Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

[Guest Dima]

Hello!

Why does Windows Vista x64 search so long, especially when the progress in

the bar is at the end and the ring is rolling (a replacement for the sand

glass)?

When a search is not "nearly instantaneous" it takes nearly forever. That

is, when you ask for an Advanced Search of Computer, the bar first goes

half-way across fairly quickly. Then it goes more slowly to about 3/4 of

the way, appearing to redraw the bar every second or so, then more slowly

still to 7/8, etc., getting closer to the end with each redraw - but never

quite reaching the end. I watch hopefully as it gets to the little

down-pointing triangle, thinking that it will give up when it gets there and

report that it can't find what it's searching for. But it doesn't. It

keeps creeping further, past the vertical separator at the end of the

Address Bar, and then at a maddeningly slow pace across the red "X" and...

hours later, the green bar is still being redrawn and it STILL hasn't got to

the end.

Windows XP Pro on the same computer (but on another HDD) searches for the

same files (on all HDDs) five times faster.

Sincerely,

Dima

[Guest marfi]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

Uzytkownik "Dima" <kopn@bk.ruDelete> napisal w wiadomosci

news:%23uU%23J3ssIHA.4544@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

....

> Windows XP Pro on the same computer (but on another HDD) searches for the

> same files (on all HDDs) five times faster.

 

The same for me... Total Commander is 20 times faster than explorer...

horrible :(

--

marfi

[Guest Synapse Syndrome]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

"Dima" <kopn@bk.ruDelete> wrote in message

news:%23uU%23J3ssIHA.4544@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Hello!

> Why does Windows Vista x64 search so long, especially when the progress in

> the bar is at the end and the ring is rolling (a replacement for the sand

> glass)?

> When a search is not "nearly instantaneous" it takes nearly forever. That

> is, when you ask for an Advanced Search of Computer, the bar first goes

> half-way across fairly quickly. Then it goes more slowly to about 3/4 of

> the way, appearing to redraw the bar every second or so, then more slowly

> still to 7/8, etc., getting closer to the end with each redraw - but never

> quite reaching the end. I watch hopefully as it gets to the little

> down-pointing triangle, thinking that it will give up when it gets there

> and report that it can't find what it's searching for. But it doesn't.

> It keeps creeping further, past the vertical separator at the end of the

> Address Bar, and then at a maddeningly slow pace across the red "X" and...

> hours later, the green bar is still being redrawn and it STILL hasn't got

> to the end.

> Windows XP Pro on the same computer (but on another HDD) searches for the

> same files (on all HDDs) five times faster.

 

 

It's worse than that. It also sometimes cannot find files that are clearly

there.

 

ss.

[Guest R. C. White]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

Hi, Dima.

 

Is there an echo in here?

 

This sounds like the discussion we had here a week or two ago. Yes, here it

is: started by you on 4/28/08, Subject: Why does Windows Vista x64 search

so long? Like this current post, it was cross-posted to 3 NGs; that thread

has 9 posts, of which 5 were from you. One is from me, one from Tony

Sperling and 2 from Colin Barnhorst.

 

The bulk of your current post is a cut-n-pasted direct quote from my post of

4/28/08 in that other thread. I don't mind your using my description of the

problem, but whenever you "borrow" text from somewhere, common courtesy (and

Netiquette) requires that you identify the source.

 

Have you found new information about this problem, Dima? Or are you just

asking the same question again?

 

RC

--

R. C. White, CPA

San Marcos, TX

rc@grandecom.net

Microsoft Windows MVP

(Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)

 

"Dima" <kopn@bk.ruDelete> wrote in message

news:#uU#J3ssIHA.4544@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Hello!

> Why does Windows Vista x64 search so long, especially when the progress in

> the bar is at the end and the ring is rolling (a replacement for the sand

> glass)?

> When a search is not "nearly instantaneous" it takes nearly forever. That

> is, when you ask for an Advanced Search of Computer, the bar first goes

> half-way across fairly quickly. Then it goes more slowly to about 3/4 of

> the way, appearing to redraw the bar every second or so, then more slowly

> still to 7/8, etc., getting closer to the end with each redraw - but never

> quite reaching the end. I watch hopefully as it gets to the little

> down-pointing triangle, thinking that it will give up when it gets there

> and report that it can't find what it's searching for. But it doesn't.

> It keeps creeping further, past the vertical separator at the end of the

> Address Bar, and then at a maddeningly slow pace across the red "X" and...

> hours later, the green bar is still being redrawn and it STILL hasn't got

> to the end.

> Windows XP Pro on the same computer (but on another HDD) searches for the

> same files (on all HDDs) five times faster.

> Sincerely,

> Dima

[Guest Dima]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

No, I have not find any new information. It's strange that nobody knows a

resolution to the slow search in Vista!

"R. C. White" <rc@grandecom.net> wrote in message

news:C9056DE7-49E1-4F39-A329-68465C4CB203@microsoft.com...

> Hi, Dima.

>

> Is there an echo in here?

>

> This sounds like the discussion we had here a week or two ago. Yes, here

> it is: started by you on 4/28/08, Subject: Why does Windows Vista x64

> search so long? Like this current post, it was cross-posted to 3 NGs;

> that thread has 9 posts, of which 5 were from you. One is from me, one

> from Tony Sperling and 2 from Colin Barnhorst.

>

> The bulk of your current post is a cut-n-pasted direct quote from my post

> of 4/28/08 in that other thread. I don't mind your using my description

> of the problem, but whenever you "borrow" text from somewhere, common

> courtesy (and Netiquette) requires that you identify the source.

>

> Have you found new information about this problem, Dima? Or are you just

> asking the same question again?

>

> RC

> --

> R. C. White, CPA

> San Marcos, TX

> rc@grandecom.net

> Microsoft Windows MVP

> (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)

>

> "Dima" <kopn@bk.ruDelete> wrote in message

> news:#uU#J3ssIHA.4544@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> Hello!

>> Why does Windows Vista x64 search so long, especially when the progress

>> in the bar is at the end and the ring is rolling (a replacement for the

>> sand glass)?

>> When a search is not "nearly instantaneous" it takes nearly forever.

>> That is, when you ask for an Advanced Search of Computer, the bar first

>> goes half-way across fairly quickly. Then it goes more slowly to about

>> 3/4 of the way, appearing to redraw the bar every second or so, then more

>> slowly still to 7/8, etc., getting closer to the end with each redraw -

>> but never quite reaching the end. I watch hopefully as it gets to the

>> little down-pointing triangle, thinking that it will give up when it gets

>> there and report that it can't find what it's searching for. But it

>> doesn't. It keeps creeping further, past the vertical separator at the

>> end of the Address Bar, and then at a maddeningly slow pace across the

>> red "X" and... hours later, the green bar is still being redrawn and it

>> STILL hasn't got to the end.

>> Windows XP Pro on the same computer (but on another HDD) searches for the

>> same files (on all HDDs) five times faster.

>> Sincerely,

>> Dima

>

[Guest Tom Ferguson]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

I am sure there are many who know how to "fix it", at least, in principle.

And many of them are at Microsoft. <g>

 

Without going into the details of search theory or methods of

implementation: It could well be that nothing is actually broken so does not

need fixing in the strict sense. Possibly, the search algorithms are

performing exactly as designed. However, it also might be true that they

could be better implemented. For example, they could be recoded into

assembly or direct machine code-seldom done now-but that's a topic for a

different place and time. As one example of a fast search-isoHunt, a Torrent

search engine, is very rapid considering the vast quantity of data indexed

however it retunes a quantity of false positives.

 

In designing any program, there are many trade-offs. All of them affect the

search speed. E.g. Do you do a full, all storage devices search or limit it

to a particular set of locations (Vista actually allows the user to modify

to search entire index or just user files). How highly do you value

reliability (same results on repeated searches of the same data),

accuracy/fuzziness (result matches target/result is a near match), &c. But

Here I am probably not saying anything you don't know.

