ie8 fix
madison

Windows 7 in action: smarter search

By | October 13, 2009, 5:19am PDT

Summary: If Windows 7 has a killer feature, this is it. As I demonstrate in my latest screencast, you can find search boxes throughout Windows 7. The indexed search is fast and accurate, and the indexing process itself is barely noticeable in terms of performance. The best change, though, is the addition of the Search Builder, which replaces the clunky search forms from earlier Windows versions.

If Windows 7 has a killer feature, it’s search. As I demonstrate in this week’s screencast, you can find search boxes throughout Windows 7—on the Start menu, in Control Panel, and in Windows Explorer. The indexed search is fast and accurate, in my experience, and the indexing process itself is barely noticeable in terms of performance. The best change, though, is the addition of the Search Builder, which replaces the clunky search forms from earlier versions and allows you to filter a results set by date, type, size, or an attribute that’s appropriate to a particular type of data such as music or photos.

Every time I write about search, at least a half-dozen commenters show up in the Talkback section to proclaim that it’s unnecessary if you know how to organize your files into subfolders. But they miss the point completely. A well-managed filing system and a fast search index work together beautifully. As an author, for example, how should I keep my files organized? Should I have every document related to a single project in its own subfolder? Or should I keep contracts in one folder, proposals and outlines in another, drafts in yet another, and finished chapters elsewhere? And even if I’ve done a perfect job of naming and organizing those files, how do I find the contract that had the clause about foreign publication rights that I need to discuss with my agent in five minutes? A good search tool can track that file down in seconds. Without it, I’d have to find every contract in every folder and open each one to see what’s inside.

This is the third of four Windows 7 demos I’ve done in this series. Look for the final screencast in the series next week at this time.

Previous screencasts:

More coverage of Windows 7:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications.

Disclosure

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.

Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books written prior to fall 2011 have been distributed by Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education) and by Microsoft Press. As of November 2011, Ed is a partner in the independent publishing company Fair Trade Digital Exchange, which exclusively publishes his books.

On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate.

Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than two years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth.

Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

Biography

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. He's served as editor of the U.S. edition of PC Computing and managing editor of PC World; both publications had monthly paid circulation in excess of 1 million during his tenure. He is the author of more than 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, including the recently released Windows 7 Inside Out.

126
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Windows 7 in action: smarter search
JACOBSONR 14th Oct
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.
0 Votes
+ -
As much as I love to bash Vista.....
nucrash 13th Oct 2009
Vista's search engine at least to me is pretty impressive.

While I still like Windows 7 more, I think Vista was the one that laid the groundwork for this feature. I wouldn't really call Windows 7 any smarter for searching, but I am sure that some functionality was there that wasn't in Vista.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Built on Vista's base
Ed Bott 13th Oct 2009
The weak link in Vista's search was the Advanced Search pane, which was the only way to easily filter a search and required a whole bunch of extra clicks and form-filling. Compare it with the Search Builder interface, which is available right from the Search box in Windows 7.

Also, the indexing algorithm in Windows 7 is smarter in a couple ways. First, it is disabled by default for the first few minutes after you login. Lots of people complained about hard disk activity on login with Vista. This resolves that issue. Second, it automatically adds anything in a library to the index.

The under-the-covers improvements in search from Vista to 7 are subtle but smart.
0 Votes
+ -
I think its a great feature, handy feature, important feature, but killer?? I do not think there is a univeral killer feature like there was going from ME to XP, that killer feature was of course stability. That feature benefited everyone.

I hardly use search at all, for me a important feature is the new media center, especially now that cablelabs has opened up some and are allowing others to use cablecards on the PC.

The IE haters out there will find the ability to uninstall IE from the OS to be a important feature.

I think we all have a killer/important feature that we really like, I just haven't seen a universal killer feature in a long time.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
So what would be?
Ed Bott 13th Oct 2009
It sounds like you believe everything that can be in an OS is already there and just needs refining.

