Vista can not find stuff????????

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?JethroUK=A9?=]

Despite Vista search being hailed (by Microsoft) as 'a main feature', Vista
search has bugs - such that some things it simply can not find

A search system that can not find 'some' things is as useless as one that
can not find 'any' things

Are Microsoft working around the clock to fix it? Will it be fixed by
Monday? Am I the only person that thinks this renders the whole O/S close to
scrap?

 

[Robert Firth]

Before anything can be fixed or reported, you need to describe a specific
situation where it doesn't work. Perhaps your file was in a location that
hasn't been indexed. You can modify the locations on your computer that are
indexed.

I personally have had no problems with Vista's search. In fact, it is one of
my favorite features. It certainly isn't scrap.

 

[Jon]

Despite Vista search being hailed (by Microsoft) as 'a main feature',
Vista search has bugs - such that some things it simply can not find

A search system that can not find 'some' things is as useless as one that
can not find 'any' things

Are Microsoft working around the clock to fix it? Will it be fixed by
Monday? Am I the only person that thinks this renders the whole O/S close
to scrap?

While waiting for the fix you could also try reading the manual. Extreme
advice I appreciate, but it often does the trick.

 

[Guest]

Vista search is great.
It is one of the many things that I like about Vista.

 

[Guest]

You are not the only one.

I have been extremely frustrated with the new, "improved" search tool. I
routinely search for dates and times files were accessed, created, or
modified. The search for "accessed" no longer exists, as near as I can tell.
What I am searching for, often, is creation, access, or modification of
system files. There have been numerous times when I use the Advanced Search
capabilities to search everything (including hidden and system files) , it
takes forever (since much of that stuff is not indexed) and comes up blank.
I take a look manually (after jumping through all sorts of hoops to be
granted access to even look at my own files), and easily find a dozen files
that fit the search criteria.

It may be better at searching within files (which the old search tool only
pretended to be able to do), but is is a shadow of its former self with
respect to the functions I routinely used it to perform.

Nancy

 

[Wala Wala]

You are not the only one.

Vista search tool is BLIND. I'm looking at a file which I had to
search manually, and still vista cannot find it.
All this hoopla about indexing and disk thrashing that I had to
endure for months was all in vain.
Vista Search is totally worthless.

 

[Charlie Tame]

And I thought it was just me.

If you right click on a disk drive Icon there's another form of indexing
going on, seems like they really didn't want you to turn it off, but
unless you search constantly what's the point? If you search say once a
week for something you lost it takes 5 minutes with XP, with Vista the
damned indexing takes weeks. That adds up to an awful lot of 5 minute
sessions.

It's even more ridiculous when the resulting search can't find anything

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?JethroUK=A9?=]

Before anything can be fixed or reported, you need to describe a specific
situation where it doesn't work.

I had Vista for days (not years) and it has failed to find things on several
occassions already - I can only speak for the stuff i know is there that it
didn't find - who is to say the search function isn't missing things all the
time - hence why it is totally redundant

Perhaps your file was in a location that hasn't been indexed.

perhaps it hasn't - who knows
it never used to need 'indexing'
assume i don't know what indexing is
i do know that if i copy/paste files it can find them but again that relies
on me knowing where stuff is, and 'search'ing by definition means the user
doesn't know where stuff is - that's the whole point of letting the machine
search

You can modify the locations on your computer that are indexed.
I personally have had no problems with Vista's search.

sure you do - you just haven't noticed yet

In fact, it is one of my favorite features.

i can only say you're very easily pleased

It certainly isn't scrap.

for sure it is - this is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge problem and will be costing
companies millions already, such that all of Microsoft Vista's other
problems pale into insignificance by comparison - i certainly do not want
any other update from Microsoft that does not address this problem - until
such times i have to be content with physically looking for files on my P.C.
which is nothing short of absurd

It is bad enough that M/Soft sell software that they know for a fact is
littered with problems and having such a large customer base, any issues can
be identified very, very quickly, but they should act upon it - they know
this is a problem and are certainly in a position to fix it by morning (2000
programmers working through the night would certainly find the bug) -
frankly i can't understand why they need the embaressment & not trying to
cover it up before too many people notice

this is 2007 and not 1980 - isn't it????????????????

 

[Leo]

It seems you are more interested in whining then you are in receiving help
about a problem you are having. Or, you are just a troll.

--
Leo

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to
teenage boys."
P.J. O'Rourke

 

[David]

Vista search is great.
It is one of the many things that I like about Vista.

