Comments on: UltraSearch: Quickly Find Files on Your PC Without Indexing

By: Marcin

Marcin — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:26:46 +0000

Wow, this program is very fast! Thank you for this!

By: Fedbo

Fedbo — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:39:01 +0000

With the current version (1.4) you can also search for folders – and on removable drives!
I think that makes it even more useful…

By: RobCr

RobCr — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:53:34 +0000

I doubt that there is any compelling reason, to use this instead of Everything (which is great).
One reason would be, that it can handle a FAT32 partition.
(And I suspect there is a FAT chance of that).

By: Jacob Nørgaard

Jacob Nørgaard — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:24:30 +0000

This doesn’t really work fast at all. It’s certainly not faster than either Launchy or the Windows 7 searcher here…

By: Tom Y

Tom Y — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:31:16 +0000

jbrown, did you try ticking the box (at the bottom of the window) for the drive you want to search on?

By: jbrown

jbrown — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:57:20 +0000

It doesn’t find anything other than the C drive and entering paths not on C (e.g. E:\some_folder) finds nothing. Am I missing something?

By: Jay

Jay — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 04:23:08 +0000

Nice find Ryan! I use their other program (TreeSize Free) but never try this one.

I think it’s faster than Everything, after the first search. On the first search I think it loads MFT table, and tooks almost a minute before showing up any result. Also in Windows 7, the portable version will fire UAC warning when you launch it.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:44:26 +0000

Personally, I say UltraSearch. It is faster for the things I tested it with.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:43:42 +0000

Good eye! I updated the article accordingly.

By: gsarig

gsarig — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:08:08 +0000

@nye: my thought exactly.

I can’t believe that it can be faster than everything, but I ‘ll assume it’s equally fast. The question is whether it is more user friendly and with more features than everything.

I will probably give it a try, though.