 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows Vista / File Management / May 2008Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!
Hello! Why does Windows Vista x64 search so long, especially when the progress in the bar is at the end and the ring is rolling (a replacement for the sand glass)? When a search is not "nearly instantaneous" it takes nearly forever. That is, when you ask for an Advanced Search of Computer, the bar first goes half-way across fairly quickly. Then it goes more slowly to about 3/4 of the way, appearing to redraw the bar every second or so, then more slowly still to 7/8, etc., getting closer to the end with each redraw - but never quite reaching the end. I watch hopefully as it gets to the little down-pointing triangle, thinking that it will give up when it gets there and report that it can't find what it's searching for. But it doesn't. It keeps creeping further, past the vertical separator at the end of the Address Bar, and then at a maddeningly slow pace across the red "X" and... hours later, the green bar is still being redrawn and it STILL hasn't got to the end. Windows XP Pro on the same computer (but on another HDD) searches for the same files (on all HDDs) five times faster. Sincerely, Dima ... > Windows XP Pro on the same computer (but on another HDD) searches for the > same files (on all HDDs) five times faster. The same for me... Total Commander is 20 times faster than explorer... horrible :(  Signaturemarfi > Hello! > Why does Windows Vista x64 search so long, especially when the progress in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Windows XP Pro on the same computer (but on another HDD) searches for the > same files (on all HDDs) five times faster. It's worse than that. It also sometimes cannot find files that are clearly there. ss. Hi, Dima. Is there an echo in here? This sounds like the discussion we had here a week or two ago. Yes, here it is: started by you on 4/28/08, Subject: Why does Windows Vista x64 search so long? Like this current post, it was cross-posted to 3 NGs; that thread has 9 posts, of which 5 were from you. One is from me, one from Tony Sperling and 2 from Colin Barnhorst. The bulk of your current post is a cut-n-pasted direct quote from my post of 4/28/08 in that other thread. I don't mind your using my description of the problem, but whenever you "borrow" text from somewhere, common courtesy (and Netiquette) requires that you identify the source. Have you found new information about this problem, Dima? Or are you just asking the same question again? RC SignatureR. C. White, CPA San Marcos, TX rc@grandecom.net Microsoft Windows MVP (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1) > Hello! > Why does Windows Vista x64 search so long, especially when the progress in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Sincerely, > Dima No, I have not find any new information. It's strange that nobody knows a resolution to the slow search in Vista! > Hi, Dima. > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >> Sincerely, >> Dima I am sure there are many who know how to "fix it", at least, in principle. And many of them are at Microsoft. <g> Without going into the details of search theory or methods of implementation: It could well be that nothing is actually broken so does not need fixing in the strict sense. Possibly, the search algorithms are performing exactly as designed. However, it also might be true that they could be better implemented. For example, they could be recoded into assembly or direct machine code-seldom done now-but that's a topic for a different place and time. As one example of a fast search-isoHunt, a Torrent search engine, is very rapid considering the vast quantity of data indexed however it retunes a quantity of false positives. In designing any program, there are many trade-offs. All of them affect the search speed. E.g. Do you do a full, all storage devices search or limit it to a particular set of locations (Vista actually allows the user to modify to search entire index or just user files). How highly do you value reliability (same results on repeated searches of the same data), accuracy/fuzziness (result matches target/result is a near match), &c. But Here I am probably not saying anything you don't know. In short, if it's not too late for that, we can be certain that these are matters that are routinely reviewed as development goes forward as halting and retrograde as that motion sometimes appears. SignatureTom MSMVP 1998-2007 > No, I have not find any new information. It's strange that nobody knows a > resolution to the slow search in Vista! [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >>> Sincerely, >>> Dima Why don't they reply then? >I am sure there are many who know how to "fix it", at least, in principle. >And many of them are at Microsoft. <g> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >>>> Sincerely, >>>> Dima They probably haven't found an answer either. If someone had an answer they would have shared the information. > Why don't they reply then? >> I am sure there are many who know how to "fix it", at least, in [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] >>>>> Sincerely, >>>>> Dima This is a peer-to-peer newsgroup and does not have monitors or moderators. Unless another user has a suggestion or technical answer no one will reply. > Why don't they reply then? >>I am sure there are many who know how to "fix it", at least, in principle. [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] >>>>> Sincerely, >>>>> Dima As Colin points out, this is a peer-to-peer help