Re: One Little Thing

In article <134p073r9fnioa6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

1. Live indexing. Spotlight: Yes; Windows XP: No.

XP's indexing was a bit *too* live; without low priority
I/O or other tricks, it tended to degrade your performance
while you used your computer. A similar problem to Spotlight,
really.

XP search had no live indexing, unlike Spotlight.

2. Live search. Spotlight: Yes; Windows XP: No.

This is perhaps the biggest technical difference. In XP
you paid the performance penalties this would impose,
but you did not get to see the results update in realtime.

3. Meta indexing. Spotlight: Yes; Windows XP: No.

XP's content indexing did have this.

No.

4. Plugins. Spotlight: Yes; Windows XP: No.

XP used IFilters, the same plug-ins that Windows
Desktop Search used, and that Vista uses now.

It wasn't an open plugin architecture that anyone could write plugins
for, unfortunately. Emphasis on "wasn't".

5. Open API. Spotlight: Yes; Windows XP: No.

I do not know what you mean by "Open" here, but the
XP content indexer had APIs for searching as well as
plug-ins, much as Spotlight does.

Third party developers couldn't use the underlying search engine for
their internal search structure.

6. Smart folders. Spotlight: Yes; Windows XP: No.

This is one of many, many things in the Spotlight UI that
Vista has copied. Though it is perhaps one of the most
obvious things.

Well, at least you're not trying to make it sound that Windows XP
search is similar to Spotlight in any way. Progress, I suppose!

At least the mutt asked to turn on content indexing, if it was off.

You mean "since it was off".

Well, it might be on, and then it would not ask.

No, it was off by default. It didn't "might" be on by default.

No. Before the mutt, Windows search was less ugly to use,
but had no content indexing.

Stay on track, Dan. Windows XP search is like pre-spotlight search in
MacOS.

You are simply wrong about this.

You just can't show me how! Hehe.

Certainly not. They might not have throught of that; but with
OS X to look at, they still rejected it.

Are you saying that Vista does not have live search?

It has not; once the search completes, the results do not
update themselves again, without your command.

So Smart folders are pretty damn useless? Hehe. Hilarious. Wait,
weren't you supposed to be a MS fanboy?

I think Microsoft was concerned about the performance
problem their XP content indexer had. Their later efforts
solve this problem by only indexing when the UI or
disk is idle. But this obviously excludes a reliable
"live search" implementation, since to do that you must
index promptly.

Are you saying that Windows Vista does not index live? I have no
problem believing that. Remember, my Windows box still shows
"Screenshot-Whale" as a hit when I'm searching for "whale" in spite of
me throwing that file away overt three months ago.

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/21d3d092f6b8d
92c>

What suggest to you that they would have "saved searches" in Vista had
not Apple done it first?

It's a bloody obvious thing to do. :D

Which is the sole reason they wouldn't have implemented it.

Eh? Why compare it to search in XP? Spotlight works so good because it
was so much better than any search for the desktop ever before. The
pre-spotlight technology in Windows XP is irrelevant to just how
genius Spotlight was and still is.

Huh. This is, I think, a bit too worshipful.

No. I loved this in BeOS as well. Dominic Giampaolo is a genius. It
has nothing to do with Apple. I posted about this long before Apple
released Spotlight.

Smart folders in mail
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3edb8b6acf4d0
b4b>

About Jaguar not having smart folders
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/1265d8bd166c6
c2d>

And smart folders in general
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.system/msg/67d3e30619cefdf
1>

I really wanted this feature. Apple were just the ones releasing this
first. The idea and execution *is* genius, and as you say - it's so
obvious when you think about it. I would have been envious as hell
should Windows folks gotten this feature first.

The Google style of search UI is, in my view, as good
as the iTunes-style that Apple (and now MS) have
adopted.

Argh!

I strongly suspect that, had Spotlight never been, MS would
have, after Rover's failure was obvious to them, copied Google.

Google desktop search (or web search) is just damn ugly. It's pretty
efficient, but it's just so ugly it makes me sick. Google is a web 2.0
company with a web 1.0 website design. They really really need to hire
some designers.

Apart from look, their desktop search approach is to run a web server
on your machine, to make queries against. I mean... Why? Because
that's all they know how to program? Google is efficient, but they're
not stylish or know how to make good UI's.

There is a middle ground; without Spotlight, Vista would probably
have found that.

Because MS has a good track record of improving their products? Surely
you're joking. Without Apple, MS wouldn't have a research department
for new technologies.

I find your blind hatred... unconvincing.

But entertaining! Don't ever stop! :D

Hatred? That's your comeback? Well, I suppose that's easier than
trying to defend MS improvement abilities.


--
Sandman[.net]
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: One more Spotlight moan
    ... Woody wrote: ... Spotlight is any better at that. ... Look, I don't need to see the evidence myself, just some sign that Apple ... has improved the indexing. ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: One Little Thing
    ... XP is similar to spotlight in any way? ... Live indexing. ... Spotlight: Yes; Windows XP: No. ... Are you saying that Vista does not have live search? ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: In the Shallow End
    ... remember the product called AppleSearch? ... filesystem as Spotlight is, ... I was talking about the Indexing Service in Windows XP, ... which Apple then did far better. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: One more Spotlight moan
    ... Spotlight is any better at that. ... Look, I don't need to see the evidence myself, just some sign that Apple ... has improved the indexing. ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: One more Spotlight moan
    ... Spotlight is any better at that. ... Look, I don't need to see the evidence myself, just some sign that Apple ... has improved the indexing. ... there is no anecdote that it is better. ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)