Just in case this gets lost at the end of the previous thread, I have started a new one.

Having had the advantages of DTSearch pointed out to me after my last post. I have re-installed DTSearch and explored some of the features that Ike pointed out.

I now realise that I wasn't really using DTsearch to its full capacity and it is back on my hard drive.

Given the way that I was using DTsearch, Archivarius still gives a really good alternative at a low price, but as I already have a DTSearch license, I am now looking at making more use of the features.

I'm still keeping Archivarius for searching The bat! mail base as it natively works with The Bat! files, but for general use I have gone back to DTsearch

So thank you Ike.

Graham

Graham

Glad you've found a good solution. I mentioned this thread to a friend and she recommended the free Copernic Desktop Search... I'll report back.

Ike

I>Glad you've found a good solution. I mentioned this thread to a friend and she

recommended the free Copernic Desktop Search... I'll report back.

Whenever, I read comparative reviews of the range of free search engines different people seem to have strong opinions about which is the best option. Google seems to come out regularly as the best option, with many third party addins expanding its capability.

Woody's Office Watch guide to Search engines is probably worth the $15.00 if you want a comprehensive comparison of the free Search engines.

http://shop.office-watch.com/eb/store/comersus_viewItem.asp?idProduct=1


The curent version is January 2006, and its 157 pages long giving a very detailed comparison. Neither DTSearch or Archivarius are included.

I hae just become aware in the last few years how much I spend on upgrading software, of which I only use a fraction of its capability, and have started to look for FOSS or low cost alternatives.

Graham

Graham

I assume you've considered X1. The desktop version is now free. I find its UI very appealing and its not too resource hungry. When I last looked about 12-18 months ago, X1 was well ahead of Copernic & Google Desktop searches in usability. As you can quickly cycle through the search results (including highlighted results inside the documents), I don't need more sophisticated search expressions as in DTSearch which has a UI that only a mother could love.

With indexers, I refuse to have them running constantly in the background and dynamically updating the index. I fire X1 up only when I can't find something in the obvious place, or need to do a full PC search.

I manually update the index every few days or when I've added a considerable number of new documents. That way the index is always reasonably, but not exactly up to date.

Your needs may differ of course.

Jack

Jack

I assume you've considered X1.

Yes, thanks

Before my last upgrade of DTSearch, I looked at all the main contenders, including X1, and including installing the more likely candidates. In the end I stuck with DTsearch, as I already had it and the upgrade wasn't that much money.

I just saw Archvarius suggested elsewhere and thought I would give it a try. At first I was very impressed because Archivarius did what I was doing in DTSearch and doing it faster, but Ike made me rethink how I was using DTSearch and I now feel I can make more use of it than I was.


I only index specific folders, which like you I manually update every now and again.

Graham

My New Year's resolution is to stick with software which works for me. So, Graham, thanks for the tip to Woody's Search engine guide, but I think I'll be giving it a miss and sticking with DTSearch.

Which isn't to say that X1 and Copernic do a bad job. Both are much better than nothing ie the dismal search functions you get out of the XP box. And, since both are free, both are great value for money.

However, they both lack features which I find important.

Neither provide info about a file's contents in the results pane. Many of my files have non-descriptive titles. It's a nuisance to have to click on each one to see what it's about.

And neither sort according to relevancy. Once I've narrowed my search down to a bunch of files, I want to know how they measure up against each other.

DT Search's indexer saves on cpu wear by only running at scheduled times.

Jack, I don't think DTSearch's UI is at all bad. In terms of usability, it's excellent, I think. And it's pretty easy to customise the fonts used, the highlight colors etc.

What I've become accustomed to, I suppose.

Ike Washington wrote:

Neither provide info about a file's contents in
the results pane. Many of my files have non-descriptive titles. It's a nuisance to
have to click on each one to see what it's about.

And neither sort according to
relevancy. Once I've narrowed my search down to a bunch of files, I want to know how they
measure up against each other.

DT Search's indexer saves on cpu wear by only running
at scheduled times.

Jack, I don't think DTSearch's UI is at all bad. In terms of
usability, it's excellent, I think. And it's pretty easy to customise the fonts used,
the highlight colors etc.

Ike, I was probably overstating DT's UI. My search requirements are not sophisticated, so relevancy and sophisticated search terms are not required. I just need something to crunch about 80,000 files.

The way I use X1 is that I have the window split vertically with the search results on one side and the preview pane on the other. When clicking on a result, the preview pane positions the selected document at the point in which the search result occurs. The search term is highlighted so you can see the result in its original context and even formatting.

I find this works especially well when searching through Outlook emails, which X1 handles well - it looks inside both .msg and .pst files.

I guess it's horses for courses.

Jack

Ike

My New Year's resolution is to stick with software which works for me.

An excellent approach, which I hope you stick with. I wish I could !!

thanks for the tip to Woody's Search engine guide, but I think I'll be giving it a miss
and sticking with DTSearch.

I only suggested it because you said you were going to have a look at Copernic. I wasn't actively looking for a replacement for DTSearch, just got seduced into trying Archivarius, and found it very good. Particulalry for the simple searches I was performing in DTSearch.

However, you have made me look afresh at DTearch and I can see it playing a much more important role in my new workflow that I am working on.

Graham