indexing strategy may drag down the overall performance of your computer. Sticking to “When Idle” indexing strategy fixed the problem.
- If the user configures the Product to index the whole content of its C: hard drive, a small impact in the overall performance of its PC might be noticed, especially when services that manipulate a large number of temporary files are also running on the same PC.
Outlook Express:
- It is not possible to index IMAP accounts within Outlook Express-Exalead ReadMe
Locate....if you use anything else, your computer should be confiscated.-Nighted (October 15, 2007, 05:21 PM)
KNOWN LIMITATIONS
- Only the first 100 pages of big office files are indexed.-Exalead ReadMe-Curt (October 15, 2007, 11:49 AM)
Thanks Carol for all the screenshots and comments !
Does it index outlook tasks and calendar events ?
I wonder if what Curt said about uninstallation is a common problem...
Also :KNOWN LIMITATIONS
- Only the first 100 pages of big office files are indexed.-Exalead ReadMe-Curt (October 15, 2007, 11:49 AM)
A limitation of the free version, I assume... That means that for a few users, only the paid version ($50) would be interesting.
Lashiec : as you probably know, there are some “industrial strength” solutions, (like dtSearch — tried it and didn’t like it), but most are not affordable or not that great for everyday use (large indexes, poor GUI designs, rigid features, expensive updates…).-Armando (October 16, 2007, 12:01 AM)
No way to move (or rebuild) the entire index on alternate location. It would be useful for some reasons. (CDS can do this.)
Some files with accented characters in theirs filename display "no preview available". They are properly found and listed in results and can be opened normally. But only the same file with accented characters removed can be previewed. The strange fact is that this doesn't apply to Outlook mail attachments; they are all properly displayed regardless of theirs filenames.
EOD doesn't mark multiple searched term with different colors
The index is not updated as it should be. It updates properly on Outlook, but not on the files.
Currently A3000 use OLE to access Outlook mailboxes. 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).
But OLE access is slow and not good for latest version of Outlook. We should
switch to COM method (it is used in other search systems). We are planning
to switch in the future.
Archivarius stats: 5.59 GB, 1.07 milliion documents, 369 GB files indexed. Time to build index, 7h 48m.-Ralf Maximus (October 21, 2007, 08:01 AM)
Hi Dormouse - no, that's not right.That's good as the estimate ended up at 205GB. ;D-Darwin (October 21, 2007, 03:41 PM)
I've written to the author about the index size estimate. I pointed out that this may well be costing him customers who see the estimate and don't even try the software! Until Dormouse pointed it out, I'd forgotten that I very nearly didn't try it myself for that reason.-Darwin (October 22, 2007, 07:41 AM)
I agree that the 10000 files limit could be an annoying surpise : it is NOT advertised. You're right. (You might not feel like it, but you could send them a little note. That's what I'd do : some developers don't realize how small things like that can make all the difference and... They need to be told nicely.)Humm, I'm pretty sure I noticed a file limit somewhere when I tried Archivarius - but it might have been a "sorry, can't index more than..." message rather than something advertised up-front.-Armando (October 27, 2007, 02:00 AM)
Is an unadvertised 10000 file limit on a free trial really the same as falsely promoting something under the "freeware" tag when it's in fact... a trialware?It's certainly an "artificial limit" to put on the application, rather than the normal additional-feature-in-payware-version thing, but imho it can still be labeled as freeware as long as it doesn't have a trial period, nag screens, etc...-Armando (October 27, 2007, 02:00 AM)
As I love Archivarius and as there are features and changes that I'd love to see implemented, I will e-mail the author about this... Why? Because the more people buy Archivarius, the more time the author will be able to devote to developing it and implementing the changes I'd like to see. Oh crap. That would also mean the less time he will have for support and customer service! Decisions...-Darwin (October 27, 2007, 09:09 AM)
...more precise results and will be lighter on resources...
I agree that the 10000 files limit could be an annoying surpise : it is NOT advertised.
...
Is an unadvertised 10000 file limit on a free trial really the same as falsely promoting something under the "freeware" tag when it's in fact... a trialware?-Armando (October 27, 2007, 02:00 AM)
In terms of misleading the person downloading the software, there is no difference. It's a lie, plain and simple. Not the truth. Trying to sucker someone into installing your software under false pretenses. That's why I wouldn't use such software.
If Archivarius really is "more precise results and will be lighter on resources", surely the software authors would like me to check this on all my files? The limitation seems to me just a way of avoiding a true comparison with other software - until you've parted with your cash, when it's too late.-jamesthebod (October 28, 2007, 05:15 AM)
potential customers are turned off before they can evaluate anything.-Ralf Maximus (October 28, 2007, 02:00 PM)
I first started with Desktop search progs with Alta Vista (can't remember what they called it)-Dormouse (October 28, 2007, 07:40 PM)
... consider the developer: from their standpoint the WHOLE WORLD is out there trying to rip them off, either by sharing licenses or cracks
... how to protect their baby from being pirated.
... people WILL find a way around it.
... So everyone loses...
... The author gets a bad reputation (because even honest users are annoyed) and potential customers are turned off before they can evaluate anything.-Ralf Maximus (October 28, 2007, 02:00 PM)
I had been looking around at desktop searches since my copy of X1 seemed to be getting slow at waking up from the tray. Then after installation of other software it refused to wake up at all. I uninstalled it completely and re-installed it (X1 Enterprise Client Version 5.6.2) , and it's brilliant, back to the way it was before. So I'm not going to bother looking elsewhere.-jamesthebod (October 30, 2007, 04:39 AM)
From what I've read about other programs, I can't find any information about searching for folders.
Does anyone know if one of the other contenders works with folder names?-alxwz (October 30, 2007, 04:57 PM)
I am using Windows XP SP2/Outlook 2003 SP2 and Neo 3 (there is a 30 day trieal of Neo Pro and also freebie version at http://www.caelo.com/products/download.php). Would some kind soul download and try this with Outlook 2003 and then check their PST files with SCANPST after each use?
Cheers-Carol Haynes (October 30, 2007, 10:33 AM)
I first started with Desktop search progs with Alta Vista (can't remember what they called it)-Dormouse (October 28, 2007, 07:40 PM)
AltaVista Discovery? Here's a blog post (http://labnol.blogspot.com/2004/10/forgotten-hero-in-desktop-search.html) on it.-rjbull (October 29, 2007, 06:32 AM)
I am using Windows XP SP2/Outlook 2003 SP2 and Neo 3 (there is a 30 day trieal of Neo Pro and also freebie version at http://www.caelo.com/products/download.php). Would some kind soul download and try this with Outlook 2003 and then check their PST files with SCANPST after each use?-Carol Haynes (October 30, 2007, 10:33 AM)
I don't have the time to check this tonight, but I might try in a few days...
I must say that when I use scanpst, it will show me errors half of the time. Outlook doesn't seem to have any problems with these errors though... For now, I've decided to accept these errors as an MS feature. These PST files always have errors. AS long as they show all my data...
Have your PST files shown any signs of data corruption? Or is it just scanpst showing errors?-Armando (October 30, 2007, 08:59 PM)
The problem is that Outlook doesn't seem to do any sort of consistency check at all on opening the file or on closing it. It strikes me that the design of the file structure is the cause for the problems as it is so slow to check validity and a major worry about data security and integrity. Email archives are some of the most important data files on my system and I worry that one day I will try to open an archive only for me to experience the problems frequently described on the MS usenet groups.-Carol Haynes (October 31, 2007, 04:01 AM)
Is ScanPST a Microsoft or a 3rd-party tool, Carol?-f0dder (October 31, 2007, 06:20 AM)
The problem is that Outlook doesn't seem to do any sort of consistency check at all on opening the file or on closing it. It strikes me that the design of the file structure is the cause for the problems as it is so slow to check validity and a major worry about data security and integrity. Email archives are some of the most important data files on my system and I worry that one day I will try to open an archive only for me to experience the problems frequently described on the MS usenet groups.-Carol Haynes (October 31, 2007, 04:01 AM)
I know you went through the excercise of looking at other e-mail clients, only to come back to Outlook. But if you're ultimately worried about Outlook's long-term integrity, is is worth reconsidering?-rjbull (October 31, 2007, 04:52 AM)
Trouble is that Outlook is more than just an email client and I use it a lot. Also if Outlook has file problems that go unnoticed how do we know that other apps don't too?
At least if my PST file gets corrupted there are hundreds of companies out there that will help to solve the problem - most of the other apps you are stuck with support from one company (and the hope that it stays in business).
The ONLY reason I migrated from Outlook to Thunderbird + Lightning is this: there is no proprietary format; everything is stored in plain text files, exactly as the email was received. Just like the good old unix days.
The ONLY reason I migrated from Outlook to Thunderbird + Lightning is this: there is no proprietary format; everything is stored in plain text files, exactly as the email was received. Just like the good old unix days.
How are HTML emails and attachments stored in Thunderbird? How can you archive off older email to stop folders becoming unmanageable - are there tools built in to do it?-Carol Haynes (October 31, 2007, 07:58 AM)
How are HTML emails and attachments stored in Thunderbird? How can you archive off older email to stop folders becoming unmanageable - are there tools built in to do it?-Carol Haynes (October 31, 2007, 07:58 AM)
| Technical details Thunderbird stores the whole e-mail together, including the attachment, in MIME format in the mailbox files in your Profile folder - Thunderbird. It does not un-encode and store the attachment outside the mailbox file unless you save or detach it as described above. By contrast, the Eudora e-mail program automatically un-encodes and detaches the attachment when you receive the e-mail; it always stores attachments as separate files. |
| External links * AutoZip Attachments extension * Attachment Extractor extension * Copy Attachments to Clipboard extension * Slideshow extension |
Calling ThunderBird fast is wrong, imho - it has the same bloaty-slow startup feeling that FireFox has (I bet it's the whole XUL interface deal), and moving large amounts of messages between folders is slow - because of the retarded all-text MBOX format used.-f0dder (October 31, 2007, 10:47 AM)
The main problem (which is why I think I rejected it last time) is the lack of export options.-Carol Haynes (October 31, 2007, 10:55 AM)
| * Google Desktop Extreme * |
| Google Desktop Extreme (http://www.all4you.dk/FreewareWorld/Google_Desktop_Extreme-42653.html) brings the power of Google search to your desktop - with advanced features not available in the standard version. GDX begins searching as soon as you start to type, returning results as fast as possible - even faster than you can type. GDX also has auto-complete, so your searches are remembered for quick access [...] |
Download from: http://www.all4you.dk/FreewareWorld/Google_Desktop_Extreme-42653.html |
armando, Dormouse, yksyks:
Maybe some misunderstanding, I do not want to specifically look for folders (which is the case if I revert to a different app like DOpus Find, Locate32 etc. just for a search containing folder names) or use some of the procedures described for X1 or Exalead.
I just want folders to be treated like files or file contents: One search over everything (isn't this what desktop search is all about?), and it will find the a folder with the keyword in its name just like a file with the string in its name or its content.
I read from your replies that almost all programs won't do that.-alxwz (October 31, 2007, 03:48 PM)
I tried Archivarius and didn't like it, because it doesn't have a preview pane. I don't want excerpts from my file with matching highlights, I want to see the entire file and then search for that term in it. This is how X1/Yahoo and Copernic do it and I'm afraid anything else (Archivarius, GDS) just doesn't make sense!-MrCrispy (November 08, 2007, 03:54 PM)
So.. am I a pervert now?-Ralf Maximus (December 07, 2007, 11:43 AM)
Finder is an index-based fast file search tool-Finder's homepage
I've been testing out Archivarius, and I was delighted to discover that it indexes IMAP accounts.-johnk (February 22, 2008, 11:13 AM)
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 :Thmbsup: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.-Darwin (February 28, 2008, 11:02 PM)
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)
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.-Darwin (March 09, 2008, 12:35 AM)
Does someone knowhow I can index files of a PORTABLE thunderbird version?-masu (March 09, 2008, 08:36 AM)
- not as quick as archivarius, copernic or X1-Armando (March 09, 2008, 06:59 PM)
- a bit more difficult to find what I was looking for -- - couldn't enter search queries as quickly
- not as accurateWhy? Here are the some on the fly search options, that making searching personalized and easier:
- Index was taking a lot of space
- RAM hungry
But, it's been a while... It might have improved.-Armando (March 09, 2008, 06:59 PM)
PS This is the way to fly... I decided to update the E-mail index mentioned above with Outlook shutdown and it took 17 seconds.-Darwin (March 10, 2008, 06:01 PM)
Odd. I can't make this work, Armando - in either dtSearch or Archivarius.-Darwin (March 10, 2008, 03:43 PM)
So what makes it so fast? In a nutshell, Search GT reads the file system directly, bypassing all of the Windows system libraries that are normally used for file enumeration. This allows users to get the results fast, and ensures that those results are always up-to-date.-Search GT
Historically, XYplorer is not a file manager with a search feature, but a search tool with a file manager attached to it. Not for nothing it was called "Tracker" before...
