Comments

1. wgrahamt

   
   Posted on: September 28, 2007 at 7:44AM  

   Hi Nick,

   Unless I am missing the point somewhere, then yes a Search Folder would solve this problem if I wanted to continually refer to email conversations with specific individuals or groups within a domain.

   But that is not the case.

   If I am contacted by email or by phone by somebody who I think I may have corresponded with before, or from a company domain where I might have spoken with one of their colleagues; but I am not sure, then I will do a "to: OR from:" search.

   * The beauty of the speed of Windows Search indexing is that I can do this in the first few moments of a conversation and then I am able to talk knowledgeably about an email conversation that we might have had months (or even years) ago – from the same person or same organisation.

   * The issue with the Search functionality is that you have to type the same search string in twice (accurately).

   This is not a "canned" search, the search strings are different many times a day and although over the period of a couple of weeks (whilst maintaining a conversation) a few might be repeated, in the long term they have little value, so it's not worth making a Search Folder for any of them - especially since you don't know how many times you might want to reuse one, if at all.

   Regards

   Graham
2. jhester

   
   Posted on: October 04, 2007 at 8:46AM  

   Nick,

   I posted a detailed description of my problem with search on Aug 31.  I would appreciate some sort of response.
3. Lars

   
   Posted on: October 04, 2007 at 3:41PM  

   Hi Nick,

   As jhester, I'm waiting for, and would appreciate, a reponse on a detailed described problem. Mine was posted September 21st.
4. variablez

   
   Posted on: October 11, 2007 at 11:05AM  

   I am having a problem with Windows Vista's search functionality. I am attempting to search for part numbers at work. These part numbers are in Excel files, and there are many files, so I don't want to have to search for them by opening each file, searching it, and closing it again. That's where the search function comes in. Unfortunately, the search function often 'finds' the part number in files that don't actually contain that part number, and at the same time don't find the part number in files that definitely contain it.

   As an example of what my procedure is, I do the following:

   1: Go to folder in which the files are contained.

   2: Put the file name into the search field (something like "54038-423G9" without the quotes).

   3: Make sure that the search function is searching subfolders and contents of the files and that the file type is "All".

   4: Wait for the files to show up.

   It takes a while, because there are a lot of files and the files are big, and sometimes it finds the files correctly. Other times it finds files that, when I look in them, don't actually contain the part number (I've 'unhid' all cells, just to make sure). But usually, when it's incorrectly finding those files, it also fails to find the part numbers in files in which I know the part numbers exist (I've checked to make sure, and they're there).

   What could I be doing incorrectly to get these odd results?

   - Zohar S.E.
5. JonathanH

   
   Posted on: October 16, 2007 at 6:15PM  

   I am having real problems getting Vista to find even the most basic thing. Personally I find it most useful to be able to search for a string in files, but this is completely impossible in Vista. Even if YOU think the new search is fab, please listen to you customers who say it lacks some very important features. If after all this you don't want to alter it, then could you please create some separate search tool we can download for the rest of us that just does what searches used to do in, say W2000?

   Example 1

   I wanted to find the exact phrase "six famous people" in files under a particular directory, so I typed it into the advanced search (with quotes), had all files/all sizes/etc being searched (including non-indexed files) and the search found a huge list of files. Great you'd think, but oh no. It was NOT finding the exact phrase, it was just finding files which contained all those words. Exactly what I didn't want or expect. Is this really the design? It's far from intuitive.

   Example 2

   I wasn't sure of the exact spelling/word used but I knew part of it. I don't remember the original, but take this as the example (which I have repeated, so it is still true). I searched for "search ignore" and it found no files. In fact, the file I knew existed contains "search ignores". Now what I wanted it to do was to match the string anywhere, not to try and interpret whole words. If I could remember the exact phrase I'd probably remember the exact filename too and wouldn't need the search (!)

   Example 3

   I was looking for COPENHAGEN in a directory full of .htm files. My search (using all possible options to find files) gave two hits. I knew this was wrong so I copied the entire directory onto a memory stick, took it to work, used W2000 to do the search and found all the files I was looking for - I forget how many but at least 5. This was after spending about 25 minutes trying to encourage Vista to find them. How is this superfast indexing helping me to do what I'd expect of even the most basic of operating systems. It certainly isn't saving me any time. I was actually forced at one point to open each file and search the page I was in - at least that found them.

   Example 4

   I created a test file - it was a copy of a an .htm file that had COPENHAGEN in it but Vista was refusing to "find". Please note Vista did find a couple of other files in the same directory with the same file extension - and I tried very hard to figure out what the difference was that meant one file was found the the other not, but it beats me. So now I have a copy of the file and I change the file extension to .txt (just in case) and I paste some test words and phrases into the very top of the file so I can use this for experiments. One was "what is wrong with this file that the search ignores it?" without the quotes. Then on the next line I had "xcvxcvxcv" - again without quotes. Then the rest of the file was what was in the original .htm I'd copied. I search for "search ignores" (with quotes) and it finds the file. I search for xcvxcvxcv (with and again without quotes) and it doesn't find the file. Why? It makes NO sense to me. Don't tell me Vista thinks xcvxcvxcv is not a sensible string to search for and so ignores it!! As if Vista or Microsoft could know what I want to write and search for in my files! So explain, please, why it cannot be found.

   There are plenty more tests I did and could list a whole lot more ridiculous and incongruous results I've obtained.

   The bottom line: I now know I have no control over what the search is doing, so even when Vista says "here's your results" I know it is probably not correct. Complete loss of trust I'm afraid.

   Please give your users the option to search like we used to, don't hide things away so we can't tell what is happening.

