Why a dumbed down version of defrag ?

Discussion in 'Windows Vista Performance' started by James, Oct 3, 2006.

  1. James

    James Guest

    Hello people,

    any one know the reason why microsoft had dumbed down DEFRAG ??
    James, Oct 3, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. James

    Jeff Guest

    Jeff, Oct 3, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jill Zoeller [MSFT], Oct 3, 2006
  4. James

    Jeff Guest

    Sorry Jill,
    Lotsa people don't like that decision though,
    Sorry bout the comment.
    Jeff, Oct 3, 2006
  5. No worries--it's not the first time it's come up! A given design won't
    always make 100% of users happy, and there are alternatives out there for
    folks who like a full-featured graphical defrag. Myself, I like the fact
    that I never have to worry about running defrag. And though you might think
    I'm biased, it's the truth. :)

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

    Want to learn more about Windows Server file and storage technologies? Visit
    our team blog at http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/default.aspx.
    Jill Zoeller [MSFT], Oct 3, 2006
  6. James

    Jeff Guest

    A quote from the chat; if I may;
    "Good question. As far as the user experience changes are concerned, the
    decision to simplify the user interface came as a result of usability
    research that we did accross various types of users (advanced to novice). "
    This is one where your research is wrong.
    Lots of people want the UI.
    Jeff, Oct 3, 2006
  7. James

    Jeff Guest

    Sorry bout the last post;I posted it before your response.
    But; still stand on the issue. LOTS of people do want the UI.
    Personally I use command line if I feel I want to override auto defrag;but
    then again;people like to see pretty colors.
    Jeff, Oct 3, 2006
  8. James

    Leon Cutler Guest

    I was just about to ask about this till I found the post. An option to show
    the graphical rep. of the drive would be nice tho. I think that for the
    business and IT users the one in XP was more professional looking. I am gonna
    go read that faq\blog that was posted tho before I say anymore.
    Leon Cutler, Oct 4, 2006
  9. James

    James Guest

    Hello, thank for the link ;-) i understand why now...

    i have just tested the command line who is great ;-)

    cya ;-)
    James, Oct 4, 2006
  10. James

    Robert Moir Guest

    I think some kind of progress bar / percentage counter would be very
    important, but as for the pretty colours, if you want to see a pretty
    picture on your screen that has little to no relation with what is actually
    happening while your computer is defragging, why not just watch a DVD?
    Robert Moir, Oct 5, 2006
  11. The problem is that it's very difficult to judge progress. I'm pasting the
    answer from our FAQ (http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/pages/440717.aspx)

    Why was the defrag progress indicator removed?
    Part of the problem with the Windows XP defrag tool was that percent
    complete was not accurate or meaningful. Depending on the phase of defrag,
    1% of progress could take from several seconds to minutes, which made the
    progress indicator highly unreliable. The difficulty here is that since
    defrag is a multi-pass process (multiple iterations of file defragmentation
    and free space consolidation) there is no way to accurately predict when
    defrag will complete since the number of loop iterations and how long each
    takes are highly dependent on the layout of the files on the volume, the
    level of file and free space fragmentation, and the other system activity.
    While I agree that having no progress is bad, misleading progress I believe
    is worse. Also, the idea behind the new automated defrag is that users will
    not have to think about it not worry about the progress it is making. With
    defrag running regularly, the system will be close to optimal levels of
    fragmentation, and subsequent defrag runs should not take long.
    Jill Zoeller [MSFT], Oct 5, 2006
  12. James

    Robert Moir Guest

    Yep, I've seen the FAQ. I agree with the "While I agree that having no
    progress is bad, misleading progress I believe is worse." comment totally. I
    still lament the absence of a progress bar, even though I understand that it
    was forced upon you rather than something that you 'just left out'.
    Robert Moir, Oct 5, 2006
  13. Thank you for the information. I have been letting Vista's defrag run for
    hours and I went back to XP and run my Diskeeper Pro and my system seems to
    fly. I was afraid to run defrag from XP until I read the blog.
    Sam Steinhauser, Oct 8, 2006
  14. First, thank you so much for participating in this newsgroup. Whether we
    agree with every design decision in Vista or not --- and that would be an
    impossible goal --- it's a pleasure to hear them explained lucidly.

    A question and a couple of comments:

    (1) The default disk defrag schedule in task manager uses an -I switch which
    is not documented when you run defrag -?. I am guessing it means "(I)dle"
    mode -- I.e. don't run unless computer is idling or give back as much CPU as
    possible. ?????

    (2) The comments: I liked being fooled by the old progress indicator (lol)
    or at least seeing a map of defrag running. We all KNEW the estimates were
    hopeless! But, it was comforting to watch the fragments move around --
    well, mesmerizing maybe. ;) Maybe for Service Pack 2 (whenever) you can add
    back some kind of visual interface for those of us who want to see it.
    Download Auslogic's disk defragger (free -- I'm sure MSFT could get it for a
    song! :) ) On top of the MS defrag engine, that would be fine.

    (3) For all those who have been complaining, run DEFRAG with the -w switch,
    go get a cup of Starbucks (you'll have plenty of time), and then, when it's
    done, run Auslogic's or some other defragger that is Vista compatible and
    has a visual disk map. You'll be quite surprised and pleased at what a good
    job MS DEFRAG did.

    Thanks again!
    Robert Blacher, Oct 9, 2006
  15. James

    Georgi Matev Guest

    Hi Robert,

    These are some good questions. Here is some more information.

    1) You are correct. The -i option means that unless the machine is idle
    defrag.exe will pause. If the machine is idle (no interactive user input)
    for a few minutes defrag will continue. The option is not documented since
    it was added late in the Vista development cycle when resource changes were
    not possible (otherwise localization will be delayed). The option will be
    documented in a KB article once Vista is released. On a similar note, the
    scheduled defrag task is configured to only start when the machine is idle.

    2) We have heard the feedback on defragmentation progress and are
    considering what we can do to provide *reliable* progress indication in a
    future version of windows. I believe you have all read my response on the
    FAQ that Jill referenced below and understand why the progress was taken out
    so I'm not going to rehash it here.

    3) Although it is documented, I thought I'd use this post to clarify the
    meaning of the -w option. Without the -w option defrag will perform partial
    defragmentation which means that it will only try to coalesce file fragments
    smaller that 64MB. Further coalescing these extents is expensive both in
    terms of defragmentation time and free space requirements while the
    performance benefit is small. At 64 MB, the additional seek time associated
    with reading 2 disjoint fragments of this size, is negligible compared to
    the rotational latency to actually read the contiguous portions of the
    extents. The -w option allows you to bypass the partial defragmentation
    behavior and try to defragment all extents regardless of size.

    Once again, thank you for participating in the Windows Vista Beta program.

    Georgi Matev [MSFT]
    PM Core File Solutions

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    Georgi Matev, Oct 9, 2006
    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.