What is the currently best Desktop Search software?

[KenR]

Wait, are you using three desktop search engines? Are you storing the indexes in a server?

-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 

-Darwin (June 04, 2008, 10:54 AM)

HI MIKE! (I think that's the way we're supposed to start.)

Take heart. Admitting your addiction IS the first step. On the other hand, until you eliminate it, ENJOY YOUR ADDICTION!

As normalizing such matters typically has a consoling effect, take heart as well in the fact that given this site's membership, it could as well have been called "Software Anonymous" or any of the myriad other titles one might have imagine given our MUTUAL addiction.

Firmly addicted,
Ken

[Grorgy]

If the kids are fed, mostly, and the wife isn't past threatening to leave, things aren't too grim. 

[4wd]

I had a quick search of the topic but couldn't find it:

FindOnClick from 2BrightSparks, (the guys that brought you SyncBack).

After registering SyncBack using a recent DC discount, I happened to win a license for OnClick Utilities by filling in the survey - EXCELLENT!!  Two utils for the discounted price of one - best discount I ever got!

I used to use Locate32 and Index Your Files, the problem with both of these is they require you to index the drives - a pointless exercise AFAIAC.  If I'm searching for something, I want the result now not in a few minutes time.

Anyway, they're gone now, replaced by FindOnClick which seems ridiculously fast to me.

eg.

To search S: for *.jpg, (result 1362):
DOpus        17s
FindOnClick  0.81s

To search D: for *.jpg, (result 29627):
DOpus        78s
FindOnClick   7s

For the rare occasions I need to search for that elusive file I'll be using FindOnClick.

PS. Thank you DC for the discount 

[Darwin]

Interesting - thank you for bringing that app to our attention, 4WD. I'll check it out. From your description it sounds, possibly, like either SearchGTor FileLocator Pro. Which it resembles depends largely upon whether or not it can search the content of files or whether it searches filenames only...

[Darwin]

PS Ken - we need to start a support group... Hang on, this IS the support group 

[rjbull]

it sounds, possibly, like either SearchGTor FileLocator Pro.

-Darwin (June 04, 2008, 11:15 PM)

Do your 15 licenses for file managers include XYplorer?  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?

[Curt]

FindOnClick really is impressively fast.

My problems with the program were: 1) that it is not "integrated" with Explorer other than in the context menu. In most cases my search via GTSearch or QT will have ended before FindOnClick even have begun to search, because these apps are genuinely INTEGRATED. This is of course only a concern if the user already is inside Explorer.  2) FindOnClick can set a shortcut to the search you have performed. Nice. But a) you will have to name the link yourself if you are going to have more than one of the kind, and b) it is not a link to the result of the search but to a new search for the same criteria, (some non-sense deleted). 3) It is not FindOnClick but FindOnDoubleclick 4) It is $30  Edited: seems to be $30 including: EncryptOnClick + DeleteOnClick + UndeleteOnClick + HashOnClick + PatchOnClick + ScrambleOnClick   which all seems very cheap (read: "cheap" as in a fine deal, not as in cheap crap), but I don't think I want any of them.

But other than this it really is both fast and 'nice'.

Edited:

5) During un-install I was asked this question I really hate to get:
>Remove shared file?<   

What is the currently best Desktop Search software?

EvenMoreEdited:

Also, the shortcut in Quick Launch was left behind. 

[Darwin]

Do your 15 licenses for file managers include XYplorer?  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 feeling quite embarrassed now (rather than being simply embarrassed)... 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.

Curt, thank you for the quick review  . FindonClick sounds even better (as you might imagine, I'm very rarely in Windows Explorer!) after your comments, but I'll have to think hard about whether to even try it or not - I"m not in the market for a search app and am not sure that I need any of the other applications that come with it for $30!

[Lashiec]

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.

[4wd]

Hi Curt, I uninstalled FindOnClick just to see what you were on about:

5) During un-install I was asked this question I really hate to get:
>Remove shared file?<   
 (see attachment in previous post)

-Curt (June 05, 2008, 03:26 AM)

Please remember, this is a result of Windows' retarded method of program (un)installation tracking.  But, the SNU.dll is used by all the OnClick utilities - personally I'd rather be told that the file may no longer be in use rather than having it just left or deleted.

In a perfect world all software would be portable and you could just delete the directory it resides in.  The OS would pick up the changes and take action as appropriate, (remove shortcuts, context menus, etc), instead of relying on the abortion used by Microsoft, (ie. the registry).

EvenMoreEdited:

Also, the shortcut in Quick Launch was left behind. 

All shortcuts were removed on my machine, QuickLaunch and (non-default) Startup menu location.

