Discussion in 'Windows Vista Performance' started by WTan, Feb 7, 2007.

  1. Victoria House [MSFT], Feb 10, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. There should be no effect from using XP defrag on a Vista volume... but I
    use Vista for Vista and Vista for XP back home.

    Then again, I don't enjoy watching the colored bars, and I do enjoy having
    defrag as a background task.

    Try defrag.exe from an administrator command prompt. If you are doing
    defrag /a c: it might take a while. Likewise defrag c: will take a while to
    actually show anything, since it needs to complete a current system analysis
    before it can tell you how you're doing.

    Hope this helps.


    (this is what I get from a non-admin cmd prompt):

    This program needs to run with administrative permissions. Use an
    command prompt and then run the program again.

    (admin cmd prompt):
    Windows Disk Defragmenter
    Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corp.
    Description: Locates and consolidates fragmented files on local volumes to
    improve system performance.

    Syntax: defrag <volume> -a [-v]
    defrag <volume> [{-r | -w}] [-f] [-v]
    defrag -c [{-r | -w}] [-f] [-v]


    Value Description

    <volume> Specifies the drive letter or mount point path of the volume
    be defragmented or analyzed.

    -c Defragments all volumes on this computer.

    -a Performs fragmentation analysis only.

    -r Performs partial defragmentation (default). Attempts to
    consolidate only fragments smaller than 64 megabytes (MB).

    -w Performs full defragmentation. Attempts to consolidate all
    fragments, regardless of their size.

    -f Forces defragmentation of the volume when free space is low.

    -v Specifies verbose mode. The defragmentation and analysis
    is more detailed.

    -? Displays this help information.


    defrag d:
    defrag d:\vol\mountpoint -w -f
    defrag d: -a -v
    defrag -c -v

    Victoria House [MSFT], Feb 10, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. I guess I'm stupid and crazy. But, I've got a 160GB eSATA drive with about
    100GB used in an external enclosure that I use for backups. I don't leave
    it on the system. I wanted to defrag it. So, two nights ago, I turned it
    on and started defrag. After over two hours, I had to do a CTRL-C to escape
    from the process since I was ready to quit and I don't want that drive
    spinning all night long unattended. I have no idea what the status of that
    drive was when I stopped defrag. So, last night, in an attempt to finish
    things up, I started defrag on it again. After 6 more hours, it was still
    churning. Again, I had no idea whether it was in the last few seconds of
    the process or if it would take another couple of days to complete. Heck, I
    have no idea if it was in some kind of loop and just moving the same thing
    back and forth continuously. Again, CTRL-C. To us crazy, stupid people,
    this is just flat-out unacceptable.
    David A. Lessnau, Feb 10, 2007
  4. WTan

    CZ Guest

    There should be no effect from using XP defrag on a Vista volume... but I
    use Vista for Vista and Vista for XP back home.


    Thanks for the info.
    That agrees with my testing.
    CZ, Feb 10, 2007
  5. WTan

    Mickey Segal Guest

    The reasoning is not completely compelling. With XP one could look at the
    fragmentation display and get a pretty good sense of whether defragmentation
    was going to take 10 minutes or 40 minutes. One could also get a sense of
    whether there was enough fragmentation to be a cause of a sluggish system or
    whether that was not a likely factor.

    I appreciate that most users don't know anything about defragmentation and
    will be well served by defragmentation that occurs while they are at lunch.
    But what is the harm of giving the rest of us an option to turn on a simple
    display to give us an indication of how well the system is running? That is
    not the sort of thing for which one needs the bother, risk and expense of a
    third party tool.

