dba_222@yahoo.com wrote:

> (snip)
> My new XP Pro laptop was recently configured for me.
> After installing Teradata SQL Assistant, the .SQL files
> were opening with that. But, that was not what I wanted
> to use. In Windows, I like to use wordpad.
>
> I work with Oracle scripts, with the suffix: .SQL.
> There are hundreds of them.
>
> Like most people, I often forget which file contains what.
> So, I usually use Windows Explorer search to find the file.
> If I know that the file is concerning GV$PROCESS, I just use
> windows explorer to search all files for that keyword.
> Usually this works fine.
>
> But, explorer doesn't find a thing in any one of my .SQL files.
> Not even the SELECT keyword, which is in almost ALL of them.
> (snip)
Hi,

The search function in Windows XP filters out files to search in based
on file extensions (list can be manipulated, see further below).

My suggestion:

Install the free Agent Ransack, it searches for text strings in *all*
types of files, and not just in a selection of "approved" file extensions
as the built-in search does. It's a *much* better search tool as well...

Download it from here:
http://www.mythicsoft.com/agentransack/default.aspx

Agent Ransack can save the search result to a file (or clipboard), as text,
comma separated text or tab separated text. E.g. Excel reads comma separated
text (csv) very well.

When searching for text inside files, Agent Ransack is also able to do a
preview of the lines the text was found in (just do a single click on the
found file).
Also, you can use regular expression on both the file name part and the find
text in files part.


If you still want to use the not so good search tool that comes
with WinXP to search for text in files, take a look at this:

Using the "A Word or Phrase in the File" Search Criterion May Not Work
http://support.microsoft.com/default...B;EN-US;309173

Or this:

Add Files to Containing text Searches
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/scripts_d...fix_search.htm



--
torgeir, Microsoft MVP Scripting and WMI, Porsgrunn Norway
Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of
the 1328 page Scripting Guide:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scr...r/default.mspx

dba_222@yahoo.com wrote:
> What is the secret to fix this???

Agent Ransack. Explorer's search ****ing blows.

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

Thanks a lot. This is what I did, just in case anyone
else gets the same issue.

Noted at the registry key:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Contro l\ContentIndex\DllsToRegister

that there were a number of dlls to register.
Registered them. Although they remained in the same key.


Change the registry in:

HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.sql

Add key:

HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.sql\PersistentHandler


Set this value to:

{5e941d80-bf96-11cd-b579-08002b30bfeb}


Change the app to wordpad.

Reboot to be sure.

Works!



dba_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Dear Experts,
>
> I hate to have to post such a seemingly dumb question.
> But all the obvious has not worked.
>
> My new XP Pro laptop was recently configured for me.
> After installing Teradata SQL Assistant, the .SQL files
> were opening with that. But, that was not what I wanted
> to use. In Windows, I like to use wordpad.
>
> I work with Oracle scripts, with the suffix: .SQL.
> There are hundreds of them.
>
> Like most people, I often forget which file contains what.
> So, I usually use Windows Explorer search to find the file.
> If I know that the file is concerning GV$PROCESS, I just use
> windows explorer to search all files for that keyword.
> Usually this works fine.
>
> But, explorer doesn't find a thing in any one of my .SQL files.
> Not even the SELECT keyword, which is in almost ALL of them.
>
> I've done the obvious. In Windows explorer.
> Tools, folder Options. file types. change it to:
> notepad, wordpad, and even MS Word (which usually works).
>
> The file will open with the app that I change it to.
>
> However, any search for the contents for the contents of files,
> will always return zero files found!!!
>
> Searching through the registry has not shown anything obvious.
>
> What is the secret to fix this???
>
>
> Thanks a lot.

dba_222@yahoo.com wrote:

> What is the secret to fix this???
>

Pie.

(MVP) wrote:
> (bollocks)

Ian Moyce RHCE, JAPH, GCSE
Project Development Manager, NSI

Ian Moyce wrote:
> (MVP) wrote:
>
>>(bollocks)

His suggestion to use agent ransack was not bollocks. Explorer's search
is broken as designed and dangerously misleading. Score another
"brilliant" idea for Microsoft, from a long line of such ... Bob ...
paperclip ... nonstandard HTML quotes ... \ for directory separator char
.... the list goes on and on!