Edit:
BTW, I thought I'd give SearchGT a go since everyone seems to like it, (Default install):

1) Doesn't integrate to DOpus - I don't use Explorer at all.
2) Context menu in DOpus takes you to results, (of which there are none), not to search dialog, (which is anti-intuitive IMO).

Result of the two above is that it takes more effort to use, ie. Start Menu->SearchGT->Search GT

3) Results of searching D: for *.jpg including sub-dirs, hidden and system folders (Default search options):

SearchGT       0.7s    424 files
FindOnClick     5.52s  29627 files   (FYI, Default Install - launched by context menu on the drive in a DOpus lister, type in *.jpg and hit search.)

Based on the results, I think I'll be sticking with FindOnClick - I have more chance of finding the file I want with the least effort.

If I wanted to be even lazier with FindOnClick, I could of gone to Expert search and just click 'Pictures and Photos' - 37081 files in 9.61s

4) I don't know if you've ever uninstalled SearchGT BUT the thing I really hate to see is:
    Please Restart your computer to complete uninstallation.

My results may be biased since I have got a license for OnClick Utilities, (that was essentially free), but I did state that up front.

Also BTW, thanks to rjbull for mentioning BareGrep - has now been added to my flashdrive 

[kartal]

Scanfs has just been updated as well. Would you guys mind give a try and compare it to others? I use it here and I am happy but I do not have searchgt etc. I do not have any affiliation just a happy user

Btw it is free!

https://www.donation...ex.php?topic=13567.0

http://www.saleensof...ware.com/ScanFS.aspx

[4wd]

Would you guys mind give a try and compare it to others?

-kartal (June 05, 2008, 09:34 PM)

Just quickly:

1) Forces creation of a Desktop icon.
2) Doesn't allow you to choose where in the Start menu you want it.
3) Launch application at end of install generated "Corrupt dll" or "Missing dll" error.  Ran OK from icon.
4) Initial run generated another error - can't recall what it was, missing file or some such.
5) Was forced to use Taskmanager to kill it since closing the initial run of the program did nothing but cause Access Violations.

Successive executions didn't produce any start/close errors/faults, this is provided I didn't try to use the program.

5) Upon entering a search for *.jpg on D:\ it responded with "Unknown search Date mode" and then I had to use Taskmanager to kill it.

At this point I gave up and uninstalled it, deleted it, then formatted the drive to make damn sure it was gone.

6) The uninstaller has an option to delete the program settings but it was ghosted.
7) It also left directory C:\Program Files\Saleen Software with two files sitting in it.

EDIT: Please note I run an optimised version of XP - there are services and programs, (eg. IE), that do not exist on it.  As such, if this program relies on some esoteric service/program that is in a normal XP installation then it may well work - however it won't be seeing the light of day again on my system.

Another edit: Damn, just as I was writing the edit above you guys replied.

[kartal]

sorry to hear that. I have never had any issues installing it. I use it on both xp64bit and 32bit.

[Armando]

Never had any problems either.

[rjbull]

Do your 15 licenses for file managers include XYplorer?  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 feeling quite embarrassed now (rather than being simply embarrassed)...

-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

I'll take it that here we're primarily talking features as an information finder, rather than a plain file finder or file manager.

- the differences would be that if speed were determining the criteria, SearchGT would win, whereas on feature set FL Pro would win.

I seem to remember DonL saying that SearchGT was particularly fast at "first time" searches, but that once the Windows cache had been loaded, there wasn't much in it.

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.

Here, I suppose, it's really a case of what's the main focus of a particular application.  I found content search less good in XYplorer than I'm used to.  You can use its Ctrl-Q Quick View feature on the hits, but it's not so obvious where the hits are in the file.  If you do a contents search with Total Commander and ask it to view the files it's found, you can just press F3 and it will do a "find again" search on the text you originally asked it to search for.  That's a nice touch, and one I didn't immediately see in XYplorer (somebody correct me if I'm wrong).  Wish list - an option to colourise the hit terms...  Also, I find TC more keyboard-friendly than XYplorer, but I find myself using the latter more for unindexed searches of the network. 

I don't have FL Pro, in part because I briefly looked at Agent Ransack and found it wouldn't work properly on the computer I use at work owing to restrictions in force at the time.  Maybe I should take another look.  BareGrepPro is wonderful for grep with or without regexp searches and shows you the text in a window, but I would often prefer Boolean searching.  The only (Windows) program that has Boolean searching that I have at present is WanyWord (freeware), but I don't much like the syntax and I want better options for proximity searching, like (at least) that terms should be within one to "n" lines of each other.  Asking they should be within so many words of each other would doubtless slow things down too much for unindexed searches.

[Curt]

EDIT: Please note I run an optimised version of XP -

-4wd (June 05, 2008, 10:12 PM)

- you don't seem to have the same conception of the word "optimized" as I have. 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...