    Having a defragmenter that runs for many hours on an undisturbed computer
    gives rise to worries that something is wrong and the system is never
    getting defragmented properly. Without some measure of fragmentation one
    has no way of dismissing such a possibility. If the defragmenter is
    implementing some new strategy such as moving all files every few weeks to
    guard against bit rot we'd be glad to know that the folks at Microsoft were
    thinking outside the old paradigm, but with the way things are set up we
    have no sense of whether a defragmenter is running for hours because of
    innovation or because of chaos.
    Mickey Segal, Feb 10, 2007
  6. WTan

    WTan Guest

    right... thanks to you both.... I just found it weird that my Beta 2/RC1
    (can't remember which) stopped working after using XP defrag. maybe it's just
    my computer
    WTan, Feb 10, 2007
  7. WTan

    WTan Guest

    I, for one, enjoyed watching the colour change and the progress, and prefer
    not to do anything when computer is defragmenting. So, the point is different
    people, different hobbies, different preferennce.

    btw, well said
    WTan, Feb 10, 2007
  8. It is really weird that some posters get in a snit because other people
    It's perfectly simple. Microsoft have provided a tool that does the job.
    There is no actual *need* to have a colourful UI to it, because the great
    majority of users don't know or care about defragging. (And the coloured
    bars are a sham anyway, for reasons explained previously) They just want
    their Vista to work.

    For those of us who want more, we can buy O&O or Diskeeper. I repeat,
    though: you might *want* a sexy-looking defragger, but you don't *need* one
    because the Vista one works perfectly well.

    Every single program ever written has a set of features which the vendor
    believes to be the most appropriate for their target market. Vista's defrag
    is just the same. If one product doesn't suit, buy another!

    Are you going to moan about the absence of traditional menus in Office 2007
    next? If so, please don't. Just get OpenOffice instead.

    Steve Thackery, Feb 10, 2007
  9. 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.
    David A. Lessnau, Feb 10, 2007
  10. 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.
    David A. Lessnau, Feb 10, 2007
  11. WTan

    Leo Guest

    Still trying to tell people what they need I see.


    When I was young and adventurous, I wanted to join a violent,
    armed group with no regard for the law, but the IRS wasn't hiring.
    Leo, Feb 10, 2007
  12. WTan

    Leo Guest

    Very well said.


    When I was young and adventurous, I wanted to join a violent,
    armed group with no regard for the law, but the IRS wasn't hiring.
    Leo, Feb 10, 2007
  13. WTan

    Ken Gardner Guest

    I missed this one. I thought that people would be most obsessed about Vista
    hogging up all of their "free" RAM -- not losing the GUI version of Disk
    Defragmenter. Go figure. If they understand what's wrong with the premise
    that Vista is using free RAM, that same knowledge will tell them why
    defragmentation is much less important than in the dark days of Windows 9x.

    Ken Gardner, Feb 10, 2007
  14. I missed this one. I thought that people would be most obsessed about
    Don't worry, Ken, some of them still are!

    Still, some people like to hang on to their little foibles, don't they?

    Steve Thackery, Feb 10, 2007
  15. Defrag /a /v will tell you the current state of things without having to
    start another defrag.
    I realize that this is not a progress indicator. But it will give you
    Victoria House [MSFT], Feb 12, 2007
  16. Points about models are well said and I'm aware that no model is accurate.
    I still chose to post about the inaccuracy as a main reason for taking it
    out. The quality of the picture defrag gives is degrading over time as
    volumes grow. For a 10GB volume, the picture was pretty good. For a 100GB
    volume, the picture is pretty fuzzy. For a 1TB volume, the picture is close
    to terrible.

    So, I should have said "too inaccurate for us to continue using/supporting
    it." Although since it is not in Vista, it was probably apparent to
    everyone in this forum that we thought it was "too" something to continue to

    The word "too" is highly subjective. Your tolerance may vary.

    Victoria House [MSFT], Feb 12, 2007
  17. "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."

    I re-read this. Best point in the whole thing. Nothing will be done for
    Vista on this front, but I have been re-considering the value-added
    (value-returned :) ) and model.
    Victoria House [MSFT], Feb 12, 2007
  18. Using Diskeeper here. Works perfectly with Vista. Seems to have no negative
    impact on performance while running in background.

    Sudbury, Canada
    Daniel Côté, Feb 13, 2007
  19. WTan

    tonytwo Guest

    I echo that, working great for me too.
    tonytwo, Mar 15, 2007
  20. WTan

    Rich Hackney Guest

    Make it three - it is a very good utility.

    Rich Hackney, Mar 19, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.