Personally, I can't imagine trying to be productive without integrated search.
0 Votes
+ -
I think we make our own..
NoThomas 13th Oct 2009
'killer feature'. You think Search is the killer feature, I hardly use search so to me its a important feature when I need it but since I hardly use it its not a feature I would change OS's for. I did switch OS's for the Media Center though. To me that is the killer feature in Win7. To someone with 1GB of Ram the killer feature could be how well a new OS runs on it without having to upgrade ram. For my mom (to help me mostly) the killer feature is PSR.exe (I just watched TR Dojo, PSR is a awesome feature)

"It sounds like you believe everything that can be in an OS is already there and just needs refining." No not at all, I think refining is important, true, but I dont believe everything is there.
0 Votes
+ -
XP?
bmgoodman 13th Oct 2009
I think Win 7's "killer feature" will be that it will install on low power laptops and netbooks, allowing Microsoft, finally, to "kill" XP! wink
0 Votes
+ -
I agree with you
NoThomas 13th Oct 2009
0 Votes
+ -
XP will be around for a long, long time
Wintel BSOD 13th Oct 2009
If you worked for the government, you'd know...

wink
0 Votes
+ -
I work for a school district..
NoThomas 14th Oct 2009
I know we are going to have it for atleast another 3-4 years. XP is showing its age though, I know people do not like change but come on.. if it was not for change we would all be at a dos prompt or a bash prompt.
0 Votes
+ -
XP for another 3-4 years? I think not!
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 14th Oct 2009
You will be left behind by your students. Kids are increasingly getting access to computers at home earlier and earlier.

My 7 year old daughter knows her way around a PC better than my parents do!

I think you'll find that in 2 years, when most of the kids in your school have long since moved to Win7 (or OSX or whatever) then they'll have a HARDER time using XP.

I'd suggest that you should plan to replace XP on your machines within 2-3 years at the latest.

I understand that budget cut-backs can significantly hamper such upgrades, but in my experience with my kids' two schools, a few well timed auctions and carnivals can more than fund an entire school's PC upgrade program.
0 Votes
+ -
Along with the above poster
bobiroc 14th Oct 2009
I would seriously think about upgrading before then. Not sure of your position in your school and how you license Windows now but the post above is kind of right. In 3 - 4 years you will be way behind and Windows 8 will most likely be out by then and now you are 3 versions behind. Of course there are a lot of factors at play here and some school districts are in a better position financially and technologically than others. Unless something radical happens we will be Windows 7/XP mixed environment next year and then by the year after the vast majority of our computers will be on Windows 7. Using CITRIX we found we can effectively run Windows 7 on hardware as old as 7 - 8 years that have a Gigabit NIC interface since most of the computing power is done on the server. Of course before we upgrade we want to make sure our Domain Controllers are upgraded to Server 2008 R2 and all of our Group Policy and other items are checked out first and we have almost a year to do that and maybe with a little luck we can start using it as early as next semester. I have a few computers running it now and so far it has been pretty good aside from some minor Group Policy issues.
0 Votes
+ -
@de-void and bobiroc
NoThomas 15th Oct 2009
Budget is a good reason, also my boss does not like a mixed enviroment, its alot harder to support it then when everything is the same on the same image. I have been here for 7 years now and just 4 years ago we switched over to XP. Not the ideal solution I know but teachers had a fit when we switched over to XP, we think win7 will be the same way.
0 Votes
+ -
"Killer" Features
DannyO_0x98 14th Oct 2009
I always reserved the term to things that someone offers, comparable
products do not, and which I have to have.

Search? Google for the web and Spotlight (since Tiger, but effectively
since Leopard) on my Macs were outperforming Microsoft's desktop
search - as a user experience in ease of starting and quickness of
results - for the last couple of years.

Now do not get me wrong, I'm not making any photocopying snark:
my point of view is I want my software writers to adopt the best ideas
and workflows available and I want the writers to dispose of NIH
hang-ups.

