Is Finder's Find any good?
Salmon Egg
for me to use. It is not even clear to me what all the components to the
process are.
For example, I prepared a description of some problems I had controlling
a G4 remotely. In a Microsoft Word file entitled "Remote G4 control,"
the name appeared in the list of recent files when Word was opened. When
searching for it with Find using the Name contains Remote G4, there were
no search results. It even appears that there may have been no search at
all. I have had the problem with both Leopard and Snow Leopard.
While on the topic, what does "match" mean?
Bill
--
An old man would be better off never having been born.
BreadW...@fractious.net
> The Finder's Find function, for files and folders, were always awkward
> for me to use. It is not even clear to me what all the components to the
> process are.
It annoys me more often than it helps. First of all, it always
defaults to searching content rather than filenames. 99% of the
time, I want to search by filename. Second of all, it doesn't
search several of the folders that I usually want searched - like
the system /Library, which turned out to be where a file I
was looking for today lived.
There are other replacement searches, but since I already
have PathFinder running most of the time, that's normally my
next step after Finder's Find annoys me.
--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
nospam
Salmon Egg <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> The Finder's Find function, for files and folders, were always awkward
> for me to use. It is not even clear to me what all the components to the
> process are.
>
> For example, I prepared a description of some problems I had controlling
> a G4 remotely. In a Microsoft Word file entitled "Remote G4 control,"
> the name appeared in the list of recent files when Word was opened. When
> searching for it with Find using the Name contains Remote G4, there were
> no search results. It even appears that there may have been no search at
> all. I have had the problem with both Leopard and Snow Leopard.
spotlight is buggy. it fails to find a lot of things.
Wes Groleau
> Spotlight and Finder find are crapola. Several alternatives. I fluctuate
I never use the one in Finder, and seldom Spotlight.
When I have used Spotlight, it generally works.
When it doesn't work, I use command-line 'find'
which usually tells me Spotlight was correct in
not finding it.
I often use CLI first because though slower,
it is more flexible.
--
Wes Groleau
The lesson
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=106
Zala
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:02:30 -0600, Salmon Egg wrote
> (in article <SalmonEgg-789B1...@news60.forteinc.com>):
>
> > The Finder's Find function, for files and folders, were always awkward
> > for me to use. It is not even clear to me what all the components to the
> > process are.
> >
[cut]
>
> Spotlight and Finder find are crapola. Several alternatives. I fluctuate
> among:
>
> Find File
> Find Any File
> Easy Find
I find most of you are doing Spotlight injustice. Surely it is far from
perfect. If you want to find EVERY match to certain criteria, there are
better alternatives. But Spotlight is very handy as a fast launcher of
app's and often used files. In fact this feature has made Quicksilver
obsolete for me. I also like the Smart Folder feature a lot.
My advise is: have a good look at the Spotlight preferences and don't
expect it to do what it wasn't designed for.
--
Zala
zala(at)xs(four)all(dot)nl
nospam
<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> When it doesn't work, I use command-line 'find'
> which usually tells me Spotlight was correct in
> not finding it.
find uses the locate database which is updated weekly. it won't find
anything that was created before the next update (unless you run it
manually).
johnny bobby bee
> find uses the locate database which is updated weekly.
Are you sure you're not thinking of 'locate' which used the locate
database. GNU find uses no such database.
http://www.gnu.org/software/findutils/
The find program searches a directory tree to find a file or group of
files. It traverses the directory tree and reports all occurrences of a
file matching the user's specifications. The find program includes very
powerful searching capability.
The locate program scans one or more databases of filenames and displays
any matches. This can be used as a very fast find command if the file
was present during the last file name database update.
The updatedb program updates the file name database used by the locate
program. The file name database contains lists of files that were in
particular directory trees when the databases were last updated. This is
usually run nightly by the cron system daemon.
nospam
<stepore-n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> nospam took to the world wide interwebs to proclaim:
> > find uses the locate database which is updated weekly.
>
> Are you sure you're not thinking of 'locate' which used the locate
> database. GNU find uses no such database.
oops, you're right.
Jolly Roger
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> Tim Lance wrote:
> > Spotlight and Finder find are crapola. Several alternatives. I fluctuate
>
> I never use the one in Finder, and seldom Spotlight.
