Download Squad

One nice thing about WDS is that in a corporate environment, you can control it with Group Policy. Many other products don't allow that. It also "sandboxes" attachments for some additional security.

Reply

This is great. I have been waiting for the GUI to get here. I keep seeing the screenshot of it in the WDS installer dialog, but neever anything after that. It looks like WDS may pose some sort of threat to Google Desktop Search.

Reply

I have not tried WDS, I regularly use Copernic Desktop Search which is great, and in my opinion is more refined than Google or Yahoo Desktop Search (although YDS previews are unmatched). What I would like was o see Copernic more profusely integrated into other applications like it happens with Spotlight in Mac OSX, where you can search inside an open program for particular documents. That's starting to happen with Google Desktop Search and should also be expected for Windows Desktop Search (at least in Microsoft program) but as I would realy like to see it happen with Copernic.

If any of member of Copernic's development team is reading this, you think about releasing some sort of API or framework to allow integration of CDS in other apps.

Reply

I would be happy to use any of the above mentioned search tools if they supported searching for file names. When I last checked, none of them do this. You know what I am looking for, I downloaded a file, called greatpic*.jpg. I can't remember the full name, but I know it starts with "greatpic" and it's a JPG file.

When I do a search for "greatpic" or "greatpic*.jpg", all I get are files with that text in the file, not file names.

Sure, looking for text in files is fantastic, but there are times when I know the name of the file just now where it is located.

If the search system is going to be indexing all my files anyway, why not create an index of file names.

Am I missing something here? Do one of them actually do this and I just don't know how to do it?

Reply

Neither Copernic, Google Desktop, or YDS are better than Windows Desktop Search. At the very least, WDS has the benefit of being made by the same vendor as the OS, making things possible that Google and others can't. The Start Menu Search in Vista doesn't feel new to me, and I think WDS might even be better at this point. I can even launch programs from the DeskBar, just like the Vista Start Menu!

To Dave M., I don't know what u may be doing wrong, but all files are easily found by file name.

Reply

To Dave M. : I'm sorry but you're mistaken. All of the mentioned desktop search engines can easily search files by their names, at least for the indexed file types.

To Craig S. : I'm sorry but I think that your reasoning is flawed. Being the developer of the OS "should" give Microsoft an edge over the other companies, especially considering its policy of withholding information about the innerworkings of Windows. However, just look at Internet Explorer, with all its flaws and vulnerabilities and its lack of support for web standards. Think about the resource hog that is Windows Media Player, the crippled Outlook Express or all the other mediocre applications bundled with Windows. That's the reason why third-party and open source software is flourishing.

As for Windows Desktop Search, I installed Beta 2 of version 3.0 today and have been using it for a few hours, and I must say that it actually doesn't look too bad. It runs smoothly, indexing doesn't seem to take too many resources and eficiently searches my HD.
However I still find Copernic Desktop Search (I'm using the pre-release of version 2.0, see http://www.copernic.com/en/products/desktop-search/prerelease/download.html) the better program. I find Copernic's interface more intuitive and at the same time adding more functionality. Copernic also allows for greater flexiblity in the options available for indexing and displaying the results. The file preview is also vastly superior to WDS, even highlighting the search terms in the preview pane. In version 2.0 of CDS you can get the search results right on the deskbar (like WDS) and also save your searches for later reuse. More, CDS 2.0 can suggest alternatives to misspelled words and even suggest words based on the search history.
Both programs allow the use of operators (boolean, author, date, etc) to refine the search but again I find Copernic's way of doing it more intuitive. Performance-wise, both programs are comparable in terms of indexing and search speed (both fast) although Copernic takes up more memory (no doubt related to the enhanced previewing of files as you can recover some of the memory if this functionality is disabled).
The only advantage that I can find in Windows Desktop Search is the ability to launch program from the deskbar (which is sorely missing from CDS, and could be a deal breaker for some people). On the other hand you can run Copernic even in Windows 98.
All in all I think that Copernic is the superior product and deserves the crown of Best Desktop Search Engine. Now I hope that with version 2.0 CDS will see a more widespread acceptance and be more integrated with other applications (although Vista will probably a big obstacle to that). And the ability to launch applications would also be welcomed.

Reply

"To Dave M. : I'm sorry but you're mistaken. All of the mentioned desktop search engines can easily search files by their names, at least for the indexed file types."

You said it right in your statement to me: "at least for the indexed file types." I usually have about 1.5 to 2 million files on my Windows boxes. As a developer, I have thousands of source files and even more support files to build them into programs. How am I supposed to find a file in that stack of files when they are not indexed because they are not an indexed file type?

I don't have this problem with my Mac, I type the name of the file I am looking for or even part of the name and get a list of files within seconds.

What I do to solve this problem is to take a directory listing of all the hard drives on my computers, and send the output to a text file. I then search the text file for the files using grep. I do the directory overnight so that it doesn't slow down the system during the day (another huge complaint I have with the desktop search systems I have tried, which were Google's, Microsoft's, and Copernic's.

Reply

Dave,
Actually you can go to the advanced settings of eiher Copernic or Windows Desktop Search (and I believe any of the other tools) and define aditional filetypes to be indexed by file name and, if possible, also by content. This should allow you to search not only for but also inside your source files.
There's another utility that I have heard of, but not yet tried, that employs a method similar to the one you described to search for files. According to is description, Locate 3.0 saves the names of all files in the harddisks to a file database, which can then searches. This program works like updatedb and locate in Unix systems. As I primarily search for the contents of pdf and doc files, Desktop Search apps seem more useful to me, but you might find that Locate will fit your needs. Check it out at http://locate32.webhop.org/ .
Anyway, I still think that, if you tweak the settings of CDS (or WDS) to index your file types, this apps should also work for you.
I hope you find these suggestions useful.

Reply

Thanks for the Locate32 tip. I have not heard of that program before and it looks like it will be perfect for my needs. Now that I have switched to Mac and OS X, my needs for a program like this are limited to my work PC. However, that is where I really need a program like this.

Thanks for the tip!

Reply