 

In short, if it's not too late for that, we can be certain that these are

matters that are routinely reviewed as development goes forward as halting

and retrograde as that motion sometimes appears.

--

 

Tom

MSMVP 1998-2007

 

 

"Dima" <kopn@bk.ruDelete> wrote in message

news:OsthwNGtIHA.5268@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> No, I have not find any new information. It's strange that nobody knows a

> resolution to the slow search in Vista!

> "R. C. White" <rc@grandecom.net> wrote in message

> news:C9056DE7-49E1-4F39-A329-68465C4CB203@microsoft.com...

>> Hi, Dima.

>>

>> Is there an echo in here?

>>

>> This sounds like the discussion we had here a week or two ago. Yes, here

>> it is: started by you on 4/28/08, Subject: Why does Windows Vista x64

>> search so long? Like this current post, it was cross-posted to 3 NGs;

>> that thread has 9 posts, of which 5 were from you. One is from me, one

>> from Tony Sperling and 2 from Colin Barnhorst.

>>

>> The bulk of your current post is a cut-n-pasted direct quote from my post

>> of 4/28/08 in that other thread. I don't mind your using my description

>> of the problem, but whenever you "borrow" text from somewhere, common

>> courtesy (and Netiquette) requires that you identify the source.

>>

>> Have you found new information about this problem, Dima? Or are you just

>> asking the same question again?

>>

>> RC

>> --

>> R. C. White, CPA

>> San Marcos, TX

>> rc@grandecom.net

>> Microsoft Windows MVP

>> (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)

>>

>> "Dima" <kopn@bk.ruDelete> wrote in message

>> news:#uU#J3ssIHA.4544@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>> Hello!

>>> Why does Windows Vista x64 search so long, especially when the progress

>>> in the bar is at the end and the ring is rolling (a replacement for the

>>> sand glass)?

>>> When a search is not "nearly instantaneous" it takes nearly forever.

>>> That is, when you ask for an Advanced Search of Computer, the bar first

>>> goes half-way across fairly quickly. Then it goes more slowly to about

>>> 3/4 of the way, appearing to redraw the bar every second or so, then

>>> more slowly still to 7/8, etc., getting closer to the end with each

>>> redraw - but never quite reaching the end. I watch hopefully as it gets

>>> to the little down-pointing triangle, thinking that it will give up when

>>> it gets there and report that it can't find what it's searching for.

>>> But it doesn't. It keeps creeping further, past the vertical separator

>>> at the end of the Address Bar, and then at a maddeningly slow pace

>>> across the red "X" and... hours later, the green bar is still being

>>> redrawn and it STILL hasn't got to the end.

>>> Windows XP Pro on the same computer (but on another HDD) searches for

>>> the same files (on all HDDs) five times faster.

>>> Sincerely,

>>> Dima

>>

>

[Guest Dima]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

Why don't they reply then?

"Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:%23pbg8bOtIHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>I am sure there are many who know how to "fix it", at least, in principle.

>And many of them are at Microsoft. <g>

>

> Without going into the details of search theory or methods of

> implementation: It could well be that nothing is actually broken so does

> not need fixing in the strict sense. Possibly, the search algorithms are

> performing exactly as designed. However, it also might be true that they

> could be better implemented. For example, they could be recoded into

> assembly or direct machine code-seldom done now-but that's a topic for a

> different place and time. As one example of a fast search-isoHunt, a

> Torrent search engine, is very rapid considering the vast quantity of

> data indexed however it retunes a quantity of false positives.

>

> In designing any program, there are many trade-offs. All of them affect

> the search speed. E.g. Do you do a full, all storage devices search or

> limit it to a particular set of locations (Vista actually allows the user

> to modify to search entire index or just user files). How highly do you

> value reliability (same results on repeated searches of the same data),

> accuracy/fuzziness (result matches target/result is a near match), &c. But

> Here I am probably not saying anything you don't know.

>

> In short, if it's not too late for that, we can be certain that these are

> matters that are routinely reviewed as development goes forward as halting

> and retrograde as that motion sometimes appears.

> --

>

> Tom

> MSMVP 1998-2007

>

>

> "Dima" <kopn@bk.ruDelete> wrote in message

> news:OsthwNGtIHA.5268@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> No, I have not find any new information. It's strange that nobody knows a

>> resolution to the slow search in Vista!

>> "R. C. White" <rc@grandecom.net> wrote in message

>> news:C9056DE7-49E1-4F39-A329-68465C4CB203@microsoft.com...

>>> Hi, Dima.

>>>

>>> Is there an echo in here?

>>>

>>> This sounds like the discussion we had here a week or two ago. Yes,

>>> here it is: started by you on 4/28/08, Subject: Why does Windows Vista

>>> x64 search so long? Like this current post, it was cross-posted to 3

>>> NGs; that thread has 9 posts, of which 5 were from you. One is from me,

>>> one from Tony Sperling and 2 from Colin Barnhorst.

>>>

>>> The bulk of your current post is a cut-n-pasted direct quote from my

>>> post of 4/28/08 in that other thread. I don't mind your using my

>>> description of the problem, but whenever you "borrow" text from

>>> somewhere, common courtesy (and Netiquette) requires that you identify

>>> the source.

>>>

>>> Have you found new information about this problem, Dima? Or are you

>>> just asking the same question again?

>>>

>>> RC

>>> --

>>> R. C. White, CPA

>>> San Marcos, TX

>>> rc@grandecom.net

>>> Microsoft Windows MVP

>>> (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)

>>>

>>> "Dima" <kopn@bk.ruDelete> wrote in message

>>> news:#uU#J3ssIHA.4544@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>> Hello!

>>>> Why does Windows Vista x64 search so long, especially when the progress

>>>> in the bar is at the end and the ring is rolling (a replacement for the

>>>> sand glass)?

>>>> When a search is not "nearly instantaneous" it takes nearly forever.

>>>> That is, when you ask for an Advanced Search of Computer, the bar first

>>>> goes half-way across fairly quickly. Then it goes more slowly to about

>>>> 3/4 of the way, appearing to redraw the bar every second or so, then

>>>> more slowly still to 7/8, etc., getting closer to the end with each

>>>> redraw - but never quite reaching the end. I watch hopefully as it

>>>> gets to the little down-pointing triangle, thinking that it will give

>>>> up when it gets there and report that it can't find what it's searching

>>>> for. But it doesn't. It keeps creeping further, past the vertical

>>>> separator at the end of the Address Bar, and then at a maddeningly slow

>>>> pace across the red "X" and... hours later, the green bar is still

>>>> being redrawn and it STILL hasn't got to the end.

>>>> Windows XP Pro on the same computer (but on another HDD) searches for

>>>> the same files (on all HDDs) five times faster.

>>>> Sincerely,

>>>> Dima

>>>

>>

>

[Guest Bobby Johnson]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

They probably haven't found an answer either.

 

If someone had an answer they would have shared the information.

 

 

Dima wrote:

> Why don't they reply then?

> "Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:%23pbg8bOtIHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> I am sure there are many who know how to "fix it", at least, in

>> principle. And many of them are at Microsoft. <g>

>>

>> Without going into the details of search theory or methods of

>> implementation: It could well be that nothing is actually broken so

>> does not need fixing in the strict sense. Possibly, the search

>> algorithms are performing exactly as designed. However, it also might

>> be true that they could be better implemented. For example, they could

>> be recoded into assembly or direct machine code-seldom done now-but

>> that's a topic for a different place and time. As one example of a

>> fast search-isoHunt, a Torrent search engine, is very rapid

>> considering the vast quantity of data indexed however it retunes a

>> quantity of false positives.

>>

>> In designing any program, there are many trade-offs. All of them

>> affect the search speed. E.g. Do you do a full, all storage devices

>> search or limit it to a particular set of locations (Vista actually

>> allows the user to modify to search entire index or just user files).