LOL! that's great that it works on your machine. I"ve had to disable
it on mine. Even tried rebuilding the index. no joy. so i run with
indexing service turned off. NOW Vista can find files. It never worked
right, "right out of the box" on a new laptop. updates the past few
months have not fixed it. dont even get me started on all the features
that MS dropped from Vista. and the ones that remain are of dubious
value, at best. this OS is one of the worst they have produced. DOS
4.0, Windows Me, and now Vista. Good ones: DOS 6.22, XP.

Can

 

[David]

And I thought it was just me.

If you right click on a disk drive Icon there's another form of
indexing going on, seems like they really didn't want you to turn it
off, but unless you search constantly what's the point? If you search
say once a week for something you lost it takes 5 minutes with XP,
with Vista the damned indexing takes weeks. That adds up to an awful
lot of 5 minute sessions.

It's even more ridiculous when the resulting search can't find
anything

add me to the list of unhappy index users. or FORMER index users. I've
turned off the service.

 

[Andrew McLaren]

Despite Vista search being hailed (by Microsoft) as 'a main feature',
Vista search has bugs - such that some things it simply can not find
A search system that can not find 'some' things is as useless as one that
can not find 'any' things
Are Microsoft working around the clock to fix it? Will it be fixed by
Monday? Am I the only person that thinks this renders the whole O/S close
to scrap?

I'm inclined to agree. I have found Search in Vista to be very unreliable,
almost useless.

I used Windows Desktop Search in XP and generally, it gave pretty good
results; at least by WDS 3.0.1. But Search in Vista seems to have gone
considerably *backwards* in reliability, usability and performance.

To give a concrete example: On machine one, with Google Desktop installed, I
went to my Documents folder, and with Notepad created a new, plain text
document called "searchme.txt" containing a single word "plesiochronous" (I
was pretty sure I wouldn't have too many "plesiochronous" docs on the system
. I went straight back to the desktop, clicked on the Google search bar
and entered "plesiochronous". Google Search had found the searchme.txt file,
even before I had finished typing the word. It had been indexed in near
real-time, and located as I typed in the search box.

On Machine 2, pretty much the same physical and software configuration, I
went to my Documents folder, and with Notepad created a new, plain text
document called "searchme.txt", containing a single word "plesiochronous". I
went straight back to the desktop, and went to Start, Search. I entered text
"plesiochronous" in the search field. I was able to finish typing the whole
word. Then, the grey-coloured "searching" bar slowly chugged its way across
the "Search Results in Indexed Locations". After 30 seconds or so, it
reported "No items match your search". Hmm, okay. So I changed the search
location from "Indexed Locations", to an explicit "Documents", and I also
checked the "Include non-indexed, hidden and system files" check box. Again,
the slow grey bar across the screen and after a shorter period, the answer
"No items match your search". Finally, I checked the "search in file
contents" just in case, and started the search again. That was 5 minutes
ago, and it's still running. Even if it eventually finds the file ... it
took Google Desktop about 2 seconds to find it, just seconds after I created
the file.

But this slightly artificial test was only to confirm what I've seen in
routine daily operations, over and over: I search for a expression which I
*know* is in there somewhere, in the ~300 subdirectories and ~14,000 files
in my Documents folder. I can even have the file open in Word or Acrobat, in
front of me, while I'm searching for it - still "not found"! After I
installed Google Desktop, I could find the same files in a second.

Possibly this is operator error, maybe I'm doing something wrong. But if so,
Vista Search must be unreasonably fragile and dificult to use. I'm a
reasonably proficient PC user - I can run all the main business and
developer applications, configure my own network settings etc (I've read the
iFilter API docs in MSDN; I can even debug my own kernel dumps ... but,
that's just skiting). If the problem is that I'm doing something wrong, then
Search shouldn't be that hard or complex to use. Google Desktop "just works"
every time, with no special effort or consideration on my part.

If it's not "operator error" causing the nil hits, and in fact Search isn't
locating the file then ... well, Search is just broken.

Furthermore, when using Google Desktop, I can easily and happily index
documents on network shares. Since the majority of my documents are sitting
on a file server not my local hard disk, that is more or less essential
functionality. So far, I have not been able to coax Vista WDS Search to
index anything except local drives. So at very best, Vista's Search is a 50%
solution. I must use an additional, 3rd party tool to search shares anyway.

I could go on ... Search might "be everywhere" in Vista; but I don't like
the way a search is parameterised, depending on where you start your search.
For example, I have my Pictures folder open and I'm looking at photos of my
last holiday. That makes me think "I wonder if there are any plesiochronous
cables runnning from Sydney out to Cootamundra? I might have a doc about
that" so I go to the Search box staring me in the face, and search on
"plesiochronous". But because I'm in the Photos folder, Search only looks
for *photos* with a "plesiochonous" tag. I have to explicitly tell Search to
widen the search to Indexed Items or whatever. I find that very unintuitive
and cumbersome. I much prefer a scheme like Apple Spotlight or Google
Desktop, where *every* Search filed, searches the global search index.