Same here. I probably use either one maybe 1-4 times in a month. The
files in my ~/Documents folder are fairly well organized, and I am able
to use LaunchBar to quickly access most common things with a couple key
presses. For less common things, drilling down into the Documents folder
is simple in LaunchBar. And when I still can't find what I want, then i
turn to Finder / Spotlight.
> When I have used Spotlight, it generally works.
Same here, with the caveat that Spotlight only searches certain places.
Knowing this, I don't attempt to use it to find things that I know
aren't in those places, because that would be silly. : )
> When it doesn't work, I use command-line 'find'
> which usually tells me Spotlight was correct in
> not finding it.
I generally use /usr/bin/find only in very specific cases. Usually it's
when I want to do extra processing on a bunch of files in a certain
folder that meet a specific set of criteria.
> I often use CLI first because though slower, it is more flexible.
I am on the command line an awful lot as well. Often when I am
connecting to a machine over SSH and want to find something quickly, I
use /usr/bin/mdfind piped through grep, and it's *much* faster than the
equivalent /usr/bin/find command would be when I don't know exactly
where things are.
(I don't find the command line to be any slower if I simply think about
what I want to do before I start typing.)
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Jolly Roger
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
No, /usr/bin/find does not use the locate database.
/usr/bin/locate uses the locate database.
Jolly Roger
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Examples please.
Jolly Roger
johnny bobby bee <stepore-n...@gmail.com> wrote:
I personally think locate is not worth the trouble, with so many other
better alternatives available.
Tom Stiller
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
No, it doesn't. Locate uses the locate database.
--
Tom Stiller
PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
nospam
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > For example, I prepared a description of some problems I had controlling
> > > a G4 remotely. In a Microsoft Word file entitled "Remote G4 control,"
> > > the name appeared in the list of recent files when Word was opened. When
> > > searching for it with Find using the Name contains Remote G4, there were
> > > no search results. It even appears that there may have been no search at
> > > all. I have had the problem with both Leopard and Snow Leopard.
> >
> > spotlight is buggy. it fails to find a lot of things.
>
> Examples please.
the example posted above for one.
i've given it file names and it comes up blank. i *know* the file is on
my drive somewhere, but i don't remember where. i then look for it
myself or use another search utility and find it. this is not a rare
occurrence. what i've noticed is that partial name searches will almost
always fail, but even full name searches will too.
basically, spotlight mostly works most of the time, but reliable it
isn't.
nospam
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> I just made a new folder that I named "I just created this". I then
> clicked on the desktop and pressed Command-F. I clicked on "File Name",
> leaving "This Mac" selected as the location to search. I then typed "I
> jus" in the search field of the window,and it found the folder that I had
> moments before created and named.
try creating it as one big word: justcreatedthis
then search for something that starts in the middle of it, like creat
that's a guaranteed fail on *every* mac i've ever tried it on.
D Finnigan
>
> spotlight is buggy. it fails to find a lot of things.
>
AIUI, that's by design. It doesn't snoop through the Unix system dirs, for
example.
Jochem Huhmann
I've often wondered if Spotlight would have been much more clear if it
would have followed an opt-in model instead of an opt-out model with
quite a lot of things pre-opted-out. Like, have it search only for
Applications, email and Addressbook contacts by default and require the
user to drag all files/directories into some list that should be indexed
and searched. This was the way the NextStep equivalent worked back then.
This way you could (and had to) decide what you wanted to have indexed
and searched and nobody would have complained of Spotlight not indexing
this and that.
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
nospam
<dog...@macgui.com> wrote:
i'm not talking about the unix directories. it misses stuff in folders
it is supposed to search.
Jochem Huhmann
It does only index and search file-types it knows about.
John Albert
is the old Norton Utilities "Fast Find", running under
Classic. The drawback is that it won't run on Intel-based
Macs (at least won't run "easily", that is).
I've found Spotlight to be useless (I disable it wherever
possible) and other Apple [so-called] "find" functions to
completely miss what I'm looking for.
Can anyone recommend some 3rd-party find apps for OS X that
are quick, dirty, and easy-to-use (that is to say, just
enter a name, or "fragment of a name", and it will search on
ONLY that parameter)?