>> How highly do you value reliability (same results on repeated searches

>> of the same data), accuracy/fuzziness (result matches target/result is

>> a near match), &c. But Here I am probably not saying anything you

>> don't know.

>>

>> In short, if it's not too late for that, we can be certain that these

>> are matters that are routinely reviewed as development goes forward as

>> halting and retrograde as that motion sometimes appears.

>> --

>>

>> Tom

>> MSMVP 1998-2007

>>

>>

>> "Dima" <kopn@bk.ruDelete> wrote in message

>> news:OsthwNGtIHA.5268@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>> No, I have not find any new information. It's strange that nobody

>>> knows a resolution to the slow search in Vista!

>>> "R. C. White" <rc@grandecom.net> wrote in message

>>> news:C9056DE7-49E1-4F39-A329-68465C4CB203@microsoft.com...

>>>> Hi, Dima.

>>>>

>>>> Is there an echo in here?

>>>>

>>>> This sounds like the discussion we had here a week or two ago. Yes,

>>>> here it is: started by you on 4/28/08, Subject: Why does Windows

>>>> Vista x64 search so long? Like this current post, it was

>>>> cross-posted to 3 NGs; that thread has 9 posts, of which 5 were from

>>>> you. One is from me, one from Tony Sperling and 2 from Colin

>>>> Barnhorst.

>>>>

>>>> The bulk of your current post is a cut-n-pasted direct quote from my

>>>> post of 4/28/08 in that other thread. I don't mind your using my

>>>> description of the problem, but whenever you "borrow" text from

>>>> somewhere, common courtesy (and Netiquette) requires that you

>>>> identify the source.

>>>>

>>>> Have you found new information about this problem, Dima? Or are you

>>>> just asking the same question again?

>>>>

>>>> RC

>>>> --

>>>> R. C. White, CPA

>>>> San Marcos, TX

>>>> rc@grandecom.net

>>>> Microsoft Windows MVP

>>>> (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)

>>>>

>>>> "Dima" <kopn@bk.ruDelete> wrote in message

>>>> news:#uU#J3ssIHA.4544@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>> Hello!

>>>>> Why does Windows Vista x64 search so long, especially when the

>>>>> progress in the bar is at the end and the ring is rolling (a

>>>>> replacement for the sand glass)?

>>>>> When a search is not "nearly instantaneous" it takes nearly

>>>>> forever. That is, when you ask for an Advanced Search of Computer,

>>>>> the bar first goes half-way across fairly quickly. Then it goes

>>>>> more slowly to about 3/4 of the way, appearing to redraw the bar

>>>>> every second or so, then more slowly still to 7/8, etc., getting

>>>>> closer to the end with each redraw - but never quite reaching the

>>>>> end. I watch hopefully as it gets to the little down-pointing

>>>>> triangle, thinking that it will give up when it gets there and

>>>>> report that it can't find what it's searching for. But it doesn't.

>>>>> It keeps creeping further, past the vertical separator at the end

>>>>> of the Address Bar, and then at a maddeningly slow pace across the

>>>>> red "X" and... hours later, the green bar is still being redrawn

>>>>> and it STILL hasn't got to the end.

>>>>> Windows XP Pro on the same computer (but on another HDD) searches

>>>>> for the same files (on all HDDs) five times faster.

>>>>> Sincerely,

>>>>> Dima

>>>>

>>>

>>

>

[Guest Colin Barnhorst]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

This is a peer-to-peer newsgroup and does not have monitors or moderators.

Unless another user has a suggestion or technical answer no one will reply.

 

"Dima" <kopn@bk.ruDelete> wrote in message

news:Ot3jwAftIHA.576@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Why don't they reply then?

> "Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:%23pbg8bOtIHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>I am sure there are many who know how to "fix it", at least, in principle.

>>And many of them are at Microsoft. <g>

>>

>> Without going into the details of search theory or methods of

>> implementation: It could well be that nothing is actually broken so does

>> not need fixing in the strict sense. Possibly, the search algorithms are

>> performing exactly as designed. However, it also might be true that they

>> could be better implemented. For example, they could be recoded into

>> assembly or direct machine code-seldom done now-but that's a topic for a

>> different place and time. As one example of a fast search-isoHunt, a

>> Torrent search engine, is very rapid considering the vast quantity of

>> data indexed however it retunes a quantity of false positives.

>>

>> In designing any program, there are many trade-offs. All of them affect

>> the search speed. E.g. Do you do a full, all storage devices search or

>> limit it to a particular set of locations (Vista actually allows the user

>> to modify to search entire index or just user files). How highly do you

>> value reliability (same results on repeated searches of the same data),

>> accuracy/fuzziness (result matches target/result is a near match), &c.

>> But Here I am probably not saying anything you don't know.

>>

>> In short, if it's not too late for that, we can be certain that these are

>> matters that are routinely reviewed as development goes forward as

>> halting and retrograde as that motion sometimes appears.

>> --

>>

>> Tom

>> MSMVP 1998-2007

>>

>>

>> "Dima" <kopn@bk.ruDelete> wrote in message

>> news:OsthwNGtIHA.5268@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>> No, I have not find any new information. It's strange that nobody knows

>>> a resolution to the slow search in Vista!

>>> "R. C. White" <rc@grandecom.net> wrote in message

>>> news:C9056DE7-49E1-4F39-A329-68465C4CB203@microsoft.com...

>>>> Hi, Dima.

>>>>

>>>> Is there an echo in here?

>>>>

>>>> This sounds like the discussion we had here a week or two ago. Yes,

>>>> here it is: started by you on 4/28/08, Subject: Why does Windows

>>>> Vista x64 search so long? Like this current post, it was cross-posted

>>>> to 3 NGs; that thread has 9 posts, of which 5 were from you. One is

>>>> from me, one from Tony Sperling and 2 from Colin Barnhorst.

>>>>

>>>> The bulk of your current post is a cut-n-pasted direct quote from my

>>>> post of 4/28/08 in that other thread. I don't mind your using my

>>>> description of the problem, but whenever you "borrow" text from

>>>> somewhere, common courtesy (and Netiquette) requires that you identify

>>>> the source.

>>>>

>>>> Have you found new information about this problem, Dima? Or are you

>>>> just asking the same question again?

>>>>

>>>> RC

>>>> --

>>>> R. C. White, CPA

>>>> San Marcos, TX

>>>> rc@grandecom.net

>>>> Microsoft Windows MVP

>>>> (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)

>>>>

>>>> "Dima" <kopn@bk.ruDelete> wrote in message

>>>> news:#uU#J3ssIHA.4544@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>> Hello!

>>>>> Why does Windows Vista x64 search so long, especially when the

>>>>> progress in the bar is at the end and the ring is rolling (a

>>>>> replacement for the sand glass)?

>>>>> When a search is not "nearly instantaneous" it takes nearly forever.

>>>>> That is, when you ask for an Advanced Search of Computer, the bar

>>>>> first goes half-way across fairly quickly. Then it goes more slowly

>>>>> to about 3/4 of the way, appearing to redraw the bar every second or

>>>>> so, then more slowly still to 7/8, etc., getting closer to the end

>>>>> with each redraw - but never quite reaching the end. I watch

>>>>> hopefully as it gets to the little down-pointing triangle, thinking

>>>>> that it will give up when it gets there and report that it can't find

>>>>> what it's searching for. But it doesn't. It keeps creeping further,

>>>>> past the vertical separator at the end of the Address Bar, and then at

>>>>> a maddeningly slow pace across the red "X" and... hours later, the

>>>>> green bar is still being redrawn and it STILL hasn't got to the end.

>>>>> Windows XP Pro on the same computer (but on another HDD) searches for

>>>>> the same files (on all HDDs) five times faster.

>>>>> Sincerely,

>>>>> Dima

>>>>

>>>

>>

>

[Guest Tom Ferguson]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

As Colin points out, this is a peer-to-peer help group. Sometimes MS softies

drop in but MS has no formal presence here.