I am VERY impressed with the speed of today's offer from Bits du Jour: Search GT. ($10)
The program is quite new and you will probably miss some features for some time. It will not yet search the content of the files, nor any emails, and you will have to wait for the next version to search for folder names. It is merely a plain old fashion search engine. But: the SPEED! Be aware that this is done without any indexing at all!!--Curt (March 13, 2008, 11:57 AM)
the website for Search GT
http://www.search-gt.com/
says - "Completely integrated into Windows Explorer"
can anyone say what that means... context menu or ..??-tomos (March 13, 2008, 04:27 PM)
"Completely integrated into Windows Explorer"- can anyone say what that means... context menu or ..??-tomos (March 13, 2008, 04:27 PM)
Singing the praises of an app that a software addict such as myself can't actually try out is like waving a red flag at a bull.-Darwin (March 13, 2008, 04:02 PM)
One thing to note about Seeker is that it DOES search within files, which may be why it was taking longer than SearchGT.-Darwin (March 13, 2008, 03:49 PM)
Best thing: PowerDesk (http://web.avanquest.com/ML/2007/PowerDesk_6/VCOM/10/PowerDesk6_0307.htm) is a very good File Manager,-Darwin (March 16, 2008, 11:05 AM)
PowerDesk (http://web.avanquest.com/ML/2007/PowerDesk_6/VCOM/10/PowerDesk6_0307.htm) ..... can be had for the princely sum of $9.95-Darwin (March 16, 2008, 11:05 AM)
The other thing I have noticed is that lots of their titles say they are Vista compat and yet haven't seen a version change since Vista was released.Properly coded applications don't need changes to be Vista compatible :) - except for a few special cases like file managers that need better junction support.-Carol Haynes (March 16, 2008, 01:56 PM)
Do you really expect there will be a version 7 ??-Curt (March 16, 2008, 01:49 PM)
Avanquest ... seem to specialise in good ideas that then die a quiet death which continuing to sell the products.
I think they are basically acting as a reseller these days-Carol Haynes (March 16, 2008, 01:56 PM)
My version of PowerDesk Pro is 6.0.4.2 © 1998-2005 - Any newer ones?
Edit:
Maybe 'someone' will download the supposedly new trial (http://www.avanquest.com/USA/trialDownload.html?pid=8-80615-64) and tell what version's number it is? :tellme:-Curt (March 16, 2008, 01:49 PM)
6.0.1.3-Dormouse (March 27, 2008, 06:42 AM)
Holy smokes, Batman! I just noticed the "File Finder" entry in my context menu and put it through its paces. Wow! It's PowerDesk Pro 6's search feature. Works without indexing and is as quick as Search GT (and as accurate/thorough as well). ...-Darwin (March 16, 2008, 11:05 AM)
Windows Desktop Search cannot even search outlook express contacts or thunderbird emails-kartal (March 29, 2008, 01:22 AM)
I uninstalled it from my machine also because it runs all the time. It was not like you could disable it like copernicI believe you can set the Indexing service to disabled if you really want to disable it. Or you can change the locations it indexes to be very small so it doesn't do much.-kartal (March 29, 2008, 01:22 AM)
Windows Desktop Search cannot even search outlook express contacts or thunderbird emails, kind of useless for me. I uninstalled it from my machine also because it runs all the time. It was not like you could disable it like copernic-kartal (March 29, 2008, 01:22 AM)
... the version I have doesnt seem to have viewers for much of anything-iphigenie (March 30, 2008, 06:41 AM)
Update your PowerDesk Pro to 6.0.4.2 >here (http://www.v-com.com/download/download_maintenance.html)< 7.17 MB-Curt (March 27, 2008, 02:42 PM)
And do you really want to buy from a company that seems not to be advertising the availability of v7 at the same time as it is actively selling (special offer, Bitsdujour etc) v6 at a discount price?-Dormouse (March 31, 2008, 12:25 PM)
both the upgrade price and the welcome to the new website discount-Grorgy (March 31, 2008, 02:36 PM)
the upgrade price of $19.95 is replaced by a new price of $25.97.-Darwin (March 31, 2008, 04:42 PM)
So $9.95+$19.95 is more than $25.97. But if the upgrade is not worth it, $9.95 on its own is less. Who can know if it is worth it if there is no trial available?Well - as stated HERE (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=12884.msg108188;topicseen#msg108188) the price of v6 can now be $0.0. Probably the best starting point for anyone who does not have it and actually wants it. One thing I would say for Avanquest is the the prices for $ are effectively the same as the prices in £.-Dormouse (March 31, 2008, 06:00 PM)
Not really, Tom! XYPlorer started out life as a file searcher:That's right, and I finally found some time to check out that "Search GT" (ver 2.3). I had done so already once almost a year ago and was utterly disappointed by its slowness compared to XYplorer. So I was curious whether it got any faster with the lastest version -- especially after having read all the nice talk about it here at donationcoder.Historically, XYplorer is not a file manager with a search feature, but a search tool with a file manager attached to it. Not for nothing it was called "Tracker" before...
Source: https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=4849.msg87001#msg87001-Darwin (March 13, 2008, 03:43 PM)
Even for desktop searches I use a small grep tool called: BareGrep
Really love this piece of freeware. Get it from www.baremetalsoft.com
My system is not indexed in any way and it takes 1.5 seconds to search my complete C: drive for all *.jpg files (and finding 6045 of them).
It is also portable (one executable file which is about 200 kilobyte in size).-Shades (April 26, 2008, 04:22 PM)
- but it is fast!But slow for me. I started it on a search on my C drive (no option to search all drives that I could find), I then switched to SearchGT doing the same search across 3 drives (total GB over ten times greater). SearchGT completed its search quite a while before BareGrep/-Curt (April 26, 2008, 05:39 PM)
I found it awesomly fast on my data files-Carol Haynes (April 26, 2008, 06:46 PM)
But then there is the annoying splash, hmm... however, I don't yet feel to pay $35 to have it removed-Curt (April 27, 2008, 11:29 AM)
Doh! I was/am talking about the Pro version :-[ I only recently purchased it and have not had much time to configure it... That's my story and I'm sticking to it.-Darwin (April 27, 2008, 04:26 PM)
AstroGrep http://astrogrep.sourceforge.net
This has a very handy "context lines" search option. There you can set how many lines will be shown above and below the search result.-Shades (April 27, 2008, 06:39 PM)
So, which program did he rip off this time?-Curt (May 20, 2008, 04:58 PM)
Desktop Search Express (http://www.thepickapp.com/desktop_search_express.html)
System Requirements:
Microsoft Windows 95/98/NT/ME/2000/XP operating system.
.NET Framework Version 1.1
Yeah, Windows 9x can use up to .NET Framework 2.0.-Lashiec (May 21, 2008, 10:05 AM)
So, which program did he rip off this time?-Curt (May 20, 2008, 04:58 PM)???-rjbull (May 21, 2008, 03:54 AM)
So, which program did he rip off this time?-Curt (May 20, 2008, 04:58 PM)???-rjbull (May 21, 2008, 03:54 AM)
- thanks for questening!
This is terrible; I confused two logos and brand names - most unfair! Sorry!
https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=11947.msg97698#msg97698-Curt (May 22, 2008, 07:43 AM)
Wait, are you using three desktop search engines? Are you storing the indexes in a server? ;D-Lashiec (June 03, 2008, 06:01 PM)
My name is Mike and I am a software addict...
I'm running all three on a notebook with a 120GB harddrive..-Darwin (June 04, 2008, 10:54 AM)
but then what would I do about the 15 file managers that I have installed, the multiple file/folder compparators, and the numerous reg-ex/text search and replace apps that I have installed. Then there are the office suites and the note takers/web archivers. Nope. Too many decisions :P-Darwin (June 04, 2008, 10:54 AM)
Wait, are you using three desktop search engines? Are you storing the indexes in a server? ;D-Lashiec (June 03, 2008, 06:01 PM)
My name is Mike and I am a software addict...
I'm running all three on a notebook with a 120GB harddrive... The indices combined total about 3GB - the largest being Archivarius at about 2GB with dtSearch weighing in at 580MB and X1 at 472MB... I still have about 20 GB free so am not worried. I *know* that I *should* settle on one (or at most two!) and uninstall what I'm not using, but then what would I do about the 15 file managers that I have installed, the multiple file/folder compparators, and the numerous reg-ex/text search and replace apps that I have installed. Then there are the office suites and the note takers/web archivers. Nope. Too many decisions :P-Darwin (June 04, 2008, 10:54 AM)
it sounds, possibly, like either SearchGTor FileLocator Pro.-Darwin (June 04, 2008, 11:15 PM)
Do your 15 licenses for file managers include XYplorer (http://www.xyplorer.com/)? And if so, how do you rate its search functions against those, given that it's a file manager built on a file-finder, rather than the other way round?-rjbull (June 05, 2008, 03:24 AM)
I'm running all three on a notebook with a 120GB harddrive... The indices combined total about 3GB - the largest being Archivarius at about 2GB with dtSearch weighing in at 580MB and X1 at 472MB... I still have about 20 GB free so am not worried.-Darwin (June 04, 2008, 10:54 AM)
5) During un-install I was asked this question I really hate to get:
>Remove shared file?< :mad:
(see attachment in previous post (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=2434.msg115444#msg115444))-Curt (June 05, 2008, 03:26 AM)
EvenMoreEdited:
Also, the shortcut in Quick Launch was left behind. :down:
Would you guys mind give a try and compare it to others?-kartal (June 05, 2008, 09:34 PM)
Do your 15 licenses for file managers include XYplorer (http://www.xyplorer.com/)? And if so, how do you rate its search functions against those, given that it's a file manager built on a file-finder, rather than the other way round?:-[ I'm feeling quite embarrassed now (rather than being simply embarrassed)...-rjbull (June 05, 2008, 03:24 AM)-Darwin (June 05, 2008, 08:47 AM)
But c'est la vie! Yes, I have a lifetime licence for XYPlorer and love it. It's search feature is very fine, but I would rate it between SearchGT and FileLocator Pro based on speed AND based on feature set
- the differences would be that if speed were determining the criteria, SearchGT would win, whereas on feature set FL Pro would win.
However, if you're taking BOTH into account, XYPlorer heads the list! It's quicker than FL Pro and DOES do file content searching. However, I've never really been able to get it to work - all the hits that I get contain my search term in their titles and I KNOW that there are many thousands of files that contain the search term in their content but not in their titles. Anyway, just did such a regular "title" search and it took 79 seconds on 80 GB of data (114,000 files in 9000 folders). Content searches take A LONG TIME. In fact, FL Pro handles this kind of search much more quickly.
EDIT: Please note I run an optimised version of XP --4wd (June 05, 2008, 10:12 PM)
I'll take it that here we're primarily talking features as an information finder, rather than a plain file finder or file manager.-rjbull (June 06, 2008, 03:34 AM)
The main problem I have with XYPlorer's content search feature is that it is not only slow, but also SO slow that I tend to give up on it (and it chews up a lot of resources as well).-Darwin (June 06, 2008, 08:17 AM)
I should play with it on a much more restricted set of files (ie not on my entire E: drive - 80+ GB, as I usually do...).
FL Pro is very nice, but BareGrep Pro is much faster
... As you might imagine, I have licences for both :-[
Why all the red faced smilies of late? Well... I have licences for a lot of software but have next to no expertise with any of them - sort of a modified Jack of all trades, master of none... How would that go? Darwin of all apps, master of none
Uh, should this be moved to the file managers thread?-Lashiec (June 06, 2008, 09:53 AM)
That's because I use the original english spelling not the butchered, "americanized" version of the english language :DEDIT: Please note I run an optimised version of XP -- you don't seem to have the same conception of the word "optimized" as I have.-4wd (June 05, 2008, 10:12 PM)-Curt (June 06, 2008, 06:28 AM)
Verb 1. optimise - make optimal; get the most out of; use best; "optimise your resources"Note: I changed the spelling in the above to correct it :)
Programs that run perfectly well on other machines will not run on yours, is not quite telling it is 'optimized'.
We do not all have the same meaning on this or that, but in general I would say that people who are buying a limousine are not expected to see how much they can remove from the car, are they. If they want the vehicle to move faster they don't usually rip off and throw out the seats, but are more tending to tune up the engine...Car analogies are notoriously inaccurate but since you mention the one above I would classify my removing the useless, (to me), parts of XP as "tending to tune up the engine..."
but in general I would say that people who are buying a limousine are not expected to see how much they can remove from the car, are they.You obviously don't watch Top Gear. They bought a XJ-S Jaguar and removed everything unnecessary to it's primary operation, (which is basically getting the passengers from one point to another), to see how much faster it would go. Guess what? It went faster.