Thanks,
- John
Wes Groleau
> Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> I often use CLI first because though slower, it is more flexible.
>
> what I want to do before I start typing.)
It's not slower because of the extra typing, it's slower because
it traverses the actual file system instead of a previously built
index.
--
Wes Groleau
"Beware the barrenness of a busy life."
-- George Verwer
Ian Gregory
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>> Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>>> I often use CLI first because though slower, it is more flexible.
>>
>> (I don't find the command line to be any slower if I simply think about
>> what I want to do before I start typing.)
>
> It's not slower because of the extra typing, it's slower because
> it traverses the actual file system instead of a previously built
> index.
That is true of find(1) but there are other ways of searching for things
on the command line. One is locate(1) which searches a pre-built
database for pathnames which match a specified pattern. Another one is
mdfind(1) which consults the same central metadata store that is used by
Spotlight.
Ian
--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
Jolly Roger
Ian Gregory <f...@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
Yes, and mdfind is super fast in comparison. I would only recommend
using /usr/bin/find to search and entire file system as an absolute
last resort. Typically, when I use find, it's only within a particular
folder, or set of folders.
Steven Fisher
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> spotlight is buggy. it fails to find a lot of things.
Spotlight is not buggy. You just don't understand what it finds and
doesn't find. Calling it buggy is just laziness on your part.
Steve
nospam
Steven Fisher <sdfi...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > spotlight is buggy. it fails to find a lot of things.
>
> Spotlight is not buggy.
it very definitely is
> You just don't understand what it finds and
> doesn't find. Calling it buggy is just laziness on your part.
bullshit.
Jerry Bishop
> Laugh if you wish, but the best "find" app I've used in OS X is the old
> Norton Utilities "Fast Find", running under Classic. The drawback is
> that it won't run on Intel-based Macs (at least won't run "easily",
> that is).
>
> I've found Spotlight to be useless (I disable it wherever possible) and
> other Apple [so-called] "find"
$ find / -name '*fragment*'
Command lines are cool.
Jerry
Jerry Bishop
locate uses the locate database. find searches the filesystem directly.
Jerry
Steven Fisher
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <sdfisher-10FDB0...@mara100-84.onlink.net>,
> Steven Fisher <sdfi...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > > spotlight is buggy. it fails to find a lot of things.
> >
> > Spotlight is not buggy.
>
> it very definitely is
No, it isn't. You could not come up with a single example.
> > You just don't understand what it finds and
> > doesn't find. Calling it buggy is just laziness on your part.
>
> bullshit.
If you take the effort to understand a technology, you will (gasp!)
understand it. And you won't look like a total fool.
Steve
nospam
Steven Fisher <sdfi...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > > > spotlight is buggy. it fails to find a lot of things.
> > >
> > > Spotlight is not buggy.
> >
> > it very definitely is
>
> No, it isn't. You could not come up with a single example.
i gave one already.
> > > You just don't understand what it finds and
> > > doesn't find. Calling it buggy is just laziness on your part.
> >
> > bullshit.
>
> If you take the effort to understand a technology, you will (gasp!)
> understand it. And you won't look like a total fool.
i understand it. it's major weakness is partial name searches. another
problem is that it doesn't detect when its index is corrupt. i had to
rebuild it once when it wasn't finding *anything*, anywhere.
it is simply not reliable. tonight, in fact, it failed to find a file i
knew was on my drive, which another utility quickly found.
Steven Fisher
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <sdfisher-371673...@mara100-84.onlink.net>,
> Steven Fisher <sdfi...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > spotlight is buggy. it fails to find a lot of things.
> > > >
> > > > Spotlight is not buggy.
> > >
> > > it very definitely is
> >
> > No, it isn't. You could not come up with a single example.
>
> i gave one already.
No, you waffled a bit about the types of things that maybe failed for
you, once, but you couldn't remember. Without a single *actual* example.
Steve
nospam
Steven Fisher <sdfi...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > > > > > spotlight is buggy. it fails to find a lot of things.
> > > > >
> > > > > Spotlight is not buggy.
> > > >
> > > > it very definitely is
> > >
> > > No, it isn't. You could not come up with a single example.
> >
> > i gave one already.
