WOOOHOOO! SP1 is smokin fast!!

Hey guys,
I installed SP1 this morning and all went smooth with Carey Frisch's help and the suggestions on
some compatibility issues worked perfect... and I even got some extra toys/features from doing the
individual updates through Device Manager... thanks Carey big-time!! beers are on me

So why am I so excited?!
well, a couple months back, desperate for some speed improvements, I downloaded SP1 RC that was
floating around. That was a big no no, vista was reinstalled after that.

With this release...

Vista is so fast now, it reminds me of my XP and trust me that was fast!
The update went well, took about 1 1/2 hrs. I then started checking that everything worked... games,
software, my BT phone and PDA still sync... sweet, it does and much, much faster than before. Also
many other issues have been solved.

Damn I'm finally happy with my newer laptop and getting finally what I expected when I bought it
mid-last summer.

Thanks again guys
Paul

--
HP Pavilion DV9417ca Entertainment Laptop
AMD Turion 64 x 2 core 1.GHz
160GB/2GB/NVIDIA GeForce Go 6150
17"Wscreen/Wifi/BT/Built-in cam/RC
Vista Premium x32-bit

iPAQ 2490 WM5

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:17:58 -0400, Paul-JC wrote:

> Hey guys,
> I installed SP1 this morning and all went smooth with Carey Frisch's help and the suggestions on
> some compatibility issues worked perfect... and I even got some extra toys/features from doing the
> individual updates through Device Manager... thanks Carey big-time!! beers are on me
>
> So why am I so excited?!
> well, a couple months back, desperate for some speed improvements, I downloaded SP1 RC that was
> floating around. That was a big no no, vista was reinstalled after that.
>
> With this release...
>
> Vista is so fast now, it reminds me of my XP and trust me that was fast!
> The update went well, took about 1 1/2 hrs. I then started checking that everything worked... games,
> software, my BT phone and PDA still sync... sweet, it does and much, much faster than before. Also
> many other issues have been solved.
>
> Damn I'm finally happy with my newer laptop and getting finally what I expected when I bought it
> mid-last summer.
>
> Thanks again guys
> Paul

agreed! Damn thing works!!!!! )
--
Kris
------------
DFI Infinity Blood-Iron P35-T2RL | E2200Alen 2.2@2.86 TtP0310 |
| 2x1gb Mushkin HP 800@1040 | MSI NX8600GTS-OC 256mb |
| Raidmax RX530-SS psu | Vista Ult 32 SP1

Paul-JC" <> wrote in message
news:<428C7ECC-5C5E-4CF0-8E05->...

> The update went well, took about 1 1/2 hrs. I then started checking that
> everything worked...

I loved waiting that 90+ minutes for the SP1 update to complete when my
machine couldn't be used.

Well, I may be in a minority, but Vista's search for a string within a file
that is not indexed STILL DOES NOT WORK with SP1.

That Advanced Search checkbox "Include non-indexed, hidden, and system files
(might be slow)" simply does not work on my Vista Ultimate SP1 machine.

Here's my test: Create a C:\TestSearch directory with a test.txt file with
the string "VistaVistaVista" -- that's all. Vista SP1 can find that one. But
if you copy that file to test.R and copy again to test.pas, those files only
show up in a string search for "VistaVistaVista" after you re-index -- at
least for me. I love the 20 hours or so needed for re-indexing when I
discover an extension that needs to be indexed differently. Copy test.txt to
test.X, text.Y and test.Z again in the same directory -- on my machine the
..X, .Y and .Z files are not indexed. (I have many older files that either
didn't follow Microsoft's current conventions, or are various scientific
formats that Microsoft doesn't care about). Vista SP1 absolutely cannot
find these .X, .Y and .Z files on my machine even with that checkbox
"Include non-indexed, hidden, and system files (might be slow)" checked.

PLEASE, Microsoft, give me back Windows XP so I can find the many files I've
collected over many years. I've only been complaining about this failed
search since July 2007. [The only way I can find to search for strings in
files that are not indexed is to use Agent Ransack or some other third party
tool.]

I can figure out how to search for strings in files in Windows 95, Windows
98, Windows 2000, and Windows XP (with that needed registry fix), but I'm
not smart enough to get string search to work in Vista Ultimate.

