Ok this is the WORST CRAP yet from Microsoft! The search finds NOTHING if you don't index! Crap! At least with the old search you don't have to index your entire d*(@ computer just to do a search!

hey...

Try hitting the "advanced search" link right under the "lack" of search results.

Right back to the windows 2000 search tool.

Cool, huh?

Trying getting a clue before posting next time.

Thanks!

The MAZZTer

Upgrade your version of Vista to SP1 and you will notice the search feature is no longer in the start-menu. This is because some idiots thought it was a great idea to pretend that Microsoft had this magical unfair advantage of indexing your files. I mean you got to be freaking kidding me....If a user wanted to use a more advanced search program THEY WOULD USE IT.

So now I just have a folder to launch the search program. Guess what I still use the default program because I don't want yet another program to be launched.

On a side note I am very happy with Vista, I get better performance out of Vista then I did when I was on XP on this machine.

I also have a decent computer, so that might make a difference, and NOTHING anyone says will change that fact.

I also received this copy for free, so my feelings towards Vista are not based on anything but my desire to use Vista.

Its a legal copy provided by my IEEE membership, so go suck an egg to all you anti-Vista drones.

Another one to add to the "don't install list" at windows updates!

The last time they tried this it took hours to index my computer, or whatever it is that this thing does. I have no use for it! I search for a file on my computer once a year maybe, and it works fine as it is. WTF is it with Microsoft and indexing anyway?

OH, and I can find the search program on my own, I don't need it in my face all the time.

done ;-)

You can disable the indexer service...nobody is forcing you to use it. I have a 400Gb HD, without my files being indexed it would take forever for me to find anything....so thank god for file indexing...

We have no interest to be violated. Microsoft should finally understand this.

Best regards
Gerhard Fritz

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

"Plans to"...? It arrived via WU today!

By Nate Mook, BetaNews
July 21, 2008, 8:22 PM

Did they release it before 8:22 last night?

No?

All righty, then!

Another reason to avoid Vista...

Quite the contrary; another reason to have Vista

smoke more crack you tom'tard

all those idiots not using vista ONLY doesnt do it because they are stupid and afraid to try something new. "OOOOHHH NOOOO, I HAVE TO GET USED TO SOMETHING NEW, MY TINY PEABRAIN CANT COMPREHEND SOMETHING NEW"

it was ALL the same when XP came out, all the same idiots whining that they wanted to stay with win98/2000 etc. And they ended up using XP anyway.

The same old story over again. People really are stubborn morons

Finally a better way to search my files -downloads- thanks for the heads up betanews/ Nate Mook!

Well, on XP that is. Vista already has had this from the start, version 3 to be exact. This is simply a newer version of the same technology/app.

Would have been nice if they finally integrated it with VMC. VMC has been needing a decent file search/browser forever now.

Thanks God it's only for Vista. Just another thing to slow down Vista. Thanks but no thanks. I'm sticking to XP.

Version 3 is already within Vista, actually. This is a better-performing later version. There is also an XP version, which can be downloaded seperately.

Why ? I know where my stuff is.

Then I guess you don't need it?

You're not for a moment suggesting they shouldn't update software like this just because *you* don't use it, are you?

Nope. I'm just answering Testman who is suggesting that I install it in my XP and slow it down.

quote: Captain555
Thanks God it's only for Vista.

quote: testman
There is also an XP version, which can be downloaded seperately.

There was no suggestion there, merely a response to your claim that it was "Vista Only".

The article says: "Microsoft plans to automatically deliver version 4.0 of the software, formerly Windows Desktop Search, to Vista users."

So I'm thanking God that I'm not going to get it. I was referring to the automatic delivery.

Got it. My apologies.

You're one of the few sticking with XP, I thought it would be a few years until i switched, I now find Vista great

No apologies needed. We're having a discussion.

Good for you. I'm all for people choosing what they want.

Stop riding the "Oh I hate Vista...'ll never upgrade" bandwagon....it's pathetic.

In 2 years I guarantee you will be using vista if you continue to work with MS operating systems.

