I do realize that the Windows File Find feature can be enhanced by using its available Indexing Service. See the added section at the end of this entry.) ( Update in 2013: While I still recommend FLL most highly for nearly all search needs, I do want to add that if you're ONLY searching for files or folders by name, not content, then there is a potentially better (and still free) tool to consider for that need, called Ultrasearch. The makers just seem to have a fondness for the "old" name so are going with both.) The makers finally offered a rebranding of the tool under the name File Locator Lite, though they still also offer it as AgentRansack, being the same product.
( Update in 2010: Originally, the free version was only packaged under the name AgentRansack, which was a little scary-sounding for some tastes.
It's the freeware version of a commercial product, File Locator Pro. Read on for more.īeyond fast, effective, and easy searching, it also has a cool regular expression building wizard that may be reason enough to use the tool when you need to create a RegEx quickly. I'd like to point you to an awesome and free alternative.įor years I've used a great freeware tool, FileLocator Lite, and I love FLL for several reasons (as does nearly everyone I show it to). And to be clear the tool is updated constantly and sports a modern interface (unlike the favored "old tools" of other folks, which may look the same as they did 20 years ago).Įver need to do a search for files with some given text (or files of a given name) in Windows? I realize you may use a favored file editor to do it, or (worse) may rely solely on the anemic Windows find.
Update in 2019: Though this post is from 2009, I still use and recommend this tool daily, so nothing about what I said below has changed (except of course where I indicate other informational updates in 20). And I may revise the content as necessary. Corrections are welcome, in the comments. Same with links and subsequent comments from myself or others. Some content may be outdated-though not necessarily.
0 kommentar(er)