And with Vista SP1 it's now harder to get to advanced search (I almost
always want ONLY advanced search).

I wish someone at Microsoft cared enough to fix search in Vista. How many
years does it take?

Consider installing a dedicated search engine:

http://desktop.google.com/

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience -
Windows System & Performance

---------------------------------------------------------------

"Celegans" wrote:

I loved waiting that 90+ minutes for the SP1 update to complete when my
machine couldn't be used.

Well, I may be in a minority, but Vista's search for a string within a file
that is not indexed STILL DOES NOT WORK with SP1.

That Advanced Search checkbox "Include non-indexed, hidden, and system files
(might be slow)" simply does not work on my Vista Ultimate SP1 machine.

Here's my test: Create a C:\TestSearch directory with a test.txt file with
the string "VistaVistaVista" -- that's all. Vista SP1 can find that one. But
if you copy that file to test.R and copy again to test.pas, those files only
show up in a string search for "VistaVistaVista" after you re-index -- at
least for me. I love the 20 hours or so needed for re-indexing when I
discover an extension that needs to be indexed differently. Copy test.txt to
test.X, text.Y and test.Z again in the same directory -- on my machine the
..X, .Y and .Z files are not indexed. (I have many older files that either
didn't follow Microsoft's current conventions, or are various scientific
formats that Microsoft doesn't care about). Vista SP1 absolutely cannot
find these .X, .Y and .Z files on my machine even with that checkbox
"Include non-indexed, hidden, and system files (might be slow)" checked.

PLEASE, Microsoft, give me back Windows XP so I can find the many files I've
collected over many years. I've only been complaining about this failed
search since July 2007. [The only way I can find to search for strings in
files that are not indexed is to use Agent Ransack or some other third party
tool.]

I can figure out how to search for strings in files in Windows 95, Windows
98, Windows 2000, and Windows XP (with that needed registry fix), but I'm
not smart enough to get string search to work in Vista Ultimate.

And with Vista SP1 it's now harder to get to advanced search (I almost
always want ONLY advanced search).

I wish someone at Microsoft cared enough to fix search in Vista. How many
years does it take?

"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Consider installing a dedicated search engine:
>
> http://desktop.google.com/

I DON'T WANT A SEARCH ENGINE. I just want to search for files that has
worked since Windows 95. Why is that too much to ask for??

I have GB of data files I NEVER WANT TO INDEX, but I may need to
occasionally search them. Vista is WORTHLESS for this, but Windows 95 can
do the job.

This is progress?

Give me Windows Explorer for Windows 2000 -- it worked fine -- so I can be
productive again.

"Celegans" <> wrote in message
news:...
> I have GB of data files I NEVER WANT TO INDEX, but I may need to
> occasionally search them. Vista is WORTHLESS for this, but Windows 95 can
> do the job.

Instead of wasting time swimming upstream, why don't you just index them?

"Bob Campbell" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "Celegans" <> wrote in message
> news:...

> Instead of wasting time swimming upstream, why don't you just index them?

You've got to be kidding. You're suggesting that every time I find some old
extension that didn't get indexed, I waste another ~20 hours getting
everything re-indexed? I don't know if the Vista SP1 upgrade triggered
re-indexing today but my machine has been re-indexing for the last 8 hours.
During that time the machine can be sluggish and is a pain to work with.
I've now spent perhaps 80 hours indexing and re-indexing my Vista machine
several times and I still can't find simple files like I described.

I want the ease and performance of Windows Explorer -- that worked fine in
Windwos 95 through XP -- looking for strings in a directory of a few
hundred files. Windows 95 can do this string search in seconds. Why is the
"new and improved" Vista search so flawed? Where is the marketing
disclaimer that the new and improve search is not intended to be used with
files you created in the past, of files that might originate on Linux or
other platforms? If the search is going to be so bad, let's have more
honesty about its marketing.

Future: We will be creating 100s of GB of data from Sun Grid Engine jobs on
a Linux cluster, and then we have to index them before we can see anything
on Windows Vista? That would be insane. So, I won't be able to search for
error messages in the text files created by the Sun Grid Engine that often
uses suffixes, .1, .2, .3, , .99999.

