anyone compared to EasyFind? - morbius

I'm answering my own question- I much prefer EasyFind, although FAF is fast, that's for sure. But it lacks a heading for Location, which is, at least in my case, using about six partitions at all times, crucial. And the alternate view, a tree, is useless, as it does not show the actual files. These could be quick fixes, though.

http://www.devon-technologies.com/files/EasyFind.dmg.zip

Reply to This

Friday, May 22 2009 @ 06:25 AM PDT

anyone compared to EasyFind? - WoodDMW

I've found that EasyFind routinely expands the number of swapfiles due, presumably, to very poor memory management.

Benchmark: I looked for all occurrences of files or folders with a certain string in them:

Find Any File: displayed all files and stopped looking after 15 seconds

EasyFind: Found 1 file after 45 seconds, a large batch more after 48 seconds, and finished after 70 seconds.

Yes, EasyFind is more flexible (e.g, can search for strings WITHIN files), but I generally have to reboot after a long search. --DMW

Reply to This

Friday, May 22 2009 @ 12:38 PM PDT

anyone compared to EasyFind? - morbius

"Yes, EasyFind is more flexible (e.g, can search for strings WITHIN files), but I generally have to reboot after a long search."

I'm pretty sure I haven't noticed this, but after using both for awhile, I find I'm going to FAF more often than not. It's the speed, and, as you say, it actually finds more files, although both have always found the file I was actually looking for. Looks like a worthy battle.

Reply to This

Friday, May 22 2009 @ 02:55 PM PDT