Vista - Vista Disk Defragment - room for improvement?

07-12-2008

Hello,

Is there any reason for us to hope that in future Microsoft may improve the
graphical display of Disk Defragmenter?

I understand fully the way in which Microsoft moved disk difragmentation -
that it should be a very low process so that it can almost run in the
background, and that you are free to use your machine almost the same as
usual while it's running.

However, a very very simple graphical interface would be a *huge*
improvement. I imagine that everybody, when they kick off defragmentation
want to have at least a rough guesstimate of how long would it take, and what
is the progress. A simple indicator would make a huge difference in decision
making for "This will take approx 1 hour" and "This will take approx 8
hours".

A lot of people will simply switch off their scheduled defragmentation
because they prefer it to be done once or twice a month when they want it.
Although this is not as Microsoft intended with trying to make this a more
routine, light, background scheduled process, they would at least have an
option to do it both ways. As it is, you have no idea if it will take 1 or 8
hours, and whether the on-going defragmentation is at 8% or 90%.

Cheers

07-12-2008

"Vlad" <Vlad@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:B58B220F-C5EA-4F1D-8F8C-92853EE301BD@xxxxxx

Quote:

> Hello,
>
> Is there any reason for us to hope that in future Microsoft may improve
> the
> graphical display of Disk Defragmenter?

Yes.

SCSIraidGURU · 07-12-2008

Get O&O Defrag Pro 10.

07-12-2008

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:01:00 -0700, Vlad wrote:

Quote:

> Hello,
>
> Is there any reason for us to hope that in future Microsoft may improve
> the graphical display of Disk Defragmenter?
>
> I understand fully the way in which Microsoft moved disk difragmentation
> - that it should be a very low process so that it can almost run in the
> background, and that you are free to use your machine almost the same as
> usual while it's running.
>
> However, a very very simple graphical interface would be a *huge*
> improvement. I imagine that everybody, when they kick off
> defragmentation want to have at least a rough guesstimate of how long
> would it take, and what is the progress. A simple indicator would make a
> huge difference in decision making for "This will take approx 1 hour"
> and "This will take approx 8 hours".
>
> A lot of people will simply switch off their scheduled defragmentation
> because they prefer it to be done once or twice a month when they want
> it. Although this is not as Microsoft intended with trying to make this
> a more routine, light, background scheduled process, they would at least
> have an option to do it both ways. As it is, you have no idea if it will
> take 1 or 8 hours, and whether the on-going defragmentation is at 8% or
> 90%.
>
> Cheers

Of course, a simple solution would be to use a modern file system which
does not need constant defragmentation. This IS the 21st century, after
all.

07-12-2008

"ray" <ray@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6dt17oF48209U1@xxxxxx

Quote:

> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:01:00 -0700, Vlad wrote:
>

Quote:

>> Hello,
>>
>> Is there any reason for us to hope that in future Microsoft may improve
>> the graphical display of Disk Defragmenter?
>>
>> I understand fully the way in which Microsoft moved disk difragmentation
>> - that it should be a very low process so that it can almost run in the
>> background, and that you are free to use your machine almost the same as
>> usual while it's running.
>>
>> However, a very very simple graphical interface would be a *huge*
>> improvement. I imagine that everybody, when they kick off
>> defragmentation want to have at least a rough guesstimate of how long
>> would it take, and what is the progress. A simple indicator would make a
>> huge difference in decision making for "This will take approx 1 hour"
>> and "This will take approx 8 hours".
>>
>> A lot of people will simply switch off their scheduled defragmentation
>> because they prefer it to be done once or twice a month when they want
>> it. Although this is not as Microsoft intended with trying to make this
>> a more routine, light, background scheduled process, they would at least
>> have an option to do it both ways. As it is, you have no idea if it will
>> take 1 or 8 hours, and whether the on-going defragmentation is at 8% or
>> 90%.
>>
>> Cheers

>
> Of course, a simple solution would be to use a modern file system which
> does not need constant defragmentation. This IS the 21st century, after
> all.

If you 're referring to linux, it might as well be the 18th century.
What's the good of a FS without an OS ?