Windows Vista is worth abandoning if search doesn't work as well as before
on ALL files on the system. You shouldn't have to wait for hours to get
something indexed so you can search for it.

There's a chance this problem is only affecting some Vista customers, and if
that's true, I sure wish I knew what was causing the failures.

I want BADLY to go back to XP SP2 and forget Vista, but I'm not paying money
to Microsoft for XP because Vista is flawed and they won't fix it.

"Celegans" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Future: We will be creating 100s of GB of data from Sun Grid Engine jobs
> on a Linux cluster, and then we have to index them before we can see
> anything on Windows Vista? That would be insane. So, I won't be able to
> search for error messages in the text files created by the Sun Grid Engine
> that often uses suffixes, .1, .2, .3, , .99999.

Then it sounds to me like you are using the wrong tool for the job. You
should be using an XP (or 2000 or Win95 or whatever) system to do your
searches. If Vista isn't working for you then WTF are you doing wasting
time/money/hair trying to get it to work?

Serious question, not meant to be a wise ass or anything. Just give it up
and use whatever works for you.

<later>

I just ran some tests. I duplicated your issue with weird extensions - .R
..A etc not being found. Vista AND XP SP2 failed to find "Vista" in files
named test.R, test.A, but found it in files named test.txt and test.log.
However WinME and 2000 found all of them. I have XP, 2000 and ME available
in Virtual PC.

Apparently XP SP2 and Vista only search for text in files that are known to
be "text files". Files with arbitrary (or non text) extensions are clearly
ignored. ME and 2000 search everything. The search in Windows 2000 is
turning up DLLs with "Vista" in them!

So it appears you have 3 ways around this issue. Either forget Vista and
run Windows 2000, keep Vista and install some kind of dedicated search app
or work around the issue from the other direction and get your files named
with extensions that Vista will search.

Celegans wrote:
> "Bob Campbell" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>
>> "Celegans" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>
>
>
>> Instead of wasting time swimming upstream, why don't you just index them?
>>
>
> You've got to be kidding. You're suggesting that every time I find some old
> extension that didn't get indexed, I waste another ~20 hours getting
> everything re-indexed? I don't know if the Vista SP1 upgrade triggered
> re-indexing today but my machine has been re-indexing for the last 8 hours.
> During that time the machine can be sluggish and is a pain to work with.
> I've now spent perhaps 80 hours indexing and re-indexing my Vista machine
> several times and I still can't find simple files like I described.
>
> I want the ease and performance of Windows Explorer -- that worked fine in
> Windwos 95 through XP -- looking for strings in a directory of a few
> hundred files. Windows 95 can do this string search in seconds. Why is the
> "new and improved" Vista search so flawed? Where is the marketing
> disclaimer that the new and improve search is not intended to be used with
> files you created in the past, of files that might originate on Linux or
> other platforms? If the search is going to be so bad, let's have more
> honesty about its marketing.
>
> Future: We will be creating 100s of GB of data from Sun Grid Engine jobs on
> a Linux cluster, and then we have to index them before we can see anything
> on Windows Vista? That would be insane. So, I won't be able to search for
> error messages in the text files created by the Sun Grid Engine that often
> uses suffixes, .1, .2, .3, , .99999.
>
> Windows Vista is worth abandoning if search doesn't work as well as before
> on ALL files on the system. You shouldn't have to wait for hours to get
> something indexed so you can search for it.
>
> There's a chance this problem is only affecting some Vista customers, and if
> that's true, I sure wish I knew what was causing the failures.
>
> I want BADLY to go back to XP SP2 and forget Vista, but I'm not paying money
> to Microsoft for XP because Vista is flawed and they won't fix it.
>
>
>
have u tried the google indexer app (Google Desktop)? It's free, and
unlike Vista's search---it works!

Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:

> Consider installing a dedicated search engine:
>
> http://desktop.google.com/
>
Why? Because your beloved Microsoft can't produce one that actually works?
BTW, you idiot top posting WITH a sig line completely fuks up threads with
REAL newsreaders. Fix this **** you jerkoff.

Cheers.

--
What does Bill Gates use?
http://tinyurl.com/2zxhdl

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Microsoft Is Watching YOU: http://tinyurl.com/2ptclh