That's because I use the original english spelling not the butchered, "americanized" version of the english language :D-4wd (June 06, 2008, 07:39 PM)
Snobby?! Me?! Never?!That's because I use the original english spelling not the butchered, "americanized" version of the english language :D-4wd (June 06, 2008, 07:39 PM)
nice reply 4WD, but really, there's no need to get snobby about english/english spelling :P-tomos (June 07, 2008, 02:34 AM)
short of opening each pdf up and reading through it...-Darwin (June 07, 2008, 12:05 PM)
We had to TURN PAGES. We even had to stack them outsidePages? PAGES? Why, when I was a lad they were incised on stone tablets!-tinjaw (June 07, 2008, 12:45 PM)
Why, when I was a lad they were incised on stone tablets!-cranioscopical (June 07, 2008, 02:29 PM)
WDS is better in email handling, but it's tooooo slow. It slow down every things in my computer, I have to give it up.-xcity (June 07, 2008, 11:55 AM)
Why, when I was a lad they were incised on stone tablets!-cranioscopical (June 07, 2008, 02:29 PM)
Shouldn't that be "When I were a lad..."?-Darwin (June 07, 2008, 07:11 PM)
My main problem with WDS is that it does not support thunderbird at all.-kartal (June 07, 2008, 10:04 PM)
I'm running all three on a notebook with a 120GB harddrive... The indices combined total about 3GB - the largest being Archivarius at about 2GB with dtSearch weighing in at 580MB and X1 at 472MB... I still have about 20 GB free so am not worried.-Darwin (June 04, 2008, 10:54 AM)
Oh, I thought the indexes were FAR bigger.-Lashiec (June 05, 2008, 09:33 AM)
Windows Desktop Search Thunderbird (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=windows+desktop+search+thundebird&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a) maybe these work for you?-justice (June 09, 2008, 03:46 AM)
Just an update: Archivarius has been updated to version 4.05. This is noteworthy because my index has been optimized and now sits at a hair over 1GB instead of 2 :Thmbsup:wow, that's a pretty big change... Thanks for the info Darwin.-Darwin (June 09, 2008, 11:44 AM)
Just an update: Archivarius has been updated to version 4.05. This is noteworthy because my index has been optimized and now sits at a hair over 1GB instead of 2 :Thmbsup:wow, that's a pretty big change... Thanks for the info Darwin.-Darwin (June 09, 2008, 11:44 AM)-Armando (June 09, 2008, 09:01 PM)
We're happy to announce the release of LookDisk (http://www.iconico.com/LookDisk/). I know I've been frustrated by the regular search that comes standard with Windows, and once I've turned off the little animated character that comes with it i'm often left wanting more. With LookDisk you get all the advanced searching capabilites that you've wanted.
LookDisk is excellent at finding duplicate files, searching for files and finding text in files. Being able to specify multiple places to search in is a real timesaver, and the results grid has some powerful options that you can access by right clicking a file. You can easily select file groups based on your own parameters.
The software is available on trial download and can be purchased for $29.50. Feel free to download and give it a test run.
(Archivarius is gone, sniff --Darwin (June 16, 2008, 11:27 AM)
The 60+ applications that I removed freed up over 5 GB of spaceGood heavens! It'll take you at least a week to replace those with alternative clutter... ;)-Darwin (June 16, 2008, 12:00 PM)
.. I just received the Iconico newsletter announcing thisWe're happy to announce the release of LookDisk (http://www.iconico.com/LookDisk/).-Darwin (June 16, 2008, 11:27 AM)
Hi Curt,
Glad that you like LookDisk (I'm the author).
In the current version LookDisk can only find text within 'plain' textfiles and PDFs but not within RTF/DOC. To be precise it will find text within RTF/DOC as long as it's not formatted text (e.g. in bold or italic) as the text would be interspersed with formatting characters. Nevertheless, support for RTF/DOC is something I'm planning to implement soon.
As for Vista support, unfortunately it's not a straightforward port from XP so that might take a longer...
Regards,
Vincenzo
You may download the feature limited trial, and evaluate the software for as long as you need
Hi vinc64, ... It's alway GREAT to see developers on these boards discussing their programs.-Darwin (July 02, 2008, 10:31 AM)
.. I just received the Iconico newsletter announcing thisWe're happy to announce the release of LookDisk (http://www.iconico.com/LookDisk/).-Darwin (June 16, 2008, 11:27 AM)
I received this letter from the author:Hi Curt,
Glad that you like LookDisk (I'm the author).
...
As for Vista support, unfortunately it's not a straightforward port from XP so that might take a longer...
Regards,
Vincenzo
Promising - but for now, I think $30 is too much.-Curt (June 16, 2008, 06:15 PM)
the website for Search GT
http://www.search-gt.com/
says - "Completely integrated into Windows Explorer"
can anyone say what that means... context menu or ..??-tomos (March 13, 2008, 04:27 PM)
4. Complete integration into Windows Explorer. Search GT duplicates the Windows File Search functionality (check the screenshots). You start the search and get the search results within the Windows Explorer window.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]-search-gt.com
... SearchGT not .. updated for 3½ months..., but it is *not* as if there aren't a number of features still not available...-Curt (July 16, 2008, 07:01 PM)
What desktop search app best supports 'smart folders'. The WDS 4.0 saved searches feature is useless because-MrCrispy (July 24, 2008, 03:21 AM)
Scrapbook simply saves html pages, so any search program will index them. But all the pages are named "index.html". Scrapbook's built-in (non-indexed) search returns page titles rather than file names, which is fine. But the search programs I use (Archivarius, WDS) don't offer this option, so every search of Scrapbook pages just brings back a list of "index.html" pages -- you have to view each one to find what you're looking for. I'd like to find a search program that offers the option to view page titles for HTML files rather than filenames.-johnk (July 24, 2008, 05:40 AM)
In Archivarius, click "Switch list" at the bottom and the list will be changed into a style that shows a few lines of extract for each file.That's very helpful. Many thanks.-mwang (August 12, 2008, 02:14 PM)
So Archivarius is out unless there is another way to purchase.According to their order page (http://www.likasoft.com/order.shtml), orders can be made over phone (toll free), fax, or postal mail, if that's acceptable to you.-J-Mac (August 18, 2008, 01:09 AM)
So Archivarius is out unless there is another way to purchase.According to their order page (http://www.likasoft.com/order.shtml), orders can be made over phone (toll free), fax, or postal mail, if that's acceptable to you.-J-Mac (August 18, 2008, 01:09 AM)-mwang (August 18, 2008, 02:18 AM)
... Windows Desktop Search (have you tried version 4? People do seem to like it)...-Darwin (August 18, 2008, 01:42 AM)
J-Mac,
I have had zero problems with Locate32 after using it for, oh, I don't know, over a year, and on dozens of computers. My only guess as to why you have problems is that you are not updating your index. Locate32 will only show you files in its index. That index needs to be updated. I have mine set to update every night and sometimes update it manually when I know the machine will be sitting idle for a while.
Do you have Locate32 properly configured to update the index?-tinjaw (August 18, 2008, 08:15 AM)
Also, I am still not certain exactly how he set up its Boolean operations. If you just type in three or four words, it searches as "ANY" and brings back far too many words.-J-Mac (August 18, 2008, 01:11 PM)
Also, I am still not certain exactly how he set up its Boolean operations. If you just type in three or four words, it searches as "ANY" and brings back far too many words.-J-Mac (August 18, 2008, 01:11 PM)
Settings > Advanced > check "Use AND mode as a default"
It should be ON by default, IMHO.-yksyks (August 18, 2008, 03:20 PM)
I am not going to test DocFetcher (http://docfetcher.sourceforge.net/index.html) any further - unless someone tells me how to make it start minimized - it is too annoying to see it fill up the screen at each startup! The shortcut is of course marked Start Minimized - I also tried if it would accept -tray for an argument - but to no avail.-Curt (October 29, 2008, 06:18 PM)
I am not going to test DocFetcher (http://docfetcher.sourceforge.net/index.html) any further - unless someone tells me how to make it start minimized - it is too annoying to see it fill up the screen at each startup! The shortcut is of course marked Start Minimized - I also tried if it would accept -tray for an argument - but to no avail.Heh heh! :D Don’t you just hate that !? Try using Chameleon Startup Manager - it does that with ANY program for which I set up a startup delay. Annoying is much too mild a word for this. If I could find another startup manager that handled start delays I drop this dog in a minute.-Curt (October 29, 2008, 06:18 PM)Oh! And of course. Startup Delayer (http://www.r2.com.au/software.php?page=2&show=startdelay) does this very well as well...-Darwin (October 29, 2008, 10:58 PM)-J-Mac (October 29, 2008, 10:37 PM)
Both WinPatrol and AnVir Task Manager Pro handle delayed startups. WinPatrol provides you with more options and control and comes in a free version, mind you...-Darwin (October 29, 2008, 10:54 PM)
I drop this dog in a minute.-J-Mac (October 29, 2008, 10:37 PM)
I am not going to test DocFetcher (http://docfetcher.sourceforge.net/index.html) any further - unless someone tells me how to make it start minimized - it is too annoying to see it fill up the screen at each startup! The shortcut is of course marked Start Minimized - I also tried if it would accept -tray for an argument - but to no avail.-Curt (October 29, 2008, 06:18 PM)
Try using Chameleon Startup Manager - it does that with ANY program for which I set up a startup delay. Annoying is much too mild a word for this.
If I could find another startup manager that handled start delays I drop this dog in a minute.
Jim-J-Mac (October 29, 2008, 10:37 PM)
Thanks for the friendly welcome :)
I hope Curd won't take my comment as a personal offence or something; I just couldn't help but laugh :D-qforce (November 09, 2008, 04:49 PM)
Btw are you planning any thunderbird and contacts support at all?Actually no. With Gmail and all that web stuff I can easily search in my e-mails and contacts from any computer with internet connection, not just from the computer where my e-mail client is installed. That's why I abandoned thunderbird a long time ago, and why I never really felt the need to go beyond document indexing.-kartal (November 09, 2008, 05:56 PM)
Btw, the other reason why I left thunderbird behind is that I've lost hundreds of e-mails because I forgot to include them in the backup before formatting the disk. F*CK... Lesson learned: Never use your hard drive as your main e-mail repository.-qforce (November 09, 2008, 06:40 PM)
looks interesting qforce, do you, or do you intend to support the docx and other formats from MS Office 2007?DocFetcher will support MS Office 2007 as soon as the guys from Apache POI (http://poi.apache.org/) are done with implementing support for these formats, which I expect to happen soon. (Apache POI is the library DocFetcher uses to extract text from MS Office files.)-Grorgy (November 09, 2008, 07:06 PM)
I am not going to test DocFetcher (http://docfetcher.sourceforge.net/index.html) any further - unless someone tells me how to make it start minimized - it is too annoying to see it fill up the screen at each startup! The shortcut is of course marked Start Minimized - I also tried if it would accept -tray for an argument - but to no avail.@Curt: Some questions I'd like to ask you:-Curt (October 29, 2008, 06:18 PM)
Hi qforce - welcome to DC, it's always nice to have developers drop in here, and thanks for pointing us to your feature request forum. I haven't tried DocFetcher, but it looks nice :Thmbsup: FYI, Curt's mention of a dog was only peripherally linked to DocFetcher; Jim was actually referring to Chameleon Startup Manager:Try using Chameleon Startup Manager - it does that with ANY program for which I set up a startup delay. Annoying is much too mild a word for this.
If I could find another startup manager that handled start delays I drop this dog in a minute.
Jim-J-Mac (October 29, 2008, 10:37 PM)
Hope to see more of you in this thread and around the forum.-Darwin (November 09, 2008, 04:36 PM)
Jim was actually referring to Chameleon Startup Manager-J-Mac (November 10, 2008, 05:48 PM)
I assumed that DocFetcher would need to be placed in Start in order to keep the index updated.Nope, DocFetcher doesn't automatically update its indexes when it starts. However, there are plans to implement a non-java daemon that will take care of the index updates, and that won't display any annoying startup windows (I promise! :Thmbsup:)
Was I assuming wrongly? If I was, there is of course no need for it to start minimized. But if I was right, and it needs to start with Windows, then it really should start minimized, because I would never use it until later when I have finished reading my mail, etcetera.
Sure, a checkbox will be all it would take.
Thanks for asking! :-)-Curt (November 10, 2008, 03:04 PM)
I just updated my vote, since I now use Copernic. Seems to be the best jack-of-all-trades compromise between performance, beauty, ease of use, and stability.-Ralf Maximus (November 27, 2008, 07:53 AM)
.... like burning a CD or DVD - I had to end Copernic's process because it would steal so much CPU and cause burns to fail.-J-Mac (November 27, 2008, 02:21 PM)
I've always wondered... what the heck *is* BurnProof?The ability to stop the burning process and resume it, with the laser position within... oh, some hundred nanometres (iirc) of the last burn position, as specified by the CD/DVD specs. Apparently that's a non-trivial task?, since it was added quite some years after burners became mainstream.-Ralf Maximus (November 27, 2008, 06:32 PM)
Hm, I doubt CPU strain would be very high from file indexing (unless something is very wrong with the indexing application)-f0dder (November 27, 2008, 05:56 PM)
(why oh why wasn't I/O prioritization added before Vista?).-f0dder (November 27, 2008, 05:56 PM)
Archivarius doesn't strain the CPU too much (yes, there'S a lot of HD activity...) but X1 does. And does it in a very irritating way. The textextractor process -- in particular -- is fairly voracious.-Armando (November 27, 2008, 08:06 PM)
Archivarius doesn't strain the CPU too much (yes, there'S a lot of HD activity...) but X1 does. And does it in a very irritating way. The textextractor process -- in particular -- is fairly voracious.-Armando (November 27, 2008, 08:06 PM)
Not on my installations (XP Pro and Vista) - X1 is as light as a feather! Archivarius is a jewel, but I need the more advanced previewing capabilities that X1 offers and thus have relegated Archivarius to reserve status. dtSearch is sort of in between the two... very good previewing capabilities and easy on resources. However, it takes the longest of the three to index my drive.