07-13-2008

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:57:28 -0700, FB wrote:

Quote:

> ray wrote:
>

Quote:

>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:01:00 -0700, Vlad wrote:
>>
>>

Quote:

>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>Is there any reason for us to hope that in future Microsoft may improve
>>>the graphical display of Disk Defragmenter?
>>>
>>>I understand fully the way in which Microsoft moved disk
>>>difragmentation - that it should be a very low process so that it can
>>>almost run in the background, and that you are free to use your machine
>>>almost the same as usual while it's running.
>>>
>>>However, a very very simple graphical interface would be a *huge*
>>>improvement. I imagine that everybody, when they kick off
>>>defragmentation want to have at least a rough guesstimate of how long
>>>would it take, and what is the progress. A simple indicator would make
>>>a huge difference in decision making for "This will take approx 1 hour"
>>>and "This will take approx 8 hours".
>>>
>>>A lot of people will simply switch off their scheduled defragmentation
>>>because they prefer it to be done once or twice a month when they want
>>>it. Although this is not as Microsoft intended with trying to make this
>>>a more routine, light, background scheduled process, they would at
>>>least have an option to do it both ways. As it is, you have no idea if
>>>it will take 1 or 8 hours, and whether the on-going defragmentation is
>>>at 8% or 90%.
>>>
>>>Cheers

>>
>>
>> Of course, a simple solution would be to use a modern file system which
>> does not need constant defragmentation. This IS the 21st century, after
>> all.

>
> Or pretend that one exist (it doesn't) and pay no attention to
> fragmentation.

Been running Linux on various computers for over 10 years. Have not needed
a defragmenter yet.

07-13-2008

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:57:22 -0400, Hobbes wrote:

Quote:

> "ray" <ray@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:6dt17oF48209U1@xxxxxx

Quote:

>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:01:00 -0700, Vlad wrote:
>>

Quote:

>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Is there any reason for us to hope that in future Microsoft may
>>> improve the graphical display of Disk Defragmenter?
>>>
>>> I understand fully the way in which Microsoft moved disk
>>> difragmentation - that it should be a very low process so that it can
>>> almost run in the background, and that you are free to use your
>>> machine almost the same as usual while it's running.
>>>
>>> However, a very very simple graphical interface would be a *huge*
>>> improvement. I imagine that everybody, when they kick off
>>> defragmentation want to have at least a rough guesstimate of how long
>>> would it take, and what is the progress. A simple indicator would make
>>> a huge difference in decision making for "This will take approx 1
>>> hour" and "This will take approx 8 hours".
>>>
>>> A lot of people will simply switch off their scheduled defragmentation
>>> because they prefer it to be done once or twice a month when they want
>>> it. Although this is not as Microsoft intended with trying to make
>>> this a more routine, light, background scheduled process, they would
>>> at least have an option to do it both ways. As it is, you have no idea
>>> if it will take 1 or 8 hours, and whether the on-going defragmentation
>>> is at 8% or 90%.
>>>
>>> Cheers

>>
>> Of course, a simple solution would be to use a modern file system which
>> does not need constant defragmentation. This IS the 21st century, after
>> all.

>
> If you 're referring to linux, it might as well be the 18th century.
> What's the good of a FS without an OS ?

It is rather limiting that MS only understands one or two proprietary file
systems while Linux understands literally dozens.

07-13-2008

When you reformat the disk every 3-4 months to install the newest distro,
and don't use it in between for anything... then it doesn't get
fragmented...

;-)

--
Vista Home Premium 32 SP1
http://get.live.com/wlmail/overview

"ray" <ray@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6duh1vF4fmh5U3@xxxxxx

Quote:

> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:57:28 -0700, FB wrote:
>

Quote:

>> ray wrote:
>>

Quote:

>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:01:00 -0700, Vlad wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hello,
>>>>
>>>>Is there any reason for us to hope that in future Microsoft may improve
>>>>the graphical display of Disk Defragmenter?
>>>>
>>>>I understand fully the way in which Microsoft moved disk
>>>>difragmentation - that it should be a very low process so that it can
>>>>almost run in the background, and that you are free to use your machine
>>>>almost the same as usual while it's running.
>>>>
>>>>However, a very very simple graphical interface would be a *huge*
>>>>improvement. I imagine that everybody, when they kick off
>>>>defragmentation want to have at least a rough guesstimate of how long
>>>>would it take, and what is the progress. A simple indicator would make
>>>>a huge difference in decision making for "This will take approx 1 hour"
>>>>and "This will take approx 8 hours".
>>>>
>>>>A lot of people will simply switch off their scheduled defragmentation
>>>>because they prefer it to be done once or twice a month when they want
>>>>it. Although this is not as Microsoft intended with trying to make this
>>>>a more routine, light, background scheduled process, they would at
>>>>least have an option to do it both ways. As it is, you have no idea if
>>>>it will take 1 or 8 hours, and whether the on-going defragmentation is
>>>>at 8% or 90%.
>>>>
>>>>Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, a simple solution would be to use a modern file system which
>>> does not need constant defragmentation. This IS the 21st century, after
>>> all.

