Vista Disk Defragment - room for improvement?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vlad
  • Start date Start date
V

Vlad

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

Hope springs eternal.

Don't hold your breath.
 
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
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or pretend that one exist (it doesn't) and pay no attention to
fragmentation.
 
Or pretend that one exist (it doesn't) and pay no attention to
fragmentation.
Click to expand...

Been running Linux on various computers for over 10 years. Have not needed
a defragmenter yet.
 
If you 're referring to linux, it might as well be the 18th century.
What's the good of a FS without an OS ?
Click to expand...

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...

;-)
 
It is rather limiting that MS only understands one or two proprietary file
systems while Linux understands literally dozens.
Click to expand...

I think it's time you go into my boob bin.
 
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...

;-)
Click to expand...

I don't do that. Been doing 'rolling upgrades' on my Gentoo box for five
years now with no reinstall. It's completely up to date, and still no
fragmentation problems.
 
Actually I don't know that I ever "Needed" a defragment program. I mean
Vista never popped up and said hay!! you need to defrag. So maybe Linux
does need a defrag and you just don't know it. Anyway Vista is for
adults its an adult program coded by a team of experts. Not code written
by a bunch of little kids with nothing better to do.. at least thats
what the software looks like. Also when Linux can just double click a
file to install let me know (all programs not just 2) maybe a will look
at it again. Also if Linux is so great why are you in a Vista forum go
to Ubuntu forum you'll fit in there. Also I could just here the
complaints if MS would have switch file systems too, people like you
would have a field day. Look for the new file system in windows 7 just
like home server 2008.
Click to expand...

Linux filesystems handle fragmentation much more efficiently and
effectively than MS. They point is - they never need defragmenting - this
IS the 21st century - a properly designed filesystem should just work -
and the Linux ones do.
 
ray said:
I don't do that. Been doing 'rolling upgrades' on my Gentoo box for five
years now with no reinstall. It's completely up to date, and still no
fragmentation problems.
Click to expand...

And how do you check for "fragmentation problems"?
 
Back
Top