For finding strings in text files, such as source code, I *always* use
Findstr at a command prompt - it is faster, more reliable and more flexible
(I can pipe the output to a script) than Vista Search. So basically, I'm
still using grep, the same as I did on Unix 20 years ago

Brandon Paddock seems like a hell of a nice guy, and I'm sure he's 20,000%
(at least) a better programmer than me; likewise the other WDS team members.
So I don't mean to bag them, personally. But something went terribly wrong
in Microsoft's development process - between the early "FindMyStuff" utility
which was awesome; WDS 3.x in XP which was pretty good, to Search in Vista;
which is, well, less than useless, it is positively misleading, and returns
bad, incorrect data. Meanwhile - and I absolutely don't wish to sound like a
Google advocate, but - Google Desktop *Just Works*, and finds the data I
need, every time. So whatever the other pluses and minuses of the Google
solution, it is satisfactory. And Vista Search is not.

I really (really, really, really (with sugar and ribbons on it) really hope
that Search in Vista does reach a stage where it is actually a useful
feature of the OS. There is no requirement for an operating system to
provide built-in facilities to make home movies, play games, or watch TV.
But in this present Age, a core requirement for any OS is a good search
tool. Sadly, Vista falls down badly on this score (excepting findstr).

PS 2 hours later - still no sign of plesiochronous, from Vista Search. Even
Findstr finds it in a few seconds.

 

[Charlie Tame]

Snipped some just to save space, hope nobody minds.

PS 2 hours later - still no sign of plesiochronous, from Vista Search. Even
Findstr finds it in a few seconds.

Now, I don't search for much but there seem to be two indexing methods
at work (Or maybe it is the same thing really).

Right click on a drive and you find under properties an "Index this
drive" box. Both my machines were going at it like hell until I removed
the check and then, silence, well almost.

Turn it back on again and the drives went on 24/7 for days.

As I said I don't do much searching but I did use the search in XP and
it took some time to find things on a loaded drive but the time involved
came nowhere close to the several days "Indexing" before I shut it
off... I reckon those drives had done a years worth of my normal
searching...

So maybe this "Indexing" and the Vista "Indexing" does eventually speed
up searching, but I don't know with Vista because I gave up long ago
even bothering. My results were just like yours, in fact I to had a
document on the desktop and it failed to find the document by filename
let alone the contents.


I don't know about Google's version, I was not unhappy with XP's search,
but you are correct that it is worse than useless, it is misleading.

 

[Jon]

I'm inclined to agree. I have found Search in Vista to be very unreliable,
almost useless.

Just tried your 'plesiochronous' experiment, and the file was found
instantly.


Indexing is configured to default to 'back off' when you are active on the
machine, but certainly not to the extent that you are observing (!)


The following is a little known setting in Search, which may be relevant
here. Having this setting set to anything other than 'High Performance' can
lead to the symptoms you are describing.


Control Panel > Power Options > Change plan settings > Change advanced Power
settings > Search and Indexing > Power saving mode


The problem with Search imho is the excessive number of 'configuration
points' ie different places within Vista where you can configure the
activity of Search. There are at least 10 of these (I may do an exact count
some day). Too many I suspect for the average user.


It also strikes me that the basic instructions to master Search aren't
widely disseminated, and MS is surprisingly quiet (given that it's their
product) in groups such as these on how to get the most out of it (apart
from a few cryptic hints).


For example there are a number of important Search 'back off' settings under

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows Search\Gathering Manager

which you will struggle to find any documentation on and which have only
received a cursory mention in these groups (Google returned one hit when I
posted the above line in). I only discovered them by reading the chapter on
Windows Search in the book 'Windows Vista Resource Kit' and which I'd
recommend.



And I'll be honest with you, I was ready to turn off Search completely in
the early days. What swung me round was reading the above chapter, which I'd
recommend. This is perhaps a trend of the way things are going nowadays. To
get the basic instructions for mastering an MS product you have to pay extra
for the knowledge required, either with time, or with money on a particular
book purchase. Otherwise you're stuck with a technology for which you only
have partial instructions, which seems to be the case with many users on
here with this particular technology.



My experience of Search is that it's one of those areas where you have to
spend a disproportionate amount of time on to get the most out of. True of
all areas, but particularly with Search. And it does require a fairly high
level of computing knowledge, which from reading some of your past posts you
clearly have, but which the average user I suspect lacks.


