[Defragmentation] Feature request!

[NetLink_Blue]

snip

Again, unless a person is anal and gets turned on by watching little
colors move around there is no reason to have a display - as long as the
job gets done.

I know what you mean, gerbil-butt. Windows and it's silly GUI have all
these icons, colors and window-frames that can be endlessly resized and
moved around. No wonder the U.S. economy is going into the tank. Jobs are
not getting done.

But, some people like to watch grass grow and paint dry also!

Say hi to your Mom & Dad for me ...

Visible clusters and sectors to all,
netlink b

 

[Avery Tom Deacon Harry]

I just read ALL this discussion and see that nobody has made the simple point
that EVERY other Vista application that takes time to complete has a progress
bar, Internet Explorer for instance.
The Win98 defrag tool had a progress bar (one could also see details of the
defrag as well if one wanted), and its scandisc had a progress monitor as
well.
So the point one really needs to get MS to understand is "if it ain't broke
then don't fix it".
Give me my progress display back in defrag and scandisc, and I want the
scandisc options back as well.

 

[PD43]

So the point one really needs to get MS to understand is "if it ain't broke
then don't fix it".
Give me my progress display back in defrag and scandisc, and I want the
scandisc options back as well.

Yes sir. Right away sir. Whatever you say sir.

 

[Ronnie Vernon MVP]

The problem is that it 'was' broke.

Have you forgotten that you could not do anything else on the system while
defrag was running without having it start all over again?

Have you forgotten that it stayed at 0% forever? Or when it finally did
start, it jumped to 10% and then stayed there forever?

The progress bar was never a reliable indicator of the actual progress.

This is why it was completely rebuilt to run as a low priority background
process, that you never see and never need to worry about.

 

[Guest]

0%-4% Scaning the disk for errors
5%-9% Reading the disk layout
10% Optimising programs (this takes the longest time)
11%-100% Optimising the rest of the disk
Or if it's a Drivespace drive...
11%-49% Optimising the container file
50%-100% Optimising the Drivespace disk

 

[Michael Wyland]

Ronnie:

I never had these (or any, for that matter) problems with Disk Defragmenter
in Windows XP, and I must admit that I really miss the option of seeing the
defragmentation map and progress indicator.

Michael Wyland
Sumption & Wyland
Sioux Falls, SD

 

[NetLink_Blue]

The problem is that it 'was' broke.

Defrag was not broken under Win2000, WinXP or Server 2003. The original
poster made mention of Win98, unfortunately. I would consider a lot of
things "broke" if you wish to compare Win98 to newer Windows versions! Not
just defragmentation.

Have you forgotten that you could not do anything else on the system while
defrag was running without having it start all over again?

Have you forgotten that it stayed at 0% forever? Or when it finally did
start, it jumped to 10% and then stayed there forever?

The progress bar was never a reliable indicator of the actual progress.

(sob) ... this hard-luck story always brings a tear to my eye.

This is why it was completely rebuilt to run as a low priority background
process, that you never see and never need to worry about.

So defrag never changed from Win98 up until Vista? What a shill you are,
Ronnie. At least have the intelluctual honesty to admit it was just a
judgement call by MS. Maybe Microsoft decided to just let users buy/support
the third-party market for defrag if they wanted some anime.

--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience

- netlink

 

[Ronnie Vernon MVP]

So defrag never changed from Win98 up until Vista? What a shill you are

Exactly where did you see me say this?

Your definition of a shill is probably "someone who says something that I
don't agree with."

At least have the intelluctual honesty to admit it was just a

judgement call by MS. Maybe Microsoft decided to just let users
buy/support the third-party market for defrag if they wanted some anime.

It was not a 'judgement call', it was in response to people who actually use
the operating system, and who don't want to be bothered with mundane
maintenance processes that take up time and resources.

What part of a 'low priority 'background process' do you not understand?

What part of a completely new defrag algorithm do you not understand?

The Storage Team at Microsoft - File Cabinet Blog : Don’t judge a book by
its cover – why Windows Vista Defrag is cool:
http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/ar...s-cover-why-windows-vista-defrag-is-cool.aspx

The Storage Team at Microsoft - File Cabinet Blog : Disk Defragmenter FAQ:
http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/articles/440717.aspx

 

[NetLink_Blue]

Exactly where did you see me say this?

You implied this ... ( reader can go back and read/judge for himself what
Ronnie snipped out).

Your definition of a shill is probably "someone who says something that I
don't agree with."

At least have the intelluctual honesty to admit it was just a

It was not a 'judgement call', it was in response to people who actually
use the operating system, and who don't want to be bothered with mundane
maintenance processes that take up time and resources.

The links you provide below have some really great technical insights into
Vista's defrag. And value-judgement reasons for changes.

Microsoft listening to users? MS does whatever it damn well pleases. With
monstrous hard-drive capacities appearing everywhere -- sure, a new defrag
implementation is a must. So finally MS and (some?) Windows users are in
sync about something. Don't break your arm patting yourself & MS on the
back, Ronnie. :~)

What part of a 'low priority 'background process' do you not understand?

( you're sounding SHRILL on this reply )

What part of a completely new defrag algorithm do you not understand?

( darn ... you sure can get SHRILL ) /// Net blue

 

[Ronnie Vernon MVP]

Ha!

You sure can 'read' a lot more into a message than what was intended.

Your perceptions about what I posted say much more about 'you' than it does
about me.

 

[Avery Tom Deacon Harry]

"Even if it did have a progress bar, they're very rarely accurate"
So what. At least it would give a rough idea of the progress of the defrag.

 

[Charles W Davis]

The Vista defragmenter normally runs when needed in the background.

 

[NetLink_Blue]

"Even if it did have a progress bar, they're very rarely accurate"

So what. At least it would give a rough idea of the progress of the
defrag.

The progress bar would have to be made to show backward progress!

Don't forget, one aspect of Vista's "invisible" constant defrag operation
is quietly and slowing running in the background all the time. After
several hours of normal Vista use, my "other" defrag program shows the
results of Vista's digital confetti parade. A couple hundred fragmented
files. Since I don't leave my computer powered up all the time, there isn't
enough quiet time for Vista's background "turtle" defrag to trudge thru and
pick up all the picnic scraps. For this aspect of defrag, a progress bar
doesn't make sense.

And yes, my "other" defrag program has the option to respect layout.ini
mapping that Vista creates for file/hard-drive spiffiness.

Microsoft ( for whatever reason ) has decided to remove defrag consciousness
from Vista users as much as possible.

digital mysteries, magnetic domains ... netlink

= - = - =

 

[Richard Urban]

Peoples memories are so short. Defrag in Windows 95/98 was abysmal. That is
why everyone in the know used a third party defragger. With Vista it is no
longer necessary.

--

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience

 

[f/fgeorge]

Peoples memories are so short. Defrag in Windows 95/98 was abysmal. That is
why everyone in the know used a third party defragger. With Vista it is no
longer necessary.

Not to mention that according to 3rd party testing companies
defragging does nothing more than make the user feel good. The machine
is not faster and in some cases actually slowed down!