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

"Vlad" <> wrote in message
news:B58B220F-C5EA-4F1D-8F8C-...
> Hello,
>
> Is there any reason for us to hope that in future Microsoft may improve
> the
> graphical display of Disk Defragmenter?


Yes.

Get O&O Defrag Pro 10.


--
SCSIraidGURU

Michael A. McKenney
'www.SCSIraidGURU.com' (http://www.SCSIraidGURU.com)

Supermicro X7DWA-N server board
pair of Intel E5430 quad core 2.66 GHz Xeons
16GB DDR667
SAS RAID
eVGA 8800 GTS 640 MB video card

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

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

Hope springs eternal.

Don't hold your breath.

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.

"ray" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 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.

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

ray wrote:

> 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.

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

> ray wrote:
>
>> 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.

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

> "ray" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> 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.
>
> 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.

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" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:57:28 -0700, FB wrote:
>
>> ray wrote:
>>
>>> 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.