group. Sometimes MS softies drop in but MS has no formal presence here. As for your question, I have enough trouble accounting for myself without dragging out "ye olde crystal ball" to divine anyone else's motivations. <g> SignatureTom MSMVP 1998-2007 > Why don't they reply then? >>I am sure there are many who know how to "fix it", at least, in principle. [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] >>>>> Sincerely, >>>>> Dima Microsoftie here :) The progress bar was a design decision made by the program management team. It does not show progress, but it does reflect that we're still performing work. It was tweaked significantly during the different Betas and Release Candidates until people were generally ok with it. Searching in indexed locations should be fast. It should be even faster with Window Search 4 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940157) installed. The more locations on the disk you have indexed, the faster the searching of these locations should be. Keep in mind that we don't index the entire drive on purpose, as the indexer wasn't designed to handle the load that is associated with indexing directories like Windows or Program Files. Searching all of the Computer is a very costly operation, because a majority of the time is spent crawling the disk trying to find the items that you're looking for. The non-indexed search of Vista is slower than XP and other engines by default, because we end up searching more properties. Also, we perform our searches differently than most engines (word based, rather than character or regular expression based). This isn't an excuse, we should still do a better job of being more efficient. Granted that it may be slower in some situations, there are things you can do to improve performance of your searches. 1. Scope your search location. Only include the locations you think that you may find the file you're looking for. This will obviously speed things up. 2. Scope your search to only search for properties you care about. Use either the Advanced Search Pane or directly use Advanced Query Syntax (such as name:foo, or author:bar). See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa965711.aspx for more details. The syntax isn't perfect and there is a lot of work trying to keep the behavior of non-indexed searches to match the behavior of indexed searches (which isn't perfect), even though it is two completely distinct search providers. 3. Add more locations of the files you care about to the index. When searching non-indexed locations like Computer, we will leverage the indexer to return results for indexed locations on the system. 4. Keep the "Search system folders" checkbox unchecked in the Search Options, unless you're sure that's where you want to look. When this option is set, searching from c:\ will not search within system directories like c:\windows and c:\program files. 5. Don't use the "Include non-indexed, hidden and system files (might be slow)" checkbox in the Advanced search box unless you have to. This option will not use the index at all and will perform a non-indexed search of all locations and also look in system folders. Hope this helps, Justin PS - I'm going to try to do a better job of popping into the newsgroup now and then to see if there is anything that needs answering. > Microsoftie here :) > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > PS - I'm going to try to do a better job of popping into the newsgroup now > and then to see if there is anything that needs answering. I believe you are trying to say that the Vista search function is a hopeless waste of space. If we follow your suggestions we will know where everything is anyway, In XP *.mp3 found all the mp3s, in Vista it does not. You bet there are things that need answering. > I believe you are trying to say that the Vista search function is a > hopeless waste of space. If we follow your suggestions we will know > where everything is anyway, In XP *.mp3 found all the mp3s, in Vista it > does not. > > You bet there are things that need answering. That's not what I'm trying to say at all. I now understand why many people don't spend their time trying to be helpful in the newsgroups. You'll get people to be much more willing to try and assist and make improvements in the product if you do more than just flame. If you honestly are having a problem and would like help, please be descriptive of the problems you're running into. For example: 1. Where/how are you initiating the search? 2. Where are the files that aren't being found? Are they random or is it a specific set of items that aren't coming back? 3. Have you changed any of the default search or indexer settings? etc. Justin >> I believe you are trying to say that the Vista search function is a >> hopeless waste of space. If we follow your suggestions we will know [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Justin Actually your presence here is most welcome, and I was being somewhat sarcastic. I know there are many settings and that indexing can be useful to some, however the situation seems to have been made quite confusing to many users. For example, I rarely "Search" for anything, when I do it probably takes the form of *.dll because I want to locate some file or other to work with. I don't really care if it takes 5 minutes to find, but I do want to be sure if it is there or not. What I do care about is that I have to wait 5 minutes EVERY time as Vista "Indexes" things at boot. Despite this time during which the disk drive is grinding away when I type *.dll it comes back with nothing. Even if the file