12 ms·

Gmail search is fast. On outlook, a desktop mail client, it can take up to an hour to search for a simple term, in my experience.

shiranaihito 17y ago
It may be fast, but what you want is results.
- jsonscripter 17y ago
  I think some people also want timely results. I certainly do.
  - endtime 17y ago
    Ideally, yes, but that doesn't appear to be an option. Given the choice between instant and incomplete results, and slightly slower but complete results, I'll take the latter.
- TallGuyShort 17y ago
  Considering the difference in speed, it's faster for me to find what I was looking for by sifting through GMail's results, than to wait for Outlook's results to show up at all. Outlook's search essentially renders my whole machine useless until it's done searching.
timcederman 17y ago
Have you used Outlook 2007 with the built-in search indexer? Incredibly quick.
- jsonscripter 17y ago
  I didn't know. I'm stuck using Outlook 2003 at work :(
  - TY 17y ago
    Try Xobni search plugin - it's fast and free for the basic version. It will certainly alleviate your search pains with Outlook 2003.
  - altano 17y ago
    So it sounds like you're using Outlook 2003 on XP and don't have Windows Search (what powers Outlook instant search) installed. Hound your incompetent IT department and say you need to search your email and you need Windows Search 4 installed on your machine instead of blaming a 6 year old product and a 8 year old operating system.
  - andrewparker 17y ago
    If you're stuck on Outlook 2003, Lookout is an add-on for '03 that adds blazing fast search. I find it works faster than Xobni.
    - mistermann 17y ago
      +1 for Lookout...free and works like a charm!
      - redorb 17y ago
        This whole thread (outlook 2003 being slow, 07 being a lot faster) makes it seem like xobni should have sold for 20mm
    - stevsonlee 17y ago
      My favourite one is Lookeen! Lookout is old and cannot search for and in docx..xobni is a matter of tase, nothing for me!
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- snprbob86 17y ago
  I've been using Outlook 2007 since it launched. It is incredibly quick... when it works. I frequently find that I can be LOOKING AT THE EMAIL I WANT. Then type a phrase that I am staring at, and not have that email appear in the results. Never mind that sometimes it will randomly start taking 60 seconds or more to return results until you restart the program.
discojesus 17y ago
if I may quote some scripture: "Gerald Weinberg tells the story of a programmer who was flown to Detroit to help debug a troubled program. The programmer worked with the team who had developed the program and concluded after several days that the situation was hopeless. On the flight home, he mulled over the situation and realized what the problem was. By the end of the flight, he had an outline for the new code. He tested the code for several days and was about to return to Detroit when he got a telegram saying that the project was canceled because the program was impossible to write. He headed back to Detroit anyway and convinced the executives that the project could be completed. Then he had to convince the project's original programmers. They listened to his presentation, and when he'd finished, the creator of the old system asked, "And how long does your program take?" "That varies, but about ten seconds per input." "Aha! But my program takes only one second per input." The veteran leaned back, satisfied that he'd stumped the upstart. The other programmers seemed to agree, but the new programmer wasn't intimidated." "Yes, but your program doesn't work. If mine doesn't have to work, I can make it run instantly." - _Code Complete_, pp.595-596
- gruseom 17y ago
  I love that story and have quoted it many times (though, Code Complete? really, just read Weinberg). But it doesn't apply here. Gmail search certainly works. It just doesn't have every feature.
  - discojesus 17y ago
    Gmail search certainly works. It just doesn't have every feature. It's not "completely broken," but no hits for a query of "zag" in an email that contains "zagg" comes uncomfortably close to "doesn't work." (FWIW, I use gmail and haven't had any huge problems with search, although I have had to do way more work to find something than I would expect given that it's from Google). Code Complete? really, just read Weinberg 'twas just a quick copy and paste from my fortune file. Although as far as I'm concerned there ain't nothing wrong with Code Complete.
    - gruseom 17y ago
rufo 17y ago
An hour, really? I don't use Outlook, so I don't know if that's right - but I suppose that's why the various Outlook search plugins are so popular. I haven't had a problem with Gmail search as described, but I would not classify it as fast. Often I'll type in a simple query and have it spend 10-20 seconds before it returns results. If I perform the same query on the same dataset in Spotlight in Mac OS X, it starts to return results instantly with the search completing within 5-10.
mattmaroon 17y ago
My outlook box is pretty large and it never takes more than 3 or 4 seconds. It's not the greatest search either, but it does handle substrings nicely and automatically. It works most of the time (though I'd still be much happier if it worked all of the time.)