>>
>> Or pretend that one exist (it doesn't) and pay no attention to
>> fragmentation.

>
> Been running Linux on various computers for over 10 years. Have not needed
> a defragmenter yet.

zone23 · 07-13-2008

Quote: Originally Posted by ray

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:57:28 -0700, FB wrote:

Quote:

> ray wrote:
>

Quote:

>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:01:00 -0700, Vlad wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course, a simple solution would be to use a modern file system which
>> does not need constant defragmentation. This IS the 21st century, after
>> all.

>
> Or pretend that one exist (it doesn't) and pay no attention to
> fragmentation.

Been running Linux on various computers for over 10 years. Have not needed
a defragmenter yet.

I could just hear the complaints if MS would have switch file systems too, people like you would have a field day. Look for the new file system in windows 7 just like home server 2008.

07-13-2008

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:37:45 -0400, Dave wrote:

Quote:

> When you reformat the disk every 3-4 months to install the newest
> distro, and don't use it in between for anything... then it doesn't get
> fragmented...
>
> ;-)

I don't do that. Been doing 'rolling upgrades' on my Gentoo box for five
years now with no reinstall. It's completely up to date, and still no
fragmentation problems.

07-12-2008	#1 (permalink)
Vlad n/a posts	Vista Disk Defragment - room for improvement? Hello, Is there any reason for us to hope that in future Microsoft may improve the graphical display of Disk Defragmenter? I understand fully the way in which Microsoft moved disk difragmentation - that it should be a very low process so that it can almost run in the background, and that you are free to use your machine almost the same as usual while it's running. However, a very very simple graphical interface would be a huge improvement. I imagine that everybody, when they kick off defragmentation want to have at least a rough guesstimate of how long would it take, and what is the progress. A simple indicator would make a huge difference in decision making for "This will take approx 1 hour" and "This will take approx 8 hours". A lot of people will simply switch off their scheduled defragmentation because they prefer it to be done once or twice a month when they want it. Although this is not as Microsoft intended with trying to make this a more routine, light, background scheduled process, they would at least have an option to do it both ways. As it is, you have no idea if it will take 1 or 8 hours, and whether the on-going defragmentation is at 8% or 90%. Cheers
My System Specs

07-12-2008	#2 (permalink)
Colin Barnhorst n/a posts	Re: Vista Disk Defragment - room for improvement? "Vlad" <Vlad@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:B58B220F-C5EA-4F1D-8F8C-92853EE301BD@xxxxxx Quote: > Hello, > > Is there any reason for us to hope that in future Microsoft may improve > the > graphical display of Disk Defragmenter? Yes.
My System Specs

07-12-2008	#3 (permalink)
SCSIraidGURU Vista x64 Ultimate 1,823 posts	Re: Vista Disk Defragment - room for improvement? Get O&O Defrag Pro 10.
My System Specs

07-12-2008	#4 (permalink)
ray n/a posts	Re: Vista Disk Defragment - room for improvement? On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:01:00 -0700, Vlad wrote: Quote: > Hello, > > Is there any reason for us to hope that in future Microsoft may improve > the graphical display of Disk Defragmenter? > > I understand fully the way in which Microsoft moved disk difragmentation > - that it should be a very low process so that it can almost run in the > background, and that you are free to use your machine almost the same as > usual while it's running. > > However, a very very simple graphical interface would be a huge > improvement. I imagine that everybody, when they kick off > defragmentation want to have at least a rough guesstimate of how long > would it take, and what is the progress. A simple indicator would make a > huge difference in decision making for "This will take approx 1 hour" > and "This will take approx 8 hours". > > A lot of people will simply switch off their scheduled defragmentation > because they prefer it to be done once or twice a month when they want > it. Although this is not as Microsoft intended with trying to make this > a more routine, light, background scheduled process, they would at least > have an option to do it both ways. As it is, you have no idea if it will > take 1 or 8 hours, and whether the on-going defragmentation is at 8% or > 90%. > > Cheers Of course, a simple solution would be to use a modern file system which does not need constant defragmentation. This IS the 21st century, after all.
My System Specs