Better search (and the improvement began with Vista) is nice to have
and to promote. I look forward to the day when I work for an employer
who has moved beyond XP and its abominable search.

As to your title question in the above post, "What should be?" I don't
know. Maybe there isn't one for Win7. From my point of view, the last
time an os had a new and killer feature was when someone put BSD
under a mature and well-designed graphical shell. That's okay, and I
have been upgrading for incremental improvements and new
amenities all decade, all platforms. Spotlight did change the way I
worked and for the better. Your last point was right on.
0 Votes
+ -
"Put Back" is a killer feature in Snow Leopard. happy
0 Votes
+ -
that much yet, what is put back??
0 Votes
+ -
Snow Leopard Put Back
bobiroc 13th Oct 2009
If I understand it correctly it is a feature in the file system that allows the user to put the file back to it's previous location if they are placed in the trash. Maybe it does a bit more but that functionality has been in Windows since Windows 95. It has been a long time so maybe back in the Win9x days you could only restore the whole recycle bin but I know you can be selective in XP and higher.
0 Votes
+ -
@NoThomas
Axsimulate 13th Oct 2009
Put Back is a feature that puts a file(s)/folder(s) back to it's original location without the end user knowing where the original location is. It was originally called "Put Away" and was part of System 7 released in 1991. But is was removed from OS X until recently.
0 Votes
+ -
How is that different
JonWayn 13th Oct 2009
from restoring a file or folder to its original location in Windows ever since they implimented the Recyclebin. There too, you dont need to know the location. In fact, it doesnt allow you to 'put' the object anywhere else but the original location.

Was this just an attempt to ease OSX into the debate?
0 Votes
+ -
@jongunn
Axsimulate 15th Oct 2009
If it's been in Windows since Win95, Where is it found and what does MS call it?
0 Votes
+ -
@jongunn
Axsimulate Updated - 15th Oct 2009
Ah, found it. It's called Restore and it only works from within the Recycle Bin, at least with XP Pro. That's why I couldn't find it the first time I looked. I was trying to use it the same way as you would on a Mac.
With OS X it works with any file/folder anywhere, the file/folder does not need to be in the Trash before it works. Which is the same as the older Mac System software since 1991.
0 Votes
+ -
It must be nice if your life is simple enough that you don't need search. However, if your normal computer activities include several terabytes of data in hundreds of thousands of files, search is not a luxury; it is essential.
0 Votes
+ -
Exactly
bobiroc 13th Oct 2009
Having to support nearly 10,000 students and over a 1000 Teachers and Staff search is a savior. While that functionality was there in XP it is much better in Vista and Windows 7. When you get a support call saying someone lost a file and can only give you a couple details like "Oh it is an word document that I was creating for the Math Meeting on October 13th" and you can search for that and at least narrow down the choices it will make you look like a genius to the person you are trying to help. End users often misplace files or accidentally move files and folders to other locations. Now if I could only get them to use the search features before calling the help desk. Some of my users will do it and loved it when I showed them how easy and useful it was, other throw up their noses and say that is technology's problem. Sometimes I say "oh it looks like that file was lost and you will have to recreate it sorry" to those people.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually I work for a School district
NoThomas 13th Oct 2009
so I know what you mean, Search is a important feature I just do not think its a Universal 'killer' feature.
0 Votes
+ -
I'll agree with that
bobiroc 13th Oct 2009
Killer feature is pretty strong. It is hard to place a finger on what feature I find "killer" I think the refinements in Vista and Windows 7 have helped me and many of my end users in their daily jobs. Some took time to adapt but once they did they seem to understand the benefits and have had a few tell me that they can now work a bit easier because of them. Which is the whole point I guess.
0 Votes
+ -
I think for everyone its different...
NoThomas 13th Oct 2009
I am not sure if Win7 has a universal killer feature, those I think are few and far between. Going from the 9x line to the NT line the universal killer feature was stability. Going from 98 to 98SE the killer feature I found was ICS. I was truly impressed with ICS, so for me it was a killer feature but I know not everyone used it so...