shiranaihito 17y ago

It may be fast, but what you want is results.

jsonscripter 17y ago
I think some people also want timely results. I certainly do.
- endtime 17y ago
  Ideally, yes, but that doesn't appear to be an option. Given the choice between instant and incomplete results, and slightly slower but complete results, I'll take the latter.
TallGuyShort 17y ago
Considering the difference in speed, it's faster for me to find what I was looking for by sifting through GMail's results, than to wait for Outlook's results to show up at all. Outlook's search essentially renders my whole machine useless until it's done searching.

timcederman 17y ago

Have you used Outlook 2007 with the built-in search indexer? Incredibly quick.

jsonscripter 17y ago
I didn't know. I'm stuck using Outlook 2003 at work :(
- TY 17y ago
  Try Xobni search plugin - it's fast and free for the basic version. It will certainly alleviate your search pains with Outlook 2003.
- altano 17y ago
  So it sounds like you're using Outlook 2003 on XP and don't have Windows Search (what powers Outlook instant search) installed. Hound your incompetent IT department and say you need to search your email and you need Windows Search 4 installed on your machine instead of blaming a 6 year old product and a 8 year old operating system.
- andrewparker 17y ago
  If you're stuck on Outlook 2003, Lookout is an add-on for '03 that adds blazing fast search. I find it works faster than Xobni.
  - mistermann 17y ago
    +1 for Lookout...free and works like a charm!
    - redorb 17y ago
      This whole thread (outlook 2003 being slow, 07 being a lot faster) makes it seem like xobni should have sold for 20mm
  - stevsonlee 17y ago
    My favourite one is Lookeen! Lookout is old and cannot search for and in docx..xobni is a matter of tase, nothing for me!
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
snprbob86 17y ago
I've been using Outlook 2007 since it launched. It is incredibly quick... when it works. I frequently find that I can be LOOKING AT THE EMAIL I WANT. Then type a phrase that I am staring at, and not have that email appear in the results. Never mind that sometimes it will randomly start taking 60 seconds or more to return results until you restart the program.

discojesus 17y ago

if I may quote some scripture: "Gerald Weinberg tells the story of a programmer who was flown to Detroit to help debug a troubled program. The programmer worked with the team who had developed the program and concluded after several days that the situation was hopeless. On the flight home, he mulled over the situation and realized what the problem was. By the end of the flight, he had an outline for the new code. He tested the code for several days and was about to return to Detroit when he got a telegram saying that the project was canceled because the program was impossible to write. He headed back to Detroit anyway and convinced the executives that the project could be completed. Then he had to convince the project's original programmers. They listened to his presentation, and when he'd finished, the creator of the old system asked, "And how long does your program take?" "That varies, but about ten seconds per input." "Aha! But my program takes only one second per input." The veteran leaned back, satisfied that he'd stumped the upstart. The other programmers seemed to agree, but the new programmer wasn't intimidated." "Yes, but your program doesn't work. If mine doesn't have to work, I can make it run instantly." - _Code Complete_, pp.595-596

gruseom 17y ago
I love that story and have quoted it many times (though, Code Complete? really, just read Weinberg). But it doesn't apply here. Gmail search certainly works. It just doesn't have every feature.
- discojesus 17y ago
  Gmail search certainly works. It just doesn't have every feature. It's not "completely broken," but no hits for a query of "zag" in an email that contains "zagg" comes uncomfortably close to "doesn't work." (FWIW, I use gmail and haven't had any huge problems with search, although I have had to do way more work to find something than I would expect given that it's from Google). Code Complete? really, just read Weinberg 'twas just a quick copy and paste from my fortune file. Although as far as I'm concerned there ain't nothing wrong with Code Complete.
  - gruseom 17y ago

rufo 17y ago

An hour, really? I don't use Outlook, so I don't know if that's right - but I suppose that's why the various Outlook search plugins are so popular. I haven't had a problem with Gmail search as described, but I would not classify it as fast. Often I'll type in a simple query and have it spend 10-20 seconds before it returns results. If I perform the same query on the same dataset in Spotlight in Mac OS X, it starts to return results instantly with the search completing within 5-10.

mattmaroon 17y ago

My outlook box is pretty large and it never takes more than 3 or 4 seconds. It's not the greatest search either, but it does handle substrings nicely and automatically. It works most of the time (though I'd still be much happier if it worked all of the time.)