Super Finder

[Bob Adkins]

Super Finder is a search utility to replace the Windows "Find" function. It
has more options and is faster. I did a Windows XP Explorer find on my C
drive for *.psd, and it took 14 Sec. Super finder took 4 sec. I tried other
files, and results were similarly quick.

My favorite features of Super Finder is it's a "1 File Wonder", meaning it
will run from the EXE file dropped into any folder. The EXE file is 445 MB.
Also, Super Finder optionally places a right-click context menu for "Search
with Super Finder". This is a great feature for Explorer users.

Highly recommended!

http://fsl.sytes.net/ssearch.html All you need is the ZIP file... no
install needed!

 

[Steven Burn]

The EXE file is 445 MB.

EEEK!..... surely you meant 445K ? <g>

--
Regards

Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk

Keeping it FREE!

 

[B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson]

Super Finder is a search utility to replace the Windows "Find" function. ^

IDE looks okay from screenshot.

It has more options and is faster. I did a Windows XP Explorer find on my
C drive for *.psd, and it took 14 Sec. Super finder took 4 sec. I tried
other files, and results were similarly quick.

Did you also try it the other way (Superfinder first and the XP search
afterwards)? The speedup could just have been a caching effect of the
OS...

BeAr

 

[dfrog]

IDE looks okay from screenshot.


Did you also try it the other way (Superfinder first and the XP search
afterwards)? The speedup could just have been a caching effect of the
OS...

BeAr
--
===========================================================================
= What do you mean with: "Perfection is always an illusion"?
=
===============================================================--(Oops!)===

I just tried that and found it equally as quick as Bob Adkins.
Chose different 'uniquely' named files which were in same folder location on
C:\ (should get away from caching idea and had same 'distance' to travel)
and got 18 seconds with Windows XP search and 6 seconds with Superfinder.
dfrog

 

[lisztfr]

locate32 ?

lh

 

[B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 19:18:05 -0000, dfrog wrote:

[Super Finder speed]

I just tried that and found it equally as quick as Bob Adkins.
Chose different 'uniquely' named files which were in same folder location on
C:\ (should get away from caching idea and had same 'distance' to travel)
and got 18 seconds with Windows XP search and 6 seconds with Superfinder.

Sorry. That's not the right approach for testing, either. If the
directory structure for (part of) a drive has been cached recently,
all programs using system calls for file access will profit. I just
tried what I suggested and did the first search with Super Finder.

The task I set up took that program 70 seconds. The Search function
of Win2k was considerably faster with 8 seconds, *afterwards*. Just
like one had to suspect...

I did a little cross-testing on different drives and with different
search patterns. Nothing serious, though. Because it is *very* hard
to ensure proper (equal) conditions.

Result is that the Win2k search is up to 20 % faster. I believe
the reason for the lower speed of Super Finder is partially caused
by slower display routines. It would be possible to verify (or
falsify) that by tracking function calls. But that would break a
fly on the wheel. ;-)

BeAr

 

[FTR]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 19:18:05 -0000, dfrog wrote:

[Super Finder speed]

I just tried that and found it equally as quick as Bob Adkins.
Chose different 'uniquely' named files which were in same folder location on
C:\ (should get away from caching idea and had same 'distance' to travel)
and got 18 seconds with Windows XP search and 6 seconds with Superfinder.

Sorry. That's not the right approach for testing, either. If the
directory structure for (part of) a drive has been cached recently,
all programs using system calls for file access will profit. I just
tried what I suggested and did the first search with Super Finder.

The task I set up took that program 70 seconds. The Search function
of Win2k was considerably faster with 8 seconds, *afterwards*. Just
like one had to suspect...

I did a little cross-testing on different drives and with different
search patterns. Nothing serious, though. Because it is *very* hard
to ensure proper (equal) conditions.

Result is that the Win2k search is up to 20 % faster. I believe
the reason for the lower speed of Super Finder is partially caused
by slower display routines. It would be possible to verify (or
falsify) that by tracking function calls. But that would break a
fly on the wheel. ;-)

BeAr

So, the result is ?

 

[Vincent]

Il /09 nov 2005/, *Bob Adkins* ha scritto:

Super Finder is a search utility to replace the Windows "Find"
function. [...]
Highly recommended!

Many thanks for your suggestion. I have one computer on which the
common "Find" of XP mysteriously don't work. Before I understood it I
feared I had lost a lot of very important files, :-(( , then realized
they still were on the computer (fii ... , so this program has
been a great solution.