Hell, Why? Win7 will be near completion by then.

But...

...I came here looking for an argument!

//Monty Python reference.
///Sorry. ;)

Doubt it. If people who hate Vista follow the same pattern (as they did when XP came out), then they'll be using and praising Vista when "7" comes out.

In other words, the same rubbish that's banded about with Vista is the same rubbish that was banded about with XP and it'll continue with "7".

Actually it's for XP as well, which you would know if you did your research. Vista already has it from the beginning, the version 3 application.

I never said I hated Vista ...

Right now, XP is doing everything I need him to do. Why should I spend my hard earn money on an upgrade to Vista ?

And I would slow down my PC. Why would I want to do that ?

I sware to you that was one of my favorite Monty Python skit.

LOL

I disagree with that. The level of insactisfaction is much higher with Vista than it ever was with XP.

When XP came out, some people might have complain, but nobody was going back to Win 98, especially if they had to pay for it. Some company might have stick to Win 2000 for a bit but they all came around by the time SP2 came out.

With Vista, you have actually people buying an XP license to upgrade their brand spanking new PC back to XP. And you have company who will never go to Vista at all.

I do 10 to 12 of these every months (Upgrade back to XP).

You'll never, ever, do a (Downgrade to XP) for me.

People had 6 years to get used to XP. Most of the resentment comes from being "forced" out of their comfort zones.

With MSFT back on track for a release every 3 years, they won't have time to build up that *great* of a comfort level and the upgrades should come easier.

It's all social engineering.

When XP came out, some people might have complain, but nobody was going back to Win 98, especially if they had to pay for it.

Because both the industry and the users had not had 6 years to get comfy with it. ;)

That changed with Vista, as they were all incredibly comfortable with XP. It will change again now that MSFT is aiming to go back the the 3 yr release schedule.

If Vista SP2 will mirror the focus that Snow Leopard has, I'm sure a lot of us will switch back to Vista. Even on my fast computer, there's still a speed difference between XP and Vista and the only real difference to me in my day to day life between the two right now is UI Refresh... I miss Vista, myself, and am savvy enough for any 'problem' to be a short delay that gets fixed... but if you are going to guarantee that everyone will migrate, will you also guarantee that SP2 will mitigate this?

I agree with this, however, there's a factor that I think you're ignoring -- user apathy. Windows XP offered a completely different, more stable platform that 98. Vista doesn't offer a whole lot more for most users.

It's thankfully optional on WU for XP64. I reinstalled today (lovely new Asus Xonar DX - primo audio) and there it was. I looked at the details and when I read "indexes your drive" I immediately consigned it to the Left Hand Of The Damned in the sub-basement level of the bit of Hell.

Where it belongs, right alongside that bloated, miserably interfaced, entertainment industry ass-kissing ("why doesn't holding the s*** key down when I load a CD work any more? Because autoplay has been redesigned to intentionally screw you") Pig-In-A-Wig known as vista.

Sorry, but video performance stinks as does memory consumption. I run Vista Enterprise 64 at the office. I run XP64 on almost identical hardware at home. Both boxes have their respective silly eye candy (animations, fades and the other rot) turned off. No contest. That InDirectX rendering engine is a pile of junk. Similarly, my XP64 box uses approx. 450Mb to say "hi" - as opposed to Vista's 1Gb or so.

Again no contest.

All I get for that waste of resources is a psuedo-pretty face. We won't even get into how sub-moronic half-witted the UI is and how functionality has been removed from it compared to its predecessor (three separate disconnected areas to have to go into to change what was all on one panel before by right clicking on the Desktop? What mental midget designed this catastrophe?).

Thanks, but stupidity is not in my makeup - I'll stay with XP64.

I hear ya there. I "love" how the links in the new display properties page in Vista each take you to a dumbed-down version of the same ol' display properties page of XP... only with a single tab at the top of the familiar window. It makes no sense. If the most of the links are going to simply redirect to that window anyway, put the rest of the frakking tabs at the top to eliminate all the hopping around to change settings!

"I came here looking for an argument!"

No you didn't!