   Cheers

   J
6. variablez

   
   Posted on: October 17, 2007 at 1:54PM  

   Although you most likely had nothing to do with the creation of the search features in either MS Vista or MS Office, I have run into a new searching problem which, in my mind, is even worse than the ones I'd already experienced with Vista, and somebody needs to know.

   In MS Office 2007 I had typed the string QAA0003 many times throughout a 41 page file, but I was then requested to add some text next to each string. I copied the text, did a search for QAA0003, and began adding the text where needed. But then I got to a point where QAA0003 was listed twice in the same paragraph. MS Word's search found the first one, and - being lazy - I hit "Find Next" again to get to the next one. The search function skipped over it. I went back and tried it again, but the search refused to find what I could clearly see with my own eyes. I thought that perhaps there was some nuance in the apparent string that I just couldn't see, so I copied it and pasted it into the search field, backed up, and clicked "Find Next" again, but received the same results. MS Office 2007 refused to find the text string. Since I didn't know how many other strings might have been missed by MS Word's search function I copied the file to my other computer with MS Word 2003 and performed the same search. The results were flawless. MS Office, it appears, has the same or a similar problem as MS Vista has. While this makes sense considering that they were apparently produced at around the same time, it does not make sense considering that my company has spend a great deal of money on these products with the expectation that they will function better than the last generation did. While in most cases I have found MS Office very useful, it is this one glaring and unconscionable flaw that I cannot overlook.

   I don't want a response telling me about the benefits of the new search algorithms or tips on how to work around the issue. I want the problem solved. Please, if you have any influence at all at Microsoft, ask them on my behalf - on behalf of all Microsoft customers - to fix this. Thank you for your time.
7. Sunflower34

   
   Posted on: October 24, 2007 at 4:08PM  

   Continuing saga of frustration with Vista Search

   Today I needed to search an old C:\Library directory for any file with the word "ellipse" since I was looking for a note about a special graphics algorithm I thought I kept some years ago.  This was a fairly simple search:  looking for a single word in the files of a directory and all its subdirectories.

   Windows Vista quickly returned 52 hits, which was fairly good.  Oddly, when I checked the box to "include non-indexed, hidden, and system files (might be slow)" I only saw 11 hits. I'm not sure how to explain how searching more gave fewer hits.

   To be sure I was finding all the files, I fired up a Windows 2000 VMware virtual machine on this very same Windows Vista (Ultimate) machine.  Through the virtual network I did the same search of C:\Library for the word "ellipse" using Windows Explorer from Windows 2000.  That search resulted in 69 hits, which was quite a few more than the 52 returned by Windows Vista.

   When will Microsoft seriously address the search problem in Vista?  When can I run Windows Explorer for Windows 2000 under Vista without all the overhead of a whole virtual machine?  

   Until there is a fix, I'll keep posting real world examples of frustrations with Vista's search.
8. Andrews71

   
   Posted on: November 03, 2007 at 2:36PM  

   Reading through these comments, Nick, I frankly don't find them excessively helpful.

   THIS IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO EASILY:

   Find a file or a folder with such and such a word within its title EASILY.

   Find a file with such and such a word or phrase in it EASILY.  

   ("EASILY" would be defined as is found on Windows XP, not having to type in title: or name: or whatever--they just don't seem to always give me the universal search that I desire and thus I get frustrated and my valuable time is very much wasted!)

   I don't want to have to type the word in the search box, get ten million hits of both in the document and in the documents title, then have to figure out how do I limit my search.  I just want ot find files easily.  I am a researcher and there is much repition in the matter in the files that when I search I get too much information back.

   As has been said on this blog, Microsoft should give us less compliant users (i.e. us users with more valuable things to do with our time then figure out how to use such a complicated search engine and its terms) the means to do a search as Windows XP or others had (cf. Sunflower34) had.  

   I just need to find files quickly or find what is in files quickly.

   If I were a programmer for Microsoft--I am a medical doctor, not screwdriver--I would simply make a search box that would simply and easily find a file or folder as XP did and then gave the option of finding a word or words or a phrase in files.  

   WHY CANNOT MICROSOFT SIMPLY DO THIS FOR US USERS???  Talk about Ma Bell...

   My other serious problem with Vista: Several programs that ran under Windows 98, can't be run...  That also baffles me...  Hundreds of dollars wasted...
9. Carat_EST

   
   Posted on: November 05, 2007 at 5:40AM  

   Still problems with search.

   A) Why I can´t sort search results by size?

   Sometimes it tries to sort but the result will not be Ascending nor Descending...

   Doing advanced search by name (string in name like "img" for photos or "clip" for videos) over portable (USB) or network drives (non-indexed). I will got results with different filetypes and filesizes. Now if I want to sort these results by size it never works!

   B) Why Vista search can't remember the view and columns I want to see in results? I allways shall again choose (additionally to name): detailed view, Sise, Date Modified, Type, and Folder Path. I will allways see these columns - why I can't configure my Vista (and Search) such way?
10. mproper

    
    Posted on: November 14, 2007 at 2:33PM  

    I just discovered this blog.  I am having all kinds of problems with searching with Vista.

    I have an application that brings in messages (thousands) in as .tmp files.  All I want to do is be able to find which one of those contains a string (like a name or particular SSN).  Search will NOT return any results, even though I'm looking right at them.

    I've discovered if I rename the file to .txt it works though, so I guess Vista is ignoring the .tmp file extension.

    So am I correct that my choices are:

    1)  Rename thousands and thousands and thousands of files just to be able to do a simple search.

    or

    2)  Copy all of the files up to my server that has Windows 2000 and use it's much superior search functionality.

    Is that right?  Is there really not any way to make Vista search these files?  I thought maybe if I associated the .tmp file extension with Notepad it would work, but apparently not.

    I guess I'm to the point where I just can't trust that Vista's search functionality is giving me valid results.