NB Archivarius 4.14 is out and now indexes Acronis True Image files.-Darwin (November 27, 2008, 08:40 PM)
.... like burning a CD or DVD - I had to end Copernic's process because it would steal so much CPU and cause burns to fail.-J-Mac (November 27, 2008, 02:21 PM)
You either have an extremely old burner or have disabled whatever burn-interruption-protection-mechanism it uses - I've never had a burn fail because the CPU suddenly didn't have enough time to do it.
I've had ImgBurn sitting in the middle of a burn waiting for 15 minutes so that HDD load, (was transferring files at the same time), could reduce enough to let the buffers fill - the burn finished and the disc was OK.-4wd (November 27, 2008, 04:55 PM)
Hm, I doubt CPU strain would be very high from file indexing (unless something is very wrong with the indexing application), and CD burning doesn't require a lot of CPU power anyway... but indexing of course has a lot of disk load (why oh why wasn't I/O prioritization added before Vista?).
BurnProof/whatever-each-vendor-calls-it does save you from coasters, but it's still best not to rely on it - burn quality is lower if BurnProof has to kick in.-f0dder (November 27, 2008, 05:56 PM)
If you have multiple CPUs you can assign different tasks to different CPUs in Windows XP - or is that not what you are talking about? You can also give Tasks priortity (at least in a coarse way Idle, Low, Normal, High and RealTime).
I seem to recall a utility that a certain cat fancier made available on here called Process Tamer too ...-Carol Haynes (November 27, 2008, 08:10 PM)
Archivarius doesn't strain the CPU too much (yes, there'S a lot of HD activity...) but X1 does. And does it in a very irritating way. The textextractor process -- in particular -- is fairly voracious.-Armando (November 27, 2008, 08:06 PM)
Not on my installations (XP Pro and Vista) - X1 is as light as a feather! Archivarius is a jewel, but I need the more advanced previewing capabilities that X1 offers and thus have relegated Archivarius to reserve status. dtSearch is sort of in between the two... very good previewing capabilities and easy on resources. However, it takes the longest of the three to index my drive.
NB Archivarius 4.14 is out and now indexes Acronis True Image files.-Darwin (November 27, 2008, 08:40 PM)
dunno... Have you manually started X1's indexer ? TextExtractor is quiet for the whole time ? whatever is indexed ? Maybe it's indexing files here which are hard to... index/extract ???
But the fact is... it's been quite taxing lately...-Armando (November 27, 2008, 08:45 PM)
PS - Carol, I never even considered separating the processes by processor. I've never tried that. Does it work well? Thanks! Jim-J-Mac (November 27, 2008, 11:01 PM)
Ashampoo keeps trying to sell me "Ashampoo Core Tuner (http://www2.ashampoo.com/webcache/html/1/product_2_0061__.htm)" for $9.95. From what little I can glean from the internet, this type of application is snakeoil, no?-Darwin (November 28, 2008, 11:41 AM)
You can set the “priority” in five levels to adjust the amount of processor power each program gets. You can also specify how many processor cores each program gets to use.
I should know if they are expensive or not. I have 4.985 Yiggles-Curt (November 28, 2008, 03:54 PM)
One of the few products Ashampoo have never offerered me (they offer me almost everything regularly including out of date versions and name your price). I finally unsubscribed to the emails having got sick of the constant deluge of offers for versions of software earlier than the ones I actually bought!-Carol Haynes (November 28, 2008, 12:33 PM)
Have you ever used your discount, though, Curt? It's far cheaper to wait for them to offer you a deal (like the Core Tuner one that I mentioned) as you can't actually use your Yiggles on already discounted applications and the discounts are usually greater than 60% (let alone the 40% to which you and I are entitled)[/off-topic]
I think I will head over at www2.ashampoo and buy myself this Core Tuner while we are at it.-Curt (November 28, 2008, 07:15 PM)
Oh, I'm not disputing your observations (just contradicting 'em :P) - I know LOTS of users have reported the same problem. In fact, I left X1 for Archivarius two years ago for that reason. Somehow, when I reinstalled X1 five or so months ago the problem had vanished and I've yet to see it. However, I do rub my rabbit's foot nightly before bed! X1 is set to index automatically on my systems and is set to start automatically as well. TextExtractor is the culprit when there IS CPU activity from X1 on my systems, but it rarely exceeds more than 15%.
FWIW - I have Indexing Priority set to "Delay indexing up to 60 minutes if PC is in use" and indexing updates set to 60 minute intervals. I have the "Index local files in real-time" option enabled as well.
I have about 60GB of data indexed on each machine (they largely mirror each other) of which 10 GB are PDF files and a further 10 GB are powerpoint presentations and word documents.-Darwin (November 27, 2008, 09:55 PM)
But beside all the auto- features, my interest got caught by these words:You can set the “priority” in five levels to adjust the amount of processor power each program gets. You can also specify how many processor cores each program gets to use.
If these features can be combined, you would from my imagination be able to tell Windows Update not to use more than a fraction of a core, even if there are four cores. Or maybe I am getting this all wrong?-Curt (November 28, 2008, 03:54 PM)
Process Lasso Features:
# ProBalance dynamic priority optimization
# Default process priorities
# Default process CPU affinities
# Foreground boosting
# Limit number of program instances
# Disallow programs from running
# Process logging
# System responsiveness graph
# Stand-alone core engine
# Available in x86-32 and x86-64 builds
# Much more...
Find Desktop Professional
Create a Searchable Archive of All of Your Documents
(blah blah)... But, with a little help from Find Desktop Professional , you'll be able to distill all of your documents, both electronic and hardcopy, into one easy-to-use, searchable archive.
With Find Desktop Professional, you'll be able to conduct lightning-quick searches (even using Boolean operators) through the text of all of your electronic documents, including Word, Excel, PDF and ZIP archive files. Find Desktop Professional will index all of your email messages and attachments and include them in the query results, highlighting your search terms (and their synonyms) for easy reference. Find Desktop Professional even operates across a network!
If you have a large archive of hardcopy paperwork, Find Desktop Professional will save you from the torture of a thousand papercuts! Find Desktop Professional works with your TWAIN-compatible scanner to scan your hardcopy documents into electronic form, and automatically uses OCR to make every page searchable! You can even add annotations to scanned documents! Plus, everything that comes up in a Find Desktop Professional search result can be copied and pasted into any Windows application.
Find Desktop Professional not only eases your path to a paperless office, it opens the door to a whole new way of performing research in your documents archive!-Bits du Jour
The best or not, I don't know, but coming up Tuesday 23 DEC ‘08, Find Desktop Professional is on (a modest) sale at Bits du Jour: Deal Price: $62.50 You Save: 50% List Price: $125.00
http://www.bitsdujour.com/software/find-desktop-professional/
http://www.bitsdujour.com/software/find-desktop-professional/notify/-Curt (December 18, 2008, 09:15 AM)
Indexing speed:
1Gb per Hour (this value can be influenced by Computer performance)
I was reading about the features, when I saw this:Indexing speed:
1Gb per Hour (this value can be influenced by Computer performance)
- and my interest disappeared...-Curt (December 18, 2008, 04:14 PM)
Thanks, f0dder, but... Of course I must first pardon me for having used the wrong words, indexing and scanning are not the same. Sorry! And then I ask: How fast is this "indexing speed: 1 GB per hour", compared to other documents'_content indexers (if there are any)?-Curt (December 18, 2008, 06:30 PM)
rexCrawler is a complex file-searching utility built on the Microsoft .NET v3.5 Framework. It is capable of searching both file names and file contents using plain text or regular expression matching. File names can also be filtered using the familiar Wildcard format (*.doc, etc.). The output of a given search can list both filenames and lines that match the contents filter. These results can be sent to both a file (CSV or text) and a DataGridView on-screen. Copying information from the on-screen display to the Windows Clipboard is also possible.
click thumbs:
Basic interface:
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
Ready to scan:
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
Scan results:
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
Scan results w/ line data:
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
I have programmed rexCrawler in my spare time to suit my own needs. However, I believe that others can benefit from it, and so I have decided to distribute it freely via this webpage. Please visit the Releases section to download a copy of rexCrawler.
--Todd Boyd,
rexCrawler Author
Get rexCrawler v2.4.4.0 (First official release) from http://sites.google.com/site/rexcrawler/releases
- I would certainly expect the "1 GB/Hour" to be 1 GB indexed documents, not hard disk space!-Curt (December 19, 2008, 02:47 PM)
I've read through most of this thread with great interest, but I confess that I'm now bleary-eyed and still a bit confused. Currently, my search program of choice is Copernic Desktop Search, version 3.0,0. It finds just about everything I want except my email messages (because I use Mulberry as my email client); for email I happily use Mailbag Assistant (http://www.fookes.com/mailbag/). What I'm trying to understand is what programs like Archivarius, Locate32, and others do that I don't already get from Copernic. I feel a little foolish asking this after so much discussion has already taken place, but I honestly haven't been able to figure this out. Copernic finds my files VERY quickly, it does full-text searches, the price is right.... I'd be more than willing to add another program, even one for which I'd have to pay, if it offered me something important that Copernic doesn't already do. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.-cyberdiva (December 21, 2008, 12:25 PM)
If I learn anything earthshaking, I'll report it here.-cyberdiva (December 21, 2008, 04:39 PM)
Locate32, Everything, and SearchGT allow you to search for files by NAME and or extension (filetype). They're all fast, SearchGT impressively so, given that it doesn't index your filenames. Archivarius, X1, etc. index not only filenames but the CONTENTS of those files as well.Thanks, Darwin, but I do understand the difference between a program like Locate32 that will find a filename and one like Archivarius that will do full-text search. As I said in an earlier message, I do both kinds of searches. What I really would like to know is what a program like Archivarius, X1, etc. offers that Copernic does not. Since Copernic is free and these others are not, there must be something compelling that makes them worth the money, but I haven't been able to figure that out from the discussion here. You, of course, are an ideal person to comment on this if you have time, since you've used so many of these programs. (Let me add that I'm not looking for a program that will search my email files, since Mailbag Assistant already does that very well, and few other programs seem able to handle the Mulberry email client.)-Darwin (December 22, 2008, 09:32 AM)
What I really would like to know is what a program like Archivarius, X1, etc. offers that Copernic does not. Since Copernic is free and these others are not, there must be something compelling that makes them worth the money, but I haven't been able to figure that out from the discussion here.-cyberdiva (December 22, 2008, 10:07 AM)
what about StopKa-vitali_y (November 24, 1973, 12:04 PM)
@J-Mac:
I do regularly AV-scans with different products and have a scanner running in the background the whole time with hourly updates. I think the most also will do so. I run a lot of different programs a day and had no instable system or anything like that in the last two years - only at the moment with stopKa. Why do you guess this could be the reason for our problems with this specific program?-Crush (December 27, 2008, 11:29 AM)
I think stopKa is working without any included spyware or worm. A big problem is that the program needs a tricky user to get "normal" results. I also concentrate on the theme Disc-Cataloging and Searching here, but the way he´s promoting it here is by far more intense (pushing) then I do with my own Disc-Cataloger project.-Crush (December 27, 2008, 02:08 PM)
I download and run a LOT of software applications and when anyone does that - especially with unproven software - there's a higher degree of risk than so-called "normal" users-J-Mac (December 27, 2008, 02:44 PM)
You might want to give Everything a try. I like it better than Locate32. It is lightning fast and doesn't need to index as it uses the NTFS journal.Edbro, I want to thank you again for recommending Everything. I installed it and have been blown away with how fast it is, how easy it is to use, and how well it finds everything I've asked it to. I'm so pleased I may not even bother installing Locate32, at least not right away.-edbro (December 21, 2008, 02:08 PM)
aenache36 (Post above this one), it seems is the Site Administrator for the ADUNA forums, and presumably should know proper forum etiquette and disclose his relationship with the software/website he is pushing/recommending. 8)
Jim-J-Mac (February 03, 2009, 03:19 PM)
This is really a good think for you if you do want to evangelize a product. It means that people will know who to ask questions of when they're seeking a better understanding of that product.-CWuestefeld (February 03, 2009, 03:52 PM)
aenache36 (Post above this one), it seems is the Site Administrator for the ADUNA forums, and presumably should know proper forum etiquette and disclose his relationship with the software/website he is pushing/recommending. 8)
Jim-J-Mac (February 03, 2009, 03:19 PM)
Greetings Jim
I have NO business relations with the makers of AutoFocus.
Please bear in mind that AutoFocus is FREE.
Indeed I have many posts on their forum simply because I like AutoFocus very much, I have experience with it and I like to share it(whenever I have time for that...)
In fact please think for a second that I could have chose any username but I used here aenache36 as well because I know pretty well what I am talking about... and my posts from the forum can prove that.
If you feel that my enthusiasm can be interpreted as a clear sign of improper forum etiquette please feel free to mention what is disturbing you and I will be glad to make all the necessary corrections.
Looking forward to hearing from you.-aenache36 (February 03, 2009, 03:38 PM)
aenache36 (Post above this one), it seems is the Site Administrator for the ADUNA forums, ...Greetings again,-J-Mac (February 03, 2009, 03:19 PM)
Sorry - are you saying that you are NOT the Site Admin there (http://www.aduna-software.com/forum/user/profile/136.page)? That you just used his username here? Did I misunderstand?
Jim-J-Mac (February 03, 2009, 04:14 PM)
...is a "Site Admin" at the ADUNA forum! Now that IS confusing! ;D
...
Hey, you must admit that's a weird way to name forum members.-J-Mac (February 03, 2009, 04:22 PM)
aenache36,
I wasn’t trying to kick you or anything. ...
