desktop search

8/14/2019 Desktop Search

1/15

Bek Std of

Desktop Se Toos

April 20, 2005

Tom NodaShawn Helwig

www.uwebc.org/decisiontools

Theres More to Search than Google & Yahoo!

An Evaluation of 12 Leading Desktop Search Tools


2/15www.uwebc.org 2005. UW E-Business Consortium

A new generation of desktop search tools is emerging that allows users to quickly nd relevant documents in computers

across the enterprise the same way search engines help locate information on the Internet. Companies expect that this

technology will boost employee productivity and creativity and allow them to compete successfully in todays knowledge-

driven economy.

Desktop search technology itself is nothing new. In fact, it has been around for years. However, some well know names

(i.e. Google and Yahoo!) have recently entered the space giving this technology a well-deserved boost in visibility. In an

effort to help understand the differences between the latest desktop search tools on the market, the UW E-Business Con-

sortium recently conducted a benchmark study of 12 popular desktop search tools. The benchmark criteria that were used

for the evaluation included usability, versatility, accuracy, efciency, security, and enterprise readiness.

When all the results were reviewed, it was determined that most of the desktop search tools were still too immature for

signicant business use due primarily to a lack of mature security and overall manageability. However, considering the

evolution of Instant Messaging from a pure consumer tool to a valuable enterprise application, desktop search may have

similar potential.

Based on our evaluation, the best overall desktop search tool is Copernic 1.5

Beta with Coveo.

Yahoo! Desktop Search 1.1 Beta was rated the second best tool in our evalu-

ation. See other notes.

Likasoft Archivarius 3000 came in a surprisingly close third in our evaluation.

This software is available commercially from Likasoft. Archivarius index ef-

ciency is outstanding and was the clear winner in our tests. The user inter-

face and navigation scheme is well designed and easy to use.

ExEcuTivE Summary

KEy FinDingS

Eete S

Oe rts

Bek cte

cte rts

Podt rees

apped a

apped B

2

3

3

4

4

11

12

TaBlE OF cOnTEnTS

The benchmark evaluation testing was performed in

March, 2005. This research was not funded or supported

by any specic companies or institutions. The benchmark

evaluations were conducted solely by the UW E-Business

Consortium.

BEnchmarK nOTES

Usability

Versatility

Accuracy

Efciency

Security

EnterpriseReadiness

TOP 3 DESKTOP SEarch

1. cope 1.5 Bet t coeo

2. yoo! Desktop Se 1.1 Bet

3. lksoft as 3000

Source: UW E-Business Consortium

2Deso Toos|Desktop Search


3/15

OvErall raTingS

Our benchmark evaluation was performed across six main criteria. Each criterion was quantied and was given a rating,

ranging from 1 (worst) to 5 (best). The rating is based on sub criteria, which align with the main criterions objective. For

sub criteria and their rating details, please refer to Appendix A - Comparison Table.

1. usbt

Good desktop search tools must be easy to use, havea lower learning curve, have professional aesthetics,and require fewer steps to reach desired output.

2. vestt

Versatility describes how wide and deep the tool al-lows you to search. This includes factors such as sup-ported document types, web/e-mail integration, andmulti-language support.

3. a

Can you nd what you are looking for? This criterionaddresses accuracy of search results as well as other

factors that help users nd the desired information.

4. Efciency

This criterion assesses the tools technical efciencyincluding memory usage, indexing time or indexed le

sizes. The best tool should not jeopardize overall PCperformance.

5. Set

Security and privacy are big concerns, especially in anenterprise environment. This criterion considers howwell vendors have incorporated security mechanisms.

6. Etepse redess

While most tools are designed for the consumer/homePC environment, some are ready to be used in anenterprise. This criterion may be especially helpful forIT managers.

BEnchmarK criTEria

These are the overall benchmark evaluation ratings. Some tools are very good in specic areas such as usability, versatil-

ity or search accuracy (explained later), but to be the best desktop search tool, a balance of all criteria is critical.

cope Desktop Se

yoo! Desktop Se

lksoft as 3000

mSn Toob Ste

gooe Desktop

ask Jeees

Ensh Professional

iSyS Desktop

dtSe DesktopdskmETa Po

Bk

hotBot Desktop

1.5 Beta

1.1 Beta

3.14

2.0 Beta

1.0

1.0 Beta

6.1

6.0

6.5

1.0.1

3.0

Beta

Desktop Search Tool Version


4.11

3.66

3.62

3.45

3.26

3.16

3.10

3.05

3.02

2.63

2.63

2.34

Score (Min = 1.00, Max = 5.00) Better

www.uwebc.org 2005. UW E-Business Consortium



4/15

criTEria raTingS

Versatility

5.00

Accuracy

3.00

Efciency

2.00

Security

3.50

Enterprise

Readiness3.00

Usability

1.50

The following charts summarize the best tools ratings for each criterion. Blinkx and ISYS are versatile tools but struggle to

deliver their powerful features in a user-friendly fashion. On the other hand, Ask Jeeves excels in usability, efciency and

security, but lacks versatility. Copernic is excellent in almost all criteria.