Once it's working well, however, I believe the rewards are great.

 

[dennis@home]

Before anything can be fixed or reported, you need to describe a specific
situation where it doesn't work. Perhaps your file was in a location that
hasn't been indexed. You can modify the locations on your computer that
are indexed.

I personally have had no problems with Vista's search. In fact, it is one
of my favorite features. It certainly isn't scrap.

It didn't index my documents because I moved the folder to the D drive.. its
fine once you tick the index this drive box.
Also I didn't RTFM but did notice that typing in a part of a file name does
not find the file.. you have to use wild cards.

 

[Andrew McLaren]

Hi Jon,

Thanks, good info!

Yeah, I wasn't too surprised that Search didn't find the new file
*instantly* ... but after I'd left the machine idle for 15 minutes or so, I
expected indexing would have caught up. BTW I checked my Power settings,
they are set to "High Performance", so that's not it (good call, though).

I ran up a clean install of Vista on a blank machine then tried the
"plesiochronous" experiment again, and it worked! So obviously, I've done
something to break Search on my main machine, and several other Vista
machines here ... but what did I do? I guess I'll have to go spelunking
(sigh).

Incidentally, I notice that "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows
Search\Gathering Manager" is one of those keys where the Administrator has
no automatic access: by default, only TrustedInstaller and WSearch have
permissions to modify values. So I guess it isn't intended to be a user
configurable area But, yes - very interesting to examine the values
under that key ... thanks for the pointer.

Overall, I suspect the fundamental architecture of Windows Search is sound.
It just needs some work. After all, WDS on XP worked pretty well; I'm sure
with some work, Search on Vista can regain that level of usefulness (at
least WDS could search network shares, with the optional add-on).

But at present, Search in Vista is far too difficult to use, too difficult
to configure(as you rightly point out), too unreliable, too limited in
function (no network searches, let alone web sites), and too easily broken
(obviously I've done something to break Search on my machine, but ...
what???). I could not recommend anyone upgrade to Vista, on the basis of the
Search facility. There may be other good reasons to upgrade, but ... Search
isn't one of them! despite what the ads tell us.

Mind you, Microsoft managed to take their very promising Tripoli project,
and get it to the point they had to throw it all away, and start again ...
not an auspicious history in searching Still, here's hoping ...

Best regards,

 

[I eat vista]

vistas search is actually the desktop search they were shoving online and
was a separate download for XP. They took that and merged it into vista.

this is all just an effort to catch up with Google desktop and other desktop
search technologies...

I can assure you that this is one of the most stupid ways to search.
This technology simply does not work. Its slow, it has gapes and gets
corrupeted to easily.
Turn the service off and make sure your folders are organized, then search
in the appropriate folder for each kind of thing you are looking for.

 

[I eat vista]

vistas search is actually the desktop search they were shoving online and
was a separate download for XP. They took that and merged it into vista.

They tried to force it down your throat with office2007 too...
and with the live suite they even install it on XP without even asking you!

THUMBS DOWN FOR MS FOR THEIR CRAP!

this is all just an effort to catch up with Google desktop and other desktop
search technologies...

I can assure you that this is one of the most stupid ways to search.
This technology simply does not work. Its slow, it has gapes and gets
corrupted to easily. It also takes up computer resources and thrashes the
disk.
The index may take weeks according to how much data you have.

Simple users get lost with it.. and if its corrupted they dont know how to
fix it.

Only an idiot would like this crap!

Turn the service off and make sure your folders are organized, then search
in the appropriate folder for each kind of thing you are looking for

MS blew it with this one... its one of the most STUPID things vista has.

 

[I eat vista]

vistas search is actually the desktop search they were shoving online and
was a separate download for XP. They took that and merged it into vista.

They tried to force it down your throat with office2007 too...
and with the live suite they even install it on XP without even asking you!

THUMBS DOWN FOR MS FOR THEIR CRAP!

this is all just an effort to catch up with Google desktop and other desktop
search technologies...

I can assure you that this is one of the most stupid ways to search.
This technology simply does not work. Its slow, it has gapes and gets
corrupted to easily. It also takes up computer resources and thrashes the
disk.
The index may take weeks according to how much data you have.

Simple users get lost with it.. and if its corrupted they dont know how to
fix it.

Only an idiot would like this crap!

Turn the service off and make sure your folders are organized, then search
in the appropriate folder for each kind of thing you are looking for

MS blew it with this one... its one of the most STUPID things vista has.

 

[I eat vista]

Please tell all this to FRANK Jupiter Jones and other blind MS followers who
deny any such problem even though I have pointed them out again and again
numerous times...