07-12-2008	#5 (permalink)
Hobbes n/a posts	Re: Vista Disk Defragment - room for improvement? "ray" <ray@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:6dt17oF48209U1@xxxxxx Quote: > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:01:00 -0700, Vlad wrote: > Quote: >> Hello, >> >> Is there any reason for us to hope that in future Microsoft may improve >> the graphical display of Disk Defragmenter? >> >> I understand fully the way in which Microsoft moved disk difragmentation >> - that it should be a very low process so that it can almost run in the >> background, and that you are free to use your machine almost the same as >> usual while it's running. >> >> However, a very very simple graphical interface would be a huge >> improvement. I imagine that everybody, when they kick off >> defragmentation want to have at least a rough guesstimate of how long >> would it take, and what is the progress. A simple indicator would make a >> huge difference in decision making for "This will take approx 1 hour" >> and "This will take approx 8 hours". >> >> A lot of people will simply switch off their scheduled defragmentation >> because they prefer it to be done once or twice a month when they want >> it. Although this is not as Microsoft intended with trying to make this >> a more routine, light, background scheduled process, they would at least >> have an option to do it both ways. As it is, you have no idea if it will >> take 1 or 8 hours, and whether the on-going defragmentation is at 8% or >> 90%. >> >> Cheers > > Of course, a simple solution would be to use a modern file system which > does not need constant defragmentation. This IS the 21st century, after > all. If you 're referring to linux, it might as well be the 18th century. What's the good of a FS without an OS ?
My System Specs

07-13-2008	#6 (permalink)
ray n/a posts	Re: Vista Disk Defragment - room for improvement? On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:57:28 -0700, FB wrote: Quote: > ray wrote: > Quote: >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:01:00 -0700, Vlad wrote: >> >> Quote: >>>Hello, >>> >>>Is there any reason for us to hope that in future Microsoft may improve >>>the graphical display of Disk Defragmenter? >>> >>>I understand fully the way in which Microsoft moved disk >>>difragmentation - that it should be a very low process so that it can >>>almost run in the background, and that you are free to use your machine >>>almost the same as usual while it's running. >>> >>>However, a very very simple graphical interface would be a huge >>>improvement. I imagine that everybody, when they kick off >>>defragmentation want to have at least a rough guesstimate of how long >>>would it take, and what is the progress. A simple indicator would make >>>a huge difference in decision making for "This will take approx 1 hour" >>>and "This will take approx 8 hours". >>> >>>A lot of people will simply switch off their scheduled defragmentation >>>because they prefer it to be done once or twice a month when they want >>>it. Although this is not as Microsoft intended with trying to make this >>>a more routine, light, background scheduled process, they would at >>>least have an option to do it both ways. As it is, you have no idea if >>>it will take 1 or 8 hours, and whether the on-going defragmentation is >>>at 8% or 90%. >>> >>>Cheers >> >> >> Of course, a simple solution would be to use a modern file system which >> does not need constant defragmentation. This IS the 21st century, after >> all. > > Or pretend that one exist (it doesn't) and pay no attention to > fragmentation. Been running Linux on various computers for over 10 years. Have not needed a defragmenter yet.
My System Specs

07-13-2008	#7 (permalink)
ray n/a posts	Re: Vista Disk Defragment - room for improvement? On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:57:22 -0400, Hobbes wrote: Quote: > "ray" <ray@xxxxxx> wrote in message > news:6dt17oF48209U1@xxxxxx Quote: >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:01:00 -0700, Vlad wrote: >> Quote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Is there any reason for us to hope that in future Microsoft may >>> improve the graphical display of Disk Defragmenter? >>> >>> I understand fully the way in which Microsoft moved disk >>> difragmentation - that it should be a very low process so that it can >>> almost run in the background, and that you are free to use your >>> machine almost the same as usual while it's running. >>> >>> However, a very very simple graphical interface would be a huge >>> improvement. I imagine that everybody, when they kick off >>> defragmentation want to have at least a rough guesstimate of how long >>> would it take, and what is the progress. A simple indicator would make >>> a huge difference in decision making for "This will take approx 1 >>> hour" and "This will take approx 8 hours". >>> >>> A lot of people will simply switch off their scheduled defragmentation >>> because they prefer it to be done once or twice a month when they want >>> it. Although this is not as Microsoft intended with trying to make >>> this a more routine, light, background scheduled process, they would >>> at least have an option to do it both ways. As it is, you have no idea >>> if it will take 1 or 8 hours, and whether the on-going defragmentation >>> is at 8% or 90%. >>> >>> Cheers >> >> Of course, a simple solution would be to use a modern file system which >> does not need constant defragmentation. This IS the 21st century, after >> all. > > If you 're referring to linux, it might as well be the 18th century. > What's the good of a FS without an OS ? It is rather limiting that MS only understands one or two proprietary file systems while Linux understands literally dozens.
My System Specs

