Windows Vista x64 searches 5 times longer than Windows XP!

05-21-2008

In article <uOddjlduIHA.1504@xxxxxx>,
Celegans@xxxxxxam says...

Quote:

> "Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:OIPkfmauIHA.1220@xxxxxx
>

	Quote:
	> > 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.

05-26-2008

I'll pass the feedback along to the design team. I feel the pain as well.

"R. C. White" wrote:

Quote:

> Hi, Justin.
>
> Welcome to the newsgroup! ;<)
>

	Quote:
	> > 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?
>

	Quote:
	> > 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?
>

	Quote:
	> > 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!"
>

	Quote:
	> > 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@xxxxxx
> Microsoft Windows MVP
> (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)
>
> "Justin Martin [MSFT]" <JustinMartinMSFT@xxxxxx> wrote in
> message news:89EA85CC-3690-49F0-A2F6-F1A56EF4266A@xxxxxx

	Quote:
	> > 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.

>

05-26-2008

"GeraldF" wrote:

	Quote:
	> 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.

	Quote:
	> 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.

05-27-2008

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

	Quote:
	> 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.

	Quote:
	> 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.

	Quote:
	> 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!

05-27-2008

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

Quote:

	Quote:
	> > 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.

	Quote:
	> 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.

	Quote:
	> 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.

	Quote:
	> 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.

	Quote:
	> 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@xxxxxx > 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@xxxxxx > 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.

05-27-2008

Justin Martin [MSFT] wrote:

Quote:

	Quote:
	>> 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.

	Quote:
	> 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.

05-27-2008

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@xxxxxx
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)

"Justin Martin [MSFT]" <JustinMartinMSFT@xxxxxx> wrote in
message news:1A279453-127A-4508-80A2-3042B2748C1F@xxxxxx

Quote:

> I'll pass the feedback along to the design team. I feel the pain as well.
>
> "R. C. White" wrote:
>

Quote:

>> Hi, Justin.
>>
>> Welcome to the newsgroup! ;<)
>>

	Quote:
	>> > The progress bar was a design decision made by the program management >> > team. >> > It does not show progress,

>>

<SNIP>

Quote:

	Quote:
	>> > >> > 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.