I know Google Desktop search doesn't work at all for regular users --
it's documented to only work for Administrators, and I tried it --
promoting regular user to Admin to install it, and then demoting -- and
it didn't update. So it's probably great on Win9x machines, but seems
no good for NT/2000/XP class operating systems.

I have been trying Copernic, and it works for NT/2000/XP operating
systems, for a regular user -- but it has some serious drawbacks:

* The browser integration stuff doesn't seem to work at all (my guess
is it only works for the Administrator, which is pointless).
* I think it wastes a lot of disk space building another cache for the
Administrator (waste of time and disk space).

What I'd like is a nice desktop search that works for NT/2000/XP and
which doesn't waste a lot of disk space storing any useless extra
copies -- that is, which is only storing data for the users that
request it.

Or maybe just instructions from someone on how to fix copernic to do
that

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> I know Google Desktop search doesn't work at all for regular users --
> it's documented to only work for Administrators, and I tried it --
> promoting regular user to Admin to install it, and then demoting -- and
> it didn't update. So it's probably great on Win9x machines, but seems
> no good for NT/2000/XP class operating systems.
>
> I have been trying Copernic, and it works for NT/2000/XP operating
> systems, for a regular user -- but it has some serious drawbacks:
>
> * The browser integration stuff doesn't seem to work at all (my guess
> is it only works for the Administrator, which is pointless).
> * I think it wastes a lot of disk space building another cache for the
> Administrator (waste of time and disk space).

Where do you see 2 caches for CDS?

> What I'd like is a nice desktop search that works for NT/2000/XP and
> which doesn't waste a lot of disk space storing any useless extra
> copies -- that is, which is only storing data for the users that
> request it.
>
> Or maybe just instructions from someone on how to fix copernic to do
> that


Did you try wilbur at http://wilbur.redtree.com ? If I remember well
it's quite small and works well.

The advantage of Wilbur is that the code is available (so if you dare
you can tweak it) and there is a small, lively forum. Copernic has no
forum but if you send them an error report, or questions they rapidly
answer.

Frank

--
/me is listening to (Artist - Back In The Days-60's 70's & 80's-Live
D.J.) at (Chilly's Vibes/Real Old School Radio/A Smooth Blend Of
Funk,Disco,R&B,& Motown/From The 60's 70's & 80's) using Screamer Radio
v0.3.7

<a href="http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=0&t=61"><img
border="0" alt="Get Firefox!" title="Get Firefox!"
src="http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/Buttons/110x32/trust.gif"/></a>

(E-Mail Removed), 2/10/2006, 12:55:15 PM,
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I know Google Desktop search doesn't work at all for regular users --
> it's documented to only work for Administrators, and I tried it --
> promoting regular user to Admin to install it, and then demoting --
> and it didn't update. So it's probably great on Win9x machines, but
> seems no good for NT/2000/XP class operating systems.
>
> I have been trying Copernic, and it works for NT/2000/XP operating
> systems, for a regular user -- but it has some serious drawbacks:
>
> * The browser integration stuff doesn't seem to work at all (my guess
> is it only works for the Administrator, which is pointless).
> * I think it wastes a lot of disk space building another cache for the
> Administrator (waste of time and disk space).
>
> What I'd like is a nice desktop search that works for NT/2000/XP and
> which doesn't waste a lot of disk space storing any useless extra
> copies -- that is, which is only storing data for the users that
> request it.
>
> Or maybe just instructions from someone on how to fix copernic to do
> that

Please tell me why a desktop search engine is better than the OS search
function. Maybe I will want to use one.

FTR wrote:

> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
>> I know Google Desktop search doesn't work at all for regular users
>> -- it's documented to only work for Administrators, and I tried it
>> -- promoting regular user to Admin to install it, and then demoting
>> -- and it didn't update. So it's probably great on Win9x machines,
>> but seems no good for NT/2000/XP class operating systems.
>>
<stuff deleted>
>
>
> Did you try wilbur at http://wilbur.redtree.com ? If I remember well
> it's quite small and works well.
>
> The advantage of Wilbur is that the code is available (so if you dare
> you can tweak it) and there is a small, lively forum. Copernic has
> no forum but if you send them an error report, or questions they
> rapidly answer.
>
> Frank
>
Fwiw;

The EFF is warning against the use of Google Desktop v3 for privacy
reasons. In a nutshell, v3 now allows users to search for files on
multiple computers. To do this, files are copied to Google servers.

