Vista - RE: Vista defraging - a backward step

I agree with your comments. With a complete overhaul from XP series,
Microsoft has produced many commendable features in the Vista. Microsoft took
backward step in eliminating features we got used to in the Windows XP. I
hope Microsoft will issue an update with restoration if the essential
features enabling selection of hard drives, analisys chart, progress bars,
results and final statistics.

"Spaz" wrote:

Defrag is never really finished as files are continuously fragging as long
as the computer is in use. So, MS removed the visuals as they never showed
what was really happening and set it as the background process it should
always have been.

--
Mike Hall - MVP
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx




"wmidlander" <wmidlander@xxxxxx> wrote in message
newsA936817-5816-4A83-A697-5A7AC0DF254D@xxxxxx

1.. To view a file fragmentation analysis of (say) your C: drive, type:

defrag c: -a -v
The "-a" parameter tells the defragger to perform a fragmentation analysis.
The "-v" option tells it to be verbose in its report. If you want a report
on drive D: or some other drive, substitute that drive letter in place of
c:.

Be aware that defrag may tell you that you have no fragmented files even
if you have some. On NTFS partitions, the reporting function of defrag does
not consider fragmented files with fragments greater than 64 MB as
fragmented. If you need truly detailed information, you may have to consider
getting a third party defragmenter such as those listed on the Free
Defragmentation Utilities page on thefreecountry.com.

2.. To defragment a particular drive, say C:, type:

defrag c: -v -r
The "-r" option tells the defragmentation utility to treat files that are
fragmented with 64 MB fragments or larger as though they are not fragmented.
This partial defragmentation is the default for "defrag", and it's the only
way the GUI defragmenter in Vista works.

You can also force the defragmenter to defragment everything. That is,
even if the file fragments are larger than 64MB, the Vista defragmenter will
still attempt to put the file into contiguous sectors. To do this, run the
defragger with the following options:

defrag c: -v -w
As you have probably have guessed, "-w" tells the Vista defrag tool to do a
full defragmentation. All file fragments will be consolidated where
possible.

You will still not get any feedback as to the progress of the
defragmentation with the command line tool, just as you did not with the GUI
version. However, at the beginning and the end of the defragmentation,
"defrag" with the "-v" option will give a report, much like the old Windows
XP GUI defragmentation utility. Again, though, it will not report fragmented
files with 64 MB fragments (or larger) as being fragmented.

http://www.howtohaven.com/system/vis...entation.shtml

--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog...3DB!9709.entry
"wmidlander" <wmidlander@xxxxxx> wrote in message
newsA936817-5816-4A83-A697-5A7AC0DF254D@xxxxxx

Try the free Auslogics one, it's got everything you're missing and fast too


http://www.auslogics.com/en/software...efrag/download

Peter Lawton

"wmidlander" <wmidlander@xxxxxx> wrote in message
newsA936817-5816-4A83-A697-5A7AC0DF254D@xxxxxx

vista defrag is not really a step backward once you come to understand the efficiency and easy of use of automatic defrag compared to the archaic manual and scheduled defrag, especially when it involves large numbers of administered workstations. What is lacking in Vista defrag is the level of control and higher end features (and to an extent, performance) that are found in 3rd part solutions that utilize a similar principle. The basic concept is still sound, only the actual implementation is a bit incorrect. Otherwise, a system maintenance routine that is self-regulating without need for user intervention trumps the clunky old manual maintenance route.

Since it's a continuous process, it doesn't make sense to present a graphical progress indicator, but commercial defraggers allow you to view the status of the drive at any given point. They also do show graphical progress indicators when you are running in manual mode if you choose.

Hi,

Although the old defrag was an interesting graphic to watch, I have to
agree that I always suspected it was not a true representation of what was
happening. I also think a lot of users overused the utility, just to see
it.

Some information on the progress would be nice, though, for daily planning
purposes.
Thanks!