And now we know otherwise. We cool?
Thanks!
Jim-J-Mac (February 03, 2009, 04:30 PM)
Why do you guys need an additional program to search your local e-mails when you could use the search feature of your respective e-mail client instead?-qforce (February 08, 2009, 04:41 AM)
Moreover, why do you use e-mail clients at all? I, for one, use Google Mail, and am perfectly happy with its search capabilities.-qforce (February 08, 2009, 04:41 AM)
On a more general note, are there any people out there who definitely need a desktop search app to locate images, music, videos, etc.? If so, then why don't you use your picture managers, media players, etc. to do that? Wouldn't that be a much more efficient and appropriate way to organize images, music, etc.?-qforce (February 08, 2009, 04:41 AM)
Have you tried the built-in search feature of Outlook? :o It's completely unusable for anyone who has accumulated more than ... oh ... 100 messages.Why oh why do people continue to buy and use crap like that even when they know it's complete rubbish. Jesus... Really makes me angry.-CWuestefeld (February 08, 2009, 11:55 AM)
For corporations it's even more significant (hello, open-source world: corporations really do exist). Obviously you want to be able to manage your own internal email. The bandwidth cost could be enormous, and more importantly, many organizations must guarantee privacy (HIPAA, Sarbanes-Oxley). And if they've got to have a localized client, then they can't rely on GMail's search.Well, as an unpaid freelance programmer I do not really care about the enormous needs of big corporations (why would I). However, I do care about this: Do "normal" people really need super-powerful search programs?-CWuestefeld (February 08, 2009, 11:55 AM)
Why force people to learn multiple apps? It might be fine for me; I'm well-practiced at such learning, and might benefit from targeted optimizations. But what about for my mom? I think it's fairly typical for people to think that anything they got off the web or via email are all "from the Internet"; how do you explain to such a person when they need to use which tool? (I remember trying to explain to my grandfather, as he was scanning genealogical material, when to save as JPG vs. when to save as PNG. What's an instinctive selection to us is befuddling and nonsensical to "civilians")Yes, but... images, music and video do not contain text (except for the filename and meta data), so the way I see it, it doesn't make much sense to use a desktop search program instead of a picture manager, a media player, etc., to retrieve these files. It would make sense if computers had reliable image recognition capabilities, if they were able to "understand" music, etc., but that's not the case.
More importantly, it's impossible to compartmentalize mail vs documents vs media, etc. A huge portion of my email contains attached documents. And a non-trivial portion of my docs contain embedded images and audio. So if one is to effectively find all email that contain a document that has an embedded image, one needs to be able to handle the whole chain, all the way down.-CWuestefeld (February 08, 2009, 11:55 AM)
qforce,
What difference does it make to you what others prefer to use? Who made you the arbiter of what is right and what is not WRT search engines? Sounds like a personal problem...-J-Mac (February 08, 2009, 03:23 PM)
All these various search facilities in photo apps, music apps, etc. utilize different search methods - some use Regexp, some do not, some search filenames only, some search text within documents. I find it much easier to use a desktop search engine and become very familiar with its search features. For many users, trying to become adept at so many different search methods is a bother that they do not wish to do.I still don't get it. Let me explain it with this example: Say, I get tired of my current wallpaper and I want to replace it with another, which had this cool sports car on it. So what do I do? Fire up my all-powerful desktop search app and type the name of that file? Well, no. I open my picture browser and click my way down the folder hierarchy to a folder named "Wallpapers", then I browse all the pictures in it until I find the image with the sports car. Why didn't I use a desktop search program? Because I didn't know the filename ("ColinMcRAE_xxx.jpg" or something), and when I saved the file, I didn't bother adding meta data to it (e.g. keywords like "sports car").
Most users here are a little more savvy than what you seem to think.
Jim-J-Mac (February 08, 2009, 03:23 PM)
@ qforce:Yes, you are right. DocFetcher and Eclipse are based on the same GUI toolkit (named SWT), and DocFetcher is being developed in the Eclipse IDE.
Nice piece of software. Looks like it is based on the Eclipse IDE (which is something I appreciate).-Shades (February 08, 2009, 05:10 PM)
When you make such software, how long will it then take for the big software players to gobble up your talent? So let them buy you out after some, enjoy life from the interest those millions generate. By know you are in the ideal position to not care about who prefers whatever.I never wanted to work in a big software company. I'm basically a (would-be) scientist who just wrote an utility to better manage his science-related resources and who then decided to share his work with others. And I do care about the needs of my users, because for me, Open Source is basically some sort of "charity".
Your mind is too many steps ahead at this moment ;)-Shades (February 08, 2009, 05:10 PM)
So my point is this: I think (and this is really just an opinion), in the case of images and other media a hierarchical management system makes more sense.-qforce (February 09, 2009, 05:00 AM)
Hi,
I'm the project admin of DocFetcher (http://docfetcher.sourceforge.net/), an Open Source desktop search app. I've noticed in several posts in this thread that there seems to be a real need for e-mail indexing and the likes, which puzzles me a bit. More precisely: Why do you guys need an additional program to search your local e-mails when you could use the search feature of your respective e-mail client instead?-qforce (February 08, 2009, 04:41 AM)
On a more general note, are there any people out there who definitely need a desktop search app to locate images, music, videos, etc.? If so, then why don't you use your picture managers, media players, etc. to do that? Wouldn't that be a much more efficient and appropriate way to organize images, music, etc.?
I'd be thankful for any enlightenment about this issue.-qforce (February 08, 2009, 04:41 AM)
Btw, DocFetcher 1.0 is (probably) about to be released this month and adds support for MS Office 2007 and WordPerfect.-qforce (February 08, 2009, 04:41 AM)
Considering that you can assign tags (apart from other info) to several media formats and save them within the file, I don't think it does really make more sense. What's more, several apps used to view or manipulate media can parse that data and save it in a local database (only accessible by that app, though). Whether you bother to use those methods is another story.Okay, good point. Thanks for your answer.
Both methods are not mutually exclusive, and I use them without problems. Depending of the moment, it makes more sense to use one or another, but I don't think there's an optimal solution.
Considering that you can assign tags (apart from other info) to several media formats and save them within the file, I don't think it does really make more sense. What's more, several apps used to view or manipulate media can parse that data and save it in a local database (only accessible by that app, though). Whether you bother to use those methods is another story.
Both methods are not mutually exclusive, and I use them without problems. Depending of the moment, it makes more sense to use one or another, but I don't think there's an optimal solution.-Lashiec (February 09, 2009, 06:42 AM)
I agree with you when e-mails are involved but their respective attachments are completely different thing, in this case you do need a DtS software.Now I understand :)-aenache36 (February 09, 2009, 08:33 AM)
Creating and maintaining hierachies takes time, that'a a fact and probably the most important reason for using DtS. Because I don't want to spend time for that the rest my answers follow:You seem to be the kind of user who doesn't clean up his folders very often and who then uses full hard drive desktop search to keep that mess under control. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think there's anything wrong with doing it this way. (I'm the kind of user who's folders are highly organized and who only uses desktop search to access stuff where the hierarchical system doesn't help much, i.e. documents.)
a.Images - can be found in many places therefore I use DtS to find them all and then I view them as thumbnails...and thus the decision is easiest
b. Music - here you can, generally search by filename...or metadata/tags. Or, can be leftovers(.ac3 files) from video conversions(DVD->.avi) that, in time, can stack up heavily...
c. Videos - when you use several sources for getting them on your computer they can also get lost in various places, especially when you have more than 1 HDD. For now I have more than 60 movies on my computer...mpeg/avi/iso/vob, you name it.
I also do not think that the typical savvy DtS user is searching mainly for the above but rather for documents with a certain content, at least this is my case. My search ratio is 95%/5% for content/a,v,p.-aenache36 (February 09, 2009, 08:33 AM)
I gave it a try for a folder with less than 500 indexable documents and I got 2 messages:The Java Virtual Machine in which DocFetcher is running has a memory cap, and your file was too big for that. The manual explains how to raise that cap. However, I admit that this error message should've been more helpful.
Needed 19 bytes to create the next chunk header, but only found 4 bytes, ignoring rest of data
### Skipped: Not enough memory left in the Java Virtual Machine.-aenache36 (February 09, 2009, 08:33 AM)
Also I didn't get what I was expecting from a Boolean search:The first case is AND, the second one is OR. Well, the preview highlighting wasn't fully implemented... :-[ Thanks for pointing this out.
search:"word1 word2"
returned a diffent set(number) of documents compared to
search:word1 word2
but in preview in both cases I saw enlightened both search terms(???).-aenache36 (February 09, 2009, 08:33 AM)
So, for now I wish you all the best but I stick to AutofocusTo each his own. :Thmbsup:
(http://www.aduna-software.com/technologies/autofocus/overview.view)-aenache36 (February 09, 2009, 08:33 AM)
You seem to be the kind of user who doesn't clean up his folders very often and who then uses full hard drive desktop search to keep that mess under control. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think there's anything wrong with doing it this way. (I'm the kind of user who's folders are highly organized and who only uses desktop search to access stuff where the hierarchical system doesn't help much, i.e. documents.)-qforce (February 09, 2009, 01:08 PM)
You seem to be the kind of user who doesn't clean up his folders very often and who then uses full hard drive desktop search to keep that mess under control. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think there's anything wrong with doing it this way. (I'm the kind of user who's folders are highly organized and who only uses desktop search to access stuff where the hierarchical system doesn't help much, i.e. documents.)-qforce (February 09, 2009, 01:08 PM)
I've tried to organize my stuff (email, documents, and photos) hierarchically through folders in the filesystem. But it just doesn't work. The problem is that even in the most vanilla cases, a given object falls into multiple buckets. A given photo might belong in "Photos of Cathy", "Mexico 2008 Vacation" and "Sunsets". A given document here at work might be related to both the customer that instigated the work as well as the subsystem that needs to be customized.
Keeping multiple copies, one in each applicable bucket, won't work. You wind up changing alternate copies and creating multiple divergent versions, rather than a single version that contains all updates. In theory you might use links within the filesystem, but I don't know of any tools for any OS that makes this manageable.
The only alternative is to search the objects themselves, whether that means a full content search or just a search of tags in the objects' metadata. And I've found that, while I'm always wishing for better tools, I am able to accomplish my needs successfully with what's available today.-CWuestefeld (February 09, 2009, 03:38 PM)
Greetings.
The first case is AND, the second one is OR.-qforce (February 09, 2009, 01:08 PM)
Greetings.Just give me a second to check the Lucene documentation... ah, here it is: http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_4_0/queryparsersyntax.html
What would be the required syntax if one tries to find documents that contain certain strings?
As much as I knew
"word1 word2"
was suppose to that job whereas
word1 word2
is the equivalent of AND, do please correct me if I am wrong.-aenache36 (February 10, 2009, 02:56 AM)
As for the problems with the hierarchical file system, have you guys considered "albums" and similar features which are provided by decent picture managers and media players these days? This is basically a way to put files into multiple categories.-qforce (February 10, 2009, 08:18 AM)
I never used that sort of thing, though, because of the potential risk of vendor lock-in (meaning that all that categorization data is lost when I move to another program).Open source people sometimes amaze me. You refuse to use any such program (even though, as I noted, there's a standard way for them to store their data in most cases), despite how much good it might do you.-qforce (February 10, 2009, 08:18 AM)
Greetings.
What would be the required syntax if one tries to find documents that contain certain strings?
As much as I knew
"word1 word2"
was suppose to that job whereas
word1 word2
is the equivalent of AND, do please correct me if I am wrong.-aenache36 (February 10, 2009, 02:56 AM)
Just give me a second to check the Lucene documentation...-qforce (February 10, 2009, 08:18 AM)
That's exactly what I'm getting at. I don't know of any other tool that can search through, e.g., ACDSee's database. However, any photo album app will allow you to save tags into EXIF or IPTC metadata in the images themselves. And since this is a standard, any desktop search app worth its salt can access it.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
Having done that, now I can use my search app to find, say, "Mexico 2008" and get all my related photos, emails exchanged with the travel agent, and the AVI of the time-lapse sunset I made. Sure, all of these things are handled through different apps. But the ability to search like this allows me to have all of the materials related to a given project in front of me at once. (Which is why I also think that the Windows way of organizing files under "My Documents" in app-centric folders is idiotic)-CWuestefeld (February 10, 2009, 08:46 AM)
Open source people sometimes amaze me. You refuse to use any such program (even though, as I noted, there's a standard way for them to store their data in most cases), despite how much good it might do you.Maybe I should also mention the second reason why I don't use albums and the likes: I don't have too many pictures on my computer (a few hundred or so, rarely updated), and I stopped collecting music a long time ago (last.fm anyone?), so there's not much to organize here. This is not too amazing an explanation, is it?-CWuestefeld (February 10, 2009, 08:46 AM)
but after a while I stopped bothering with all this tagging. Not sure why, but it felt like "too much work"...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.
BTW, AutoFocus (http://www.aduna-software.com/technologies/autofocus/overview.view) is also base partially on Lucene so that should make it quite familiar to you...It looked fairly interesting until I read the hardware requirements section...
All the best.-aenache36 (February 10, 2009, 09:14 AM)
BTW, AutoFocus (http://www.aduna-software.com/technologies/autofocus/overview.view) is also base partially on Lucene so that should make it quite familiar to you...It looked fairly interesting until I read the hardware requirements section...