is in plain sight on the desktop Vista does not find it. W2000 and XP used to just "Find" things, indexed or not. On the other hand if I want to find something on the Internet I use Google or similar. So my experience when first using Vista was with the default settings, and despite 5 minutes every boot and 5 minutes every search I could not be sure the file wasn't there, only that Vista wasn't locating it. Once I went to the drive properties and turned indexing off the boot process went back to a realistic time and Vista still couldn't find anything but waiting time was acceptable. So I guess the question is why change the "Expected" behavior and force the user to make changes he/she is not familiar with when it seems that what "Windows always does" was quite acceptable. I may well have missed the point somewhere, I just want to know where :) Even while accepting that other people have different experiences based on what they customarily have need or desire to do, I have mine. It appears to me that an effort is on-going to improve both the scope (where do you search? How broadly do you set the parameters of the search?) and speed (what methodology/algorithms do you use; do you keep an index of searches to improve speed of later searches? Do you pre-index-if so, what parameters so you set for that?). Please forgive my repetitiveness but I though it worth reviewing. Any time there is a change to the behavior of a tool, users are forced to experience some-to-much re-familiarization time. Hopefully, most will find the newly expanded abilities worth the admitted pain. Also, one hopes that usability improves as development continues. SignatureTom MSMVP 1998-2007 >>> I believe you are trying to say that the Vista search function is a >>> hopeless waste of space. If we follow your suggestions we will know [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > what "Windows always does" was quite acceptable. I may well have missed > the point somewhere, I just want to know where :) > Any time there is a change to the behavior of a tool, users are forced to > experience some-to-much re-familiarization time. Hopefully, most will find > the newly expanded abilities worth the admitted pain. Also, one hopes that > usability improves as development continues. Vista search simple DOES NOT WORK when searching for strings on my Vista Ultimate machine. I've seen it work on another Vista machine, but search does not work on my machine. I have given Microsoft an example of searching for six identical files with six different extensions. Vista can find three but is blind to the other three. Even "Advanced Search" and its checkbox "Include non-indexed, hidden, and system files (might be slow)" cannot find three of these six identical files. In the last year, I have literally spend DAYS indexing and re-indexing and re-indexing, trying to get Vista search to work. It does not work on my machine in my hands. I have demostrated to Microsoft I can get search to work correctly for Windows 95, 98, 2000 and XP. Why is prior Windows knowledge NOT enough to get search to work in Vista? I have begged and pleaded with Microsoft to find out why search doesn't work on my Ultimate machine, OR give me the right to go back to XP. Microsoft REFUSES to fix the problem, and REFUSES to let me go back to XP without paying them more money because they made a flawed product. I just want the search functionality that was in Windows Explorer in Windows 2000 (or XP with the registry hack). Why is that too much to ask? Why is wanting a product that works correctly too high of an expectation? When "there is a change to the behavior of a tool" that breaks the functionality, and when this is in a new product, I would have thought Microsoft would care enough to listen and investigate. The bottom line is MICROSOFT DOES RESPECT CUSTOMERS. Microsoft simply does not care about the problems they create in their own software. I normally want to do very targeted searches. I usually know what directory to start in and usually need to search for a string in a few hundred or a few thousand files. The free Agent Ransack (http://www.mythicsoft.com/agentransack/) lets me do searches that ALWAYS work in Vista (it can find all six files in the search failure example I gave Microsoft). But why should I need a 3rd party tool for such basic search functionality when I paid for the "ultimate" version of Vista? Here are the Microsoft guys that REFUSE to discuss the search failure of Vista any more. They have blocked E-mails from me, since it's easier to ignore me than fix the search problem in Vista: Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: a-jims@microsoft.com An error occurred while trying to deliver this message to the recipient's e-mail address. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. nicholas.white@microsoft.com An error occurred while trying to deliver this message to the recipient's e-mail address. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. The following organization rejected your message: mailb.microsoft.com. >> Any time there is a change to the behavior of a tool, users are forced to >> experience some-to-much re-familiarization time. Hopefully, most will [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ultimate machine. I've seen it work on another Vista machine, but search > does not work on my machine. That is a telling point. Why is it not working on your machine but is on another? Is it a search with the same parameters on both machines? I have given Microsoft an example of searching > for six identical files with six different extensions. Vista can find > three but is blind to the other three. Even "Advanced Search" and its > checkbox "Include non-indexed, hidden, and system files (might be slow)" > cannot find three of these six identical files. I wonder if this is not a question of where the search is being done rather than what is being searched for. > In the last year, I have literally spend DAYS indexing and re-indexing and > re-indexing, trying to get Vista search to work. It does not work on my > machine in my hands. I have demostrated to Microsoft I can get search to > work correctly for Windows 95, 98, 2000 and XP. Why is prior Windows > knowledge NOT enough to get search to work in Vista? If it is a different tool, then different technoques might be required and the same techniques might get different resumts. > I have begged and pleaded with Microsoft to find out why search doesn't > work on my Ultimate machine, OR give me the right to go back to XP. Did you inquire about "downgrade" rights? Microsoft > REFUSES to fix the problem, and REFUSES to let me go back to XP without > paying them more money because they made a flawed product. I just want > the search functionality that was in Windows Explorer in Windows 2000 (or > XP with the registry hack). Why is that too much to ask? Why is wanting > a product that works correctly too high of an expectation? {Snip} > I normally want to do very targeted searches. I usually know what > directory to start in and usually need to search for a string in a few [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > gave Microsoft). But why should I need a 3rd party tool for such basic > search functionality when I paid for the "ultimate" version of Vista? OK. You have a solution. Use it and worry not. <g> That's what we all do if we find a tool or feature or two we don't like. Use a work-around or another tool. It's difficult for one system to be all things to all people, in my view. > Here are the Microsoft guys that REFUSE to discuss the search failure of > Vista any more. Well, I can't speak for them but my thought is they might believe they have said as much as they think is helpful about the case you submitted. {Snip} In any case, this topic has brought a light to bear on a high degree of frustration in some users. Hopefully, that will not be without effect. SignatureTom MSMVP 1998-2007 > OK. You have a solution. Use it and worry not. <g> That's what we all do > if we find a tool or feature or two we don't like. Use a work-around or > another tool. It's difficult for one system to be all things to all > people, in my view. Luckily, our IT guys won't touch Vista, so search is not a problem at work. I am penalized for trying to be on the leading edge of adopting Vista for personal use. [I wanted to be a proponent of using Vista's search of file tags on a special project at work -- a great solution to a particular problem -- but there's no way I'm pushing for that pilot project using Vista given how I've been treated by Microsoft on their failed Vista search. Our IT manager won't let me call on behalf of the company about the search problem because he doesn't want to talk to Microsoft AT ALL about Vista -- it's my fault I bought a personal copy, and Microsoft has treated me like dirt as an individual on the flawed search on my Vista Ultimate.] I worry about the future: I am also involved in aspects of technical support at work and may need to search for certain kinds of files, which means with Vista I will now need to take my own tools to every PC for troubleshooting -- or talk users on the phone or E-mail into installing a new tool before we can even look at certain problems. Some troubleshooting using Vista will be a problem when files cannot be found because of Vista's flawed search. I have explained this to Microsoft about how some scientific files don't "obey" their rules, but Microsoft doesn't care. Microsoft should have added a new feature, not removed an old reliable one. > In any case, this topic has brought a light to bear on a high degree of > frustration in some users. Hopefully, that will not be without effect. But what good does bringing light do when Microsoft's arrogance and condescension prevents them from caring enough to help customers get work done? The flaws in Vista and the needless user interface changes in Office 2007 easily cost me a week of work last year (likely more). Why would anyone want Vista/Office 2007 when Microsoft is hindering productivity and provides NO SUPPORT when they screw things up? Microsoft's attitude strongly says "we don't want customers" -- a bit like IBM when I tried to buy OS/2 from them many years ago. I have not considered Macs for a long time, but the arbitrary and unnecessary differences Microsoft is imposing on customers with Vista and Office 2007 make me really wonder if switching might be better. I truly enjoy the PC Guy - Mac guy commercials, especially the recent one about PC customers leaving and not coming back. Why should we tolerate the terrible arrogance of Microsoft and all the wasted time they have caused with Vista? The flawed Vista search has been the "deal breaker" for me. FRUSTRATION levels are quite high when I cannot find old files, or even new ones, with Vista's search, and Microsoft doesn't listen, doesn't care and doesn't fix the problem. > > Any time there is a change to the behavior of a tool, users are forced to > > experience some-to-much re-familiarization time. Hopefully, most will find [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "Include non-indexed, hidden, and system files (might be slow)" cannot find > three of these