>
> No, you waffled a bit about the types of things that maybe failed for
> you, once, but you couldn't remember. Without a single *actual* example.
i gave an actual example, with specifics on how to duplicate it.
when it fails to find a file that's clearly visible in a folder it
indexes, it's a bug, plain and simple. it does that quite a bit too,
not 'maybe failed once.'
no amount of handwaving or excuses is going to change that.
AES
> > >
> > > Spotlight is not buggy.
> >
> > it very definitely is
Threads like the one that these quotes came from are generally dumb, or
at least contain a lot of dumbth.
But Spotlight (at least the 10.4.11 version I'm using), while it
certainly has some attractive features and capabilities, also has a
considerably less complete user interface than one might expect for an
Apple utility this important and this basic:
* No Help is available when it's running.
* Is there any immediate or easy way to know if a multi-word search
string searches for "All words" or just "Any word"?
* Is there any immediate or easy way to know if a multi-word search
string in quotes will search for the full string only?
* No Services are available when it's running.
* It doesn't give you access to its preferences when you just open it.
You have to start a search ***and the search has to have delivered
some results*** before the Preferences line appears at the bottom.
* And that Preferences line is not present in the more detailed "Show
All Results" window.
* And if you then go to the Spotlight preferences from that line, when
you close them, the Spotlight window is gone (although the previous
search results are preserved when you re-open it).
* And the preferences are relatively limited, it seems to me.
Maybe I've missed the boat on one or two of the above in my quick tests
(and maybe the 10.5 and 10.6 versions are better?). But one would hope
that Apple could do a bit better on the interfaces for its really basic
tools, like Spotlight and, for that matter, TextEdit.
Paul Magnussen
Paul Magnussen
D. Finnigan
> Is it just me, or does Spotlight only search the boot volume?
>
> Paul Magnussen
It's just you. ;-)
Barry Margolin
AES <sie...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> * It doesn't give you access to its preferences when you just open it.
> You have to start a search ***and the search has to have delivered
> some results*** before the Preferences line appears at the bottom.
>
> * And that Preferences line is not present in the more detailed "Show
> All Results" window.
So? Is it so hard to use System Preferences?
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Nick Naym
j.al...@snet.net wrote on 12/26/09 12:16 PM:
I've pretty much given up on Spotlight, and rely on "Find Any File"
(http://apps.tempel.org/FindAnyFile/) -- it's free, fast, and functional.
--
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)
AES
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <siegman-DE4988...@news.stanford.edu>,
> AES <sie...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> > * It doesn't give you access to its preferences when you just open it.
> > You have to start a search ***and the search has to have delivered
> > some results*** before the Preferences line appears at the bottom.
> >
> > * And that Preferences line is not present in the more detailed "Show
> > All Results" window.
>
> So? Is it so hard to use System Preferences?
As I imagine you well know, nearly every well-done Mac app, when open
and in use, provides direct access to its own preferences, at all times,
via a menu item in its own whatever-its-called left-most menu, next to
the Apple menu. You don't have to have any knowledge of where those
preferences may be stored to get at them. And opening those
preferences, at least in every case I'm familiar with, does not kill the
app, nor does it shut down any of the windows related to that app that
you may have open.
Having all these features available and quite strongly standardized in
nearly all Mac apps -- most of the good ones, anyway -- is helpful to
users. None of them is available, or at least fully available, in that
fashion in Spotlight.
Fred Moore
> [an accurate list of the many and varied aggravations and shortcomings of Spotlight]
And the answer is : EasyFind (a GUI frontend for UNIX find)
What's most important to me is that whatever find function I use will
actually find items which are THERE (wherever I search). Spotlight, for
whatever several reasons, often misses items which do exist and the
search criteria specify. I'll gladly trade instantaneous for accurate.
Fred Moore
Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article 4b364515$0$28913$2c56...@usenetrocket.com, John Albert at
> j.al...@snet.net wrote on 12/26/09 12:16 PM:
>
> > I've found Spotlight to be useless (I disable it wherever
> > possible) and other Apple [so-called] "find" functions to
> > completely miss what I'm looking for.
> >
> > Can anyone recommend some 3rd-party find apps for OS X that
> > are quick, dirty, and easy-to-use (that is to say, just
> > enter a name, or "fragment of a name", and it will search on
> > ONLY that parameter)?