All the best.-aenache36 (February 10, 2009, 09:14 AM)-qforce (February 10, 2009, 10:51 AM)
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.
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.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 (February 10, 2009, 10:43 AM)
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.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.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 (February 10, 2009, 10:43 AM)-cyberdiva (February 10, 2009, 12:40 PM)
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)
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)
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)
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)?-CWuestefeld (February 10, 2009, 05:18 PM)
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.-superboyac (February 10, 2009, 12:56 PM)
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.-superboyac (February 10, 2009, 12:56 PM)
Aperture, Lightroom, iView, idImager, iMatch
Using the program to view, discard, rate and tag. Some pros claim to process each photo in a matter of seconds. And some people use some of these progs for tweaking the photos.-Dormouse (February 10, 2009, 06:23 PM)
It looked fairly interesting until I read the hardware requirements section...-qforce (February 10, 2009, 10:51 AM)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.
They don't seem that bad to me...-Darwin (February 10, 2009, 11:37 AM)
100 MB of disk space for the program itself? This looks more like an office suite with built-in desktop search, if you ask me...-qforce (February 11, 2009, 07:21 AM)
The DocFetcher.exe is 41,5 KB, but that doesn't mean anything, it's just a launcher. You really have to add up everything that is installed on the machine, and according to the website of Autofocus this sums up to 100 MB.100 MB of disk space for the program itself? This looks more like an office suite with built-in desktop search, if you ask me...-qforce (February 11, 2009, 07:21 AM)
Greetings.
That is the size of the index file and not the program itself. Autofocus.exe(ver. 5.0 for MSWin) has 44,6KB...
Regarding RAM, as much as I could see is that Java is the hungry beast...
Best regards.-aenache36 (February 11, 2009, 07:48 AM)
100 MB of disk space for the program itself? This looks more like an office suite with built-in desktop search, if you ask me...
And 128 MB RAM is already half of what my Eclipse IDE (a very hungry beast) usually needs.-qforce (February 11, 2009, 07:21 AM)
The DocFetcher.exe is 41,5 KB, but that doesn't mean anything, it's just a launcher. You really have to add up everything that is installed on the machine, and according to the website of Autofocus this sums up to 100 MB.
And what do you mean by "100 MB for the index file"? Maybe I'm missing something here, but the way I see it, if a file isn't the result of indexing, then it's part of the base installation (i.e. the program), right?-qforce (February 11, 2009, 08:44 AM)
Well, I didn't mean to stop anybody from using this program. If you think you have enough system resources to run this thing in the background permanently, that's okay with me. All I said was that the hardware requirements seemed a bit much for a desktop search program (e.g. Google Desktop's setup file was something like 2 MB, if I remember correctly), and it's certainly too much for my laptop here, which has 1 GB of RAM, minus 40% of that for the OS and the web browser, and when I fire up my IDE or a virtual desktop (Windows XP running inside a Linux machine 8)), there's not much left for a desktop search program of that magnitude.100 MB of disk space for the program itself? This looks more like an office suite with built-in desktop search, if you ask me...
And 128 MB RAM is already half of what my Eclipse IDE (a very hungry beast) usually needs.-qforce (February 11, 2009, 07:21 AM)
We're coming at this from very different perspectives: I have a 320GB harddrive and 4GB of RAM. The effect of this being installed on my computer would be minimal - like a flea on an elephant ;D Most computers purchased in the past three years have at least 512MB (and more like 1GB) of RAM factory installed and probably more than 80GB harddrive capacity, so...-Darwin (February 11, 2009, 08:51 AM)
C:\Program Files\Aduna -> 90MBTheir RAM requirements seem to be very similar to that of DocFetcher.
C:\Documents and Settings\UserName\Application Data\Aduna\AutoFocus 5 -> 366MB(this is where index files are maintained/stored)
As for RAM, that depends heavily on the usage: the smarter you build the query the smaller the RAM used and also the number of files resulted from an interrogation: 38.000 files displayed(all .html from all my sources) increased the RAM usage with 60MB...can start with 30MB and use as much as 100+MB.
HTH-aenache36 (February 11, 2009, 09:21 AM)
When I ran Google Desktop Search it built a separate index folder that eventually grew to over 6 GB!! As it indexed it keeps adding to index but never deleted anything. I haven't run it for a couple of years so I don’t know if they have changed their policy of not removing deleted files from their index.-J-Mac (February 11, 2009, 01:06 PM)
When I ran Google Desktop Search it built a separate index folder that eventually grew to over 6 GB!! As it indexed it keeps adding to index but never deleted anything. I haven't run it for a couple of years so I don’t know if they have changed their policy of not removing deleted files from their index.-J-Mac (February 11, 2009, 01:06 PM)
I installed GDS an hour back coz I'm looking for something to index my Firefox cache. It does have an option to remove deleted files from the index so index size going out of control shouldn't be a problem now.
I didn't like it though, for several reasons:
It's not very customizable.
It's one of those annoying apps that goes ahead and does what it pleases coz the users are idiots who don't know any better - despite my selecting to index only the browsing history I noticed it had gone ahead and indexed other stuff anyway. :mad:
It has one of the clunkiest, most fcuked up interface I've seen on any app... right from the unconventional installer, to the settings pages that open in a browser, to a mandatory widgets module being installed, to the main executable trying to call home _after_ I had uninstalled it, the whole GDS experience was really bizarre and infuriating!-nosh (February 28, 2009, 12:08 PM)
I know that a lot of people swear by Google-J-Mac (February 28, 2009, 02:35 PM)
It has one of the clunkiest, most fcuked up interface I've seen on any app... right from the unconventional installer, to the settings pages that open in a browser, to a mandatory widgets module being installed, to the main executable trying to call home _after_ I had uninstalled it, the whole GDS experience was really bizarre and infuriating!-nosh (February 28, 2009, 12:08 PM)
Sadly, it was also the only DTS app that did a (somewhat) decent job of letting me search the FF cache. Everything else failed spectacularly. I un/installed it thrice yesterday before I quit in frustration. Now that I've had a night's sleep I've convinced myself to give it one last try and see if I can work around its idio(t)syncrasies, somebody shoot me!-nosh (March 01, 2009, 02:46 AM)
What can I use to do realtime index-less NTFS searches in Vista?-tinjaw (March 04, 2009, 10:25 AM)
File Managers
Perhaps a few of those are fast and strong, I mentioned Total Commander is slow, Xyplorer might be fast. One of the reasons for this summary was that for most of us the file managers will be chosen on other criteria. However if a few are truly top-notch on "find files" it would be worth a note. Personally I would be more likely to switch to that file manager.-Steven Avery (March 10, 2009, 10:03 AM)
I have now removed locate and use Everything almost exclusively.
The only problem I have with "Everything" is that it doesn't seem to be able to cope with removing external drives.-Carol Haynes (March 10, 2009, 04:18 AM)
That said, what the hell is "Desktop Search Software" anyway? Did you lose something?-widgewunner (April 18, 2009, 10:36 AM)
Halftone Search
Halftone Search is all-in-one tool extending Google Desktop and Windows Desktop Search. It includes set of additional drivers for indexing files and shell for search files using GDS. The solid GUI shell also can be used to query Windows Desktop Search with advanced features.-Bits du Jour
... you use Google Desktop Search or Windows Desktop Search to index your files. These programs are useful, sure, but Halftone Search makes them even better.
Halftone Search is an extension to Google Desktop Search and Windows Desktop Search that resolves the shortfalls that are inherent in each of these programs. With Halftone Search, you’ll have access to plug-ins that enable you to search archive files (RAR, ZIP, TAR, and others), text files, web archives, MSDN files, help files, and many other file formats that, until now, couldn’t be handled by GDS and WDS alone.
In addition to all of this desktop search power, Halftone Search also provides you with a lightweight search shell interface, intuitively designed, that makes finding files a walk in the park! Easily locate files by type, date created or modified, and many more factors, with an instant preview of the file right in the Halftone Search window. You can even run Halftone Search queries right from the system tray icon!
What is the lightest (respecting cpucycles and resources) and best desktop document search out there? I am also looking for one with command line switches.-kartal (May 12, 2009, 02:56 AM)
Btw does Archivarius support
-thunderbird and outlook express contacts?
-custom file formats like .py or other codes?-kartal (May 12, 2009, 01:50 PM)
Custom formats, definitely - anything that's text, regardless of file extension.-tranglos (May 12, 2009, 02:14 PM)
Hmm., I was playing with it and I actually do not see a way to add custom formats-kartal (May 12, 2009, 02:30 PM)
I did exactly what you said and it is not indexing *.py files at all. I am not sure if it is a limitation with trial version or not-kartal (May 12, 2009, 03:27 PM)
(Meanwhile, I'll check for *.py on my own system.)-tranglos (May 12, 2009, 03:38 PM)
I did exactly what you said and it is not indexing *.py files at all. I am not sure if it is a limitation with trial version or notOkay, that's strange. It's a well-known extension and should be included in the presets anyway. My suggestion would be to ask the author - the contact page is at http://www.likasoft.com/contacts.shtml-kartal (May 12, 2009, 03:27 PM)
(Meanwhile, I'll check for *.py on my own system.)-tranglos (May 12, 2009, 03:38 PM)
Ok it is looking good however its hits were less than my Eclipse internal search. Eclipse hit the 81 for the same word, Archivarius hit only 21. What do you think about its searching features.-kartal (May 12, 2009, 10:04 PM)
(Meanwhile, I'll check for *.py on my own system.)-tranglos (May 12, 2009, 03:38 PM)
Seems to work fine for me. I created an index of a library of *.py files from ActiveState Komodo Edit distribution. Archivarious appears to have indexed them and finds text in them correctly.
Do email the author, or possibly check other settings of your index (double-click an existing index). Perhaps you have an option set (size, compression, language, etc.) that unintentionally excluded those files.-tranglos (May 12, 2009, 03:57 PM)
Archivarius' developer has struck me as being very decent, from my interactions with him-Darwin (May 16, 2009, 10:56 PM)
Any chance that Donation Coder can get a discount on Archivarius?-cyberdiva (May 17, 2009, 08:54 PM)
what about Lookeen (http://www.lookeen.net)???
not for desktop search but the best outlook-search-tool existing!
searches even within attachments.-peter moore (May 20, 2009, 06:43 AM)
Any chance that Donation Coder can get a discount on Archivarius?Well, I was hoping that perhaps a miracle would happen, but since it hasn't, I went to the Archivarius site to (gulp) purchase the software. But when I clicked on one of the two payment venues, ShareIt, I was told that 29.95 euros would come to $45.62. That seemed unduly high, so I clicked on the other venue, RegNow. It told me I'd have to pay $46.70! I then went to an assortment of conversion sites, all of which told me that I was being gouged by ShareIt and RegNow. According to the five or six sites I used, 29.95 euros should be the equivalent of anywhere from $41.69 to $41.82, which means I'm being charged $4 or $5 more than I should be. I decided not to buy the software after all, since I hate being taken advantage of, and I wasn't all that sure that I needed Archivarius, I simply wanted it. Guess I'll wait until I can get it at a discount or my desire for the software outweighs my common sense.-cyberdiva (May 17, 2009, 08:54 PM)
Any chance that Donation Coder can get a discount on Archivarius?Well, I was hoping that perhaps a miracle would happen, but since it hasn't, I went to the Archivarius site to (gulp) purchase the software. But when I clicked on one of the two payment venues, ShareIt, I was told that 29.95 euros would come to $45.62. That seemed unduly high, so I clicked on the other venue, RegNow. It told me I'd have to pay $46.70! I then went to an assortment of conversion sites, all of which told me that I was being gouged by ShareIt and RegNow.-cyberdiva (May 17, 2009, 08:54 PM)-cyberdiva (June 18, 2009, 12:33 PM)
I'll definitely look into doing so, though I do wish I could find the program discounted somewhere. Bits du Jour, perhaps, or, of course, Donation Coder.-cyberdiva
One of the first engines was nowadays forgotten AltaVista Discovery (http://searchenginewatch.com/2166441), but it's some eleven years ago... I was even a member of the beta testers group.-yksyks (November 14, 2009, 04:04 AM)
Uh-oh... I thought upgrading to Windows 7 (Ultimate w/ Federation) would solve my problems, but no dice.
I have a HUGE collection of HTML, MHT, doc, rtf, PDF and djvu research articles, papers and even books on my hard drive.
I've tried the built-in Windows 7 feature, but it is sorely lacking on the following features:
1) No clear search interface to input multiple search criteria. I hate learning a new query language (AQS) - yes I'm old, nothing I can do about that. Why oh why did Microsoft remove the older XP style search interface?
2) For some reason it fails to index all files, regardless of read/access rights and iFilters/settings active. Can't figure out why.
3) Appears to cut off indexing at some predefined limit for large files (?)
4) When searching for CONTENTS with preview pane open, the preview shows the first page of the file, not the first page with the search word occurring. How dumb is that? I want specificity and context for my search results. MS really blew this one up, imho.
5) Actually fairly slow to search/find (I don't mind index speed). Sure, it has a 150GB of files worth in the index, but I'm on a 4GHz quad-core, 12GB RAM, fast Intel SSD system. I'd appreciate a bit faster implementation of the algorithms for basic query.