1. Usability

Copernic

Archivarius

Google

MSN

Ask Jeeves

2. Versatility

Copernic

Yahoo!

Blinkx

ISYS

3. Accuracy

Copernic

MSN

dtSearch

4. Efciency

Archivarius

Copernic

Ask Jeeves

5. Security

Yahoo!

Ask Jeeves

Google

6. Enterprise Readiness

Copernic

ISYS

Yahoo!

4.80

4.75

4.40

4.40

4.25

4.14

3.88

3.75

4.50

4.20

3.50

4.40

4.20

3.80

3.29

3.14

3.13

4.00

3.75

4.00

* Copernic with Coveo, and Yahoo! with X1


PrODucT rEviEwS

This section examines the details for each desktop search tool individually. The benchmark performance for each tool is

expressed with a Spider Chart (see description), in order to convey the performance in each one of six criteria as well as

the overall balance.

Spde cts

Spider Charts have been used to show how each criterion was scored, as well

as the overall balance. For instance, the chart at left indicates that this tool is

extremely good at Versatility but needs some improvement in Usability and Ef-

ciency.

Achieving the maximum scores in all criteria and maintaining a good hexagon

shape are ideal, but that is not required by all users. For instance, if Enterprise

Readiness is not critical for a specic user, an unbalanced shape that lacks

Enterprise Readiness features may still be a solid t.

4.00




5/15

cope Desktop Se 1.5 Bet www.copernic.com

Copernic is the most well-balanced desktop search tool among those evaluated.

The tool is intuitive and easy to use. The new beta version supports FireFox for

Web history search, and Thunderbird and Eudora for e-mail (as well as IE, Out-

look and Outlook Express) Search as you type and dynamic indexing, which

detects new and modied les/e-mails on the y, are useful features. Filtering,

sorting and grouping search results are well rened. The application has a small

yoo! Desktop Se 1.1 Bet desktop.yahoo.com

Versatility

4.14

Accuracy

4.50

Efciency

4.20

Security

3.00

Enterprise

Readiness

4.00

Usability

4.80

4.11


Versatility

3.88

Accuracy

3.20

Efciency

3.60

Security

3.29

EnterpriseReadiness

4.00

Usability

4.00

3.66


technology footprint and pro-

vides detailed index controls.

One potential improvement,

however, is that it should let

users choose a default web search engine. It only supports the all-

theweb.com web search within the application, which is not as popularas Google or Yahoo!

For business use, Coveo, a spin-off company from Copernic, provides

enterprise desktop search products, which enhance security, manage-

ability and network capability. The client applications are identical.

However, the enterprise version works with additional server products

such as Microsoft SharePoint.

Copernic Desktop Search 1.5 Beta

Yahoo! Desktop Search is based on X1 Desktop Search, so usability will be

familiar to existing X1 users. Yahoo! integrates X1s technology into its own porta

services such as Yahoo! E-mail and Instant Messaging. It can index Yahoo! IM

logs as well as Yahoo! Address Book. Versatility is excellent, as Yahoo! claims

their tool supports more than 200 types of documents. It indexes Adobe Pho-

toshop and Illustrator

les in addition to many

media les. Contents of

zip les are examinedand displayed in a tree

structure. The tools preview feature is well rened, but its search

results are somewhat clumsy because too many columns are

displayed in a vertical view. As opposed to Copernic, there is no

dynamic indexing or web history search.