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

Twisted One wrote:
> Ian Moyce wrote:
>> (MVP) wrote:
>>
>>> (bollocks)
>
> His suggestion to use agent ransack was not bollocks. Explorer's
> search is broken as designed and dangerously misleading. Score another
> "brilliant" idea for Microsoft, from a long line of such ... Bob ...
> paperclip ... nonstandard HTML quotes ... \ for directory separator
> char ... the list goes on and on!

But he is still an MCP.

Ian Moyce wrote:
> Twisted One wrote:
>>Ian Moyce wrote:
>>>(MVP) wrote:
>>>
>>>>(bollocks)
>>
>>His suggestion to use agent ransack was not bollocks. Explorer's
>>search is broken as designed and dangerously misleading. Score another
>>"brilliant" idea for Microsoft, from a long line of such ... Bob ...
>>paperclip ... nonstandard HTML quotes ... \ for directory separator
>>char ... the list goes on and on!
>
> But he is still an MCP.

?

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

Twisted One wrote:
> Ian Moyce wrote:
>> Twisted One wrote:
>>> Ian Moyce wrote:
>>>> (MVP) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> (bollocks)
>>>
>>> His suggestion to use agent ransack was not bollocks. Explorer's
>>> search is broken as designed and dangerously misleading. Score
>>> another "brilliant" idea for Microsoft, from a long line of such
>>> ... Bob ... paperclip ... nonstandard HTML quotes ... \ for
>>> directory separator char ... the list goes on and on!
>>
>> But he is still an MCP.
>
> ?

Never mind.

Ian Moyce wrote:
> Twisted One wrote:
>> Ian Moyce wrote:
>>> Twisted One wrote:
>>>> Ian Moyce wrote:
>>>>> (MVP) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> (bollocks)
>>>>
>>>> His suggestion to use agent ransack was not bollocks. Explorer's
>>>> search is broken as designed and dangerously misleading. Score
>>>> another "brilliant" idea for Microsoft, from a long line of such
>>>> ... Bob ... paperclip ... nonstandard HTML quotes ... \ for
>>>> directory separator char ... the list goes on and on!
>>>
>>> But he is still an MCP.
>>
>> ?
>
> Never mind.

Oh come on, slap him with a clue bat!

sbb78247 wrote:
> Ian Moyce wrote:
>> Twisted One wrote:
>>> Ian Moyce wrote:
>>>> Twisted One wrote:
>>>>> Ian Moyce wrote:
>>>>>> (MVP) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (bollocks)
>>>>>
>>>>> His suggestion to use agent ransack was not bollocks. Explorer's
>>>>> search is broken as designed and dangerously misleading. Score
>>>>> another "brilliant" idea for Microsoft, from a long line of such
>>>>> ... Bob ... paperclip ... nonstandard HTML quotes ... \ for
>>>>> directory separator char ... the list goes on and on!
>>>>
>>>> But he is still an MCP.
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>> Never mind.
>
> Oh come on, slap him with a clue bat!

phallus cranium, putting it politely.

Ian Moyce wrote:
>>>But he is still an MCP.
>>
>>?
>
> Never mind.

If you wish to communicate whatever you were trying to say before, you
will expand that acronym. If not, I will take it that you actually don't
give a **** if anyone reads what you post, and act accordingly.

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

Twisted One wrote:
> Ian Moyce wrote:
>>>> But he is still an MVP.
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>> Never mind.
>
> If you wish to communicate whatever you were trying to say before, you
> will expand that acronym. If not, I will take it that you actually
> don't give a **** if anyone reads what you post, and act accordingly.

You're the only one that didn't get it.

Rebecca wrote:
> You're the only one that didn't get it.

Why not help me to "get it" then?

Besides, how can you possibly claim that? The newsgroup has a potential
audience in the hundreds of millions. You have no way of knowing for
sure how many of those people may or may not have read that post without
"getting it". Basically, you just presumed to speak for a sizable
fraction of the population of the planet. That is arrogance unsurpassed
in my experience since shrub passed the ****ing patriot act.