One could make an argument for security though. Win7 is alot more secure in my opionion then XP is. More security would benefit everyone and could be a universal killer feature.
0 Votes
+ -
I would not say its simple..
NoThomas 13th Oct 2009
Do not misunderstand me, I am not saying search is not important. I do think its important, I just do not think its a universal killer feature.
0 Votes
+ -
I've gathered a large collection of college documents.

They're organized by class name.

Math homework can't be searched because they're 90% equations, and last I checked search doesn't support equations.

I have lots of photos, but can't really use search for those, have to use tags instead.

I have lots of music, but I use an application that allows me to sort/group by what I can remember at the time (artist, name, album, etc).

I'd say that grouping, sorting, and other organizational methods are every bit as useful as plain search. Search is good for some things, but I do not think it obliterates all other methods of organization.

I have tens of thousands of items. Having the right forms of organization is not a luxury; it is essential. When it's not a naturally searchable item (like a photograph), I still need a way to find it. Tags and grouping by date taken is a must for photographs, and similar things can be said for many other types of items.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Tags in photos can be added in Explorer and used in search. You can also search for metadata in music files, and you can use the group/sort tools in Explorer with them as well.
0 Votes
+ -
That depends
JonWayn 13th Oct 2009
on what your main use of a computer is. For me, I write databases which get hugh. I very rarely need the search feature. I know what each database is about and pretty much where things are just by how I organize them. Now that the awkwardness of XP and earlier search interface is mentioned in the main article, it really hits home to me that it was in fact a pain in the but and could be more friendly. Goes to show how little I rely on it.
0 Votes
+ -
....than anything MS has done previously to convince me. I'm one of those poor lost souls who finds Vista to be one of the most aggravating OS in the history of the world, of which 'search' is just another source of aggravation.

For example, I hate the fact that every time I try to search an unindexed folder, Vista just refuses. Then I have to click several more times to obtain the functionality that should just be there and is there in XP but was "hidden" to make the OS "easier" - not.

And I hate office search, which sucks, because you can never find what you're looking for. I just use Google for MS office help.

So let's say I'm less than optimistic about Win7 search.

Someday, I'd like MS to return to building an OS that just does what I tell it to do without all the "helpfulness."
0 Votes
+ -
Without all the helpfulness?
bobiroc 13th Oct 2009
Based on your post it sounds like you need the helpfulness. If you claim you have to click several times then you definitely need the helpfulness. While somethings may be slightly different in Vista/Win7 the functionality you say was just there is in the same relative places. And I think you will find that when you go to do an OS task the related tasks are all right there. I have heard complaints from several people that it takes longer to find something and they say everything is in different places and so far 100% of the time I have been able to prove them wrong. Usually loading a Virtual Machine of XP right next to my computer running Vista and soon to be Windows 7. Most times after they are proved wrong they just snub up their noses and say something like "Well I just don't like it" which is an opinion they are entitled to have. Windows Vista and Windows 7 are both still "Windows" the feel of using the OS is the same has it has been with enhancements and refinements and most are for the better when used properly and when the user understands what they are actually doing. Now if you are like many users I know that memorized the steps but do not know what you are actually accomplishing then I guess you would find it difficult because now the steps are not exactly the same even though they are mostly the same.
0 Votes
+ -
Always the same drivel...
Takalok 13th Oct 2009
It's never the crappy OS, it's the user...

bah..

I know Intel laughed that piece of crap OS out of their company.

I'll give you another example of Vista crap - desktop properties.