X1 offers an enterprise version of the desktop search tool as a

server-based product. IT managers may want to check it out.Yahoo! Desktop Search 1.1 Beta




6/15

lksoft as 3000 3.14 www.likasoft.com

Versatility

3.38

Accuracy

3.20

Efciency

4.40

Security

3.00

Enterprise

Readiness

3.00

Usability

4.75

3.62


mSn Toob Ste 2.0 Bet toolbar.msn.com

Versatility

3.63

Accuracy

4.20

Efciency

3.60

Security

2.86

Enterprise

Readiness2.00

Usability

4.40

3.45


In contrast to Copernic or Yahoo!, this is a commercial product, which costs

from $25 to $45, depending on your status and purpose of use. Usability and

efciency are astonishing. It is a very simple GUI design, yet organizes a lot of

features compactly. It demonstrated the fastest initial indexing time among all

products, and memory usage was relatively low in idle time. It does not support

any media le index-

ing (image, audio or

video) or web/web

history searches. On

the other hand, e-mail

support is wide, ranging from Outlook and Outlook Express to

Eudora, Thunderbird and Lotus Notes/Domino. One uniquefeature is that it offers remote search functionality. The ap-

plication acts as a small Web server, allowing remote users to

search the computer through a web browser. Of course, it has

user/group account management capability built-in.Likasoft Archivarius 3000 3.14

MSN Toolbar Suite is similar to Google Desktop, and has almost the identical

functionality and navigation scheme. Moreover, it includes a Popup Blocker and

Auto Form Fill features which are already available with the Google Toolbar.

MSN performed well in terms of search accuracy. Word accuracy was very good

in our test. Shortcut keyword is a unique feature, which lets users associate

a keyword with specic

les. With this association,

users can type a keyword

in Windows Explorers

address bar to fetch a le,instead of crawling multiple folders. One challenge is that it does

not support PDF les by default. To index PDF contents, users

must download and install an add-in tool called IFilter.

MSN Toolbar Suite 2.0 Beta




7/15

gooe Desktop 1.0 desktop.google.com

Google seamlessly integrates desktop search into its popular web search en-

gine. The browser-based desktop search tool is easy to use and will be familiar

to anyone who has used Google. A oating bar is a unique feature and allows

users to type keywords from anywhere on the screen. Google Desktop API is

another promising feature, allowing software developers to develop add-ins to

ask Jeees Desktop Se 1.7 Bet sp.ask.com/docs/desktop

Versatility

3.50

Accuracy

3.20

Efciency

3.33

Security

3.13

Enterprise

Readiness

2.00

Usability

4.40

3.26


Versatility

2.57

Accuracy

3.20

Efciency

3.80

Security

3.14

Enterprise

Readiness2.00

Usability

4.25

3.16


enhance the tools func-

tionality. OpenOfce and

ICQ index add-ins are

already available. Unfortu-

nately, ltering and sorting

functions are quite limited. It appears as if Google is so focused

on its relevance algorithm that other sorting functions seem to beignored.

Google Desktop 1.0

Ask Jeeves usability is remarkably simple and well rened. It searches all types

of documents simultaneously, and users can look through each type of results

via tabbed panes. It has a nice preview pane, which even plays Windows Media

Player. The application is very small and efcient. Users are given index control

when they can choose either fast or gradual indexing. However, Ask Jeeves big-

gest challenge is to

improve versatility.

Currently, the sup-

ported document

types are very lim-ited. Also, the preview pane does not render Microsoft Excel

or PowerPoint. Web history search is not supported, either. If

it would support more le types, Ask Jeeves has the potential

to become one of the top desktop search tools.

Ask Jeeves Desktop Search 1.7 Beta




8/15

Ensh Professional 6.1 www.ensh.com

Versatility

3.38

Accuracy

2.40

Efciency

3.40

Security

3.00

Enterprise

Readiness

3.00

Usability

3.40

3.10


Ensh is a commercial software product. We tested the Professional version,

which costs $199.95. Ensh is a lot different from the other 11 tools in terms of

usability. It gives users full customization of views. It provides calendar, contacts

and weather views in addition to search/preview views. It almost simulates a

Ensh Professional 6.1

Microsoft Outlook

environment. Users

can create multiple

index les and associ-

ate them with differ-

ent views. However,

this customization creates a steep learning curve. It takes

some time to get used to its operations. Ensh has RelevantSearch features, but its purpose appeared unclear. When we

searched Open Ofce, for example, the relevant search high-

lighted [email protected], which made us wonder why.

iSyS Desktop 6.0 www.isys-search.com

Versatility

3.75

Accuracy

2.80

Efciency

3.00

Security

3.00

Enterprise

Readiness4.00

Usability

1.75

3.05


ISYS is a versatile tool. It supports multi-language indexing, FTP indexing, SQL

indexing (requiring XML output), and supports many e-mail clients including

Compuserve, Eudora and VIM. It is also good at enhancing search accuracy.

