Any desktop search programs that work for regular users?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PerryGoogling
  • Start date Start date
P

PerryGoogling

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 :)
 
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).
Click to expand...

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 :)
Click to expand...


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 address removed), 2/10/2006, 12:55:15 PM,
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 :)
Click to expand...

Please tell me why a desktop search engine is better than the OS search
function. Maybe I will want to use one.
 
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
Click to expand...
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..."
Click to expand...
-EFF attorney Kevin Bankston

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

hth,
Craig
 
Craig said:
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.

-EFF attorney Kevin Bankston

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

hth,
Craig
Click to expand...

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

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 said:
(e-mail address removed), 2/10/2006, 12:55:15 PM,


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

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 said:
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).
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...

The main advantage of Google Desktop Search, for me, is that it can
index the Web cache.
 
(e-mail address removed) had
written
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.
Click to expand...

Personaly I use a freeware program called "Telescope". Simple and easy
to use.
 
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!
Click to expand...

That's not true. Agent Ransack can't search archives or pdfs. You need the
shareware version (FileLocator Pro) for that, but even FLP can't find text
in ALL files. You can see a comparison chart of the two versions here:
http://www.mythicsoft.com/Page.aspx?type=flpro&page=features

FLP can search zip, rar, pdf and cab, but not 7z. Mythicsoft Customer
Service told me some time ago that support for 7z archives is planned for
FLP in the future. I do not think they plan on adding support for archives
or pdfs to their lite version, Agent Ransack.
 
SeaMaiden said:
That's not true. Agent Ransack can't search archives or pdfs. You need the
shareware version (FileLocator Pro) for that, but even FLP can't find text
in ALL files. You can see a comparison chart of the two versions here:
http://www.mythicsoft.com/Page.aspx?type=flpro&page=features

FLP can search zip, rar, pdf and cab, but not 7z. Mythicsoft Customer
Service told me some time ago that support for 7z archives is planned for
FLP in the future. I do not think they plan on adding support for archives
or pdfs to their lite version, Agent Ransack.
Click to expand...
Thanks for pointing that out, although I have never really thought about
it as I don't usually search those types of files. My point is that the
OS search function doesn't search all text based files if they have a
different extension which is pretty lame.
 
Back
Top