I most certainly did!

Actually, apathy is pretty much *exactly* what I described.

They are too comfortable and dug in to Windows XP. They have no interest or motivation to switch.

After 6 years, MSFT failed to give them a good enough reason to switch.

video performance stinks

A properly configured Vista SP1 now scores higher than vanilla XPSP3 in 3Dmark. (retestrak.nl)

as does memory consumption.

...and you're yet another one who'd rather let his RAM sit wasted instead of actually being *used* by the system.

And one of my old favorites makes a grand return:

(three separate disconnected areas to have to go into to change what was all on one panel before by right clicking on the Desktop?

Windows XP:
Click 1: right click on the desktop
Click 2: Click "properties".
Click 3: Click the Desktop Tab.

Windows Vista:
Click 1: Right click on the desktop.
Click 2: Click "Personalization".
Click 3: Click desktop.

Huh....

What mental midget thinks this has changed in the slightest?

Try actually using the OS for more than a day or two if you're going to comment on it (unless you enjoy looking like you haven't a clue).

Thanks.

The last I read Intel was still running XP on their systems. Perhaps you should tell them they don't have your permission.

When did you become dictator? Where is it posted?

I'm using it now at the office.

It's a daily reminder not to repeat the folly at home.

Your Lemmings May Vary.

Um, Running XP64. RAM totally used by system.

In no way shape or form does a "properly configured" or in any way configured Vista64 match a XP64 system for video speed.

Sooo, my misguided-spout-the-party-line friend, what happens when I want to go and change the various attributes and fonts for my desktop manually. Your wunnerful right cllck don't work worth a damn. it's hidden elsewhere. You can get to it via Ease Of Use but that's ridiculous. And that's only one example. vista is very task oriented - that's its Mac-wannabe lineage. versatility is gone.

Been using the OS for a couple of months now and if you're a plain, ordinary barely computer literate user who is dazzled by nice graphics (even though their noticeably slower, despite your totally erroneous rubbish statement that they're on par) then you'll perhaps fall for this. if you're used to speed, versatility and the ability to configure, it's trying at best and a retroactive abortion at worst. Explorer is a disaster and no longer configurable. the swooby 'let me move the tree in and out for you to improve visibility" is chintzy and useless. Things like removing "s*** key kills autoplay" are a blatant suck job to the entertainment companies.So is providing an editor to manage your autoplay handlers - except there's no ability to add your own for programs like media Player Classic 9"we want you to go and BUY programs to use"). My son is currently writing a utility to get around that and provide the functionality (it won't be in that bug-ridden fodder known as .NET wither - that crap is a good idea executed in typically - of late - poor Microsoft fashion).

I'm sorry but your credibility in this department is low. I've been in the tech biz for 20 years and there's absolutely no way I'd recommend this mess to anyone as an "upgrade" - it's a downgrade in most ways. Some of the tech in it is indeed useful but it's buried by the plethora of minuses. In fact, I'm doing a very comfortable sideline of converting laptops back to variants of XP - four since the beginning of the moths.

Seems I'm not the only one who isn't wearing Rose Colored Blinders (not glasses).

People were supposed to get used to Windows MiniMe too.

They didn't.

Next...

*yawn*

Keep missing the point, you're good at it.

Sooo, my misguided-spout-the-party-line friend, what happens when I want to go and change the various attributes and fonts for my desktop manually. Your wunnerful right cllck don't work worth a damn. it's hidden elsewhere.

Are you braindead?

Right-click, personalization, appearance, advanced. Damn near the same exact way you do it in XP, just new looks. Clueless much?

Explorer is a disaster and no longer configurable.

For what? It's a file browser, ffs.

the swooby 'let me move the tree in and out for you to improve visibility" is chintzy and useless.

*laughs* to you.

Things like removing "s*** key kills autoplay" are a blatant suck job to the entertainment companies. A feature used by 10s. I agree with you on this for the most part though.

So is providing an editor to manage your autoplay handlers - except there's no ability to add your own for programs like media Player Classic 9

Funny... I can add programs to it to my heart's desire. Foobar plays all of my music files by default, even without going into the foobar preferences to set them as such.

