"Steve Thackery" <nobody@xxxxxx> wrote in
news:OKiO4KZ0IHA.4004@xxxxxx:
Quote:
> No, and no again. This has been done to death already, and I believe
> MS have got this one right. They point out that it simply isn't
> possible to give an accurate or meaningful GUI, because there aren't
> enough pixels on the display. Nor is a "pretty" or "pleasing" end
> picture - with all the blue bars crammed up to one end - a good
> indication of whether the disk is actually optimised for speed and
> future resistance to fragmentation.
>
> Also, you should never need to run it manually anyway. It runs
> automatically every week, and all the INFORMED opinion (as opposed to
> the ill-informed prejudices of our resident trolls) is that you can,
> and should, just leave it to its own devices.
>
> In other words, FORGET about fragmentation. Let the built-in
> defragger do its job - which it will.
>
> SteveT
>
>
The 3rd party defragges are pretty accurate about how far in the defrag
job it is. If it says 80% finished they are about right. Give us both and
then you won't get threads like this. Don't please one camp and piss off
another.