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

Twisted One wrote:
> Rebecca wrote:
>> You're the only one that didn't get it.
>
> Why not help me to "get it" then?
>
> Besides, how can you possibly claim that? The newsgroup has a
> potential audience in the hundreds of millions. You have no way of
> knowing for sure how many of those people may or may not have read
> that post without "getting it".

I polled them.

Rebecca wrote:
> Twisted One wrote:
>>Besides, how can you possibly claim that? The newsgroup has a
>>potential audience in the hundreds of millions. You have no way of
>>knowing for sure how many of those people may or may not have read
>>that post without "getting it".
>
> I polled them.

You should know that Internet polls are inherently unreliable and
unscientific. That is to say, they prove absolutely nothing. Nada. Zip.
Zero. Zilch. Responders are self-selecting -- there's bias source #1.
Anyone might lie. There's source #2. Unless a lot of hashing and strong
crypto is used, errors will creep in from network unreliability,
Microsoft software, and other sources. This won't produce a systematic
bias, but it will make any results approximate, this destroying any
usefulness for making absolute claims rather than "approximately half of
our respondents chose Pepto-Bismol over the other leading brand" or
whatever. So "Everybody except believes X" and the like are right
out. Also, without good crypto, anyone can stuff the ballot box, alter
someone else's vote, or otherwise corrupt the process, which is bias
source #3. There are probably more bias sources I'm missing, too.

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

Twisted One wrote:
> Rebecca wrote:
>> Twisted One wrote:
>>> Besides, how can you possibly claim that? The newsgroup has a
>>> potential audience in the hundreds of millions. You have no way of
>>> knowing for sure how many of those people may or may not have read
>>> that post without "getting it".
>>
>> I polled them.
>
> You should know that Internet polls are inherently unreliable and
> unscientific. That is to say, they prove absolutely nothing. Nada.
> Zip. Zero. Zilch. Responders are self-selecting -- there's bias
> source #1. Anyone might lie. There's source #2. Unless a lot of
> hashing and strong crypto is used, errors will creep in from network
> unreliability, Microsoft software, and other sources. This won't
> produce a systematic bias, but it will make any results approximate,
> this destroying any usefulness for making absolute claims rather than
> "approximately half of our respondents chose Pepto-Bismol over the
> other leading brand" or whatever. So "Everybody except
> believes X" and the like are right out. Also, without good crypto,
> anyone can stuff the ballot box, alter someone else's vote, or
> otherwise corrupt the process, which is bias source #3. There are
> probably more bias sources I'm missing, too.

As I told Rebecca when she polled me, you're the only one who didn't get it.

Twisted One wrote:
> Rebecca wrote:
>> Twisted One wrote:
>>> Besides, how can you possibly claim that? The newsgroup has a
>>> potential audience in the hundreds of millions. You have no way of
>>> knowing for sure how many of those people may or may not have read
>>> that post without "getting it".
>>
>> I polled them.
>
> You should know that Internet polls are inherently unreliable and
> unscientific. That is to say, they prove absolutely nothing. Nada.
> Zip. Zero. Zilch. Responders are self-selecting -- there's bias
> source #1. Anyone might lie. There's source #2. Unless a lot of
> hashing and strong crypto is used, errors will creep in from network
> unreliability, Microsoft software, and other sources. This won't
> produce a systematic bias, but it will make any results approximate,
> this destroying any usefulness for making absolute claims rather than
> "approximately half of our respondents chose Pepto-Bismol over the
> other leading brand" or whatever. So "Everybody except
> believes X" and the like are right out. Also, without good crypto,
> anyone can stuff the ballot box, alter someone else's vote, or
> otherwise corrupt the process, which is bias source #3. There are
> probably more bias sources I'm missing, too.

Rebecca asked me, and I agreed with her completely.

Damian wrote:
> As I told Rebecca when she polled me, you're the only one who didn't get it.

You have no more authority to make such a sweeping claim than she does.

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Palladium? Trusted Computing? DRM? Microsoft? Sauron.
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."