 

[Bob Adkins]

EEEK!..... surely you meant 445K ? <g>

That would be 445 <cough cough!>Terabytes.

 

[Bob Adkins]

Did you also try it the other way (Superfinder first and the XP search
afterwards)? The speedup could just have been a caching effect of the
OS...

No, it wasn't caching. It's quick. Really quick.

 

[Bob Adkins]

Sorry. That's not the right approach for testing, either. If the
directory structure for (part of) a drive has been cached recently,
all programs using system calls for file access will profit. I just
tried what I suggested and did the first search with Super Finder.

The way I test is on 3 different drives. All are way too big to be held
totally in cache, and I have indexing turned off.

Searching on the same volume using both SF and Explorer "clean" results in:

SF=16 sec.
Explorer=23 sec.

Some consecutive cached searches just for fun:

SF Cached=3 sec, 4 sec
Explorer Cached=43 sec., 23 sec (why did Explorer search slow down???)


Regardless of the methodology, SF is always way faster.

 

[FTR]

No, it wasn't caching. It's quick. Really quick.

144 sec for a 60 GB HD, 40 GB used.

 

[B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:09:20 -0600, Bob Adkins wrote:

[SF speed test]

The way I test is on 3 different drives. All are way too big to be held
totally in cache, and I have indexing turned off.

If you search for file *names, extensions, attributes* only the content
of file allocation table / master file table need to be cached. There
aren't drives available, which are too large to get these items cached
without effort.

As to indexing: I *never* use that function.

[Some test results snipped]

Explorer Cached=43 sec., 23 sec (why did Explorer search slow down???)

I'd say, sth. with your system is considerably wrong. The slow down
could be another process causing conflict. (Maybe a virus scanner?)
*But* I couldn't set up *any* task where Super Finder is at least level
to the Win2k Search. Although I have no XP system on hand at the moment
(all copies uninstalled or on PC's temporarily not here), I find it
hard to believe that WinXP Search is *that* worse. (Compared to Win2k.)
Both systems share the same core...

I booted a clean system twice and repeated a couple of searches with
Win2k Search and Super Finder, *separately*. Regardless of FAT16,
FAT32, NTFS5 the Win2k Search is quicker:

FAT16, search specific group of *.exe files inside a directory tree:
-> Win2k Search: 7 s / 1 s / 1 s
-> Super Finder: 14 s / 3 s / 3 s
FAT32, search all *.dbf files on logical drive:
-> Win2k Search: 1:15 min / 5 s / 5 s
-> Super Finder: 1:16 min / 11 s / 11 s
Same on faster mirror drive:
-> Win2k Search: 41 s / 5 s / 5 s
-> Super Finder: 59 s / 14 s / 15 s
NTFS5, search all *.zip inside directory tree:
-> Win2k Search: 16 s / < 1 s / < 1 s
-> Super Finder: 17 s / 2 s / 2 s
FAT32, search for a SFLA within *.* of a directory tree:
-> Win2k Search: 2:22 min / 2:08 min / 2:08 min
-> Super Finder: 2:40 min / 2:25 min / 2:25 min

Regardless of the methodology, SF is always way faster.

Quiet the opposite here. ;-)

Don't get me wrong: Super Finder is an okay tool. But I don't think
it good to praise it more than it really deserves. People loading
and trying it on these grounds will get upset. I believe your test
results. But I think you ought to check your system setup. It is not
likely that the WinXP Search normally shows such bad results as in
your tests.

BeAr

 

[Roger Johansson]

Don't get me wrong: Super Finder is an okay tool. But I don't think
it good to praise it more than it really deserves. People loading
and trying it on these grounds will get upset. I believe your test
results. But I think you ought to check your system setup. It is not
likely that the WinXP Search normally shows such bad results as in
your tests.

It seems to work fine in win98se, so other windows users than 2k and XP
can have use for this search program. I have very good search search
inside my favorite file manager, otherwise this superfinder program
would have been a valuable addition to my tools.

 

[FTR]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:09:20 -0600, Bob Adkins wrote:

[SF speed test]

The way I test is on 3 different drives. All are way too big to be held
totally in cache, and I have indexing turned off.

If you search for file *names, extensions, attributes* only the content
of file allocation table / master file table need to be cached. There
aren't drives available, which are too large to get these items cached
without effort.

As to indexing: I *never* use that function.

[Some test results snipped]

Explorer Cached=43 sec., 23 sec (why did Explorer search slow down???)

