How do I get DOpus to obey command line rules for searching?

How do I get Directory Opus to obey command line rules for searching?

If I enter a single '?' into the search facility it acts as if it were the . wildcard and not a single character as is traditionally used in operating system command lines. (Also * or *. used alone isn't respected either. 'By itself * finds all files including those with extents as well as sub-directory names, and *. doesn't seem to find anything.)

I'll illustrate the problem with some examples. Say I'm searching a directory containing multiple sub-directories then placing:

  • a single '?' in the 'Name Matching' box should ONLY show all files with any single-character filename and NO extent, e.g: 'A' or 'z' or '3' etc. Instead, annoyingly, it find everything, including directory names.

  • '???' would show every file across all sub-directories with only [but any] three characters in the filename, e.g.: 'a5c' or 'Zda'.

  • '???.t' similarly, would show all files with any three characters in the filename and only 't' in the extent, e.g: 'abc.t' but not 'abc.tacd'.

  • '???.t?' would show all files with any three characters in the name and 't' the first character in the extent followed by any other (single) character of any type, e.g.: 'abc.tz'.

  • '???.t???' would follow this system in a similar fashion, e.g.: 'abc.tz5c'.

  • '???44???.xyz???.??34' would find the following file: 'abc44def.xyzefg.tz34'.

  • '???44???.xyz*.??34' would find the following file: 'abc44def.xyz-- I am a test to check filename finders --efg.tz34'.

An upper/lower case-only switch in 'case' mode would see that:

  • '???44???.Xyz*.??34' would find the following file: 'abc44def.Xyz-- I am a test to check filename finders --efg.tz34, but file 'abc44def.xyz-- I am a test to check filename finders --efg.tz34' would be ignored.

Surely there's an obvious and easy solution to this that I've just simply missed. After all, why would D.O. have a search utility if it weren't significantly better than the near-useless Windows one?

The Search field at the top-right of the default toolbars is Windows Search, so it'll behave the same as Explorer.

Use Tools -> Find Panel -> Advanced if you want to use exact pattern matching.

As an aside, the Windows Search facility is not "near useless" at all. It is, in fact, far more powerful than just about anything else out there. The only issue is that Microsoft has badly mangled the UI to this facility (adding in parentheses that, in part, Google forced them to do this, so that they could peddle their poor excuse of a desktop search facility; that's a different topic, though...) in Windows 7. Vista was better in that respect, at least before the changes Google had them forced to do for SP1.

In order to make full use of this facility, you are going to have to use Advanced Query Syntax, however, see here: msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library ... 11(v=VS.85.aspx. A bit of a pain, yes, but this way you can do anything you could do with Opus' built-in facility, only faster. Searching for file contents using Opus' built-in facility, in particular, is mostly pointless except for the most simple cases. So here's hoping that the great people that have made Opus the greatest file manager on this planet will transfer their superior UI to take advantage of Windows' superior search indexer... :wink:

I don't see how it's Google's fault that Microsoft couldn't be bothered to make the search functionality in Windows such that both MS and 3rd parties could provide good UIs as part of their search providers/plugins. (I have to admit that I didn't pay much attention to the search-provider lawsuits, so maybe I missed something, but it seems odd if Google insisted that there not be any UI.)

If MS did it properly it would also mean that any 3rd party tool that interfaced with Windows Search (or whatever was set as the search provider) would be able to use those GUIs as well, without having to (re-)invent its own (which is rather difficult given how poorly documented the whole thing is).

Instead they removed their own GUI and provided no way for 3rd parties to add their own, by the sound of it.

Maybe MS had to do a rush-job for Vista SP1, but they've had years to fix things since then so it's no longer an excuse. (And they should see these legal issues coming in advance and design the OS/shell to be open to alternative providers from the outset, to be honest. People shouldn't have to sue Microsoft to get them to allow alternative software to hook into the platform with equal access. If file managers were a bigger business and given the same media attention as web browsers, you can bet there'd be a few more lawsuits to deal with. :slight_smile:)

[quote="leo"]Instead they removed their own GUI and provided no way for 3rd parties to add their own, by the sound of it.
[/quote]

I thought this is what Opus is doing now. Certainly you can query the Windows Search service from within any program.

This is not what Google's suit was all about, as I understand it. Google was simply complaining that Microsoft was providing a functionality ("desktop search") that could replace the functionality of software offered by Google. In response, Microsoft removed part of the access to their search facility. For example, you cannot search your email stores from the desktop anymore. Google was never interested in getting access to existing OS infrastructure, and their desktop search tool is, and always has been, completely stand-alone. Frankly, they couldn't have cared less about Windows users, either. All they were interested in is, indirectly, increasing their advertising revenue. Don't get me wrong, that's the standard approach of every profit-oriented company, in the US at least, so I am not trying to single out Google as a "bad guy" here, or Microsoft as the "good guys".

So, I take it you are saying that if this was the case, GPSoftware would be suing to get Microsoft to remove Explorer from Windows, right? :smiling_imp:

So why are you blaming Google for the fact that Microsoft made their search UI worse after Vista? :slight_smile:

I don't think suing Microsoft to make them remove built-in apps makes sense. Windows should come with a web browser, file manager, media player, etc. But it should be possible to replace them via documented and supported APIs, and for replacements to be able to do everything that the original apps could do without artificial restrictions.

e.g. There is no proper API for replacing Explorer and taking over the folder file type, like there is for setting the default web browser, email client, media player, etc. There is no API at all for making it so that folders can be pinned to the Win7 taskbar as anything but Explorer shortcuts. Explorer is granted the ability to bypass UAC prompts by default in Win7 allowing MS to avoid the work of refactoring the Explorer/UAC code properly; work that every other software developer has to do.

[quote="Pirx"]

As an aside, the Windows Search facility is not "near useless" at all. It is, in fact, far more powerful than just about anything else out there. [/quote]
Apart from the misguided hyperbole about "far more powerful than just about anything else out there" – I am told that dtSearch is the Rolls-Royce of search engines, with a price reflecting this – the sentiment is spot on.

It might help to say why Windows Search, or the heavyweight alternatives, are more effective than Opus search. It is because they index everything and file away that index.

So any search does not involve thrashing a disk and looking for files and their contents. It involves consulting the index. That is usually a big file, but a lot smaller than a disk of files.

So allowing Opus to work with the Windows index is excellent. It is a pity that there are too many alternatives to Windows search out there to make it sensible for Opus to work with them all.

Well, I did say "just about", so that allows for exceptions. I have done a very thorough search of existing Search engines a while ago, looking at the capabilities of everything I could find. Windows Search did beat most of the alternatives, but it does have its weak spots, even discounting the issue of the non-existing UI. But certainly for its price it can't be beat, and it can do everything that a portion of the potential userbase that is pretty darn close to 100% needs.

Oh absolutely. My intention was not to belittle OPUS' built-in facility at all. One of its advantages is that it fully supports RegExs, whereas Windows Search doesn't. I just wanted to point out that Windows Search is indeed quite powerful. My feeling north of 99% of the people who ding Windows Search simply don't know what they are talking about. This statement is typically true for 100% of Everything users... :wink:

I agree.