It includes a spell checker, synonym rings, fuzzy logic search (which correct

misspells in indexed documents) and intelligent date/number format (e.g. nd

1/1/05 from Jan. 1, 2005). In contrast to those valuable features, however, us-

ability is signicantly poor. The application creates multiple Windows menus and

ISYS Desktop 6.0

confuses users. Custom query

syntaxes create another steep

learning curve for users whodo not want to memorize them. Toolbar icons dont have text descrip-

tions, yet their symbols are somewhat vague. When we searched MP3

les, we were stuck because it did not provide any links or enable us to

play them inside the application. ISYS must improve its usability to be

able to capitalize on its powerful versatility and accuracy features.




9/15

dskmETa Po 1.0.1 www.diskmeta.com

Versatility

2.43

Accuracy

2.60

Efciency

3.40

Security

2.86

Enterprise

Readiness2.00

Usability

2.50

2.63


diskMETA is also a commercial product. We tested the most advanced version,Professional, which costs $97.50. The application is one of the simplest, but

comes with very limited functionality. diskMETA does not support any web history

or e-mail search. Filtering and sorting are also limited, and there is no preview

pane. However, it does have remarkable word accuracy features. It includes a

dictionary feature that can identify a word, like criterion from a keyword crite-

diskMETA Pro 1.0.1

ria. Surprisingly, most

desktop search tools

cannot do this. Iterating

search results is another

nice feature. Most desktop search tools we tested show all search

results regardless of its amount (e.g. 2,000 matches), which can

often overwhelm users. diskMETAs page iteration is intuitive and

easy to use.

dtSe Desktop 6.5 www.dtsearch.com

Versatility

3.25

Accuracy

3.50

Efciency

3.00

Security

2.88

Enterprise

Readiness

3.00

Usability

2.50

3.02


dtSearch Desktop is outstanding in terms of word accuracy features. It provides

phonic and fuzzy search, boolean and wildcard keywords, multi language and

encoding support, noise word list, which excludes common words such as is or

a, and case/accent sensitive indexing. The most regrettable aspect, however,

is that it does not deliver

those features very well

to the end user because

of poor usability. There is

no search keyword eld

on the main window, and

users have to go through the menu. Setting up the above features

one by one is also a tedious task. The indexer treats most of thebinary les as text and messes up the index le with none char-

acters. If it enhanced the GUI and rened the usability, it could

become a very interesting desktop search tool.

dtSearch Desktop 6.5




10/15

Bk 3.0 www.blinkx.com

Versatility

3.75

Accuracy

2.60

Efciency

1.80

Security

2.63

Enterprise

Readiness

2.00

Usability

3.00

2.63


hotBot Desktop Bet www.hotbot.com/tools/desktop

Versatility

3.00

Accuracy

2.20

Efciency

2.00

Security

2.86

Enterprise

Readiness2.00

Usability

2.00

2.34


Blinkx 3.0 has a Metal theme, which makes it look somewhat similar to the Ma-

cintosh user interface. The tools versatility is somewhat limited, but it does have

some unique features. Blinkx Visualizer produces a tree view of search results,

and users can see the

tree growing. Smart-

folder crawls the web

to nd relevant informa-

tion to the documents

in the folder. Unfortu-

nately, the application

has major problems with efciency. Indexing is painfully slow. In

fact, in our test, the application couldnt complete the process. Itruns four instances and consumes signicant memory. In con-

sequence, search outputs are slow, and a window often ickers.

Hopefully, this will be improved in the future release.

Blinkx 3.0

HotBot is a toolbar-based desktop search tool and displays output in the brows-

ers left pane, where Favorite and History links are often displayed. The tool

is very compact and has some unique features. It supports RSS indexing and

allows users to associate keywords to custom web sites (e.g. eb

for eBay search). Unfortunately, we couldnt complete indexing on this tool for

unknown reasons. The soft-

ware seems to have been

rushed for the beta release.

HotBot offers a deskbar

version, but usability is veryinconsistent from the toolbar. Conguration is text le based, and this

is simply not user-friendly. It provides a lot of custom search syntax-

es but has a steep learning curve. Search results are automatically

saved as HTML les, and this may cause some security concerns.

We expect signicant improvements in its nal release.