"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eek%23jJDPIHA.4740@xxxxxx

It wasn't even close to reality. There would have had to be thousands more
little squares, or a bar some 5 miles long to accurately represent what was
happening. The mistake was not dropping the visuals from Vista. It was
including the visuals in all previous versions of Windows.

Now people complain because they don't know if it has worked correctly. With
all respect, and based upon what I have already said, how did they know it
had been done correctly before? Because the squares were all in one
contiguous line, or the bar was a complete solid?


--
Mike Hall - MVP
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx




"Ralph" <aj531@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uFgud3bPIHA.4476@xxxxxx

From my posts on this subject 10 months ago:

"First off, I'd like to say that the dancing bars in the old defrag UI was a
model. By definition, ALL models are inaccurate. The only question is how
much time and effort you're willing to put into the model and how useful it
needs to be. If you could get a 100% accurate model, it wouldn't be a model
any more: it would be reality (and we'd be gods ). Anyway, suddenly
realizing your model is inaccurate doesn't mean the best answer is to delete
to model and tell everyone they really don't need it. That model gave
information on disk health and process status. What we have now gives
nothing. Unless the accuracy become so bad that the model was always
exactly and precisely wrong, we'd still be better off with the old UI
(something is better than nothing).

Secondly, in your description, you talk about why the inaccuracy exists in
terms of the old UI (1 bar represents X, and four colors). If you've come
to the conclusion that the reality has moved beyond the model's abilities,
it's time to change how you think about the model. Vista has this great new
3D graphical interface. Why not use it? The old UI used 2-bit color
(white, red, blue, green). Why not use the whole 24-bit color space? What
I know about defragging can dance on the head of a pin without jostling the
angels. But, how about a model where each "bar" represents one file and the
24-bit color of that bar represents the percentage of fragmentation in that
file? If I remember the numbers from some of my old Norton virus scans,
I've got something on the order of 800K files on this system. That would be
a whole lot easier to represent than the 26M you mentioned. Plus, who says
the UI has to show the whole model all the time? In the old Windows 95
model (I think), you could scroll for page after page to see in excruciating
detail what was going on. What about showing some level of abstraction in
the background and then having a zoom window in the foreground (assuming
it's even needed)?

My point is, there are other ways to give health and process status
information to the user than by using the old models and paradigms. To say
the old way was too inaccurate and justified ripping it out entirely is like
saying that the atlas on the desk doesn't show the local Starbucks,
therefore it's of no use and should be burned (I'd like to point out that
Google Maps (and I assume MS's equivalent) got around that problem by using
a zoom function). Just like it's unlikely that anyone capable of finding
and opening an atlas would be confused by the "inaccuracy" of the model, I
doubt there are many people capable of finding and starting the defragger
who would be confused by its "inaccuracy." Telling people they don't really
need that atlas anymore since the airlines will get them to their
destination without their "obsessing" with nits like geography also doesn't
cut the mustard."

"Another thought: if we ignore a physical representation of the drive
entirely (clusters or files) and let color-space represent drive-space,
then, taken to the extreme, we could almost get by with the 24-bit color of
one pixel representing the fragmentation state of the entire drive.
Certainly, that's scalable to show bigger drives or give more information."

And stop implying people who want feedback on the status of their
defragmentation program are morons. It's tiresome, irritating, and serves
no productive purpose.

Dave




"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%238$%23J%23cPIHA.5400@xxxxxx

The "moron" comment a the end was a bit strong. I too miss was taken aback
by the changes in Vista, but Mike Hall wrote with tack and I didn't feel a
bit insulted.


"David A. Lessnau" <PostToNewsgroupPlease@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0FF4796C-6EF0-4E39-88F1-72261EA26E04@xxxxxx

The main reason they did this was the fact tha most people that did
serious defragging with XP did not use the Xp defrag anyway. So they
dumbed it down for the basic user.

They chose to not spend the money to compete against the third party
vendors to give something away. Which was a good business decision and
they could use their resources elsewhere.

Get Diskeeper 2008, it's awesome


--
Scooter
Posted via http://www.vistaheads.com