six identical files. You are not alone. Even with the so called new search engine my vista premium fails to find a single mp3 file on my C drive, this when searching without an index for *.mp3. The search goes on for 10 minutes and finds nothing, absolutely nothing. Index searching finds every file in the index, but files in certain directories, as you know are not indexed. Agentransak finds 46 files in 2 seconds. Like you I am responsible for mutliple computers in our office (20 to be exact). Also, since I do some programing I frequently store files in different locations. If I need to be sure to find every file with a *.prg extension containing the expression "Create array", I am not sure what Vista will return. I am suspicious that what we are seeing is an indexing system designed for a future file system which failed to materialize with Vista. I also agree, that when you give users better tools you don't break those that worked. > You are not alone. Even with the so called new search > engine my vista premium fails to find a single mp3 file [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > file in the index, but files in certain directories, as > you know are not indexed. Searching C: for *.mp3 isn't finding files with the MP3 extension? Where are the files that you're searching for? This shouldn't happen, and I've never heard of this happening. More specifics would help narrow down the cause. > Agentransak finds 46 files in 2 seconds. Like you I am > responsible for mutliple computers in our office (20 to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > expression "Create array", I am not sure what Vista will > return. We realize that reliability of the results and trusting that it is finding everything that you're looking for is huge. Without it, we lose all viability. The Windows Search 4 release (currently in Beta on download center) is intended to speed up indexed queries and address indexing reliability issues. > > Any time there is a change to the behavior of a tool, users are forced to > > experience some-to-much re-familiarization time. Hopefully, most will find [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "Include non-indexed, hidden, and system files (might be slow)" cannot find > three of these six identical files. Give me an example and I'll take a look. It is probably due to Vista's query parsing being word based rather than character based. There is probably syntax to do what you're trying to do, but we should do our best to make sure the defaults do what you need. > In the last year, I have literally spend DAYS indexing and re-indexing and > re-indexing, trying to get Vista search to work. It does not work on my > machine in my hands. I have demostrated to Microsoft I can get search to > work correctly for Windows 95, 98, 2000 and XP. Why is prior Windows > knowledge NOT enough to get search to work in Vista? It should be, and if it isn't then we've done something wrong. Reindexing won't solve your problem unless the item failed to index in the first case. You can generally tell if it failed to index if it isn't returned in a * search in the location containing the file. Take a look at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932989/en-us for more information. > I have begged and pleaded with Microsoft to find out why search doesn't work > on my Ultimate machine, OR give me the right to go back to XP. Microsoft [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with the registry hack). Why is that too much to ask? Why is wanting a > product that works correctly too high of an expectation? I'm not sure what you're referencing about the Win2k search functionality or XP registry hack. What specifically are you looking for that we don't offer in Win2k? Naturally, we change the behavior in an effort to improve the overall experience for a majority of users. While this will step on some toes for people that are used to doing things in a specific way or rely on some specific functionality, it should be intuitive enough to users to use the system in the new way. We're not out to make people angry or upset with the new functionality. > I normally want to do very targeted searches. I usually know what directory > to start in and usually need to search for a string in a few hundred or a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > gave Microsoft). But why should I need a 3rd party tool for such basic > search functionality when I paid for the "ultimate" version of Vista? As I stated in another post, the functionality for search is not differentiated in the version of Windows you buy. As stated before, if you give me an example of what isn't working, I will investigate why it isn't finding those files. > Here are the Microsoft guys that REFUSE to discuss the search failure of > Vista any more. They have blocked E-mails from me, since it's easier to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > diagnostic text to your system administrator. > The following organization rejected your message: mailb.microsoft.com. Neither of those two work at Microsoft anymore, hence the bounceback. It isn't that someone is ignoring you. > I know there are many settings and that indexing can be useful to some, > however the situation seems to have been made quite confusing to many users. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > desktop Vista does not find it. W2000 and XP used to just "Find" things, > indexed or not. All files that are within an indexed location (such as the desktop or user profile) should be returned by the indexer. All other results are returned by the GREP search engine. If the file is not in the index, it could be either: 1. a reliability issue with the indexer. We're addressing many issues with the Windows Search 4 release that is currently in Beta on download center. 