HotBot Desktop Beta




11/15

Appendix A - CompArison TAble

1.75

3.75

2.80

3.00

3.00

4.00

3.05

$570.00

4.00

3.88

3.20

3.60

3.29

4.00

3.66

F

4.75

3.38

3.20

4.40

3.00

2.00

3.62

$25.00 - 45.00

4.40

3.63

4.20

3.60

2.86

2.00

3.45

F

2.00

3.00

2.20

2.00

2.86

2.00

2.34

F

4.40

3.50

3.20

3.33

3.13

2.00

3.26

F

3.40

3.38

2.40

3.40

3.00

3.00

3.10

$199.95

2.50

3.25

3.50

3.00

2.88

3.00

3.02

$199.00

2.50

2.43

2.60

3.40

2.86

2.00

2.63

$97.50F

bW=Browser base, db=Deskbar, Fb=Floating bar, sA=Standalone Application, Tb=To

Cta / dkt sach T Ak Jv bk Cc kmeTA tsach Ensh Gg Htbt isYs msn lkaft Yah

1. Uaty

1.1. Application Types

1.2. Features

1.3. Simplicity

1.4. Navigations

1.5. Aesthetic

1.6. Others in Usability

2. Vatty

2.1. Supported PC Environment

2.2. Supported Files

2.3. Media Support

2.4. Application Support

2.5. Multi-language Support

2.6. Web Integration

2.7. E-mail Integration

2.8. Others in Versatility

3. Accuacy

3.1. Word Accuracy

3.2. Additional Word Support

3.3. Index Accuracy

3.4. Output Format

3.5. Filter & Sort

3.6. Others in Accuracy

4. Efciency

4.1. Download/Installed File Size

4.2. Indexed File Size

4.3. Initial Index Time

4.4. Index Controls

4.5. Memory & CPU Usages

4.6. Others in Efciency

5. scuty

5.1. HTTPS Cache Indexing

5.2. Personal Folder Search

5.3. Possible Intrusion

5.4. Protection Features

5.5. Privacy

5.6. Spyware & Adware

5.7. Product Update

5.8. Others in Security

6. et ra

6.1. Enterprise Products

4.25

2.57

3.20

3.80

3.14

2.00

3.16

F

3.00

3.75

2.60

1.80

2.63

2.00

2.63

F

4.80

4.14

4.50

4.20

3.00

4.00

4.11ova sc

Ct

SA SA, TB SA, DB SA SA SA BW, DB, FB BW, TB, DB SA BW, TB, DB SA SA, TB

Source: UW E-Business Consort

ova ratg 6 10 1 10 9 7 5 12 8 4 3 2

www.uwebc.org 2005. UW E-Business Consort

dc T|Desktop Search


12/15

aPPEnDix B

We performed benchmark evaluations for all the desktop search tools on the same machine. To prevent any index con-

icts, we installed/uninstalled one tool at a time. The details of the computer environment information are shown below:

Test Computer :

CPU :

Memory :

HDD :

OS :

Indexed Folder Size :

File Types in Indexed Folders :

DELL Optiplex GX240

Pentium 4 (1. 7GH)

512 MB

80 GB

Windows XP Professional

Documents & Folders = 672 MB, Outlook pst le = 4.13 MB (the same message con-

tents for Outlook Express and Thunderbird), IE web cache = 8 MB, FireFox web cache

= 19.2 MB

Text (Unicode & ASCII), DLL, Java, Class, HTML, XML, RTF, MS Ofce (doc, xls, ppt,mdb), sql, OpenOfce les, IM logs for Yahoo! & MSN, Adobe PDF, Photoshop, Illustra-

tor, InDesign, archives (zip, tar, g-zip, rar), images (bmp, jpg, gif, tif, png, eps), video

(asf, wmv, mov, avi, mpeg), audio (mp3, acc), and Asian text le and email.

Test Eoet

Bek Sb cte Desptos

The followings are the descriptions for the benchmark sub criteria.

1. usbt

1.1 Application Types Is the tool standalone, browser based, toolbar or deskbar? (not rated)

1.2 Features How many useful features, preferences and options are available?

1.3 Simplicity How does the tool deal with the following tradeoffs (more features vs. simpler application

design)?

1.4 Navigations How simple and easy is it to execute the search and results? How many steps does it

take from inserting search keywords to reaching the target le?

1.5 Aesthetics How are the user interface components and functions rened and organized? Does it

look professional? How about commands, forms, icons and images?

1.6 Others in Usability Other remarkable usability features if any. This score is only applied if it raises the

average.