 

As for your question, I have enough trouble accounting for myself without

dragging out "ye olde crystal ball" to divine anyone else's motivations. <g>

--

 

Tom

MSMVP 1998-2007

 

 

"Dima" <kopn@bk.ruDelete> wrote in message

news:Ot3jwAftIHA.576@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Why don't they reply then?

> "Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:%23pbg8bOtIHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>I am sure there are many who know how to "fix it", at least, in principle.

>>And many of them are at Microsoft. <g>

>>

>> Without going into the details of search theory or methods of

>> implementation: It could well be that nothing is actually broken so does

>> not need fixing in the strict sense. Possibly, the search algorithms are

>> performing exactly as designed. However, it also might be true that they

>> could be better implemented. For example, they could be recoded into

>> assembly or direct machine code-seldom done now-but that's a topic for a

>> different place and time. As one example of a fast search-isoHunt, a

>> Torrent search engine, is very rapid considering the vast quantity of

>> data indexed however it retunes a quantity of false positives.

>>

>> In designing any program, there are many trade-offs. All of them affect

>> the search speed. E.g. Do you do a full, all storage devices search or

>> limit it to a particular set of locations (Vista actually allows the user

>> to modify to search entire index or just user files). How highly do you

>> value reliability (same results on repeated searches of the same data),

>> accuracy/fuzziness (result matches target/result is a near match), &c.

>> But Here I am probably not saying anything you don't know.

>>

>> In short, if it's not too late for that, we can be certain that these are

>> matters that are routinely reviewed as development goes forward as

>> halting and retrograde as that motion sometimes appears.

>> --

>>

>> Tom

>> MSMVP 1998-2007

>>

>>

>> "Dima" <kopn@bk.ruDelete> wrote in message

>> news:OsthwNGtIHA.5268@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>> No, I have not find any new information. It's strange that nobody knows

>>> a resolution to the slow search in Vista!

>>> "R. C. White" <rc@grandecom.net> wrote in message

>>> news:C9056DE7-49E1-4F39-A329-68465C4CB203@microsoft.com...

>>>> Hi, Dima.

>>>>

>>>> Is there an echo in here?

>>>>

>>>> This sounds like the discussion we had here a week or two ago. Yes,

>>>> here it is: started by you on 4/28/08, Subject: Why does Windows

>>>> Vista x64 search so long? Like this current post, it was cross-posted

>>>> to 3 NGs; that thread has 9 posts, of which 5 were from you. One is

>>>> from me, one from Tony Sperling and 2 from Colin Barnhorst.

>>>>

>>>> The bulk of your current post is a cut-n-pasted direct quote from my

>>>> post of 4/28/08 in that other thread. I don't mind your using my

>>>> description of the problem, but whenever you "borrow" text from

>>>> somewhere, common courtesy (and Netiquette) requires that you identify

>>>> the source.

>>>>

>>>> Have you found new information about this problem, Dima? Or are you

>>>> just asking the same question again?

>>>>

>>>> RC

>>>> --

>>>> R. C. White, CPA

>>>> San Marcos, TX

>>>> rc@grandecom.net

>>>> Microsoft Windows MVP

>>>> (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)

>>>>

>>>> "Dima" <kopn@bk.ruDelete> wrote in message

>>>> news:#uU#J3ssIHA.4544@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>> Hello!

>>>>> Why does Windows Vista x64 search so long, especially when the

>>>>> progress in the bar is at the end and the ring is rolling (a

>>>>> replacement for the sand glass)?

>>>>> When a search is not "nearly instantaneous" it takes nearly forever.

>>>>> That is, when you ask for an Advanced Search of Computer, the bar

>>>>> first goes half-way across fairly quickly. Then it goes more slowly

>>>>> to about 3/4 of the way, appearing to redraw the bar every second or

>>>>> so, then more slowly still to 7/8, etc., getting closer to the end

>>>>> with each redraw - but never quite reaching the end. I watch

>>>>> hopefully as it gets to the little down-pointing triangle, thinking

>>>>> that it will give up when it gets there and report that it can't find

>>>>> what it's searching for. But it doesn't. It keeps creeping further,

>>>>> past the vertical separator at the end of the Address Bar, and then at

>>>>> a maddeningly slow pace across the red "X" and... hours later, the

>>>>> green bar is still being redrawn and it STILL hasn't got to the end.

>>>>> Windows XP Pro on the same computer (but on another HDD) searches for

>>>>> the same files (on all HDDs) five times faster.

>>>>> Sincerely,

>>>>> Dima

>>>>

>>>

>>

>

[Guest Justin Martin [MSFT]]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

Microsoftie here :)

 

The progress bar was a design decision made by the program management team.

It does not show progress, but it does reflect that we're still performing

work. It was tweaked significantly during the different Betas and Release

Candidates until people were generally ok with it.

 

Searching in indexed locations should be fast. It should be even faster

with Window Search 4 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940157) installed. The

more locations on the disk you have indexed, the faster the searching of

these locations should be. Keep in mind that we don't index the entire drive

on purpose, as the indexer wasn't designed to handle the load that is

associated with indexing directories like Windows or Program Files.

 

Searching all of the Computer is a very costly operation, because a majority

of the time is spent crawling the disk trying to find the items that you're

looking for. The non-indexed search of Vista is slower than XP and other

engines by default, because we end up searching more properties. Also, we

perform our searches differently than most engines (word based, rather than

character or regular expression based). This isn't an excuse, we should

still do a better job of being more efficient.

 

Granted that it may be slower in some situations, there are things you can

do to improve performance of your searches.

 

1. Scope your search location. Only include the locations you think that

you may find the file you're looking for. This will obviously speed things

up.

2. Scope your search to only search for properties you care about. Use

either the Advanced Search Pane or directly use Advanced Query Syntax (such

as name:foo, or author:bar). See

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa965711.aspx for more details. The

syntax isn't perfect and there is a lot of work trying to keep the behavior

of non-indexed searches to match the behavior of indexed searches (which

isn't perfect), even though it is two completely distinct search providers.

3. Add more locations of the files you care about to the index. When

searching non-indexed locations like Computer, we will leverage the indexer

to return results for indexed locations on the system.

4. Keep the "Search system folders" checkbox unchecked in the Search

Options, unless you're sure that's where you want to look. When this option

is set, searching from c:\ will not search within system directories like

c:\windows and c:\program files.

5. Don't use the "Include non-indexed, hidden and system files (might be

slow)" checkbox in the Advanced search box unless you have to. This option

will not use the index at all and will perform a non-indexed search of all

locations and also look in system folders.

 

Hope this helps,

Justin

 

PS - I'm going to try to do a better job of popping into the newsgroup now

and then to see if there is anything that needs answering.

[Guest Charlie Tame]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

Justin Martin [MSFT] wrote:

> Microsoftie here :)

>

> The progress bar was a design decision made by the program management team.

> It does not show progress, but it does reflect that we're still performing

> work. It was tweaked significantly during the different Betas and Release

> Candidates until people were generally ok with it.

>

> Searching in indexed locations should be fast. It should be even faster

> with Window Search 4 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940157) installed. The

> more locations on the disk you have indexed, the faster the searching of

> these locations should be. Keep in mind that we don't index the entire drive

> on purpose, as the indexer wasn't designed to handle the load that is

> associated with indexing directories like Windows or Program Files.

>

> Searching all of the Computer is a very costly operation, because a majority

> of the time is spent crawling the disk trying to find the items that you're

> looking for. The non-indexed search of Vista is slower than XP and other

> engines by default, because we end up searching more properties. Also, we

> perform our searches differently than most engines (word based, rather than

> character or regular expression based). This isn't an excuse, we should

> still do a better job of being more efficient.

>

> Granted that it may be slower in some situations, there are things you can

> do to improve performance of your searches.

>

> 1. Scope your search location. Only include the locations you think that

> you may find the file you're looking for. This will obviously speed things

> up.