Look, the Vista UI just sucks. And search sucks. And the OS in general just sucks. And it's not because I don't "get it." I do get it. Vista just sucks.
0 Votes
+ -
Well that's your opinion
bobiroc 13th Oct 2009
and you are entitled to it. As far as businesses like Intel not upgrading right away that is a different story and many did not do it on the sole belief that the OS was "Crap" as you put it some did not because they had other things to consider before an OS change and to each organization or user that is different. I guess that is why Microsoft offers support on their OSes and Software programs for a long time after the upgrade is released. I know many people that like the UI in Vista and in Win7 (which is very similar to Vista) and there are some that do not. To each is own and if we all liked the same thing we would all wear the same clothes and buy the same cars etc... I still firmly believe if you put XP and Vista/or Win 7 side by side and tried to do the same basic tasks more times than not it would be done easier and faster in Vista/Win7
0 Votes
+ -
from the anti-Vista camp.

It's tired and desperate.

  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
And effective
Wintel BSOD 13th Oct 2009
Nor will it end...

wink
0 Votes
+ -
i think it sucks, myself.
g_keramidas@... 13th Oct 2009
If you ask me, search sucks. If it?s not 100% reliable, it?s useless.

1.Outlook stores some attachments in a temporary location. A user will open an excel file from within outlook, for example, then make changes and save it. Try to find that file with windows 7 search, you won?t. It was stored in a folder named outlook.content in the user?s temporary internet files folder. Hell, you can?t even navigate to it because windows 7 won?t let you. It?s invisible. And yes, I have all of the hidden file options set correctly in folder options.
Now open XP and either search or use explorer to go across the network to the win7 pc and you will find it. What good is search if you can?t be absolutely sure that the file does not exist if search doesn?t return any results?

2.Open your user folder and search for pst. Good luck with the results, you won?t find it.

3.Now try to search for some content within a file. You open explorer, there?s no visible way to do this in the search box. You either have to initiate a search, then select the File Contents option or know the search syntax. Completely unacceptable.

Now go ahead tell me about how most users don?t perform any of these scenarios. It doesn?t make a bit of difference who does and doesn?t, it should just work. Microsoft should not be limiting where or what I?m searching for, to where and what they think I should be looking for.
0 Votes
+ -
Re: Search Sucks
bobiroc 13th Oct 2009
If you ask me, search sucks. If it?s not 100% reliable, it?s useless.

Search is very reliable and I use it almost everyday to find files I use and to find files my users use that they cannot find. Finds documents based on file name and content and like any search engine the search is only as good as the search criteria (key words) used

1.Outlook stores some attachments in a temporary location. A user will open an excel file from within outlook, for example, then make changes and save it. Try to find that file with windows 7 search, you won?t. It was stored in a folder named outlook.content in the user?s temporary internet files folder. Hell, you can?t even navigate to it because windows 7 won?t let you. It?s invisible. And yes, I have all of the hidden file options set correctly in folder options.
Now open XP and either search or use explorer to go across the network to the win7 pc and you will find it. What good is search if you can?t be absolutely sure that the file does not exist if search doesn?t return any results?


Wow, is that a dumb thing to do. Save in a temporary location. Ever heard of Save As? It is called a temporary folder for a reason. If you open a file from outlook and need to make changes you can and click the send as email to send it back or to someone else with those changes, but if you save it in the temporary folder then that is your mistake and if you want a copy for yourself save as. It's not rocket science.

2.Open your user folder and search for pst. Good luck with the results, you won?t find it.
Maybe because it is in a hidden folder and you do not have your search settings to look in those hidden folders? I manage exchange and search for lost PSTs all the time and magically they turn up. Chalk another one up to user error

3.Now try to search for some content within a file. You open explorer, there?s no visible way to do this in the search box. You either have to initiate a search, then select the File Contents option or know the search syntax. Completely unacceptable.
Not sure what you mean here but are you saying that you cannot open an document and search that document from within the program? That is totally false. In most programs it is CTRL-F for Find and then use key words. Of course not all programs may have that but many of them do including all office applications.


