Classic Shell: Forum

So here I go, typing %temp% in Search Bar, expecting to see (and be taken to) the "Temp" folder, as in original Windows 7 or Classic Shell 3.6.7. Instead...



If I type %temp% and press Enter, it takes me hell knows where (C:\Users\Christie-Ann\Documents\Portable Messengers\Yahoo! Messenger\Yahoo! Messenger\%ProgramFilesDir%\Yahoo!\Messenger\Cache\icon\temp). And there is no telling if other Windows environment variables are working properly, either. New search might be good, but the day I type Windows environment variable, and it doesn't take me to where I want to go, I know something is very, very wrong with the software.

Yes, I know I can use "Run", but that would slow down my work and defeat the whole purpose of having Search Bar for me (I use it for quick access). Classic Shell 3.6.7 did it fine, and I would expect such a regression to be corrected, if possible. Or please tell me how can I revert back to old Search, if it's still supported.

In fact, I personally think that while new search might be more thorough, it is less accurate in its results (i.e. displays a lot of results and what you look for might not be at the top anymore, as it used to be). I would much rather prefer to have old one back.

And maybe you should stick that improved search functionality to "Search" button in start menu? Quick-Access Search should provide exactly that - quick access (and it doesn't in its current state, as we see). If you want a more thorough search, refer to the actual Search button, no?

-----------------

And when I type %Appdata%, it throws me here:

C:\Users\Christie-Ann\Documents\Portable Messengers\Mail.ru\PortableBox\%AppData%

So yeah, by the looks of it, new Search has completely destroyed environment variables. Could you please at least make your Search ignore entries wrapped in %% signs or something?

Is this in 3.6.8 or the beta?; when i type %temp% into the search box with the beta it sends me toC:\Users\Jesse\AppData\Local\Temp Typing it in the run window also yields this result.

As for the new search, I agree that it should return more organized results, and have already suggested several ways to optimize and sort the results to Ivo.

Do you think it might be a good idea if typing 'run X' into the search box would cause it to pass everything after 'run ' to the run command? (just brainstorming)

In version 3.9.0 typing %TEMP% will search for the word "TEMP" and display the results. It finds a bunch of temp folders. When you press Enter it will go to the first one. If you wont to browse the actual temp folder type %TEMP%\.

In version 3.9.1 it will work as you expect.

And what if I need the shortcut named "Run ******"? (that would usually be games). I'm not getting what you're saying. If Search will pass everything after "run" to Run command, it will not find shortcuts like, for example, "Run Splinter Cell Double Agent" upon entering "run sp"?

Then don't use just "run", use something like:

run: COMMAND

True it wouldn't find 'Run splinter cell' when you type "Run sp" but the user could always type un spl so as to not trigger the run command.., and still get mostly the same results...

Alternatively i would have suggested 'Run:' But that requires shift which slows things down...
Though perhaps the command could be "srun " (system run)as it is more obscure and less likely to be typed by mistake

@not getting what i was saying, i was just throwing an idea out there, to make the search box more usable

@ Jcee

I do understand what you mean, but truth is - I think no matter what you come up with, WinKey + R will still be faster than typing "run\" or or "run-", or anything of that sort.

And I think it's best to leave "Run " search functionality. if I type "Splinter", I will get 5 splinter cell games as a search result. But If I type "Run sp", I will get only Splinter Cell Double Agent (it's the only one that uses "Run.." shortcut). Just an example. I think Classic Shell shouldn't rob users of the entire "Run" search results.

Actually i forgot about Win+R , yea no real point in changing it then

Try the new version 3.9.1. It should work as expected.