> 2. Scope your search to only search for properties you care about. Use

> either the Advanced Search Pane or directly use Advanced Query Syntax (such

> as name:foo, or author:bar). See

> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa965711.aspx for more details. The

> syntax isn't perfect and there is a lot of work trying to keep the behavior

> of non-indexed searches to match the behavior of indexed searches (which

> isn't perfect), even though it is two completely distinct search providers.

> 3. Add more locations of the files you care about to the index. When

> searching non-indexed locations like Computer, we will leverage the indexer

> to return results for indexed locations on the system.

> 4. Keep the "Search system folders" checkbox unchecked in the Search

> Options, unless you're sure that's where you want to look. When this option

> is set, searching from c:\ will not search within system directories like

> c:\windows and c:\program files.

> 5. Don't use the "Include non-indexed, hidden and system files (might be

> slow)" checkbox in the Advanced search box unless you have to. This option

> will not use the index at all and will perform a non-indexed search of all

> locations and also look in system folders.

>

> Hope this helps,

> Justin

>

> PS - I'm going to try to do a better job of popping into the newsgroup now

> and then to see if there is anything that needs answering.

 

 

I believe you are trying to say that the Vista search function is a

hopeless waste of space. If we follow your suggestions we will know

where everything is anyway, In XP *.mp3 found all the mp3s, in Vista it

does not.

 

You bet there are things that need answering.

[Guest Justin Martin [MSFT]]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

> I believe you are trying to say that the Vista search function is a

> hopeless waste of space. If we follow your suggestions we will know

> where everything is anyway, In XP *.mp3 found all the mp3s, in Vista it

> does not.

>

> You bet there are things that need answering.

 

That's not what I'm trying to say at all. I now understand why many people

don't spend their time trying to be helpful in the newsgroups.

 

You'll get people to be much more willing to try and assist and make

improvements in the product if you do more than just flame. If you honestly

are having a problem and would like help, please be descriptive of the

problems you're running into. For example:

 

1. Where/how are you initiating the search?

2. Where are the files that aren't being found? Are they random or is it a

specific set of items that aren't coming back?

3. Have you changed any of the default search or indexer settings?

etc.

 

Justin

[Guest Charlie Tame]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

Justin Martin [MSFT] wrote:

>> I believe you are trying to say that the Vista search function is a

>> hopeless waste of space. If we follow your suggestions we will know

>> where everything is anyway, In XP *.mp3 found all the mp3s, in Vista it

>> does not.

>>

>> You bet there are things that need answering.

>

> That's not what I'm trying to say at all. I now understand why many people

> don't spend their time trying to be helpful in the newsgroups.

>

> You'll get people to be much more willing to try and assist and make

> improvements in the product if you do more than just flame. If you honestly

> are having a problem and would like help, please be descriptive of the

> problems you're running into. For example:

>

> 1. Where/how are you initiating the search?

> 2. Where are the files that aren't being found? Are they random or is it a

> specific set of items that aren't coming back?

> 3. Have you changed any of the default search or indexer settings?

> etc.

>

> Justin

 

 

Actually your presence here is most welcome, and I was being somewhat

sarcastic.

 

I know there are many settings and that indexing can be useful to some,

however the situation seems to have been made quite confusing to many users.

 

For example, I rarely "Search" for anything, when I do it probably takes

the form of *.dll because I want to locate some file or other to work

with. I don't really care if it takes 5 minutes to find, but I do want

to be sure if it is there or not. What I do care about is that I have to

wait 5 minutes EVERY time as Vista "Indexes" things at boot. Despite

this time during which the disk drive is grinding away when I type *.dll

it comes back with nothing. Even if the file is in plain sight on the

desktop Vista does not find it. W2000 and XP used to just "Find" things,

indexed or not.

 

On the other hand if I want to find something on the Internet I use

Google or similar.

 

So my experience when first using Vista was with the default settings,

and despite 5 minutes every boot and 5 minutes every search I could not

be sure the file wasn't there, only that Vista wasn't locating it. Once

I went to the drive properties and turned indexing off the boot process

went back to a realistic time and Vista still couldn't find anything but

waiting time was acceptable.

 

So I guess the question is why change the "Expected" behavior and force

the user to make changes he/she is not familiar with when it seems that

what "Windows always does" was quite acceptable. I may well have missed

the point somewhere, I just want to know where :)

[Guest Tom Ferguson]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

Even while accepting that other people have different experiences based on

what they customarily have need or desire to do, I have mine. It appears to

me that an effort is on-going to improve both the scope (where do you

search? How broadly do you set the parameters of the search?) and speed

(what methodology/algorithms do you use; do you keep an index of searches to

improve speed of later searches? Do you pre-index-if so, what parameters so

you set for that?). Please forgive my repetitiveness but I though it worth

reviewing.

 

Any time there is a change to the behavior of a tool, users are forced to

experience some-to-much re-familiarization time. Hopefully, most will find

the newly expanded abilities worth the admitted pain. Also, one hopes that

usability improves as development continues.

--

 

Tom

MSMVP 1998-2007

 

 

 

 

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

news:%23yFYTaNuIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Justin Martin [MSFT] wrote:

>>> I believe you are trying to say that the Vista search function is a

>>> hopeless waste of space. If we follow your suggestions we will know

>>> where everything is anyway, In XP *.mp3 found all the mp3s, in Vista it

>>> does not.

>>>

>>> You bet there are things that need answering.

>>

>> That's not what I'm trying to say at all. I now understand why many

>> people don't spend their time trying to be helpful in the newsgroups.

>>

>> You'll get people to be much more willing to try and assist and make

>> improvements in the product if you do more than just flame. If you

>> honestly are having a problem and would like help, please be descriptive

>> of the problems you're running into. For example:

>>

>> 1. Where/how are you initiating the search?

>> 2. Where are the files that aren't being found? Are they random or is it

>> a specific set of items that aren't coming back?

>> 3. Have you changed any of the default search or indexer settings?

>> etc.

>>

>> Justin

>

>

> Actually your presence here is most welcome, and I was being somewhat

> sarcastic.

>

> I know there are many settings and that indexing can be useful to some,

> however the situation seems to have been made quite confusing to many

> users.

>

> For example, I rarely "Search" for anything, when I do it probably takes

> the form of *.dll because I want to locate some file or other to work

> with. I don't really care if it takes 5 minutes to find, but I do want to

> be sure if it is there or not. What I do care about is that I have to wait

> 5 minutes EVERY time as Vista "Indexes" things at boot. Despite this time

> during which the disk drive is grinding away when I type *.dll it comes

> back with nothing. Even if the file is in plain sight on the desktop Vista

> does not find it. W2000 and XP used to just "Find" things, indexed or not.

>

> On the other hand if I want to find something on the Internet I use Google

> or similar.

>

> So my experience when first using Vista was with the default settings, and

> despite 5 minutes every boot and 5 minutes every search I could not be

> sure the file wasn't there, only that Vista wasn't locating it. Once I

> went to the drive properties and turned indexing off the boot process went

> back to a realistic time and Vista still couldn't find anything but

> waiting time was acceptable.

>

> So I guess the question is why change the "Expected" behavior and force

> the user to make changes he/she is not familiar with when it seems that

> what "Windows always does" was quite acceptable. I may well have missed

> the point somewhere, I just want to know where :)

[Guest R. C. White]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

Hi, Justin.

 

Welcome to the newsgroup! ;<)

> The progress bar was a design decision made by the program management

> team.

> It does not show progress,

 

Well, it APPEARS to show progress. Where is there any indication to the

user that it is showing anything other than progress?

> but it does reflect that we're still performing

> work.

 

But there is NO feedback as to whether it might be finished - or give up -

in another 10 seconds or that it might take another 10 hours - or 10 days.

:>(

 

There is no clue as to whether it is now searching in Drive C: or in Drive

X: or even somewhere on the Internet maybe?

> It was tweaked significantly during the different Betas and Release

> Candidates until people were generally ok with it.