Now go ahead tell me about how most users don?t perform any of these scenarios. It doesn?t make a bit of difference who does and doesn?t, it should just work. Microsoft should not be limiting where or what I?m searching for, to where and what they think I should be looking for.

No users do perform these scenarios and when they do it right like not saving to temp folders or enable the right parameters for their search it works wonderfully.
0 Votes
+ -
I'd say what he means
merc2dogs` 13th Oct 2009
is searching for a file by it's content, not name type or date.

For much of my data I have many spreadsheets, html pages, documents and others, all with different names and dates that are used as reference. If I can search for content it would return all those files in one search. Instead I have to search for each seperately, and it really slows you down.

Search is more convenient to use in win7, but it's actual functionality has been reduced.

Ken.
0 Votes
+ -
Well if they have similar content
bobiroc Updated - 13th Oct 2009
it would based on the search keywords you used. Search cannot read your mind. If you have 100 documents about a person named Jeff Jones and you use that as your key words would not expect all those to be returned as results? Also that is not what he was saying as I think his complaints were pretty clear and it showed that he did not know what he was doing.

And if you watched the video you would see how you can relatively easy narrow down your results.
0 Votes
+ -
missing the point
g_keramidas@... 13th Oct 2009
1. you need to tell this to the users that open and save documents from their email not me. trust me, it happens all the time. plus, you're missing the point. search should find this no matter where it is. when someone searches, they expect results. when there is nothing returned, they assume the file is not there. not the case with win7. it may be there, microsoft has just determined it didn't want to search every location because they opted for speed over functionality. i don't care if it takes 2 or 3 minutes, just find it if it's there. 2 or 3 minutes is a lot faster than i can manually search.

2. if you read the original post you would see that i said i had already set hidden folders. "And yes, I have all of the hidden file options set correctly in folder options."
you obviously didn't try to find a pst stroed in it's default location.

most users aren't going to know how to go in and modify search locations. they're going to expect search to just work reliably, and it does not out of the box.
Yes it?s better in some ways, but Microsoft opted for speed and basic functionality instead of search reliability.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Missing the point
bobiroc 13th Oct 2009
1. We do tell the user this and have a nice FAQ section with all sorts of helpful hints and "How To's" and it can search no matter where it is. Funny I can go check the options in search and set it to "include system directories" and set to search everything indexed or not and I can find them. Sure it takes longer but you have to tell it to do that first. You can even modify what Windows should keep indexed.

2. I guess if you are keeping a PST on a local hard drive of the computer you should A)Know where those files are kept or B)Look in Outlook's options under data file settings and it will tell you where they are kept or C)if it is a organization that manages many mailboxes then keeping it on the local hard drive is a bad idea.

Windows Desktop Search is designed to help users find data files that they have created or worked on and what you are asking is IMO something a end user should not be messing with. If you are an IT person you should know where to find such things but as an end user they just want to know where that picture is they saved or that word document they saved and modified but forgot the name of. For that it worked good in XP, worked better in Vista, and is very good in Windows 7. You may feel that Microsoft Omits hidden and system locations by default to make your life miserable but they do it because of your last paragraph which starts with "Most users aren't going to know..." and looking for non-typical data files and system files can prove to be dangerous and for all intensive purposes a PST is a system file used by outlook. And outlook has built in import and export settings that allow users to back that data up if they choose to do so.
End-users are not all middle-aged white guys with a six-pack. In other words, don't try boxing them into your idea of what they should and shouldn't be looking for. If they want to find a .pst file, then they should be able to find it. If they're looking for it, then they probably know enough to have a reason to look for it. Sheesh. I am tired of people who think they're so smart looking down on the commoner with that attitude of, "We know what it best for you." I get enough of that from politicians and TV pundits.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Problem solved in Windows 7
Ed Bott 14th Oct 2009
You're complaining about Windows Vista. This problem is solved in Windows 7.

