ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

What is the currently best Desktop Search software?

<< < (75/181) > >>

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.  :-\

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 ;D) more in depth. Uh, should this be moved to the file managers thread?

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.

Uh, should this be moved to the file managers thread?
-Lashiec (June 06, 2008, 09:53 AM)
--- End quote ---

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.

EDIT: Please note I run an optimised version of XP - -4wd (June 05, 2008, 10:12 PM)
--- End quote ---
- you don't seem to have the same conception of the word "optimized" as I have.-Curt (June 06, 2008, 06:28 AM)
--- End quote ---
That's because I use the original english spelling not the butchered, "americanized" version of the english language  :D

From the Free Dictionary:
Verb   1.   optimise - make optimal; get the most out of; use best; "optimise your resources"
--- End quote ---
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'.
--- End quote ---

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...
--- End quote ---
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  :P :

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.
--- End quote ---
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.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version