2. vestt

2.1 Supported PC Environment Which operating systems does the tool support? Windows, Mac OS, Linux?

2.2 Supported Files Which le formats are supported? Ofce, PDF, IM les, Zip, RSS and folder names?

2.3 Supported Media Files Which image/audio/video les are supported?




13/15

2.5 Multi-language Support Does the tool support multi language searches? Can it search Asian text? Does it support

Unicode or other specic encoding types?

2.6 Web Search Integration How does the tool seamlessly integrate local machine search, web history, and web site

search into one platform?

2.7 E-mail Integration How far does the tool search in the e-mail client? Does it search just e-mail messages, or

does it also search attachments, address books, schedules and tasks as well? Does it

require the e-mail client be running while indexing?

2.8 Others in Versatility Other remarkable versatility features if any. This score is only applied if it raises the

average.

3. a

3.1 Word Accuracy How exactly does the tool recognize keywords? If a user types apples, does it also look

for the word apple? What about criterion/criteria or it/IT? Does it support synonyms

or a thesaurus?

3.2 Additional Word Support Does the tool have spell checker? What happens if users misspell Massatusets? How

does the tool handle an ambiguous persons name? Does it support wildcard

(* character)? What about double equations or boolean keywords?

3.3 Index Accuracy What will happen if users move or delete indexed les and then try to search them? What

about new les or modied les? Does it support dynamic indexing, or does it require

reindexing? What about received/sent e-mail?

3.4 Output Format How accurate and user-friendly is the output? Does it pinpoint exact word locations in

les or just display the le name? How easy is it for users to nd documents from

hundreds of outputs?

3.5 Filter & Sort Can users easily lter or sort search output? What kinds of ltering/sorting options are

available? How easy are they to use?

3.6 Others in Accuracy Other remarkable accuracy features if any. This score is only applied if it raises the

average.

4. Efciency

4.1 Download/Indexed File Size How large are downloaded and installed le sizes? Are they small or large, considering

its features and capabilities?

2.4 Supported Applications Check which applications are supported. This is related to the criteria above, but what

about IE or FireFox in terms of web history searches? What about e-mail clients? Does it

support Outlook, Express, Thunderbird, Lotus Notes or Eudora? What about IM?


4.2 Indexed File Size How large are the indexed les? Are they small or large, considering its supported le

types?



14/15

4.5 Memory & CPU Usages How much memory does the tool require during the idle and indexing time? How much

CPU power does the tool require during the usage and indexing time?

4.6 Others in Efciency Other remarkable efciency features if any. This score is only applied if it raises the

average.

5. Set

5.1 HTTPS Cache Indexing Can users search SSL web histories? Do users have an option to prevent those pages

from being indexed?

5.2 Personal Folder Search Can the tool allow users to search someone elses personal folders? Or does it restrict

indexable folders, primarily for privacy/security reasons?

5.3 Possible Intrusion Is there any possible intrusion or security breach?

5.4 Protection Features Can users protect certain folders or documents from desktop search? How about

password protected documents? Does the tool index them or ask users for a decision?

5.5 Privacy How does the vendor address privacy and security issues? Is it clearly stated on the web

site or during installation?

5.6 Spyware & Adware Does the tool secretly install Spyware or Adware? Is there any unusual network activity

occuring when the application is running?

5.7 Product Update Does the tool have auto update features so that users can apply updates as quick and

easily as possible? Or does it require uninstall/install? How easy is it to uninstall and

reinstall the new one (keep indexed les)?

5.8 Others in Security Other remarkable security features if any. This score is only applied if it raises the

average.

6. Etepse redess

6.1 Enterprise Products Does the vendor provide enterprise desktop search solutions?

4.4 Index Controls How can users control index performance and frequency? Can users control how much

hardware resources the tool can use? How to schedule indexing? Automatic indexing

during idle time?

4.3 Initial Index Time How long does the tool initially take to index les and e-mail? Considering its indexed le

size and supported le types, is it fast or slow?




15/15


abot uw E-Bsess cosot

The UW E-Business Consortium (the industry membership base of the UW E-Business

Institute) is Wisconsins premier organization that helps companies gain a competitive ad-

vantage through e-business. Our members - business executives and senior managersfrom the Midwests leading companies - tap into world-class university resources and the

collective experiences of this B2B and B2C group to address and share strategic e-busi-

ness and information technology challenges, best practices and lessons learned.

For more information, contact Assistant Director of Member Relations,

Christina Paschen (608) 265-0645 or [email protected]