Adam ([info]syrinis) wrote,
@ 2005-06-03 01:25:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: impressed
Current music:Crystal Method - Name of the Game

Well...
I hate to say it, especially as I am a huge fan of google and the multitude of tools they offer, but their desktop search just does not cut it. Its not that the tool isnt fast, its not that its not reasonably good - it handles complex searches easily...

But here is why I wont use it anymore. Google works by indexing the files on your machine to a cache - that way it doesnt search each file one by one, but just checks its snapshots. The problem is Google only does this once on your machine (or seemed to for me) and I cannot tell you how often searches would bring broken links. On the internet I can understand, but this is my home computer - keep track of the files as I move them.

Second problem was they would only display 10 results per page - and I dont know about you but I have thousands of files, that just will not work.

So I switched over to Copernic, a tool provided for free, that deals exclusively in desktop search technology...and DAMN its the sweetest piece of software I have installed in a long time. This one auto-indexes when your machine is idle as to not suck up all your processing power. I have had it installed for a couple of hours and my machine is fully mapped. The search time is lightening fast..it actually searches by the individual letters as you type them out, reducing the number of possibilities as your term or phrase is hacked out.

Its easy and intuitive too - there are muliple sections to search for each type of file, but it will search everything anyway and on a side bar state how many results there are in other categories. So if I search Nine Inch Nails it will not only tell me immediately how many music files I have, but how many video files as well. Pretty fucking sweet if you ask me. It also then subcategorizes all the files into their containing folder, you can shrink them or expand them as needed. It also has a handy little preview window for picture viewing. You can, of course, launch all files directly from the engine. The only feature that I dont see that would be a even more beautiful is an easy right-click rename. You have to hack around to the properties which is essentially a long route version of how windows does it. Though I cannot complain too much as they never claimed to be a file organizer, just a search tool.

The best, and most critical part however is - you move a file, it reindexes it right away. Well almost right away, I was a little nervous at first that this would be a google repeat, and then I remembered to let my system go idle, after 5 seconds it indexed the exact files I had moved, and as my seach term was still listed in the program it automatically redisplayed my results - no asking, begging or pleading.

I am serious - everyone - you need this tool. Trust me.


(Post a new comment)


[info]propheceye
2005-06-03 09:46 am UTC (link)
What's interesting is one of my CS professors predicts that in the not to distance future, storage devices will be so big that file systems will move towards searchable database instead of the simple tree structures they are today. Hopefully it will be like what your new little tool does except it will be built into the operating system and be even faster/easier to use.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]syrinis
2005-06-03 04:50 pm UTC (link)
That is interesting - and probably a smart move on the part of OS design.

I wonder how people are going to handle that much data - I am already struggling with it, having no confirmed orgizational structure, nor a conventional naming system. And its getting out of hand.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]propheceye
2005-06-03 10:26 pm UTC (link)
I think that is the idea about making everything searchable is that while you can have organizational structure, you will mostly just rely on the search feature to find your data. Google has already taken this approach with gmail, dumping all your email into a 'all mail' folder by default with gigs of other emails and letting the search do all the work.

For people like my mom who already just dump everything into the My Documents folder, this will be a live saver.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]syrinis
2005-06-03 10:42 pm UTC (link)
Yes I know, but while it is a lifesaver in search terms I still see it as being a nightmare down the line anyway. Bill Gates was recently talking about overload/lost productivity because of time trying to find or fix things.

Its one thing if you know what you are searching for, but if you dont have things organized, maybe you dont.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
filesystem as a DB
[info]akukami
2005-06-04 03:29 am UTC (link)
Rumor had it that Longhorn was going to implement the filesystem as a RDBMS. This is one of the thing's Linux was supposed to "catch up" on, but it looks like that idea didn't quite take off yet.

Oh, and depending on your FS, it can be more than just a "simple" tree :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Re: filesystem as a DB
[info]syrinis
2005-06-04 04:58 am UTC (link)
im sure - though I not that knowledgable about FS types - just that I run NTFS

(Reply to this)(Parent)

hoffman_log
2005-06-04 04:22 am UTC (link)
The guy is right. In the future, OS's will be composed out of a sort of "floating database" of files. In other words:

Kiss your C: drive good-bye. There is no order anymore. Everything is simply located on "My Computer".

A problem with that? Nope! The only way something like this will fly is if we're able to retrieve the exact file we're looking for in an instant (or at least faster than our current hierarchy structure).

But I digress. That capability will be strongly driven when 64-bit processing is the standard (as we are now eventually migrating over to it), and made further available by the development of quantum computing. Don't expect us to be able to get our hands on this too soon, though. Like UNIX, it will end up being designed as an experimental server OS at some university.

My chief complaint of the Google Desktop search engine is the lack of interactivity. For example: Suppose I want to delete all my mp3's. Well, they're scattered throughout my computer. What do I do? Let's search for them using Google and the built-in Windows search tool.

Google finds them in a heartbeat. Microsoft takes a few minutes.

Advantage? Microsoft.

Why?

I'm trying to DELETE these files. I can't do anything regarding file modification via the Google search, other than click the link to execute it. With the Microsoft tool, I simply click "Edit - Select All" and then slam the "Delete" key.

That's why it's beta (I believe). Then again, Gmail has been around for quite some time and it's still beta. Makes me wonder when, if ever, they're going to push it out of "beta" and into a final release.

_MaH

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]syrinis
2005-06-04 05:08 am UTC (link)
Beta is their way of releasing something and absolving themselves of accountability. That and they get great feedback.

Copernic allows you to delete files through their system as well - and thus far wins most points over windows. I also discovered later last night that you can add specific file types to your indexing chart.

Some more disadvantages however is thus far I dont see a way to select multiple files for deletion - except it allows you to easy open a containing folder. I recommend you give it a try if you havent already.

I dont have a problem if computers essentially become large databases as I am sure that will present a great useability improvement, but as I stated in another comment that only works if you know what you are looking for specifically. Bill Gates has recently commented about overload and loss of productivity because there is so much information to keep track of.

Obviously this is a personal decision but I will always want relational control over my files - I have huge archives of music, photographs, artwork etc, that I need to be able to categorize and modify by my terms - as long as I can still do that then Ill be fine.

I have some pretty high hopes for 64-bit processing but I dont expect a big push until microsoft gets off its ass and releases Longhorn. The processor markets seem to be stagnating at the moment, partially because of that. How many people are hardcore enough to go amd64 and compile gentoo to that specific - not enough of the masses thats for sure.

And Quantum computing will be great, but it looks like its a long way off still.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…