> "Unless you configure Google Desktop very carefully, and few people
> will, Google will have copies of your tax returns, love letters,
> business records, financial and medical files, and whatever other
> text-based documents the desktop software can index.
>
> "The government could then demand these personal files with only a
> subpoena rather than the search warrant it would need to seize the
> same things from your home or business..."
-EFF attorney Kevin Bankston

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4700002.stm

hth,
Craig

Craig wrote:
> FTR wrote:
>
>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>
>>> I know Google Desktop search doesn't work at all for regular users
>>> -- it's documented to only work for Administrators, and I tried it
>>> -- promoting regular user to Admin to install it, and then demoting
>>> -- and it didn't update. So it's probably great on Win9x machines,
>>> but seems no good for NT/2000/XP class operating systems.
>>>
> <stuff deleted>
>>
>>
>> Did you try wilbur at http://wilbur.redtree.com ? If I remember well
>> it's quite small and works well.
>>
>> The advantage of Wilbur is that the code is available (so if you dare
>> you can tweak it) and there is a small, lively forum. Copernic has
>> no forum but if you send them an error report, or questions they
>> rapidly answer.
>>
>> Frank
>>
> Fwiw;
>
> The EFF is warning against the use of Google Desktop v3 for privacy
> reasons. In a nutshell, v3 now allows users to search for files on
> multiple computers. To do this, files are copied to Google servers.
>
>> "Unless you configure Google Desktop very carefully, and few people
>> will, Google will have copies of your tax returns, love letters,
>> business records, financial and medical files, and whatever other
>> text-based documents the desktop software can index.
>>
>> "The government could then demand these personal files with only a
>> subpoena rather than the search warrant it would need to seize the
>> same things from your home or business..."
> -EFF attorney Kevin Bankston
>
> source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4700002.stm
>
> hth,
> Craig

Google, yes, not Copernic. This is one reason why I don't use Goggle;
the other is that Copernic provives a preview and that OpenOffice
formats are also indexed and shown.

Frank

--
/me is listening to (Artist - Back In The Days-60's 70's & 80's-Live
D.J.) at (Chilly's Vibes/Real Old School Radio/A Smooth Blend Of
Funk,Disco,R&B,& Motown/From The 60's 70's & 80's) using Screamer Radio
v0.3.7

<a href="http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=0&t=61"><img
border="0" alt="Get Firefox!" title="Get Firefox!"
src="http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/Buttons/110x32/trust.gif"/></a>

"badgolferman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

>
> Please tell me why a desktop search engine is better than the OS search
> function. Maybe I will want to use one.
>
Try Agent Ransack - searches inside files for text, gives clickasble links
to found items.

I use the OS search more than Ransack, for folders and files (Run>Find...
like you say, it's right there), but when I want a *Real* search, it's
Ransack


--


mike

On 10 Feb 2006 22:49:51 GMT, mike ring
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"badgolferman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>news:(E-Mail Removed):

>> Please tell me why a desktop search engine is better than the OS search
>> function. Maybe I will want to use one.

>Try Agent Ransack - searches inside files for text, gives clickasble links
>to found items.

So does Windows' native search function. "A word or phrase in the
file:" searches inside files for text and you can click on the files
that are found - left click to run, right click to go to (Open
Containing Folder).

badgolferman wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed), 2/10/2006, 12:55:15 PM,
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I know Google Desktop search doesn't work at all for regular users --
>> it's documented to only work for Administrators, and I tried it --
>> promoting regular user to Admin to install it, and then demoting --
>> and it didn't update. So it's probably great on Win9x machines, but
>> seems no good for NT/2000/XP class operating systems.
>>
>> I have been trying Copernic, and it works for NT/2000/XP operating
>> systems, for a regular user -- but it has some serious drawbacks:
>>
>> * The browser integration stuff doesn't seem to work at all (my guess
>> is it only works for the Administrator, which is pointless).
>> * I think it wastes a lot of disk space building another cache for the
>> Administrator (waste of time and disk space).
>>
>> What I'd like is a nice desktop search that works for NT/2000/XP and
>> which doesn't waste a lot of disk space storing any useless extra
>> copies -- that is, which is only storing data for the users that
>> request it.
>>
>> Or maybe just instructions from someone on how to fix copernic to do
>> that
>
> Please tell me why a desktop search engine is better than the OS search
> function. Maybe I will want to use one.

The OS search function does not find text in some files that it doesn't
recognise the extension for. Agent Ransack finds ALL appropriate text in
all files!

Eg create a NEW file, something like findme.sql (XP doesn't really
recognise the extension) and put xpsearchsucks in it. Now use the OS
Search to find files with xpsearchsucks in them. It should find the file
but it doesn't. Now try with agent Ransack.

Now rename the file to findme.txt and search again. It should now find
the file, now rename it back to findme.sql and try again. What happens,
interesting? This is one of the many reasons that people hate windows,
it is quite inconsistent!

Read my post below about this.



Al Klein wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2006 22:49:51 GMT, mike ring
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> "badgolferman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>>> Please tell me why a desktop search engine is better than the OS search
>>> function. Maybe I will want to use one.
>
>> Try Agent Ransack - searches inside files for text, gives clickasble links
>> to found items.
>
> So does Windows' native search function. "A word or phrase in the
> file:" searches inside files for text and you can click on the files
> that are found - left click to run, right click to go to (Open
> Containing Folder).

From FTR to alt.comp.freeware:

> Google, yes, not Copernic. This is one reason why I don't use Goggle;
> the other is that Copernic provives a preview and that OpenOffice
> formats are also indexed and shown.

The main advantage of Google Desktop Search, for me, is that it can
index the Web cache.
--
Thanks, Renan(tm) - Canoas, RS, Brazil

"Smoking: a foul disease. Usually cured by cancer."