Andrews

Member
  • Content count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Andrews

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    251-003-639

Profile Information

  • OS
    Windows 7 x64
  1. sorry, can't write for few days. small operation to finger tendon.
  2. Thank you both. jaclaz The –so switch, if I used it right, did not redirect the compressed files and directories. It just placed them on the same directory with the originally not compressed. To see an easy example as you suggest try the following please. Make a new folder on your desktop.Copy a directory with sub-directories and subs and files.Put the batch file on my first post in this directory and double click it.See the result.You will find the original structure compressed where you put the batch, starting with that directory.That is what I get and nearly what I want.What I want is 7zip to redirect is the compressed structure to another directory. Just this. You say 7zip is NOT IMHO the best choice for single file archiving. What would you choose that would be simple? Ysöwl Yes, the structure is as you wrote on the first part of you post. Your script works as I need and it can even create a new directory if it doesn’t already exist. All I have to do is to change the path or the name if I need. Thank you very much again.
  3. Thank you for trying to help Wise Owl. I am starting to believe that the more I try to explain what I want, the more I mix it up. What you say is very complicated end endless when having lots of files. That batch does the job already. So all I need is only to add some code to the batch, so that it outputs its job (the compressed directories with files) to another directory and NOT into the original directory where the uncompressed directories and files already are.
  4. Thank you jaclaz fpr coming on rescue once more. What I want to do is simple. I want to compress many directories with files. They are in branches (or trees) like as they normally appear on Windows Explorer. After compression I want them organised the same way as before compression (similar trees) keeping the same order and individually comperessed. For instance, you have a tree with directories and files and compress them. After compressing they are in an identical tree, but compressed. The batch file does it exactly that way. You can try it and see the result. I put the batch file on the directory I want to compress, double click and it and it does the job. The only problem is that it saves the compressed directories and files on the original directory where the files to compress are. I want to redirect its output somewhere else and not mix up everything. I hope I explained better now, but if you try the batch you will see exactly what I mean.
  5. I want to use 7zip for its usual function, but with individually compressed files in their folders and original names. 7zip, unlike WinRar with the option Put each file to a separate archive, only does this with the -o switch when decompressing, not compressing. I found a batch file at SourceForge (original version quoted at the bottom) that does it exactly as I need, but for a little difference: it leaves the compressed files and directories mixed on the original directory to where I copy the batch file and launch it. Not quite a problem if compressing only a handful of files, but when there are thousands of directories and files it requires a very long time to separate them, and as some are not compressed it can become a real headache, waste of time and patience. I placed a redirection after the operation (added in green), but is doesn't work. The result at the end of the command is Access is denied. It is a trial directory and also a trial path. I tried the path for the new existing directory both with and without quotes with the same result. Obviously, my problem is ignorance and that is what makes me ask for help. I searched the internet and found many tutorials, searched them, but not what I am looking for. How can I redirect the output of the 7zip compressed files and directories to another directory, or maybe better, make the batch file make a new one and redirect the output of 7zip into it? Any suggestions will be most welcome. Thank you. Best wishes for Christmas and New Year.
  6. Well, it is even more confusing than that because they are actually not indexed (the cases are empty – slow serch), and that is why they appear in the search. When they are indexed (cases marked) they do not appear in the searches. However, the searched files should always appear on any search results, the difference being only the speed of searching depending on being indexed or not. It is extremely strange that this issue on a then new installation reappears on a reinstallation. I wonder if this is a Windows 64-bit bug in connection with something else (maybe the HDD itself) because I have this HDD and it didn't show up until I moved to 64-bit. It doesn't search right after installing, first thing I checked.
  7. I am back because there are new findings to this issue. Because to do my work I have to do many searches, I can't do without searching. So I kept trying at least to understand the origin of the issue. I updated with SP1 from Windows Updates and nothing happened. As I couldn't solve it by myself and didn't get the needed help here, I gave up on the installation which was very recent, reformatted and made a clean install. A fresh install doesn't take more than half hour and I had already lost many useless hours. What takes extremely longer is installing our programs and configuring. After reinstalling I couldn't believe that the issue didn't change at all. It was back as before! I tried more things always checking the results. Rebuilding the index had been proved absolutely useless, as already told on the starting post, so I started with other experiences. I tried changing the selected folders for indexing in different ways and watching the subsequent results. I came to the following conclusion. (The issue is on one drive only.) I unmarked the case for the whole drive (the top root case). The search worked everywhere on the drive independently of the folder or subfolder where it is performed or where the searched for file is. There is the notice that Searches might be slow… Click to add to index. If I click then it doesn't search there anymore. Then, I marked the top root case and unmarked several folders. I started the search for certain known files located on unmarked root folders or subfolders. Even if the file was located on any deep subfolder, it was found, but if I started searching from the marked top root folder it didn't work. After, I unmarked all folders including the top root folder, and marked a few others in the root. The searches were normal on the unmarked folders and didn't work on those marked for indexing. This tells me the indexing on this drive works reversely to how it should. However, searches are normally slower because files on unmarked folders are found but not indexed. So I did the opposite of what I should: unmarked all locations where I need to search and marked those where I don't. This way searches are slower, but I can find the files. Better than nothing. Unbelievable for my little knowledge, but I am sure that anyone knowing how the index works will understand what is going on.