I'd say, sth. with your system is considerably wrong. The slow down
could be another process causing conflict. (Maybe a virus scanner?)
*But* I couldn't set up *any* task where Super Finder is at least level
to the Win2k Search. Although I have no XP system on hand at the moment
(all copies uninstalled or on PC's temporarily not here), I find it
hard to believe that WinXP Search is *that* worse. (Compared to Win2k.)
Both systems share the same core...

I booted a clean system twice and repeated a couple of searches with
Win2k Search and Super Finder, *separately*. Regardless of FAT16,
FAT32, NTFS5 the Win2k Search is quicker:

FAT16, search specific group of *.exe files inside a directory tree:
-> Win2k Search: 7 s / 1 s / 1 s
-> Super Finder: 14 s / 3 s / 3 s
FAT32, search all *.dbf files on logical drive:
-> Win2k Search: 1:15 min / 5 s / 5 s
-> Super Finder: 1:16 min / 11 s / 11 s
Same on faster mirror drive:
-> Win2k Search: 41 s / 5 s / 5 s
-> Super Finder: 59 s / 14 s / 15 s
NTFS5, search all *.zip inside directory tree:
-> Win2k Search: 16 s / < 1 s / < 1 s
-> Super Finder: 17 s / 2 s / 2 s
FAT32, search for a SFLA within *.* of a directory tree:
-> Win2k Search: 2:22 min / 2:08 min / 2:08 min
-> Super Finder: 2:40 min / 2:25 min / 2:25 min

Regardless of the methodology, SF is always way faster.

Quiet the opposite here. ;-)

Don't get me wrong: Super Finder is an okay tool. But I don't think
it good to praise it more than it really deserves. People loading
and trying it on these grounds will get upset. I believe your test
results. But I think you ought to check your system setup. It is not
likely that the WinXP Search normally shows such bad results as in
your tests.

BeAr

I shall use SuperFinder instead of WinXP Find because regularly find did
not find even simple text files which I prepared for tests, all options
activated. I used FileFinder shareware for a year but it only shows the
first 6 files. So, SuperFinder seeems to be far more useful.

 

[B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson]

I shall use SuperFinder instead of WinXP Find because regularly find did
not find even simple text files which I prepared for tests, all options
activated.

That's strange. I normally use the search function of my <OT> favorite
file manager </OT>. So I can't talk about the all-time reliability of
the Win2k search function. The tests I posted yesterday (and some other
I did just now to check) showed no difference between the 3 programs in
detection rate.

Do you have the 'Show hidden and system files' option for all folders
activated and the 'Hide Protected Operating system files' deactivated?
Note: You can set this differently per folder!

Another cause of search-misses in WinXP could be an outdated index.
(However that may have happened...)

I used FileFinder shareware for a year but it only shows the
first 6 files. So, SuperFinder seeems to be far more useful.

Between Win2k system search and Super Finder I too would most possibly
prefer Super Finder, although the former is quicker. (Interface, more
options.)

BeAr

 

[FTR]

That's strange. I normally use the search function of my <OT> favorite
file manager </OT>. So I can't talk about the all-time reliability of
the Win2k search function. The tests I posted yesterday (and some other
I did just now to check) showed no difference between the 3 programs in
detection rate.

Do you have the 'Show hidden and system files' option for all folders
activated and the 'Hide Protected Operating system files' deactivated?
Note: You can set this differently per folder!

Yes, I did. I have all my working files in a data subfolder. and set all
files to be shown. And nevertheless Win Find did not find basic text files.

So SuperFinder is really ok for me.

 

[Zo]

It seems to work fine in win98se, so other windows users than 2k and XP
can have use for this search program. I have very good search search
inside my favorite file manager, otherwise this superfinder program
would have been a valuable addition to my tools.

Thanks B. R for the info on Win98SE :_0

 

[Zo]

Thanks B. R for the info on Win98SE :_0

Sorry about that Roger, thanks for the Win98SE info

 

[ms]

B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson wrote:




It seems to work fine in win98se, so other windows users than 2k and XP
can have use for this search program. I have very good search search
inside my favorite file manager, otherwise this superfinder program
would have been a valuable addition to my tools.

In W98SE, it runs for me too, but strange.

I did a simple search for a file name in the parent directory. No
result. Then the same search one level down in a folder with that name.
It only found one file, when it should have found maybe 10 files.

Can't explain that, but W98SE find still seems to work fast and accurate.

Mike Sa