I get that new versions of software have new features that you don't like. Software evolves. But that's not what you said. You said that everyone is seeing something different.

@scottalanmiller said in Windows: Finding Files with PowerShell:

@Carnival-Boy said in Windows: Finding Files with PowerShell:

@scottalanmiller said in Windows: Finding Files with PowerShell:

@Tim_G sees that you need to modify search options to make it work.

No he doesn't. He writes "I haven't configured anything on my personal PC, and searching is 100% for me"

He had said that he needed to turn off Bing searches.

If you don't want search to include Bing searches then you turn it off. That's a feature, not a bug.

@scottalanmiller said in Windows: Finding Files with PowerShell:

@Tim_G sees that you need to modify search options to make it work.

No he doesn't. He writes "I haven't configured anything on my personal PC, and searching is 100% for me"

You see that you need to use a different tool entirely.

No I don't. I don't need to use a different tool. I prefer File Explorer. But the Windows search works perfectly and as designed for me.

@scottalanmiller said in Windows: Finding Files with PowerShell:

@Dashrender said in Windows: Finding Files with PowerShell:

The experiences of Windows 10 across users is so radically different it's amazing it's even the same OS.

I haven't had any major issues with 1607 (that I know of) But you can read all over the interwebs about how horrible it is.

I'm glad it's working great for those that it is.

It's true. It seems that everyone is seeing something different.

You and @Dashrender. That's two people, not everyone.

Do you have problems finding files with Windows search?

Works fine for me to. But this thread was originally about finding files, not applications. But finding files with Windows 10 Search seems to work fine for me too.

@scottalanmiller said in Windows: Finding Files with PowerShell:

which worked back then but now seems to do something totally different.

Different how? If you don't want web results, you can turn that off permanently in settings. And I turn it off, because why would you ever want to use Bing for anything?

If you only want to search for files, you can click the File icon at the top. I'm not sure how that is different from the file search in previous Windows versions?

@scottalanmiller said in Windows: Finding Files with PowerShell:

@Carnival-Boy said in Windows: Finding Files with PowerShell:

If you're talking about a Windows search that is the generic search tool, that searches for applications, web apps etc etc, well, why would you use that to search for files in a specific directory. You wouldn't. You'd use File Explorer.

The idea behind the Windows interface has been, for a long time that you hit the Windows Key and start searching. If I need to open another app to look for things that I want in the menu, Windows has crashed and burned for me.

What? Are you talking about using the Search box on the taskbar? File Explorer is an "app" to manage files. That's the idea behind it. If you want to find a file in a specific directory, File Explorer is designed to do that.

Dashrender wonders if using a Powershell script is an easier way for users to search a directory for a file. Easier than just hitting Windows-E, browsing to the directory and typing the name of the file in the Search field in the top right of the Window?

Am I only the person on ML that uses File Explorer to search directories? Are you all using some other Windows search instead?

Not that I've ever really had problems using Windows search. I use it to open programs, or open Windows settings, and I'd say it works at least 99% of the time. I think it's awesome. I use it all the time. I never use it to search for files in a directory though.

If you're talking about a Windows search that is the generic search tool, that searches for applications, web apps etc etc, well, why would you use that to search for files in a specific directory. You wouldn't. You'd use File Explorer.

I've no idea what you're talking about. I've never had an issue with the search in the standard File Explorer. It's always returned exactly what I'm looking for, and I haven't noticed it changing much over the years. I've never had it do a web search.

What's wrong with Windows search?

@Dashrender said in Amazon S3 Outage shows the danger of doing things cheaply.:

@Carnival-Boy said in Amazon S3 Outage shows the danger of doing things cheaply.:

Right. So why would you think that I would think that if I put data in just one DC I would have DC failover? That doesn't make any sense.

Using AWS doesn't automatically mean you have geophysical diversity - do you think it does? what makes you think that?

No! I don't. Why would you think I'd think that? You seem to reading something into my posts that I haven't said. I don't how I can make it any clearer to you.

@scottalanmiller said in Amazon S3 Outage shows the danger of doing things cheaply.:

Less than I expect from an average server.

It's about an hour a year, I think? We probably get roughly that from our servers because of scheduled reboots and upgrades etc etc. In terms of unplanned downtime, not sure.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. You're right that 99.99% is low.

@Breffni-Potter said:

@Carnival-Boy said in Amazon S3 Outage shows the danger of doing things cheaply.:

I disagree with the article. One of the main reasons I would move to a cloud service is to outsource my redundancy and resilience.

But you don't buy any of that from Amazon. This is the biggest misconception about cloud computing.

Clearly I have a misconception. I'm not an Amazon customer, but looking at their website, they say things like:
Designed for 99.999999999% durability and 99.99% availability of objects over a given year.
Designed to sustain the concurrent loss of data in two facilities.
Amazon S3 redundantly stores data in multiple facilities and on multiple devices within each facility.

All of this seems to me that they are selling resilience. If I read "designed for 99.99%" and then only got 90% availability, would it be fair for Amazon to say "yeah, but that's your fault, we never sold you resilience?" I don't think so.

If the argument we're having is "you're not paying for 100% availability" then I agree with you. If your argument is "you're not paying for resilience" then I struggle to agree with you.

Right. So why would you think that I would think that if I put data in just one DC I would have DC failover? That doesn't make any sense.

@Dashrender said in Amazon S3 Outage shows the danger of doing things cheaply.:

Are you saying that you assume that simply by putting a VM (or actual cloud service) in AWS that you automatically assume you have full DC failover, etc? Why do you assume this?

I don't know what you mean "full DC failover"? I would assume I'd have uptime within the SLA or within published expectations of uptime, which in Amazon's case is about 100% I believe?

I disagree with the article. One of the main reasons I would move to a cloud service is to outsource my redundancy and resilience. I move from on-premise to Amazon precisely because they have the economies of scale and expertise to manage the infrastructure better than I can. So of course I can blame them if they fail, unless it's within their SLA (which I don't think they have?). If I have to start bringing the management of resilience and redundancy back in-house, then part of the point of cloud services disappears. It has nothing to do with cost.

Thanks Breffni. Will download Skyfonts.

I don't agree that there are good reasons for using an obscure font, other than for a company logo. Certainly not for an SMB, unless the SMB is in a creative industry where image is particularly important.

We have now implemented a corporate branding guideline which specifies that only Helvetica should be used for all professional literature. At least there is a policy now, and it is a great font, previously it was up to the graphic designers to pick whatever fonts they wanted and they got a little "creative".

I'm not interested in getting free fonts, I'm only interested in ensuring licencing compliance.