 

I participated in the last year or more of the Vista beta; at least a

half-dozen builds, both 32-bit and 64-bit. I recall significant

improvements in some parts of Search, but NOT in this "progress bar" area.

That feeling that it would never get to the Finish Line did not go away

during the beta - or since.

 

The non-productive and non-informative pulsing of that green bar gets to be

INFURIATING!!! Doesn't anybody on the Microsoft Team understand that?

 

Thanks for the tips about how to speed up the Search. My frustration,

though, is not that the search takes so long, but that it NEVER gives up, or

even pauses to take a breath, give me a progress report, and ask me if I'd

like to trim my parameters or if I want it to just "press on!"

> PS - I'm going to try to do a better job of popping into the newsgroup now

> and then to see if there is anything that needs answering.

 

Please do, Justin. You will, of course, get flamed by some immature

readers. But you also should hear some legitimate complaints, questions,

requests and suggestions that you will never get from anywhere else.

 

RC

--

R. C. White, CPA

San Marcos, TX

rc@grandecom.net

Microsoft Windows MVP

(Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)

 

"Justin Martin [MSFT]" <JustinMartinMSFT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

message news:89EA85CC-3690-49F0-A2F6-F1A56EF4266A@microsoft.com...

> Microsoftie here :)

>

> The progress bar was a design decision made by the program management

> team.

> It does not show progress, but it does reflect that we're still performing

> work. It was tweaked significantly during the different Betas and Release

> Candidates until people were generally ok with it.

>

> Searching in indexed locations should be fast. It should be even faster

> with Window Search 4 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940157) installed.

> The

> more locations on the disk you have indexed, the faster the searching of

> these locations should be. Keep in mind that we don't index the entire

> drive

> on purpose, as the indexer wasn't designed to handle the load that is

> associated with indexing directories like Windows or Program Files.

>

> Searching all of the Computer is a very costly operation, because a

> majority

> of the time is spent crawling the disk trying to find the items that

> you're

> looking for. The non-indexed search of Vista is slower than XP and other

> engines by default, because we end up searching more properties. Also, we

> perform our searches differently than most engines (word based, rather

> than

> character or regular expression based). This isn't an excuse, we should

> still do a better job of being more efficient.

>

> Granted that it may be slower in some situations, there are things you can

> do to improve performance of your searches.

>

> 1. Scope your search location. Only include the locations you think that

> you may find the file you're looking for. This will obviously speed

> things

> up.

> 2. Scope your search to only search for properties you care about. Use

> either the Advanced Search Pane or directly use Advanced Query Syntax

> (such

> as name:foo, or author:bar). See

> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa965711.aspx for more details.

> The

> syntax isn't perfect and there is a lot of work trying to keep the

> behavior

> of non-indexed searches to match the behavior of indexed searches (which

> isn't perfect), even though it is two completely distinct search

> providers.

> 3. Add more locations of the files you care about to the index. When

> searching non-indexed locations like Computer, we will leverage the

> indexer

> to return results for indexed locations on the system.

> 4. Keep the "Search system folders" checkbox unchecked in the Search

> Options, unless you're sure that's where you want to look. When this

> option

> is set, searching from c:\ will not search within system directories like

> c:\windows and c:\program files.

> 5. Don't use the "Include non-indexed, hidden and system files (might be

> slow)" checkbox in the Advanced search box unless you have to. This

> option

> will not use the index at all and will perform a non-indexed search of all

> locations and also look in system folders.

>

> Hope this helps,

> Justin

>

> PS - I'm going to try to do a better job of popping into the newsgroup now

> and then to see if there is anything that needs answering.

[Guest Adam Albright]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

On Mon, 19 May 2008 08:06:43 -0500, "R. C. White" <rc@grandecom.net>

wrote:

>Hi, Justin.

>

>Welcome to the newsgroup! ;<)

>

>> The progress bar was a design decision made by the program management

>> team.

>> It does not show progress,

>

>Well, it APPEARS to show progress. Where is there any indication to the

>user that it is showing anything other than progress?

 

>

>> but it does reflect that we're still performing

>> work.

>

>But there is NO feedback as to whether it might be finished - or give up -

>in another 10 seconds or that it might take another 10 hours - or 10 days.

>:>(

>

>There is no clue as to whether it is now searching in Drive C: or in Drive

>X: or even somewhere on the Internet maybe?

>

>> It was tweaked significantly during the different Betas and Release

>> Candidates until people were generally ok with it.

 

You mean the moronic beta testers that Microsoft uses that typically

can't find their rear ends with both hands behind their back?

 

The change from the long ago established practice of ANY Progress Bar

in any Windows application including Windows itself that would

steadily move from left to right IN ONE SINGLE PASS regardless how

long it took to indicate how much longer a task will take has been

rendered useless and laughable in Vista as a indicator of anything

other than the stupidity of Microsoft for changing what if anything it

is now suppose to indicate.

 

Now it is common for Vista's "progress" bar (the butt ugly green bar

at top of Explorer Window) to make multiple round trips from full left

to right thereby giving absolutely no real indication how much longer

some task will take. This is very noticeable in moving large volumes

of files and also in extended searching.

>I participated in the last year or more of the Vista beta; at least a

>half-dozen builds, both 32-bit and 64-bit. I recall significant

>improvements in some parts of Search, but NOT in this "progress bar" area.

>That feeling that it would never get to the Finish Line did not go away

>during the beta - or since.

 

Confirmation the Boys of Redmond are clueless idiots that don't know

how to program intelligently. It seems the changes were made in some

feeble attempt to hide their incompetence on how poorly Vista

internals now work under the labor of stupid things like DRM, and the

biggest red herring of them all "security" which means core features

now often must pass through a maze of bloated code just to get from

point A to point B thereby greatly slowing down routine tasks like

file handling.

>

>The non-productive and non-informative pulsing of that green bar gets to be

>INFURIATING!!! Doesn't anybody on the Microsoft Team understand that?

 

They don't give a damn. Which is the answer you can apply to nearly

every known Vista issue. Microsoft has an annoying habit of making

changes for change's sake without regard to how it actually impacts

performance or usability.

[Guest Celegans]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

"Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:OIPkfmauIHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Any time there is a change to the behavior of a tool, users are forced to

> experience some-to-much re-familiarization time. Hopefully, most will find

> the newly expanded abilities worth the admitted pain. Also, one hopes that

> usability improves as development continues.

 

Vista search simple DOES NOT WORK when searching for strings on my Vista

Ultimate machine. I've seen it work on another Vista machine, but search

does not work on my machine. I have given Microsoft an example of searching

for six identical files with six different extensions. Vista can find three

but is blind to the other three. Even "Advanced Search" and its checkbox

"Include non-indexed, hidden, and system files (might be slow)" cannot find

three of these six identical files.

 

In the last year, I have literally spend DAYS indexing and re-indexing and

re-indexing, trying to get Vista search to work. It does not work on my

machine in my hands. I have demostrated to Microsoft I can get search to

work correctly for Windows 95, 98, 2000 and XP. Why is prior Windows

knowledge NOT enough to get search to work in Vista?

 

I have begged and pleaded with Microsoft to find out why search doesn't work

on my Ultimate machine, OR give me the right to go back to XP. Microsoft

REFUSES to fix the problem, and REFUSES to let me go back to XP without

paying them more money because they made a flawed product. I just want the

search functionality that was in Windows Explorer in Windows 2000 (or XP

with the registry hack). Why is that too much to ask? Why is wanting a

product that works correctly too high of an expectation?

 

When "there is a change to the behavior of a tool" that breaks the

functionality, and when this is in a new product, I would have thought

Microsoft would care enough to listen and investigate. The bottom line is

MICROSOFT DOES RESPECT CUSTOMERS. Microsoft simply does not care about the

problems they create in their own software.

 

I normally want to do very targeted searches. I usually know what directory

to start in and usually need to search for a string in a few hundred or a

few thousand files. The free Agent Ransack

(http://www.mythicsoft.com/agentransack/) lets me do searches that ALWAYS

work in Vista (it can find all six files in the search failure example I

gave Microsoft). But why should I need a 3rd party tool for such basic

search functionality when I paid for the "ultimate" version of Vista?

 

Here are the Microsoft guys that REFUSE to discuss the search failure of

Vista any more. They have blocked E-mails from me, since it's easier to

ignore me than fix the search problem in Vista:

 

Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:

 

a-jims@microsoft.com

An error occurred while trying to deliver this message to the recipient's

e-mail address. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message

for you. Please try resending this message, or provide the following

diagnostic text to your system administrator.

 

nicholas.white@microsoft.com

An error occurred while trying to deliver this message to the recipient's

e-mail address. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message

for you. Please try resending this message, or provide the following

diagnostic text to your system administrator.

The following organization rejected your message: mailb.microsoft.com.

[Guest Tom Ferguson]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

 

"Celegans" <Celegans@nospam.nospam> wrote in message

news:uOddjlduIHA.1504@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> "Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:OIPkfmauIHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>

>> Any time there is a change to the behavior of a tool, users are forced to

>> experience some-to-much re-familiarization time. Hopefully, most will

>> find the newly expanded abilities worth the admitted pain. Also, one

>> hopes that usability improves as development continues.

>

> Vista search simple DOES NOT WORK when searching for strings on my Vista

> Ultimate machine. I've seen it work on another Vista machine, but search

> does not work on my machine.

 

That is a telling point. Why is it not working on your machine but is on

another? Is it a search with the same parameters on both machines?

 

I have given Microsoft an example of searching

> for six identical files with six different extensions. Vista can find

> three but is blind to the other three. Even "Advanced Search" and its

> checkbox "Include non-indexed, hidden, and system files (might be slow)"

> cannot find three of these six identical files.

 

I wonder if this is not a question of where the search is being done rather

than what is being searched for.

 

>

> In the last year, I have literally spend DAYS indexing and re-indexing and

> re-indexing, trying to get Vista search to work. It does not work on my

> machine in my hands. I have demostrated to Microsoft I can get search to

> work correctly for Windows 95, 98, 2000 and XP. Why is prior Windows

> knowledge NOT enough to get search to work in Vista?

 

If it is a different tool, then different technoques might be required and

the same techniques might get different resumts.

>

> I have begged and pleaded with Microsoft to find out why search doesn't

> work on my Ultimate machine, OR give me the right to go back to XP.

 

Did you inquire about "downgrade" rights?

 

Microsoft

> REFUSES to fix the problem, and REFUSES to let me go back to XP without

> paying them more money because they made a flawed product. I just want

> the search functionality that was in Windows Explorer in Windows 2000 (or

> XP with the registry hack). Why is that too much to ask? Why is wanting

> a product that works correctly too high of an expectation?

>

{Snip}

> I normally want to do very targeted searches. I usually know what

> directory to start in and usually need to search for a string in a few

> hundred or a few thousand files. The free Agent Ransack

> (http://www.mythicsoft.com/agentransack/) lets me do searches that ALWAYS

> work in Vista (it can find all six files in the search failure example I

> gave Microsoft). But why should I need a 3rd party tool for such basic

> search functionality when I paid for the "ultimate" version of Vista?

 

OK. You have a solution. Use it and worry not. <g> That's what we all do if

we find a tool or feature or two we don't like. Use a work-around or another

tool. It's difficult for one system to be all things to all people, in my

view.

>

> Here are the Microsoft guys that REFUSE to discuss the search failure of

> Vista any more.

 

Well, I can't speak for them but my thought is they might believe they have

said as much as they think is helpful about the case you submitted.

 

{Snip}

 

In any case, this topic has brought a light to bear on a high degree of

frustration in some users. Hopefully, that will not be without effect.

--

 

Tom

MSMVP 1998-2007

[Guest Celegans]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

"Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:eNq$fqiuIHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> OK. You have a solution. Use it and worry not. <g> That's what we all do

> if we find a tool or feature or two we don't like. Use a work-around or

> another tool. It's difficult for one system to be all things to all

> people, in my view.

 

Luckily, our IT guys won't touch Vista, so search is not a problem at work.

I am penalized for trying to be on the leading edge of adopting Vista for

personal use. [i wanted to be a proponent of using Vista's search of file

tags on a special project at work -- a great solution to a particular

problem -- but there's no way I'm pushing for that pilot project using

Vista given how I've been treated by Microsoft on their failed Vista search.

Our IT manager won't let me call on behalf of the company about the search

problem because he doesn't want to talk to Microsoft AT ALL about Vista --

it's my fault I bought a personal copy, and Microsoft has treated me like

dirt as an individual on the flawed search on my Vista Ultimate.]

 

I worry about the future: I am also involved in aspects of technical

support at work and may need to search for certain kinds of files, which

means with Vista I will now need to take my own tools to every PC for

troubleshooting -- or talk users on the phone or E-mail into installing a

new tool before we can even look at certain problems. Some troubleshooting

using Vista will be a problem when files cannot be found because of Vista's

flawed search. I have explained this to Microsoft about how some scientific

files don't "obey" their rules, but Microsoft doesn't care.

 

Microsoft should have added a new feature, not removed an old reliable one.

> In any case, this topic has brought a light to bear on a high degree of

> frustration in some users. Hopefully, that will not be without effect.

 

But what good does bringing light do when Microsoft's arrogance and

condescension prevents them from caring enough to help customers get work

done? The flaws in Vista and the needless user interface changes in Office

2007 easily cost me a week of work last year (likely more). Why would

anyone want Vista/Office 2007 when Microsoft is hindering productivity and

provides NO SUPPORT when they screw things up?

 

Microsoft's attitude strongly says "we don't want customers" -- a bit like

IBM when I tried to buy OS/2 from them many years ago.

 

I have not considered Macs for a long time, but the arbitrary and

unnecessary differences Microsoft is imposing on customers with Vista and

Office 2007 make me really wonder if switching might be better. I truly

enjoy the PC Guy - Mac guy commercials, especially the recent one about PC

customers leaving and not coming back. Why should we tolerate the terrible

arrogance of Microsoft and all the wasted time they have caused with Vista?

The flawed Vista search has been the "deal breaker" for me. FRUSTRATION

levels are quite high when I cannot find old files, or even new ones, with

Vista's search, and Microsoft doesn't listen, doesn't care and doesn't fix

the problem.

[Guest Tom Ferguson]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

Well, good luck in the future.

--

 

Tom

MSMVP 1998-2007

[Guest GeraldF]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

In article <uOddjlduIHA.1504@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,

Celegans@nospam.nospam says...

> "Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:OIPkfmauIHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>

> > Any time there is a change to the behavior of a tool, users are forced to

> > experience some-to-much re-familiarization time. Hopefully, most will find

> > the newly expanded abilities worth the admitted pain. Also, one hopes that

> > usability improves as development continues.

>

> Vista search simple DOES NOT WORK when searching for strings on my Vista

> Ultimate machine. I've seen it work on another Vista machine, but search

> does not work on my machine. I have given Microsoft an example of searching

> for six identical files with six different extensions. Vista can find three

> but is blind to the other three. Even "Advanced Search" and its checkbox

> "Include non-indexed, hidden, and system files (might be slow)" cannot find

> three of these six identical files.

 

You are not alone. Even with the so called new search

engine my vista premium fails to find a single mp3 file

on my C drive, this when searching without an index for

*.mp3. The search goes on for 10 minutes and finds

nothing, absolutely nothing. Index searching finds every

file in the index, but files in certain directories, as

you know are not indexed.

 

Agentransak finds 46 files in 2 seconds. Like you I am

responsible for mutliple computers in our office (20 to

be exact). Also, since I do some programing I frequently

store files in different locations. If I need to be sure

to find every file with a *.prg extension containing the

expression "Create array", I am not sure what Vista will

return.

 

I am suspicious that what we are seeing is an indexing

system designed for a future file system which failed to

materialize with Vista.

 

I also agree, that when you give users better tools you

don't break those that worked.

[Guest Justin Martin [MSFT]]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

I'll pass the feedback along to the design team. I feel the pain as well.

 

"R. C. White" wrote:

> Hi, Justin.

>

> Welcome to the newsgroup! ;<)

>

> > The progress bar was a design decision made by the program management

> > team.

> > It does not show progress,

>

> Well, it APPEARS to show progress. Where is there any indication to the

> user that it is showing anything other than progress?

>

> > but it does reflect that we're still performing

> > work.

>

> But there is NO feedback as to whether it might be finished - or give up -

> in another 10 seconds or that it might take another 10 hours - or 10 days.

> :>(

>

> There is no clue as to whether it is now searching in Drive C: or in Drive

> X: or even somewhere on the Internet maybe?

>

> > It was tweaked significantly during the different Betas and Release

> > Candidates until people were generally ok with it.

>

> I participated in the last year or more of the Vista beta; at least a

> half-dozen builds, both 32-bit and 64-bit. I recall significant

> improvements in some parts of Search, but NOT in this "progress bar" area.

> That feeling that it would never get to the Finish Line did not go away

> during the beta - or since.

>

> The non-productive and non-informative pulsing of that green bar gets to be

> INFURIATING!!! Doesn't anybody on the Microsoft Team understand that?

>

> Thanks for the tips about how to speed up the Search. My frustration,

> though, is not that the search takes so long, but that it NEVER gives up, or

> even pauses to take a breath, give me a progress report, and ask me if I'd

> like to trim my parameters or if I want it to just "press on!"

>

> > PS - I'm going to try to do a better job of popping into the newsgroup now

> > and then to see if there is anything that needs answering.

>

> Please do, Justin. You will, of course, get flamed by some immature

> readers. But you also should hear some legitimate complaints, questions,

> requests and suggestions that you will never get from anywhere else.

>

> RC

> --

> R. C. White, CPA

> San Marcos, TX

> rc@grandecom.net

> Microsoft Windows MVP

> (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)

>

> "Justin Martin [MSFT]" <JustinMartinMSFT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in

> message news:89EA85CC-3690-49F0-A2F6-F1A56EF4266A@microsoft.com...

> > Microsoftie here :)

> >

> > The progress bar was a design decision made by the program management

> > team.

> > It does not show progress, but it does reflect that we're still performing

> > work. It was tweaked significantly during the different Betas and Release

> > Candidates until people were generally ok with it.

> >

> > Searching in indexed locations should be fast. It should be even faster

> > with Window Search 4 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940157) installed.

> > The

> > more locations on the disk you have indexed, the faster the searching of

> > these locations should be. Keep in mind that we don't index the entire

> > drive

> > on purpose, as the indexer wasn't designed to handle the load that is

> > associated with indexing directories like Windows or Program Files.

> >

> > Searching all of the Computer is a very costly operation, because a

> > majority

> > of the time is spent crawling the disk trying to find the items that

> > you're

> > looking for. The non-indexed search of Vista is slower than XP and other

> > engines by default, because we end up searching more properties. Also, we

> > perform our searches differently than most engines (word based, rather

> > than

> > character or regular expression based). This isn't an excuse, we should

> > still do a better job of being more efficient.

> >

> > Granted that it may be slower in some situations, there are things you can

> > do to improve performance of your searches.

> >

> > 1. Scope your search location. Only include the locations you think that

> > you may find the file you're looking for. This will obviously speed

> > things

> > up.

> > 2. Scope your search to only search for properties you care about. Use

> > either the Advanced Search Pane or directly use Advanced Query Syntax

> > (such

> > as name:foo, or author:bar). See

> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa965711.aspx for more details.

> > The

> > syntax isn't perfect and there is a lot of work trying to keep the

> > behavior

> > of non-indexed searches to match the behavior of indexed searches (which

> > isn't perfect), even though it is two completely distinct search

> > providers.

> > 3. Add more locations of the files you care about to the index. When

> > searching non-indexed locations like Computer, we will leverage the

> > indexer

> > to return results for indexed locations on the system.

> > 4. Keep the "Search system folders" checkbox unchecked in the Search

> > Options, unless you're sure that's where you want to look. When this

> > option

> > is set, searching from c:\ will not search within system directories like

> > c:\windows and c:\program files.

> > 5. Don't use the "Include non-indexed, hidden and system files (might be

> > slow)" checkbox in the Advanced search box unless you have to. This

> > option

> > will not use the index at all and will perform a non-indexed search of all

> > locations and also look in system folders.

> >

> > Hope this helps,

> > Justin

> >

> > PS - I'm going to try to do a better job of popping into the newsgroup now

> > and then to see if there is anything that needs answering.

>

[Guest Justin Martin [MSFT]]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

"GeraldF" wrote:

> You are not alone. Even with the so called new search

> engine my vista premium fails to find a single mp3 file

> on my C drive, this when searching without an index for

> *.mp3. The search goes on for 10 minutes and finds

> nothing, absolutely nothing. Index searching finds every

> file in the index, but files in certain directories, as

> you know are not indexed.

 

Searching C: for *.mp3 isn't finding files with the MP3 extension? Where

are the files that you're searching for? This shouldn't happen, and I've

never heard of this happening. More specifics would help narrow down the

cause.

> Agentransak finds 46 files in 2 seconds. Like you I am

> responsible for mutliple computers in our office (20 to

> be exact). Also, since I do some programing I frequently

> store files in different locations. If I need to be sure

> to find every file with a *.prg extension containing the

> expression "Create array", I am not sure what Vista will

> return.

 

We realize that reliability of the results and trusting that it is finding

everything that you're looking for is huge. Without it, we lose all

viability. The Windows Search 4 release (currently in Beta on download

center) is intended to speed up indexed queries and address indexing

reliability issues.

[Guest Justin Martin [MSFT]]

Re: Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

 

> I know there are many settings and that indexing can be useful to some,

> however the situation seems to have been made quite confusing to many users.

>

> For example, I rarely "Search" for anything, when I do it probably takes

> the form of *.dll because I want to locate some file or other to work

> with. I don't really care if it takes 5 minutes to find, but I do want

> to be sure if it is there or not. What I do care about is that I have to

> wait 5 minutes EVERY time as Vista "Indexes" things at boot. Despite

> this time during which the disk drive is grinding away when I type *.dll

> it comes back with nothing. Even if the file is in plain sight on the

> desktop Vista does not find it. W2000 and XP used to just "Find" things,

> indexed or not.

 

All files that are within an indexed location (such as the desktop or user

profile) should be returned by the indexer. All other results are returned

by the GREP search engine. If the file is not in the index, it could be

either:

 

1. a reliability issue with the indexer. We're addressing many issues with

the Windows Search 4 release that is currently in Beta on download center.

 

2. there are certain items that we won't index. Please see

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932989/en-us for more information. I realize

this is overly complicated and we're looking at simplifying the design.

> So my experience when first using Vista was with the default settings,

> and despite 5 minutes every boot and 5 minutes every search I could not

> be sure the file wasn't there, only that Vista wasn't locating it. Once

> I went to the drive properties and turned indexing off the boot process

> went back to a realistic time and Vista still couldn't find anything but

> waiting time was acceptable.

 

We're looking into issues causing slow boot/resume across the board.

> So I guess the question is why change the "Expected" behavior and force

> the user to make changes he/she is not familiar with when it seems that

> what "Windows always does" was quite acceptable. I may well have missed

> the point somewhere, I just want to know where :)

 

I firmly believe there is value-add for indexed search on the desktop. I

use it for email, files, and programs on a daily basis. I tend to use it

more as a "access my stuff quickly, regardless of where it is" rather than a

"i don't know where my files are, help me find them". That said, it is

unacceptable for us to break the latter scenario just to enable the former.

It sounds like this has happened in some cases, and if you have specific

qualms, please voice them as feedback for the design teams. Thanks!