I'm sorry but your credibility in this department isn't shot to hell - it's non-existant.

Because I defend Vista. Cute. Whereas your credibility is apparently golden because you can't reconcile changing a tab to a link.

I've been in the tech boz for 20 years

*laughs*

You being in the tech "boz" is meaningless. Most of us here are.

Yeah, many Are in the biz...

...but few actually have the acumen. ;)

Unless, you're blind or losing it, you'll remember that in XP:

Fonts and sizes of each item in the interface
large font sizes (120 dpi)
themes
wallpaper
cleartype
screen resolution
screensaver

...were all available in one place by right clicking on the desktop

at least some of those elements (notably the contents of the "appearance" tab) are not in the same place in vista. in fact they aren't even in a place that's logical for them to be in, considering their nature. they have been relocated to "ease of access".

now that i've connected the dots for you in a way that you can't miss...

explorer was a configurable tool that allowed customization of the toolbar and wasn't slowed by lovely flowing but cheap graphics. it also had several command line switches that allowed even more customization of where it started and how it started.

alllll gggooonnnneeee...

try adding a new handler to play dvds tot he os. you know, something in the list that pops up when you throw a dvd in your drive.

yeahhhh...

about thattt....

not happening.

and yes, because you dfend vista. one of the things i'm known for in my career is not defending the indefensible, especially when it's crap.

i take the side of the users / consumers first.

M$ didn't and hasn't for a while now.

i've built a nice lucrative rep on that.

If you get remotely near a point, make it.

One of the few? Four laptops upgraded back to XP this moths and there's still a week to go. Lost track of the number of friends (all techs) who tried camels and switched back to women, er, tried Vista and went back to XP.

One guy's wife berated him with "what's this s**t you've installed on my machine? get it the **** off!". No push-ups for him for a while...

Vista sales aren't sales. They're people who bought a new box and got it with it. I do know people who stayed with it. one rationalized it with the statement "it's a change". No one I know has actually found any benedits to their experience over what they had before. most cite slowness and lack of configurability as their main problems with it.

The PR cmapaign to convince people that the vista experience is superior is, IME (In My experience) a lot of hype. There are good thihgs aobut the OS but they come at too high a price, obviously in resources but more importantly in limiting the options of users in how they can use their desktop, a complaint I hear with monotonous regularity.

Nothing the so-called Vista champions (more than a few of whom fall into the "misery loves company" category) can change that and that's why XP continues to be desired and sold.

There is no real reason to switch.

onts and sizes of each item in the interface
large font sizes (120 dpi)
themes
wallpaper
cleartype
screen resolution
screensaver

Every single one of these is the same number of click in XP/Vista.

Get a clue before posting absolute BS. It's a friggin difference of links instead of tabs.

The rest is also BS.

Explorer? Download and use many of the free alternatives. It's a file browser.

DVD Autoplay? Try disabling autoplay or going to autoplay options in the control panel and setting it to "ask". You can then, quite easily, define a new handler.

Proof you still doesn't have a clue what you're talking about....

Oh! Zinger!

That was a good one!

/sarcasm

The last I read Intel was still running XP on their systems

Now deploying vista.

" although it involves creating a batch script that inserts a key into the registry -- not a simple process. "

Why is that not simple?

It's a whole 4/5 short lines of code (that's including the heading and necessary white space).

The major of Windows users are not able to write 5 lines of code :) And messing with the Registry is always dangerous for non-experts.

And apparently Betanews editors are not able to add the last 3 letters to majority....:)

This is only true for XP
Under Vista WS4 looks exactly the same, don't worry.

No "Deskbar", no dog, no different UI for the search box. The only change is that you can index your network, and other "under the hood" changes.

I installed that update when it came out, no problems at all. The only thing that I didn't like is that it changed the "Search Files" properties on the start menu from "Search entire Index" back to the default "Search this user's files" after installing it.