2. there are certain items that we won't index. Please see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932989/en-us for more information. I realize this is overly complicated and we're looking at simplifying the design. > So my experience when first using Vista was with the default settings, > and despite 5 minutes every boot and 5 minutes every search I could not > be sure the file wasn't there, only that Vista wasn't locating it. Once > I went to the drive properties and turned indexing off the boot process > went back to a realistic time and Vista still couldn't find anything but > waiting time was acceptable. We're looking into issues causing slow boot/resume across the board. > So I guess the question is why change the "Expected" behavior and force > the user to make changes he/she is not familiar with when it seems that > what "Windows always does" was quite acceptable. I may well have missed > the point somewhere, I just want to know where :) I firmly believe there is value-add for indexed search on the desktop. I use it for email, files, and programs on a daily basis. I tend to use it more as a "access my stuff quickly, regardless of where it is" rather than a "i don't know where my files are, help me find them". That said, it is unacceptable for us to break the latter scenario just to enable the former. It sounds like this has happened in some cases, and if you have specific qualms, please voice them as feedback for the design teams. Thanks! >> I know there are many settings and that indexing can be useful to some, >> however the situation seems to have been made quite confusing to many users. > All files that are within an indexed location (such as the desktop or user > profile) should be returned by the indexer. All other results are returned > by the GREP search engine. If the file is not in the index, it could be > either: <Snipped for brevity> Thank you Justin. I am pleased that the situation is getting attention because when people get replies in these groups that effectively say "It is because you are stupid" the frustration reflects back on Microsoft, never mind that the accusation did not come from Microsoft or anybody working there. Hi, Justin. Welcome to the newsgroup! ;<) > The progress bar was a design decision made by the program management > team. > It does not show progress, Well, it APPEARS to show progress. Where is there any indication to the user that it is showing anything other than progress? > but it does reflect that we're still performing > work. But there is NO feedback as to whether it might be finished - or give up - in another 10 seconds or that it might take another 10 hours - or 10 days. :>( There is no clue as to whether it is now searching in Drive C: or in Drive X: or even somewhere on the Internet maybe? > It was tweaked significantly during the different Betas and Release > Candidates until people were generally ok with it. I participated in the last year or more of the Vista beta; at least a half-dozen builds, both 32-bit and 64-bit. I recall significant improvements in some parts of Search, but NOT in this "progress bar" area. That feeling that it would never get to the Finish Line did not go away during the beta - or since. The non-productive and non-informative pulsing of that green bar gets to be INFURIATING!!! Doesn't anybody on the Microsoft Team understand that? Thanks for the tips about how to speed up the Search. My frustration, though, is not that the search takes so long, but that it NEVER gives up, or even pauses to take a breath, give me a progress report, and ask me if I'd like to trim my parameters or if I want it to just "press on!" > PS - I'm going to try to do a better job of popping into the newsgroup now > and then to see if there is anything that needs answering. Please do, Justin. You will, of course, get flamed by some immature readers. But you also should hear some legitimate complaints, questions, requests and suggestions that you will never get from anywhere else. RC SignatureR. C. White, CPA San Marcos, TX rc@grandecom.net Microsoft Windows MVP (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1) > Microsoftie here :) > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > PS - I'm going to try to do a better job of popping into the newsgroup now > and then to see if there is anything that needs answering. >Hi, Justin. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Well, it APPEARS to show progress. Where is there any indication to the >user that it is showing anything other than progress? >> but it does reflect that we're still performing >> work. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> It was tweaked significantly during the different Betas and Release >> Candidates until people were generally ok with it. You mean the moronic beta testers that Microsoft uses that typically can't find their rear ends with both hands behind their back? The change from the long ago established practice of ANY Progress Bar in any Windows application including Windows itself that would steadily move from left to right IN ONE SINGLE PASS regardless how long it took to indicate how much longer a task will take has been rendered useless and laughable in Vista as a indicator of anything other than the stupidity of Microsoft for changing what if anything it is now suppose to indicate. Now it is common for Vista's "progress" bar (the butt ugly green bar at top of Explorer Window) to make multiple round trips from full left to right thereby giving absolutely no real indication how much longer some task will take. This is very noticeable in moving large volumes of files and also in extended searching. >I participated in the last year or more of the Vista beta; at least a >half-dozen builds, both 32-bit and 64-bit. I recall significant >improvements in some parts of Search, but NOT in this "progress bar" area. >That feeling that it would never get to the Finish Line did not go away >during the beta - or since. Confirmation the Boys of Redmond are clueless idiots that don't know how to program intelligently. It seems the changes were made in some feeble attempt to hide their incompetence on how poorly Vista internals now work under the labor of stupid things like DRM, and the biggest red herring of them all "security" which means core features now often must pass through a maze of bloated code just to get from point A to point B thereby greatly slowing down routine tasks like file handling. >The non-productive and non-informative pulsing of that green bar gets to be >INFURIATING!!! Doesn't anybody on the Microsoft Team understand that? They don't give a damn. Which is the answer you can apply to nearly every known Vista issue. Microsoft has an annoying habit of making changes for change's sake without regard to how it actually impacts performance or usability. I'll pass the feedback along to the design team. I feel the pain as well. > Hi, Justin. > [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > > PS - I'm going to try to do a better job of popping into the newsgroup now > > and then to see if there is anything that needs answering. Hi, Justin. Thanks! And a new/old item that might belong in a new thread, but since I have your attention here... Why doesn't Search index .pub files? After a lot of griping and complaining (and searching), I finally got it fixed so that I could find names in files of the weekly Rotary newsletter that I "Published" for 3 years. Then, last week, some unrelated computer glitch that I still don't understand caused Chkdsk to wipe out the dedicated partition where I kept my Index. Indexing Options has now rebuilt my Index, but it is much smaller; apparently I haven't yet included nearly as many locations as I did a year ago. But I DO again include the folder with all those .pub files, and I've set Search for the .pub extension to search by both title and content. But I've forgotten where I got that .pub fix and haven't had time to Search for it yet. So I have two questions for your Team: 1. Do you have a guess as to which fix I might have used before to search inside .pub files? 2. Will Search 4 handle .pub files without a fix? Thanks again, Justin. It helps A LOT to know that someone on the Team is reading and (at least sometimes) responding to messages here. ;<) RC SignatureR. C. White, CPA San Marcos, TX rc@grandecom.net Microsoft Windows MVP (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1) > I'll pass the feedback along to the design team. I feel the pain as well. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > team. >> > It does not show progress, <SNIP> >> > Hope this helps, >> > Justin >> > >> > PS - I'm going to try to do a better job of popping into the newsgroup >> > now >> > and then to see if there is anything that needs answering. I've sent your questions to the team. You'd need to register an IFilter (PersistentHandler) for the .pub entry under HKCR. Look at HKCR\.doc\PersistentHandler for an example. I'm not sure if there is an IFilter for this file format in the wild somewhere or if the one we use in-box for doc files would work. You can mess around with it to see if you can get it to work yourself, or hopefully someone from the Office IFilter team will respond shortly. > Hi, Justin. > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > >> > now > >> > and then to see if there is anything that needs answering. Hi, Justin. Thanks. I'm an accountant, not a programmer, and long-retired at that. I'm no stranger to the Registry, but I would be much more comfy if Microsoft's programmers could handle this IFilter (or whatever is needed). This should be an in-house job, it seems to me, because a Microsoft Search program should certainly be able to find information in a file created by a Microsoft application (Publisher) and stored in a Microsoft-created format .pub file. Especially since the Search ability is so highly touted as one of the major reasons to use Vista. Search should certainly be able to find data in all of Microsoft's own data file formats. Shouldn't it? Please let us all know what you learn when you get answers back from the team. RC SignatureR. C. White, CPA San Marcos, TX rc@grandecom.net Microsoft Windows MVP (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1) > I've sent your questions to the team. You'd need to register an IFilter > (PersistentHandler) for the .pub entry under HKCR. Look at [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >> >> > now >> >> > and then to see if there is anything that needs answering. > I am sure there are many who know how to "fix it", at least, in principle. > And many of them are at Microsoft. <g> [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > >>> Sincerely, > >>> Dima You have got to be kidding "Possibly, the search algorithms are performing exactly as designed." This makes it OK? You can call what you want but all it is, is a defective product that does not do the intended job. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.