[Darwin]

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)

Yes - I was comparing XYPlorer as a search tool in the above post. Thanks for pointing out Total Commander's capabilities as a content search tool - I haven't played with its search feature much and had no idea 

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). 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...). You're correct about the first time speed advantage enjoyed by SearchGT being somewhat neutralized after a second and subsequent runs. There was an exchange, that I particiaptated in, about this when SearchGT first came to DC's general attention and this behaviour was explored a bit.

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 

EDIT: fixed quote

[tinjaw]

OK, who is willing to make a summary of this thread so far? I would love a one paragraph description of each app that has risen to the top.

[rjbull]

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)

You should bring that to DonL's attention, as it's a serious criticism of XYplorer.

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...).

Even BareGrepPro takes a while on 100,000 files, if you must start from the root with *.* 

FL Pro is very nice, but BareGrep Pro is much faster

BareGrepPro is so fast that it's usually no hardship to run it several times, but sometimes I'd accept a speed penalty for the convenience of Boolean searching on text data, which isn't always easy to "grep."

... 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 

As a good Darwinian, no doubt you're evolving towards mastery? 

Now, about that twelve-step program...   

[Darwin]

I suppose you're right about drawing my criticism of XYplorer's in-file search feature to Don's attention... It's just that I use XYplorer as a file manager and have never been that interested in it as a search tool. So... my use of it in the latter capacity is restricted almost entirely to checking out features in response to threads like this! Thus, I'm hardly a power user. At any rate, will endeavour to contact Don with my problem.

[tinjaw]

I have a confession to make. I have a license for both Xplorer2 and XYPlorer and I have both of them installed on my laptop. This has resulted in me being less efficient because I keep confusing the two and don't learn the shortcuts etc.

Can somebody smarter than me sum up what differentiates the two. Preferably I would like to hear something like, XYPlorer is focused on making things easier and Xplorer2 is focused on getting every feature possible at your command. Or something like that.

Do you folks suggest I use one for a few months and then the other, or should I put one on my laptop and one on my desktop and use them both. I am thinking the former, but not sure which to use first. 

[Lashiec]

Actually, I think it's mostly the other way around, XYplorer focused in getting more and innovative features in a single program, without bloating it, and xplorer² more focused into being a better Windows explorer, and such being easier. Essentially, XYplorer is more focused on power users, and xplorer² is more "pedestrian", which is not as bad as it sounds.

Probably Darwin will tell you the differences between the two (and the rest of the file managers out there ) more in depth. Uh, should this be moved to the file managers thread?

[Darwin]

I can't do much better than Lashiec in enumerating the differences between XYPlorer and Xplorer2... Biggest difference (for now?) is that XYPlorer is designed around having a single viewing pane and extensive tab support whereas XPlorer2 is designed around a dual-pane approach. Actually, scratch that. This is the most OBVIOUS difference when opening up and playing with both for a couple of minutes. Dig deeper and the differences Lashiec mentinons become more apparent.

[tinjaw]

Uh, should this be moved to the file managers thread?

-Lashiec (June 06, 2008, 09:53 AM)

Oops. That is where I meant to post this, but I've been following this thread as well and posted earlier and so I blame my old age.

[4wd]

EDIT: Please note I run an optimised version of XP -

-4wd (June 05, 2008, 10:12 PM)

- you don't seem to have the same conception of the word "optimized" as I have.

-Curt (June 06, 2008, 06:28 AM)

That's because I use the original english spelling not the butchered, "americanized" version of the english language 

From the Free Dictionary:

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

I'm getting the "most" and "best" out of my system by removing those parts of it which are not required for my normal day-to-day use of it.  eg. IE is not "required", OE is not "required", the "Indexing Service" is not required, ad-infinitum.

Hence the reason for the post-edit on my message.

Programs that run perfectly well on other machines will not run on yours, is not quite telling it is 'optimized'.

Programs are always highly dependent on the environment in which they are installed.  A program that works on one persons system could fail on anothers simply because there's another program installed which interacts in a conflicting manner.

Over the time I've run various "optimised" versions of XP, (over two years), I think I've come across only two programs which didn't work as they normally would - ScanFS is the second.  And there are always alternatives.

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..."

My system works perfectly fine with all I've removed, indeed it works better than a stock install AFAIAC.  It is by no means optimised as far as I could take it, as I still have things like "IE core" installed for those programs that seem to think they need it.

The meaning of "optimise" is the same in every language, it is only the degree of optimisation which differs from person to person.

And, quite frankly, I would be hard pressed to think of anyone who could honestly say that Microsoft's products could not do with some really good optimisation.

EDIT: While I think of it, since you're the one who brought up these car analogies  :

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.

Guess what?  My "optimised" XP is more responsive and smoother in operation than in it's original "non-optimised" form.