6) Not sure it does stemming properly.
I'd be willing to pay up to $200 for a contents indexing/searching software that does the following:
1. fast in searching, doesn't have to be a lightning fast indexer
2. reliable: works without faults. no crashes. doesn't miss files
3. can index files up to 100MB in size
4. supports contents indexing/searching for pdf, doc(x), rtf, txt, htm, mhtm, djvu - if not natively, then via iFilters
5. preview function shows the actual location hits for my content keyword queries, not just the 1st page
6. works with Windows 7 (64bits, doesn't have to be 64bit version though)
Is there anything out there that fits the bill? I can't get Copernic, Google and other free try-outs to work properly.
Can X1 be made to work like this? How about the others. Many almost get there, but the DJVU content support seems to be a a miss for many.
If you've tried out and solved this issue yourself, I'd really like to hear what your solution was.-halcyon (November 23, 2009, 10:54 AM)
[...]
Is there anything out there that fits the bill? I can't get Copernic, Google and other free try-outs to work properly.
Can X1 be made to work like this? How about the others. Many almost get there, but the DJVU content support seems to be a a miss for many.
If you've tried out and solved this issue yourself, I'd really like to hear what your solution was.-halcyon (November 23, 2009, 10:54 AM)
1- it's VERY slow at indexing Outlook content and maybe some other DB. This is my biggest gripe. X1 does outlook indexing 100x better.-Armando (November 28, 2009, 09:02 PM)
Hmm.... I haven't had Archivarius installed in about 8 months, so maybe things have changed (or you've got a much bigger OST than I do), but using Direct Access it used to "rip" ;D through updating my 400MB OST index in about a minute and a half.-Darwin (November 30, 2009, 02:13 PM)
Armando - what OS are you currently running? As noted above, when I switched to Vista, I finally moved to WDS and haven't looked back.-Darwin (November 30, 2009, 02:13 PM)
3) Appears to cut off indexing at some predefined limit for large files (?)-halcyon (November 23, 2009, 10:54 AM)
XP is pretty fast and it'd very time consuming to switch to Windows 7. Annoying stuff *will* happen. Plus, I know that a big chunk of RAM will be gone and -- to a smaller extent -- speed will be a tad slower. Still, I'm tempted... Maybe in January.-Armando (November 30, 2009, 11:16 PM)
Hmm.... I haven't had Archivarius installed in about 8 months, so maybe things have changed (or you've got a much bigger OST than I do), but using Direct Access it used to "rip" ;D through updating my 400MB OST index in about a minute and a half. BTW, I agree about the Outlook being open vs closed issue - I finally went with NOT having scheduled indexing of my OST file and did it manually whenever I could remember to do so.
I wish the developer would implement COM indexing...
Armando - what OS are you currently running? As noted above, when I switched to Vista, I finally moved to WDS and haven't looked back.-Darwin (November 30, 2009, 02:13 PM)
Have you installed WDS on Win7 or using the version built in? The Built in version only searches indexed folders by default but you can override that and search all folders.I recently put Everything (http://www.voidtools.com/) on my new Windows 7 netbook, and it seems to work very well. Frankly, I've been so delighted with Everything on WinXP that I never considered using anything else. I still haven't decided what to use on Win 7 for searches within files, but I find that even on XP, where I have Archivarius, I tend to need to find stuff by file name a lot more often than by content. That surprised me.-Carol Haynes (December 23, 2009, 03:05 AM)
Have you installed WDS on Win7 or using the version built in? The Built in version only searches indexed folders by default but you can override that and search all folders.-Carol Haynes (December 23, 2009, 03:05 AM)
Thanks Darwin for taking the time to answer.
Direct Access takes between 9-10 full minutes, even when the DB has already been indexed. Quicker, yes, but still very slow considering that Outlook needs to be closed etc. I usually leave Outlook open, and if I unadvisedly start the indexing and Outlook is open, it'll just plainly and simply render the last index unusable which is a pain. I don't why it does it but... it does and that's why I had to revert to OLE a while ago.
Mailstore seems to be an interesting option. I'll check this out -- it may mean that I'll have to rethink a bit the way I organize my emails.-Armando (November 30, 2009, 12:02 PM)
Archivarius/likasoft Web site visited 2010-02-08, local time 21:56. Oh-oh...-rjbull (February 08, 2010, 03:57 PM)
rjbull - what is generating that attack report - Firefox? I've never had any trouble visitng that page and have just done so with both IE8 and Opera 10.5 beta.Well, I run Online Armor firewall and thought it was prompted by that. But I see that Armando, who knows a thing or two, thinks its Firefox itself. I've heard enough good things about Archivarius here to think it's an attack, not likasoft, but it would be nice for the site to get a clean bill of health.-Darwin (February 08, 2010, 05:20 PM)
I just went to the likasoft site. Firefox did its best to discourage me from doing so. Apparently Firefox is using advisories from Google to decide what sites to block. I was interested to see that Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Pro with IP Protection enabled and the latest definitions loaded did NOT flag the site as dangerous. OTOH, the page I reached looked surprisingly lame. I don't usually visit it, so I have no way of knowing whether it usually looks so amateurish, but it looked like a page I would design with my exceedingly basic and outmoded web-construction skills. That made me wonder whether it's the real page. :o-cyberdiva (February 10, 2010, 11:13 AM)
That made me wonder whether it's the real page. :o-cyberdiva (February 10, 2010, 11:13 AM)
Hmm... I'm using IE 8 - I guess the website is optimized for IE? Alternatively, I've seen some pages render like that when my interet connection is about to fail (wireless link to the router gets reset).Hmmm....interesting. You're right--after reading your message, I opened the page in IE 8, and it looked just like yours. I then opened it in Opera 10, and it looked just like yours. But in Firefox 3.6, my default browser, it's screwed up. Of course, it's only Firefox that warns about the site's being a baddie. I wonder whether in addition to the warning, FF also degrades the formatting. :down:-Darwin (February 10, 2010, 05:09 PM)
I just went to the likasoft site. Firefox did its best to discourage me from doing so. Apparently Firefox is using advisories from Google to decide what sites to block. I was interested to see that Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Pro with IP Protection enabled and the latest definitions loaded did NOT flag the site as dangerous. OTOH, the page I reached looked surprisingly lame. I don't usually visit it, so I have no way of knowing whether it usually looks so amateurish, but it looked like a page I would design with my exceedingly basic and outmoded web-construction skills. That made me wonder whether it's the real page. :o-cyberdiva (February 10, 2010, 11:13 AM)
Thank you. It is false detection of viruses. We already send message to Google.
Bye.
And I'm pretty sure that Firefox periodically downloads it's malware list of dangerous web site, malware addresses, etc. for its phishing filter in a database provided by Google.
So yes : google and firefox seem responsible for that blocked page. Somebody could probably confirm.-Armando (February 10, 2010, 10:59 PM)
Newish article about the " Best desktop search tools (http://www.networkworld.com/reviews/2010/072610-netresults.html) " and a Summary (http://www.networkworld.com/reviews/2010/072610-netresults.html) ...Both of these links go to the summary.-Armando (August 25, 2010, 09:28 PM)
my harddrive and fan both go nuts every so oftenI think this is probably true of all your fans ;)-Darwin
my harddrive and fan both go nuts every so oftenI think this is probably true of all your fans ;)-Darwin-cranioscopical (October 14, 2010, 07:02 PM)
I reinstalled the latest version of X1, was thrilled/surprised to find that my license still works, and it's been flawless. My only quibble is that my harddrive and fan both go nuts every so often, I expect when X1 is updating. I also installed the latest versions of Archivarius and dtSearch. Settled on X1 because it creates an index that is 30% smaller than dtSearch and half the size of the one created by Archivarius. X1 also integrates with the search bar in the start menu.-Darwin (October 14, 2010, 06:30 PM)
Isn't annoying that software is almost always about... compromises?-Armando (October 15, 2010, 12:00 PM)
Thanks for the Archivarius advice.
What you could try for WDS 4 is simply... Rename the current index, and let WDS create another one... I'm pretty sure that would woork.-Armando (October 15, 2010, 02:47 PM)
That's a significant difference ! :)-Armando (October 18, 2010, 12:36 PM)
That doesn't seem right. Turning that option on tells WDS to conduct full-text search for non-indexed files. If a document's content is found only when the option is on, IOW, it's not indexed.-mwang (October 18, 2010, 07:34 PM)
By any chance the "Allow files in this folder to have contents indexed in addition to file properties" option is unchecked (disabled) for your Documents folder, Darwin?-mwang (October 19, 2010, 08:49 AM)
So anyway... I guess everyone is perfectly satisfied with their desktop search engines? Since no one sems to be posting about them anymore?Over the years, I've tried a number of different desktop search engines. Copernic, Yahoo Desktop Search, Archivarius, and UltraFinder come to mind, but far and away my favorite is File Locator Pro (http://www.mythicsoft.com/default.aspx). None of the other search engines I've tried comes close. (I'm not counting Everything Search, which is my go-to search engine if I'm simply trying to locate a file and I know all or part of the filename. But Everything doesn't search file contents, whereas the others I've mentioned do.)-J-Mac (September 06, 2013, 11:21 PM)
far and away my favorite is File Locator Pro (http://www.mythicsoft.com/default.aspx).I've had good service from BareGrepPro (http://baremetalsoft.com/index.php), but it is after all primarily a grep, and often I want Boolean searches. Archivarius does well for me, but I don't index it often enough. It would be nice to have a DC discount on FLPro.-cyberdiva (September 07, 2013, 07:25 AM)
far and away my favorite is File Locator Pro (http://www.mythicsoft.com/default.aspx). None of the other search engines I've tried comes close.-cyberdiva (September 07, 2013, 07:25 AM)
I'm now using Agent Ransack and it does indeed find text buried deep within documents - and it does it rather fast, too.Agent Ransack is another non-indexed search tool.-J-Mac (September 21, 2013, 03:02 PM)
software that has to create an index, robbing a computer of resources by having a service running in the background that often at inconvenient times start to do its indexing.-Shades (September 21, 2013, 01:45 PM)
I'm now using Agent Ransack and it does indeed find text buried deep within documents - and it does it rather fast, too.Agent Ransack is another non-indexed search tool.-J-Mac (September 21, 2013, 03:02 PM)software that has to create an index, robbing a computer of resources by having a service running in the background that often at inconvenient times start to do its indexing.-Shades (September 21, 2013, 01:45 PM)
That was much more valid as a criticism in the days of slow PCs with limited memory and small hard drives. But that world is long gone for most of us.
The thought of running individual searches when I want to find something in the 174,071 PDF files on my PC is just too horrible to contemplate. I barely notice any effect of my indexing software (X1) on this 64-bit PC with 8GB of memory and a 256-GB solid state drive. (The data is on a regular HDD.)
Of course, using on-the-fly searching means that when you do want to find something, all that disk thrashing and chasing all over the place will drain the PC's resources, far more so than the limited disk activity that is involved in indexed searches.
With resources no longer a real issue for anyone with a half decent PC, the choice between indexed and non-indexed searching depends on what you want to do. For example, non-indexed searchers can't work with most email software, especially something like Outlook. So you either have to go for indexed or use the software itself. Going for indexed means that the same software can look at email and files at the same time. I can even tell X1 to look for things in in email and files at the same time.-michaelkenward (September 22, 2013, 06:23 AM)
dtSearch is awesome! I've been using it for years - I like it because the previews and overall interface are nicer than Archivarius (own a license for that, too) and because it is less resource intenstive and produces a small index file. What I like about both dtSearch and Archivarius is that you can opt to run index updates manually, in fact, with dtSearch, that is the default setting. Finally, dtSearch is great because as noted the resource hit is negligible. I recently revisited X1 and wish that I could say the same thing... As xtabber noted, dtSearch is way too expensive for home use, though...-Darwin (September 22, 2013, 08:57 AM)
Copernic Desktop Search 4 (PC) 40% Discount Download Coupon Code (http://www.bitsdujour.com/) (One license per computer)[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]-Giveawayoftheday 28 Nov. 2013
In fact after watching some videos about it, I won't try it because I don't use regex for searching keywords, and because the interface seems not very enough user friendly (I don't want to click many times just to do a keyword search !).-jity2 (January 10, 2015, 03:12 AM)
Developer(s): DocFetcher project
Stable release: 1.1.11 / March 3, 2014
Written in: Java
Operating system: MS Windows, Mac OS X, Linux
License: Eclipse Public License
Portable Document Repositoriesclick thumb for 821x616 pixels:
One of DocFetcher's outstanding features is that it is available as a portable version which allows you to create a portable document repository — a fully indexed and fully searchable repository of all your important documents that you can freely move around.
Index updates: Of course, an index only reflects the state of the indexed files when it was created, not necessarily the latest state of the files. Thus, if the index isn't kept up-to-date, you could get outdated search results, much in the same way a telephone book can become out of date. However, this shouldn't be much of a problem if we can assume that most of the files are rarely modified.
Additionally, DocFetcher is capable of automatically updating its indexes:
(1) When it's running, it detects changed files and updates its indexes accordingly.
(2) When it isn't running, a small daemon in the background will detect changes and keep a list of indexes to be updated; DocFetcher will then update those indexes the next time it is started.
And don't you worry about the daemon: It has really low CPU usage and memory footprint, since it does nothing except noting which folders have changed, and leaves the more expensive index updates to DocFetcher.
