Search subdirectories?

[howardb]

Appears FARR search only directories listed, including the start menu directories. Is there no option to also search subdirectories? Also, unlike ``related software'' such as runit,  it does not appear FARR can search a large set of subdirectories, such as ``the whole disk'' as some text implies unless one liste each and every directory. Would a whole disk search overload the software? Are there  ways to list a lot of directories without listing each and  every directory?

[mouser]

FARR *always* searches subdirectories, so you only need to list the parent directory.

however, as you surmised, because FARR does not use an index (there are pros and cons to indices, though it's like to be an option in the future), FARR is not suitable for searching an entire large disk in the normal fashion.

for such things you have some options: you can use the locate32 plugin,
or you can set up specific modifiers that let you search different specific directories on demand.

[howardb]

Funny, I thought FARR searched subdirectories too, until I tried to access a program in a subdirectory of Start Up. It did not appear. But when I listed the particular directory the program was in - poof -- the program then appeared.

Could it be my use of an older version (that did not have a memory error I was getting) resulted in this behaviour?

[mouser]

Could it be my use of an older version (that did not have a memory error I was getting) resulted in this behaviour?

yes.

well actually, all versions of farr have always searched recursively through the directories, so that wouldn't be the problem per se, but it's certainly possible that a bug in an older version is somehow causing the program.. do you mean that you are just typing the plain name of a program in a subdirectory and it's not finding it in a subdirectory? or are you doing explicit directory browsing by typing something like "C:\program files\blahh" in the search edit.

btw:
so much stuff has been added to farr v2 since version 1 was out that you really want to be using version 2.  i'll try to figure out why win98 is having this error.  you might get yourself a holiday gift of windows xp though, its a big improvement.

[howardb]

> do you mean that you are just typing the plain name of a program in
> a subdirectory and it's not finding it in a subdirectory?  or are
> you doing explicit director y browsing by typing something like
> "C:\program files\blahh" in the search edit.

I meant the first: I typed the name, kdiff, for a program located in a subdirectory of Start UP called, `utilities'. The results window showed no entries. In the early version I am using, the Start Up directory is listed as a variable, i.e., %Start Up% , without explaining the percent signs, or how such variables are  created, parsed, and searched.

When I added, c:\windows\Start Up/utilities to the proper search pane, my program, kdiff, appeared in the results list.

> btw: so much stuff has been added to farr v2 since version 1 was
> out that you really want to be using version 2.  i'll try to
> figure out why win98 is having this error.

I wish you well on this -- the memory problem is definitely there, and reproduceable.

> you might get yourself a holiday gift of windows xp though, its a big improvement.

Actually, I have copies of win 2000 and XP, but have reasons for not using them. Among them: Old OS's and software seem to attract far less viruses, adware, etc. I like the (last windows version with) true Dos, ability to boot from dos and restore backups, the lack of the annoying task for finding new places for old things, new ways to do the same functions, the inevitable increasing hardware/software that accompanies each new microsoft OS.

There are lots of now `tiny' programs that perform basic tasks well  without constant updating. When Microsoft offers me something practical I really need in a new OS,
I will buy it.

[f0dder]

If you ever upgrade your processor, you'll probably be forced to leave Win9x behind... same thing if you add a substantial amount of RAM. Not much advantage in being able to boot DOS these days either, since there's backup/imaging programs that run fine off bootable CDs or USB pendrives, etc.

I used to be a diehard DOS fanatic (enough that I stripped down Win95 to ~25 megabytes and used it with shell=4dos.com, only to get better caching than smartdrv offered and decent multitasking), but after Win2k was released and I switched over, I haven't looked back one single time... Win9x is such a plague. Unless you have really old hardware (less than 700MHz/256meg ram), you're doing yourself a disservice by staying with win9x.

True, more (active) malware targets XP than 9x, but if you ever get any on 9x it can wreak a lot more havoc. And as long as you're behind a NATing router and don't run IE, chances of catching malware are very slim anyway.

But I digress