  8. I'm sorry if I didn't give you the answer you needed right away because I thought I did . If someone doesn't give the right answer, the other one must state it without delay instead of expecting that I will guess, or else I'll be undermining your help, which is the opposite of what I need, sorry. Once done, a mistake will never be corrected without recognition. Isn't this logic enough to be understood by anyone? So what can originate such strange issue? If it isn't SID related, what can it be? For the number of views of this thread I guess many people may have search issues, even if possibly not all like mine. Edited: Additions and corrections applied to the text to make it more clear.
  9. Thank you for the replies, The first thing I did when I noticed I couldn't make searches on that drive was to check up on its properties if the case to allow its content indexing was checked. Then I rechecked my choice of folders to be indexed (the whole thing with a few exceptions). Everything was OK, so I rebuilt the index. Didn't work. Then I used MS's FixIt application on the Web. I don't think it did much more than rebuilding the index again. I also tried the other computer based operated version of FixIt especially for search issues (Mats_Run.search.exe) and it just did the same as the previous with exactly the same result: did nothing. I come back to the last paragraph of my last post. I just installed Quicktime. The program shortcuts were properly placed on my relocated Start Menu on that drive. Some programs find it, like Quicktime and Office, others don't and do not install shortcuts there, but on the desktop only. I think this may well have the same source as the search issue. The search too, sometimes works for a little while right after the index being rebuilt. You know, the especial relocatable folders keep on appearing under the user's profile even if they are not really there. So when I search for something on the folders relocated on that drive with the search issue, from the profile root (%USERPROFILE%), no wonder nothing is found. This is probably silly, but I have a feeling that the source of the issue is on Tripredacus' first suggestions. It seems logical.
  10. OK, I did that. Unchecked XML on Advanced Options / File Types tab, and Outlook on indexed locations, so now I won't be able to search mail and over one thousand contacts. Please note that the issue appeared before I installed Outlook (with a few more Office apps.). Bad thing is that I rebooted, but no changes, no search on the same drive. It doesn't take any time for the No terms match your search to pop up. Really annoying. Shall I post any especial section of the registry, if that can help? Something strange happens. this is a new clean installation after reformatting the OS drive. Before installing Office I installed a few other programs, just little things. They did not install their usual shortcuts on the start menu. When I installed Office, all shortcuts were properly installed. Then I installed a couple more and no shortcuts again. The star menu was relocated on that drive along with others right after installing the OS, as mentioned earlier. It looks like this problem would have the same origin as the search. What is strange is that while some short-cuts get installed, others don't.
  11. Yes, the SID appears on many places of the registry, and also exactly as on your picture. Only the number differs:
  12. Yes, I wrote at the beginning of the following post: However, I am still not quite sure If I understood your question. It appears in these three places and many others: It is sub-key of Protected Storage System Provider that can not be exported because the right hand side of the registry is empty: [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Protected Storage System Provider] It can also be found as [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows Search\ProcessedSearchRoots\0002] @="defaultroot://{S-1-5-21-2201963446-2159910242-3709398457-500}/" "Version"=dword:00000000 "DoNotCreateSearchConnectors"=dword:00000001 Again: [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows Search\ProcessedSearchRoots\0002] @="defaultroot://{S-1-5-21-2201963446-2159910242-3709398457-500}/" "Version"=dword:00000000 "DoNotCreateSearchConnectors"=dword:00000001 And many more.
  13. Yes, Office was recently installed. I was reading carefully about the Office search issue on your link. I don't have that issue or event ID 3036 on MS Office events. Outlook search works OK. Fortunately, going there I found the reason for some other things not working in Office: I had not installed Visual Basic for Applications . After installing everything now runs OK. I know it is neither common or easy. I am probably wrong, but I have a feeling that this issue is somehow related to the long ID number you mentioned on your second post (#5 on this thread). I need to solve this because nearly all searches I make are on this very drive, so I waste lots of time looking for what I need. It wouldn't be so bad on any of the other drives. I still have Event Viewer warnings about Windows search, like this one now: Log Name: Application Source: Microsoft-Windows-Search Date: 01-03-2011 16:48:47 Event ID: 10023 Task Category: Gatherer Level: Warning Keywords: Classic User: N/A Computer: Rocco-PC Description: The protocol host process 5000 did not respond and is being forcibly terminated {filter host process 3260}. Event Xml: <Event xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/win/2004/08/events/event"> <System> <Provider Name="Microsoft-Windows-Search" Guid="{CA4E628D-8567-4896-AB6B-835B221F373F}" EventSourceName="Windows Search Service" /> <EventID Qualifiers="32768">10023</EventID> <Version>0</Version> <Level>3</Level> <Task>3</Task> <Opcode>0</Opcode> <Keywords>0x80000000000000</Keywords> <TimeCreated SystemTime="2011-03-01T16:48:47.000000000Z" /> <EventRecordID>6197</EventRecordID> <Correlation /> <Execution ProcessID="0" ThreadID="0" /> <Channel>Application</Channel> <Computer>Rocco-PC</Computer> <Security /> </System> <EventData> <Data Name="ExtraInfo"> </Data> <Data Name="ProtocolHostProcessID">5000</Data> <Data Name="FilterHostProcessID">3260</Data> </EventData> </Event> Must have some meanung to get clues. I also scanned for virus and found nothing. Thanks again for the help, and maybe someone else can join the rescue.
  14. Thank you Legend. I applied ownership to all root folders. It took a long time, but it doesn't solve the problem. I can't explain why it worked on a small trial on one only folder What else do you recommend, please?
  15. Maybe these links will answer your problem about the Windows 7 disgusting bug or stupid idea of the explorer tree expanding to the bottom: http://bit.ly/gyTfhb . . . . . Post by Bjamri2 http://bit.ly/gaYXLO . . . . Very detailed right on the first post http://bit.ly/flmazo. . . . . . More anguished people debating that bug Micro$oft removed a few other thread on the subject. Would they be annoyed with the facts?