How about a screenshot running under Vista? I have to say I am perfectly happy with the current search in Vista and indexing is fast. When you spend a little time indexing only folders that are relavent, indexing and searching are lightning quick. Right click your drive, properties, uncheck the indexing option and apply to all subfolders. Then enable indexing on the folders you actually use. No sense in indexing program files and system32 folders etc. There are other methods, but you get the idea.

Search 4.0 fixed my Vista search (wasn't working at all beforehand) - so it has the thumbs up from me. I hate so many things about Vista, but the 'Start, Search' function is pretty awesome, IMO. My start-menu always has too many programs to navigate quickly - so being able to launch programs without using the mouse quickly and easily is FTW in my book.

Now they just need to rename notepad.exe to npd.exe and we're good to go. ;)

LOL

It's funny that you mention that...

http://allintech.info/?p=27

Ah!

You rock.

Two things. They kept that dog for Vista??? The one you can see at the bottom of the window, not the app itself. :P

Is there a way to get rid of the "deskbar" that some moron though I would want to have? By the way, isn't the search option already accessible from most windows you open on your desktop?

You're talking about the Search dog? Thankfully, it's never been in Vista. Those screenshots above are for the XP version.

"Deskbar"? Do you mean the Windows Sidebar? Yeah, just close it using the X. It should ask you whether you want it to autostart. Failing that, you can go into the options and turn off the option there.

About 95% of the world would be more excited if an updated version of Solitaire automatically landed on their desktop.

Windows Search caters to people looking for things on their computers... right? Why do people lose things on their computers with Windows? Let me guess ... confusing file system structure ... applications that feel that a logical place to download or save files would be C:\PROGRAM FILES\APPNAME\ ?

Stupid... absolutely stupid... and I appreciate the sarcasm in this article. =)

It's not a matter of losing - I know where everything is. It's just faster to find it with the keyboard and Search than it is to actually hunt through the Start-menu or Explorer.

About 95% of the world would be more excited if an updated version of Solitaire automatically landed on their desktop.

Hmmm...can't argue with that. Of course the other 5% would complain the loudest that they liked their old solitaire better :)

applications that feel that a logical place to download or save files would be C:\PROGRAM FILES\APPNAME\ ?

*laughing*

Amazing how you can blame windows for something that has absolutely *nothing* to do with the OS.

Let me guess..Google Desktop does this, too.

Yep, that's a similar app. In fact, Google complained about version 3 in Vista so SP1 provided APIs to let other vendors replace the search boxes with their own versions, as well as remove the Search item in the Start menu.

Because no one downloads it willingly.

I had turned that bloat off right away.

Why? Probably one of Vista's best features. And it's sorely lacking in good reasons to use it... :p

lmao...

You...use Vista.

Funny stuff. Aren't you the one always singing the praises of Ubuntu and decrying the "ME.2" you think Vista is?

What's most amusing is that, had you actually used the OS for a decent amount of time, most of your b****ing would have subsided by now.

Vista SP1 now scores higher, when properly configured (this does not mean disabling the cache...or even WDS) than a vanilla installation of XP in 3Dmark.

There's a thread on retestrak.nl (the forum where eXperience releases his "TinyXP/TinyVista" tweaks) where he discusses this if you are interested (riiiiight).

I don't want this s***, Windows is allready spying is in 78559 different ways, I cannot take anymore !

Vista already has WDS 3.0 preinstalled and running, or some slimmed down version of it, at least. All this will do is update already-installed and running software on Vista.

The taskbar thing is a dumb idea, especially since you can now search right from the Start menu, and it's easier to access than a toolbar (just press Win and start typing to search!). However since 4.0 is also for XP it makes more sense there, but I wouldn't bill it as a awesome feature for Vista if I was them.

Whats odd is that even thou I just installed it, I cant find the taskbar entry anyways. It wasnt installed by default on vista ultimate sp1. I think betanews is mistaken

It doesn't add the taskbar on Vista, because the previous-version-3-which-is-already-on-the-installation-of-Vista puts the search box on the Start menu, as well as having a different Search interface. This is the latest version of the already-in-Vista application.

Read the text properly, Betanews is correct.