Defragmenter

Discussion in 'Windows Vista Performance' started by Chris Robbins, Dec 5, 2006.

  1. Chris Robbins

    Tom Lake Guest

    If you're request for feedback isn't facetious, I'd like to add my bit:
    I'd like an engine that totally defrags ALL fragmented files, system or not
    at the option of the user. If it has to run before Windows starts to
    complete
    the user's chosen level of defrag, so be it.
    I'd like the GUI to accurately reflect the process and I'd like the ability
    to
    turn off the GUI if I wanted the defrag to run in the background.

    In short, LET US, NOT THE PROGRAMMER, DECIDE WHAT'S
    GOOD FOR US!!!

    Tom Lake
    Tom Lake
     
    Tom Lake, Jan 4, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Wasn't facetious. Will take into consideration.

    May I recap/verify:

    -The non-UI issue (most important to you?) is the ALL defragment file
    (excluding of course unmovable files which... we can't move... but including
    system files that might be considered risky.)
    -The UI issues are all design issues based on your desire for more knowledge
    about your system and what your software is doing. This seems to be what
    people are mostly uhappy with.
    -You are not prioritizing beefs with speed of defrag or effectiveness of
    defrag, so these are at least good enough that they don't warrant
    mentioning.


    Anyone else?

    Thanks for responding.
    -Victoria
     
    Victoria House [MSFT], Jan 4, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Believe it or not, my biggest gripe with the defragmenter is the total lack
    of a pretty picture showing me what's going on. I find such a display very
    useful for eye-balling how badly fragmented the drive is and about how long
    it will take to finish defragmenting. I understand Microsoft's rationale
    for removing the pretty picture (don't confuse us rubes with unnecessary
    distractions (i.a., keep everything clean and simple)), but I'd still like
    an option to turn the pretty picture back on for those of us capable of
    finding the option (though maybe I've already failed that test :) ).
     
    David A. Lessnau, Jan 5, 2007
    #23
  4. Chris Robbins

    Tom Lake Guest


    Since the defrag can be done in the background, speed isn't so important to me
    since I'm not prevented from using my system while defragging.

    Tom Lake
     
    Tom Lake, Jan 5, 2007
    #24
  5. There were a couple of other reasons other than confusing my dear mom with
    the complicated interface ;)
    https://blogs.technet.com/filecab/articles/440717.aspx

    Seriously though, thanks for the feedback.

    Another comment stated that speed is not an issue if you can choose to have
    graphics or not, since one can use the volume during defrag.
    Is this true for you as well?
     
    Victoria House [MSFT], Jan 5, 2007
    #25
  6. Given the choice, I'd rather have the defragmenter tie up the whole system
    for 10 minutes while it does the job, instead of seeing it sitting there
    slowly chugging away for an hour. But, I fully realize I'm in a minority
    there. Regardless of speed, I really miss seeing those little red lines
    move around and turn green. It gives me a sense of accomplishment (I gotta
    get a job :) ). I'm not losing sleep over this, it's just that I'd prefer
    having an image showing me what's happening while it's working.
     
    David A. Lessnau, Jan 5, 2007
    #26
  7. Chris Robbins

    BobC Guest

    http://auslogics.com/

    I have been using defragger from "Auslogics: since early in the beta
    test,fast and 'shows" what is happening<g>
    Rgds
     
    BobC, Jan 7, 2007
    #27
    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.