07-13-2008	#8 (permalink)
Dave n/a posts	Re: Vista Disk Defragment - room for improvement? When you reformat the disk every 3-4 months to install the newest distro, and don't use it in between for anything... then it doesn't get fragmented... ;-) -- Vista Home Premium 32 SP1 http://get.live.com/wlmail/overview "ray" <ray@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:6duh1vF4fmh5U3@xxxxxx Quote: > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:57:28 -0700, FB wrote: > Quote: >> ray wrote: >> Quote: >>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:01:00 -0700, Vlad wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Hello, >>>> >>>>Is there any reason for us to hope that in future Microsoft may improve >>>>the graphical display of Disk Defragmenter? >>>> >>>>I understand fully the way in which Microsoft moved disk >>>>difragmentation - that it should be a very low process so that it can >>>>almost run in the background, and that you are free to use your machine >>>>almost the same as usual while it's running. >>>> >>>>However, a very very simple graphical interface would be a huge >>>>improvement. I imagine that everybody, when they kick off >>>>defragmentation want to have at least a rough guesstimate of how long >>>>would it take, and what is the progress. A simple indicator would make >>>>a huge difference in decision making for "This will take approx 1 hour" >>>>and "This will take approx 8 hours". >>>> >>>>A lot of people will simply switch off their scheduled defragmentation >>>>because they prefer it to be done once or twice a month when they want >>>>it. Although this is not as Microsoft intended with trying to make this >>>>a more routine, light, background scheduled process, they would at >>>>least have an option to do it both ways. As it is, you have no idea if >>>>it will take 1 or 8 hours, and whether the on-going defragmentation is >>>>at 8% or 90%. >>>> >>>>Cheers >>> >>> >>> Of course, a simple solution would be to use a modern file system which >>> does not need constant defragmentation. This IS the 21st century, after >>> all. >> >> Or pretend that one exist (it doesn't) and pay no attention to >> fragmentation. > > Been running Linux on various computers for over 10 years. Have not needed > a defragmenter yet.
My System Specs

07-13-2008	#9 (permalink)
zone23 Vista Ultimate x64 3 posts	Re: Vista Disk Defragment - room for improvement? Quote: Originally Posted by ray On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:57:28 -0700, FB wrote: Quote: > ray wrote: > Quote: >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:01:00 -0700, Vlad wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Of course, a simple solution would be to use a modern file system which >> does not need constant defragmentation. This IS the 21st century, after >> all. > > Or pretend that one exist (it doesn't) and pay no attention to > fragmentation. Been running Linux on various computers for over 10 years. Have not needed a defragmenter yet. I could just hear the complaints if MS would have switch file systems too, people like you would have a field day. Look for the new file system in windows 7 just like home server 2008. Last edited by zone23; 07-13-2008 at 08:45 PM..
My System Specs

07-13-2008	#10 (permalink)
ray n/a posts	Re: Vista Disk Defragment - room for improvement? On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:37:45 -0400, Dave wrote: Quote: > When you reformat the disk every 3-4 months to install the newest > distro, and don't use it in between for anything... then it doesn't get > fragmented... > > ;-) I don't do that. Been doing 'rolling upgrades' on my Gentoo box for five years now with no reinstall. It's completely up to date, and still no fragmentation problems.
My System Specs

Similar Threads
Thread	Forum
Disk Defragment	General Discussion
Defragment/precompact Vista disk???	Virtual PC
defragment disk	Vista General
Disk Defragment	Vista General
Why cant i use disk defragment	Vista performance & maintenance