Java: Performance and portability: One aspect some people might take issue with is that DocFetcher was written in Java, which has a reputation of being "slow". This was indeed true ten years ago, but since then Java's performance has seen much improvement, according to Wikipedia.
Anyways, the great thing about being written in Java is that the very same portable DocFetcher package can be run on Windows, Linux and Mac OS X — many other programs require using separate bundles for each platform. As a result, you can, for example, put your portable document repository on a USB drive and then access it from any of these operating systems, provided that a Java runtime is installed.
Supported Document Formats
##Microsoft Office (doc, xls, ppt) ##Microsoft Office 2007 and newer (docx, xlsx, pptx, docm, xlsm, pptm) ##Microsoft Outlook (pst) ##OpenOffice.org (odt, ods, odg, odp, ott, ots, otg, otp) ##Portable Document Format (pdf) ##EPUB (epub) ##HTML (html, xhtml, ...) ##TXT and other plain text formats (customizable) ##Rich Text Format (rtf) ##AbiWord (abw, abw.gz, zabw) ##Microsoft Compiled HTML Help (chm) ##MP3 Metadata (mp3) ##FLAC Metadata (flac) ##JPEG Exif Metadata (jpg, jpeg) ##Microsoft Visio (vsd) ##Scalable Vector Graphics (svg)
##Regex-based exclusion of files from indexing: You can use regular expressions to exclude certain files from indexing. For example, to exclude Microsoft Excel files, you can use a regular expression like this: .*\.xls
##Mime-type detection: You can use regular expressions to turn on "mime-type detection" for certain files, meaning that DocFetcher will try to detect their actual file types not just by looking at the filename, but also by peeking into the file contents. This comes in handy for files that have the wrong file extension.
##Powerful query syntax: In addition to basic constructs like OR, AND and NOT DocFetcher also supports, among other things: Wildcards, phrase search, fuzzy search ("find words that are similar to..."), proximity search ("these two words should be at most 10 words away from each other"), boosting ("increase the score of documents containing...")
Armando,
I have tried X1 with the big pdf file inside your link : https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=2434.msg220457#msg220457
Indeed, to my surprise, the pdf is not indexed in full by X1 ! I have tested it into another big pdf file of mine and I have the same result ! ;(
I don't know why but X1 stops indexing pdf files after some number of characters. Maybe 1Million or something else like Google Drive? I don't know !
Also I noticed that X1 did not index some of my yearly subfolders (see above).
I going to test dtsearch ! ;)
See ya ;)-jity2 (January 12, 2015, 02:57 AM)
my tests results so far comparing : Copernic Desktop Search vs. X1 Search vs. Dtsearch vs. Archivarius 3000 (limited to 10,000 files due to trial limit).
I tested them on only : one of my archive folder (year 2008) + one folder containing some emails (.eml) + one folder containing some big pdf files and one .epub file).-jity2 (January 14, 2015, 01:34 AM)
FileSearchy (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=36587.0) is another one to keep in mind. It can search both file names and their contents and order them by the number of matches ("relevance") and show the density of matches within each document (besides other filtering options). It was a while ago I compared them but I think I preferred FileSearchy to DocFetcher (I think the search was more complete or something along those lines).-dr_andus (January 14, 2015, 07:14 AM)
Does FileSearchy need to index file content (how does the content search work) ?-Armando (January 14, 2015, 03:03 PM)
Does FileSearchy need to index file content (how does the content search work) ?-Armando (January 14, 2015, 03:03 PM)
It looks like it. When I launch it, for a minute or so there is a little indicator in the bottom left corner that says "indexing". Then it says "Index: ready."-dr_andus (January 15, 2015, 01:43 PM)
Does FileSearchy need to index file content (how does the content search work) ?-Armando (January 14, 2015, 03:03 PM)
It looks like it. When I launch it, for a minute or so there is a little indicator in the bottom left corner that says "indexing". Then it says "Index: ready."-dr_andus (January 15, 2015, 01:43 PM)
Thanks-Armando (January 15, 2015, 08:24 PM)
I think it may still be doing regular content search.-Jibz (January 16, 2015, 01:21 AM)
I rarely use it for search, but it's been a constant drain on resources, so I might just have to disable it permanently. So for me the FileSearchy approach probably makes more sense.-dr_andus (January 16, 2015, 06:20 AM)
AgentRansack beats them all
and its free...https://www.mythicsoft.com/-vmars316 (January 18, 2015, 05:27 PM)
Agent Ransack does not build or maintain an index, it searches on the fly. So it can be accurate (at least when I've used it) but don't expect results fast if you're looking through a lot of stuff. It's most useful if you can narrow down the best place to look.-x16wda (January 19, 2015, 10:29 AM)
Agent Ransack does not build or maintain an index, it searches on the fly. So it can be accurate (at least when I've used it) but don't expect results fast if you're looking through a lot of stuff. It's most useful if you can narrow down the best place to look.-x16wda (January 19, 2015, 10:29 AM)
I use this everyday, both at work and at home.
X1's Lightning-Fast Search Software is the Premium Alternative to Windows Desktop and Outlook Search.
X1's award winning, easy-to-use interface simplifies the way business professionals search and act upon desktop files, emails, attachments, SharePoint data, and more.-rmanning4 (January 19, 2015, 07:12 PM)
I have probably tried all of the local desktop search tools and nothing compares to X1.
Speed, beautiful previews using Oracle Outside In (acquired from Stellent), stability.-motiontwelve (January 29, 2015, 09:32 PM)
Agreed - I have really fond memories of X1 from 2001 through about 2008/9, at which point I began searching for alternatives. Every so often, I give the latest version a whirl, most recently this past fall (October? November?). I still find it quite slow and that it has a noticeable impact on my computer (i7 notebook with 4GB dedicated video memory and 32GB RAM running two SSD drives). Thus, it never lasts long... I use the built in Windows Search for just about everything and have dtSearch installed and updated for more complex searches. Like Armando, I have a license for Archivarius but find that I don't need it with dtSearch installed. I settled on dtSearch for my own use because as much as I love Archivarius I find that it's index get larger and larger over time. Haven't had it installed in a couple of years, though, might be time to revisit it. dtSearch has better previewers as well (or did; don't know about today).-Darwin (January 29, 2015, 05:00 PM)
The creator of xplorer2 just released DeskRule (http://zabkat.com/deskrule/), a new desktop search tool. The bottom of the product page has a comparison to Windows Search, Everything, Filelocator Pro, X1 Search, and Copernic. After the free trial, it costs $40.-twinkler (March 22, 2015, 10:12 PM)
I was looking for an "OR"-operator in my copy of Archivarius 3k, but couldn't find one that works. Is "OR" search not supported in A3k?-David.P (July 07, 2015, 04:13 AM)
Download it from their web page and try for yourself:-mojope (Participant, Posts: 1) (August 21, 2015, 04:48 AM)
> Download it from their web page and try for yourselfDownload it from their web page and try for yourself:-mojope (Participant, Posts: 1) (August 21, 2015, 04:48 AM)
You sure that it is "their", not "your" web page?-David.P (August 21, 2015, 04:52 AM)
Exselo
=====
Requirements:
...
Java 7 or newer.
Good bye!-highend01 (August 21, 2015, 05:48 AM)
I have made the test explained here :
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wrsp9jy4012hr9h/indexation_test3.zip?dl=0
And it is a complete failure for Archivarius. Here is the updated spreadsheet with Archivarius results:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ulmuxa8swem95n4/indexation_test3.xls?dl=0
My conclusion: it seems that Archivarius is not suitable for people who use accented characters
Or perhaps I have missed something ?-gt13013 (September 13, 2015, 05:10 AM)
I don't use Archivarius, but it is most likely more than enough just for finding text in a large number of files.
dtSearch is probably more flexible, with advanced indexing and search options and an index manager that lets you define multiple indexes according to how your data is stored, combine multiple indexes into libraries and search across them. In addition to boolean searches, it allows for word stemming, phonics and fuzzy searches, and can use a thesaurus to include synonyms in searches. It also displays pdf files using a reader plug-in and can even highlight found words inside pdfs if you use the Adobe Reader plug-in.-xtabber (December 16, 2015, 06:00 PM)
Exselo Desktop looks like it is Outlook-Based on all screenshots. So is this actually a DESKTOP search app at all?-David.P (February 02, 2016, 06:15 AM)
I have made the test explained here :
https://www.dropbox....ation_test3.zip?dl=0
And it is a complete failure for Archivarius. Here is the updated spreadsheet with Archivarius results:
https://www.dropbox....ation_test3.xls?dl=0-gt13013 (September 13, 2015, 05:10 AM)
It is incredible what one can store quite cheaply into Google nowadays-jity2 (February 28, 2016, 10:53 AM)
Yes, but how do you back those up, if the unthinkable happens, and due to some malfunction on Google's side they lose all your files?-dr_andus (February 28, 2016, 01:37 PM)
I have just sent you my tests with your files on Dtsearch and Google Drive.OK, thank you. I have incorporated your tests inside my Excel file http://goo.gl/NKHEor-jity2 (February 28, 2016, 10:53 AM)
Yes, but how do you back those up, if the unthinkable happens, and due to some malfunction on Google's side they lose all your files?-dr_andus (February 28, 2016, 01:37 PM)
Sorry for my bad formatting. I have tried to make my tests very seriously but I guess you deserve more info :
The first dtsearch test is with the exact keywords that you provided a) b)...etc
I also added " means your help readme files founds (not tested on every rows - only 6 - sorry!)". I have colored some cells on only 6 rows if it found "Readme36.doc" and "Readme36.pdf" files.
You may may remove it for clarity if you want to.
In the second one I modified the a) b) so Dtsearch understands what I want to search : so the syntax of the keyword are slightly modified.
Probably column "AS" should be moved to column "BA for instance".
The first GOOGLE DRIVE test is with the exact files that are in your zip folder once unzipped (no file is converted to Google Document).
I didn't have time to add the correct numbers in all cells on that part. Please add them. Thanks. ;)
Also I let the cell with numbers blank instead of color them in orange.
Hope this helps ;)-jity2 (February 29, 2016, 01:22 AM)
It is incredible what one can store quite cheaply into Google nowadays-jity2 (February 28, 2016, 10:53 AM)
Yes, but how do you back those up, if the unthinkable happens, and due to some malfunction on Google's side they lose all your files?-dr_andus (February 28, 2016, 01:37 PM)
It is incredible what one can store quite cheaply into Google nowadays-jity2 (February 28, 2016, 10:53 AM)
Yes, but how do you back those up, if the unthinkable happens, and due to some malfunction on Google's side they lose all your files?-dr_andus (February 28, 2016, 01:37 PM)
They are also synced to your machine, right?-wraith808 (February 29, 2016, 08:14 AM)
It is incredible what one can store quite cheaply into Google nowadays-jity2 (February 28, 2016, 10:53 AM)
Yes, but how do you back those up, if the unthinkable happens, and due to some malfunction on Google's side they lose all your files?-dr_andus (February 28, 2016, 01:37 PM)
They are also synced to your machine, right?-wraith808 (February 29, 2016, 08:14 AM)
Only if you choose to do that, by installing the Windows client. But that would defeat the purpose of trying to use Google Drive instead of your limited hard drive or SSD as the repository for files (as MilesAhead pointed out).-dr_andus (February 29, 2016, 03:01 PM)
As you are using File Locator, does it also support other filetypes, such as .mdb, .dbf?
I am using X1 and have added .mdb, .dbf, .mmi, htm, etc.
X1 filetypes supported:
=
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
=-dcwul62 (April 11, 2016, 03:59 AM)
Free for 25.000 files http://www.searchblox.com/pricing-2/-utomo88 (August 11, 2016, 03:55 AM)
Free for 25.000 files http://www.searchblox.com/pricing-2/-utomo88 (August 11, 2016, 03:55 AM)
$5,000!
Only 100 times the cost of X1.-michaelkenward (August 11, 2016, 09:31 AM)
Free for 25.000 files http://www.searchblox.com/pricing-2/-utomo88 (August 11, 2016, 03:55 AM)
$5,000!
Only 100 times the cost of X1.-michaelkenward (August 11, 2016, 09:31 AM)
if you have more than 25.000 files you need to pay that.
but if it is less than 25.000 Files it is FREE.-utomo88 (August 11, 2016, 09:06 PM)
I have 186,561 PDF files according to X1. Many many more email messages.-michaelkenward (August 12, 2016, 03:37 AM)
wow so many. what is that all about ?-utomo88 (August 13, 2016, 07:09 AM)
The latest build is less then a month old. Not all software has to ride the never ending upgrade cycle.
Most "updates" are really just cosmetic changes to keep it in line with what Windows looks like.-michaelkenward (August 18, 2016, 04:07 AM)
Currently I am trying out UltraSearch. I have used Everything for years, and Locate32 before that. UltraSearch uses MFTs as Everything does but has the advantage of a content search option.Everything can also search content, though that feature is tucked away in the advanced search window ( menubar > search > avanced search) and there is no pregenerated index. Does UltraSearch index content?-MilesAhead (September 15, 2016, 05:25 PM)
Everything can also search content, though that feature is tucked away in the advanced search window ( menubar > search > avanced search) and there is no pregenerated index. Does UltraSearch index content?-Nod5 (September 17, 2016, 10:49 AM)