WinXP SP2 "Search" can't see local file content

[David Candy]

It won't find unicode text in files without a unicode header. Such as exe files

 

[David Candy]

Sounds like you prefewr to slag search than use it.

 

[Guest]

You can ask it to do anything - but you must recant before I'll
tell you how.

I've already TOLD it to do it. It accepted my instruction
but ignored it. Thanks for your "support".

The RAAF flies earler versions of this crap plane. And we will
probably make the same mistake and buy the stupid JSF. SU-30s
or F-22 are the only planes worth buying.

Don't get JSFs! Different manufacturer completely,
and it's WAY over budget and getting far too expensive.
F-22 is also overly expensive. F/A-18 is much less
costly; you could get a couple for the price of one F-22
and more for the price of one JSF. If you had A/B models:
yuck. And the C/D ones are getting old. The E/F models
are bigger (20%) and better. F-15 would be good if they
were gonna make any more; the production line here is
only building a couple/year for attrition replacements.

I did some F-15 training simulator work. Saw an F-15
poster with a great slogan: "If it's up, we shoot it down.
If it's down, we blow it up." <grin>

Mike

 

[Guest]

It won't find unicode text in files without a unicode header. Such as exe files

Ah. Quite possible. I'm talking just plain old
"text". ASCII. Never needed to do anything with
Unicode.

Mike

 

[David Candy]

54 A and 17 B. One sqr been upgraded (with ECM I think) to kill Iraqis before the 3rd Persian Gulf War. Our other fighters are Hawks (mainly training and reserve) and the big issue is the government wants to retire the F-111 fleet (17 C, 4 RF-111, and 7 G (for training plus I think a few more for spare parts).

Everyone but the government and Airforce regard it as our best plane. The entire RAAF can maintain 2 CAPs (distance is the killer). We need long range fighters and strike.

One scenario where we would need F-111 type craft is if India or China invade a SE Asian country (they would do it to indict each other's SLOC - poor country that gets invaded - they don't count).

Australia can't do strategic strike on nuclear armed countries. So we would need to fly thousands of miles to whereever to attack their forces outside of their country. F/A-18s can't really do that (we only have limited tankers). Nor can the JSF. Nor really can the super hornet. All our neighbours are buying Sukhois, which really does scare me. Plus for some unknown reason ASEAN wants us to sign a non aggression pact and we are refusing - they'll buy even more Sukhois - especially as we claim the right to attack them (a la Iraq).

In both the battle of britain and over france the RAF/Luftwaffe, because they were close to bases and could fly to bases out of range of the enemy could refuse battle when wise to do so. It was one factor is the RAF's win over britain and in France the Luftwaffe held france with 200 planes and pilots for most of the war (ie 41, 42, maybe 43). Range is important.

 

[David Candy]

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/Su-30.htm

 

[Guest]

54 A and 17 B.

Even C/Ds would be better. Same airframe, too.

Range is important.

Yep. The F/A-18 E/F (that's the SuperHornet) can be
mini-tankers. They can carry a refuelling pod/tank.
Really only useful to prevent planes waiting to land
on the carrier from running out of fuel while others
land, though.

Mike

 

[Guest]

Sounds like you prefewr to slag search than use it.

Well, since it won't do what I've instructed
it to do, it's worthless to me.

Mike

 

[David Candy]

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=c...nExtensions.+support&hl=en&lr=lang_en|lang_es

 

[Guest]

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=c...nExtensions.+support&hl=en&lr=lang_en|lang_es

Thanks. I looked at that article (after you posted your link).
There's a couple methods given, and I can see that they'll work.

But it's still a really, really roundabout way to do things.

If they just had an option "Do simple search in ALL files"
it would be transparent to the user. No special registry
settings or anything. If that option is selected, it just
looks at EVERY byte of the selected files, regardless of the
file type.

Oh, well. At least it CAN be tweaked to work.

Thanks for the link, and the conversation.

Mike

 

[David Candy]

Well guess what. It wasn't written for your use but the 99% of users that want to find business letters or photos of the grandkids.

BTW that global reg key does only what it name says pre SP1. Sp1 and later it does what is described in the article.

The whole point is searching user content not the other information in a file. EG Searching for html will if using text searching find every web page on your computer as all web pages start with
<html>

In XP's search only what the user can see (and that includes all the properties shown in Explorer's Derails view - and there's more if indexing server is on) is searched. Buried deep in Computer Management is a web page query form that returns the results like google. With abstracts automatically generated of the documents.

If Indexing server is on you can enter advanced queries in the Containing Text field. This includes Vector queries, relational, boolean, etc. It supports two query languages and also SQL and database manager (oledb).

The point I'm making is Search is designed for users not programmers.

 

[Guest]

EG Searching for html will if using text searching find every web
page on your computer as all web pages start with <html>

I understand that, but it could be that I -wanted-
to find every web page on my computer. It's easy
enough to limit the search by start directory and/or
by part of the filename to reduce the "irrelevant"
hits.

If they had an easy-to-find option to turn it on/off
then I would have NO problem at all with the Default
search being the "filtered" search as it exists now.

I guess my complaint is that it doesn't LET me do what
==I== want unless I futz around with the registry or
indexing service first. I'm not asking it to do any-
thing that is difficult for it to do. It should be
simpler.

The point I'm making is Search is designed for users not programmers.

Yep, but programmers are also users.

Mike

 

[David Candy]

Yep, but programmers are also users.
I've tried that phrase with MS. But they are unmoved.

I have my own written search program.

My main complaint with search, after adapting to it not searching, is the whole potential of it is wasted. Why shouldn't the shell search window also give abstracts. Why can't search results look like google's (as it can certainly do it).

Part of the reason is WinFS which is a database that will hold all user data.So a search of dog will find all mails, documents, etc with dog in it.

 

[stink finger]

Why should Windows --CARE- that it's a text file?

I told it to search ALL files; that's one of the selections
it allowed me to select. It did not do what I ordered it to
do. It's broken.


Recant? Apologise for wanting it to do what it says
it will do? Microsoft should apologize to ME!

Mike

You're talking about David Candy...his thought processes last about .78
seconds, then he just taps at whatever keys happen to look neato after that.

 

[stink finger]

It's not broken. It's nothing to do with MS. It's to do with the manufacturer
of that product you are using not suppling a search filter.

No, oh top-posting retard of the internet, if you were told to 'search ALL
files' for something, why would you ignore any one particular kind?
****, but you give fly shit a high intelligence rate!