>
> I've pretty much given up on Spotlight, and rely on "Find Any File"
> (http://apps.tempel.org/FindAnyFile/) -- it's free, fast, and functional.
EasyFind uses the UNIX find function built into every Mac and supports
regular expressions:
<http://www.devon-technologies.com/products/freeware/index.html>
Another good utility is Locator, which uses the UNIX locate function
built into every Mac. It's faster than EasyFind because it uses a
database like Spotlight (locate is probably where Apple got the idea for
Spotlight). It also supports regular expressions. The only drawback is
that you have to keep the locate database updated. This can be done from
within Locator or via the weekly cron maintenance scripts.
<http://www.sebastian-krauss.de/software/> It's noted as unsupported,
but works great in 10.5 and I'd guess 10.6 also.
Both are FREE.
Nick Naym
Moore at fmo...@gcfn.org wrote on 12/29/09 11:44 AM:
I stopped using EasyFind a while ago because it simply was too slow, and was
killing overall system performance. For the majority of the time, Find Any
File does a great job -- reminiscent of Sherlock, actually.
Steven Fisher
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> when it fails to find a file that's clearly visible in a folder it
> indexes, it's a bug, plain and simple. it does that quite a bit too,
> not 'maybe failed once.'
No, it isn't. Again, you haven't bothered to look at how it actually
works. "System Files," for instance, will be excluded unless you specify
otherwise.
But rather than learn how to use it, you're content to call it "buggy."
So I'm calling you "lazy."
Steve
nospam
Steven Fisher <sdfi...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > when it fails to find a file that's clearly visible in a folder it
> > indexes, it's a bug, plain and simple. it does that quite a bit too,
> > not 'maybe failed once.'
>
> No, it isn't. Again, you haven't bothered to look at how it actually
> works. "System Files," for instance, will be excluded unless you specify
> otherwise.
where did i say anything about system files?
did you even read what i wrote? i said it fails to find stuff in
folders it indexes.
> But rather than learn how to use it, you're content to call it "buggy."
> So I'm calling you "lazy."
then perhaps you can explain why it fails to find files that are
plainly visible on my desktop, and as i said above, in folders it
indexes.
Nick Naym
Fisher at sdfi...@spamcop.net wrote on 12/29/09 10:11 PM:
Steve, I tend to agree with nospam. Perhaps it is a lack of understanding on
my part -- but (if so) not entirely.
I have often tried to find a document that I previously created or
downloaded, and Spotlight repeatedly would fail to find it (it would find
other files with similar names, etc., and list them in its search window,
but not the file I was searching for). When I eventually found it (because I
remembered where I put it, rummaged through my folders, or just happened
upon it) and saw it sitting in the folder I had placed it in, I'd then again
ask Spotlight to find it, just to see what happened. In every case, it would
again fail. However, if I then _opened_ the file while the (failed) search
window was open, it immediately would get added to the list of files
Spotlight found. It is as if I said "Hey, Spotlight..._here_ it is!," and
Spotlight would suddenly "see" it.
Barry Margolin
AES <sie...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> In article <barmar-A78EF9....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article <siegman-DE4988...@news.stanford.edu>,
> > AES <sie...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > * It doesn't give you access to its preferences when you just open it.
> > > You have to start a search ***and the search has to have delivered
> > > some results*** before the Preferences line appears at the bottom.
> > >
> > > * And that Preferences line is not present in the more detailed "Show
> > > All Results" window.
> >
> > So? Is it so hard to use System Preferences?
>
> As I imagine you well know, nearly every well-done Mac app, when open
> and in use, provides direct access to its own preferences, at all times,
> via a menu item in its own whatever-its-called left-most menu, next to
> the Apple menu.
I don't think of Spotlight as a standalone app. It gives the appearance
of being just a part of the system. It doesn't really have a menu, you
click on the icon in the menu bar and type the search word.
Paul Sture
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
> > Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> >> I often use CLI first because though slower, it is more flexible.
> >
> > (I don't find the command line to be any slower if I simply think about
> > what I want to do before I start typing.)
>
> It's not slower because of the extra typing, it's slower because
> it traverses the actual file system instead of a previously built
> index.
In fact I find it swifter in many cases than trying other methods in
vain first.
--
Paul Sture