Most people want to find the stuff that is IN a PST file. An average user cannot do anything with a PST file. It doesn't open when you double-click it. So if you search from a Documents library or from the Start menu, your search is constrained to indexed locations.

Windows 7 improves on Vista by supporting GREP search, so if you look for files in a non indexed location, it will do a GREP-style search and will indeed find them. Just open Computer, double-click C:, and type *.pst in the search box. Hey, there it is!
0 Votes
+ -
Problem solved in Windows 7??
g_keramidas@... 15th Oct 2009
maybe if you changed your default search locations it finds it. but with defaults, i never find it. still search should not be trying to determine if what i want to find makes sense or not. it should find it. ok, it's not in the index, i don't care, it should still find it. search will find copies of a pst on any drive in my pc, it just won't find it in the default location in my user folder. does not make sense.

use bing, google, to search for something. if nothing is returned, do you assume it's not there or that they decided you shouldn't be searching for that?

0 Votes
+ -
who are they going to blame? Windows? "I deleted, moved or renamed the pst file and now my outlook lost all it's mail. Outlook sucks!!"

"I was searching for pictures of my grandkids and this dll file came up and I didn't know what it was and it was taking up 2kb which I thought was a lot of space so I deleted it and now my Windows won't boot. Why does Windows always have to crash"

Thats usually how it goes.
0 Votes
+ -
nor will most users
JonWayn 13th Oct 2009
be searching for pst files
0 Votes
+ -
Vista search
compudog 14th Oct 2009
It does suck, in my opinion, but no one's opinion matters to anyone anyway, or hasn't anyone noticed that? I used Ask Desktop Search in XP, which is not available in Vista, and it was absolutely perfect - for me. It never failed, it didn't have to be given all kinds of parameters. It just found everything I ever looked for if it was on the drive, and did so extremely quickly.

Not that it was intended to, but Bobiroc's post above only proves the point. If you have to do all that crap, or even KNOW all that crap, just to find a file, the search software you're using sucks.

0 Votes
+ -
You should learn a little before ranting
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 14th Oct 2009
1) IE's temporary internet folder is stored in the location specified in IE's Tools | Options -> Browsing History -> Settings dialog. You can even move the temp folder somewhere else if you wish.

2) Office stores PST files by default in c:\Program Files\Microsoft Office ... If you want to store your PST files somewhere else (like I always do) then move them to a new folder under your user folder (mine is called "email") and add the data file to Outlook. BTW - the search indexer doesn't index your PST files - Outlook provides an email indexer which returns results to queries passed to Outlook by the OS' indexer. This way the indexer doesn't have to know how to index ever file format known to man or beast and can be extended over time as more and more 3rd party indexers are created (e.g. Adobe's and Foxit's PDF indexer)

3) If you want to search for a given word/phrase WITHIN a file, then the file has to exist in the search indexer's list of indexed locations. This is to prevent the search indexer from having to index (and return results) within OS files, for example. So, if you stored a doc, PDF, spreadsheet, etc. in your documents folder (or subfolder) then you can type any phrase/word within that file and it should show up in your search results.

Microsoft takes a sensible guess at where you'll be storing your data files that matter to you: Your personal folders, and indexes everything you put into those folders. If you want to also add other folders to your index, all you have to do is click.
0 Votes
+ -
Speed is nice, but I need accuracy too.
Madness80 13th Oct 2009
For me, search has not worked since Windows 2000. I'm a server admin and I need to search .ASP and .DLL files for character strings. Search filters them out. I'm reduced to using findstr.exe from the command line. There's a difference between indexing documents and actually searching for character sequences. MS has lost sight of the need for the latter.
0 Votes
+ -
What you just decribed
bobiroc 13th Oct 2009
is something that vast majority of computer users would never need to do. Your need is a specialized one and I am sure we would not want most users searching for such things because if they came up in the results it just raises the risk of them being accidentally deleted or moved and then the OS or application is FUBAR.
0 Votes
+ -
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix