Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

[Guest Justin Martin [MSFT]]

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

 

> > 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.

 

Give me an example and I'll take a look. It is probably due to Vista's

query parsing being word based rather than character based. There is

probably syntax to do what you're trying to do, but we should do our best to

make sure the defaults do what you need.

> 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?

 

It should be, and if it isn't then we've done something wrong. Reindexing

won't solve your problem unless the item failed to index in the first case.

You can generally tell if it failed to index if it isn't returned in a *

search in the location containing the file. Take a look at

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932989/en-us for more information.

> 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?

 

I'm not sure what you're referencing about the Win2k search functionality or

XP registry hack. What specifically are you looking for that we don't offer

in Win2k? Naturally, we change the behavior in an effort to improve the

overall experience for a majority of users. While this will step on some

toes for people that are used to doing things in a specific way or rely on

some specific functionality, it should be intuitive enough to users to use

the system in the new way. We're not out to make people angry or upset with

the new functionality.

> 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?

 

As I stated in another post, the functionality for search is not

differentiated in the version of Windows you buy. As stated before, if you

give me an example of what isn't working, I will investigate why it isn't

finding those files.

> 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.

 

Neither of those two work at Microsoft anymore, hence the bounceback. It

isn't that someone is ignoring you.

[Guest Charlie Tame]

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

 

Justin Martin [MSFT] wrote:

>> 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.

> 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:

 

<Snipped for brevity>

 

Thank you Justin. I am pleased that the situation is getting attention

because when people get replies in these groups that effectively say "It

is because you are stupid" the frustration reflects back on Microsoft,

never mind that the accusation did not come from Microsoft or anybody

working there.

[Guest R. C. White]

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

 

Hi, Justin.

 

Thanks!

 

And a new/old item that might belong in a new thread, but since I have your

attention here...

 

Why doesn't Search index .pub files? After a lot of griping and complaining

(and searching), I finally got it fixed so that I could find names in files

of the weekly Rotary newsletter that I "Published" for 3 years. Then, last

week, some unrelated computer glitch that I still don't understand caused

Chkdsk to wipe out the dedicated partition where I kept my Index. Indexing

Options has now rebuilt my Index, but it is much smaller; apparently I

haven't yet included nearly as many locations as I did a year ago. But I DO

again include the folder with all those .pub files, and I've set Search for

the .pub extension to search by both title and content.

 

But I've forgotten where I got that .pub fix and haven't had time to Search

for it yet. So I have two questions for your Team:

1. Do you have a guess as to which fix I might have used before to

search inside .pub files?

2. Will Search 4 handle .pub files without a fix?

 

Thanks again, Justin. It helps A LOT to know that someone on the Team is

reading and (at least sometimes) responding to messages here. ;<)

 

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:1A279453-127A-4508-80A2-3042B2748C1F@microsoft.com...

> 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,

>>

<SNIP>

>> >

>> > 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 Pesistent]

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

 

On May 13, 3:49 am, "Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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" <k...@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" <r...@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

> >> r...@grandecom.net

> >> Microsoft Windows MVP

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

>

> >> "Dima" <k...@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

 

You have got to be kidding

"Possibly, the search algorithms are

performing exactly as designed."

This makes it OK?

You can call what you want but all it is, is a defective product that

does not do the intended job.

[Guest Justin Martin [MSFT]]

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

 

I've sent your questions to the team. You'd need to register an IFilter

(PersistentHandler) for the .pub entry under HKCR. Look at

HKCR\.doc\PersistentHandler for an example. I'm not sure if there is an

IFilter for this file format in the wild somewhere or if the one we use

in-box for doc files would work. You can mess around with it to see if you

can get it to work yourself, or hopefully someone from the Office IFilter

team will respond shortly.

 

"R. C. White" wrote:

> Hi, Justin.

>

> Thanks!

>

> And a new/old item that might belong in a new thread, but since I have your

> attention here...

>

> Why doesn't Search index .pub files? After a lot of griping and complaining

> (and searching), I finally got it fixed so that I could find names in files

> of the weekly Rotary newsletter that I "Published" for 3 years. Then, last

> week, some unrelated computer glitch that I still don't understand caused

> Chkdsk to wipe out the dedicated partition where I kept my Index. Indexing

> Options has now rebuilt my Index, but it is much smaller; apparently I

> haven't yet included nearly as many locations as I did a year ago. But I DO

> again include the folder with all those .pub files, and I've set Search for

> the .pub extension to search by both title and content.

>

> But I've forgotten where I got that .pub fix and haven't had time to Search

> for it yet. So I have two questions for your Team:

> 1. Do you have a guess as to which fix I might have used before to

> search inside .pub files?

> 2. Will Search 4 handle .pub files without a fix?

>

> Thanks again, Justin. It helps A LOT to know that someone on the Team is

> reading and (at least sometimes) responding to messages here. ;<)

>

> 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:1A279453-127A-4508-80A2-3042B2748C1F@microsoft.com...

> > 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,

> >>

> <SNIP>

> >> >

> >> > 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 R. C. White]

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

 

Hi, Justin.

 

Thanks.

 

I'm an accountant, not a programmer, and long-retired at that. I'm no

stranger to the Registry, but I would be much more comfy if Microsoft's

programmers could handle this IFilter (or whatever is needed). This should

be an in-house job, it seems to me, because a Microsoft Search program

should certainly be able to find information in a file created by a

Microsoft application (Publisher) and stored in a Microsoft-created format

..pub file. Especially since the Search ability is so highly touted as one

of the major reasons to use Vista. Search should certainly be able to find

data in all of Microsoft's own data file formats. Shouldn't it?

 

Please let us all know what you learn when you get answers back from the

team.

 

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:0D18957A-91CA-412E-B91C-510F9089756F@microsoft.com...

> I've sent your questions to the team. You'd need to register an IFilter

> (PersistentHandler) for the .pub entry under HKCR. Look at

> HKCR\.doc\PersistentHandler for an example. I'm not sure if there is an

> IFilter for this file format in the wild somewhere or if the one we use

> in-box for doc files would work. You can mess around with it to see if

> you

> can get it to work yourself, or hopefully someone from the Office IFilter

> team will respond shortly.

>

> "R. C. White" wrote:

>

>> Hi, Justin.

>>

>> Thanks!

>>

>> And a new/old item that might belong in a new thread, but since I have

>> your

>> attention here...

>>

>> Why doesn't Search index .pub files? After a lot of griping and

>> complaining

>> (and searching), I finally got it fixed so that I could find names in

>> files

>> of the weekly Rotary newsletter that I "Published" for 3 years. Then,

>> last

>> week, some unrelated computer glitch that I still don't understand caused

>> Chkdsk to wipe out the dedicated partition where I kept my Index.

>> Indexing

>> Options has now rebuilt my Index, but it is much smaller; apparently I

>> haven't yet included nearly as many locations as I did a year ago. But I

>> DO

>> again include the folder with all those .pub files, and I've set Search

>> for

>> the .pub extension to search by both title and content.

>>

>> But I've forgotten where I got that .pub fix and haven't had time to

>> Search

>> for it yet. So I have two questions for your Team:

>> 1. Do you have a guess as to which fix I might have used before to

>> search inside .pub files?

>> 2. Will Search 4 handle .pub files without a fix?

>>

>> Thanks again, Justin. It helps A LOT to know that someone on the Team is

>> reading and (at least sometimes) responding to messages here. ;<)

>>

>> RC

>>

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

>> in

>> message news:1A279453-127A-4508-80A2-3042B2748C1F@microsoft.com...

>> > 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,

>> >>

>> <SNIP>

>> >> >

>> >> > 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.