 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows Vista / Performance and Maintainance / April 2008Re: Vista Premium Defrag ...
Good Evening ... I hope all is well in your domain 1. I have Vista Premium, latest patch level 2. I have a Dell Inspiron 531: 2mb mem; 250gb harddrive 3. Defragmenter told me ... I didn't need to defrag 4. I had a bit of time to kill, so I started Defrag ... 5. It now is approaching 3 hours and I do not know how much longer it might take 6. The 'defrag' display is gone ... leaving this user without a clue re: time to finish 7. I have the option to 'cancel' but have no idea what the result of a 'cancel' is 8. I am disappointed with this 'defrag' option, as it does little to help/advise the user, me. Do any of you kind souls have any words of assistance? Thank you for your time and consideration ... Take care. Jim > Good Evening ... > > I hope all is well in your domain > > 1. I have Vista Premium, latest patch level So do I, for now. > 2. I have a Dell Inspiron 531: 2mb mem; 250gb harddrive Nice. But if you use Vista, think 8GB and upgrade to 64 bit. 22% used and I am fresh boot at 8GB. > 3. Defragmenter told me ... I didn't need to defrag Regression. > 4. I had a bit of time to kill, so I started Defrag ... So did I. Not sure when it will stop. Drives are up and down, going to sleep with power management disabled.... makes me wonder. > 5. It now is approaching 3 hours and I do not know how much longer it > might take You had more patience than I. > 6. The 'defrag' display is gone ... leaving this user without a clue re: > time to finish No one will ever know. > 7. I have the option to 'cancel' but have no idea what the result of a > 'cancel' is I closed the screen. > 8. I am disappointed with this 'defrag' option, as it does little to > help/advise the user, me. Nada. > Do any of you kind souls have any words of assistance? > Thank you for your time and consideration ... > Take care. > Jim Complain, Vista is a Edsel. Canuck57 ... ... I enjoyed your offerings ... is Vista an reincarnation of 'Windows ME?' Take care. Jim ************************* >> Good Evening ... >> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Complain, Vista is a Edsel. Look, you've gotta be particularly anal to obsess about defragging. Vista defrags automatically and invisibly, kicking off the process once per week by default. It runs slowly and with zero impact, and can sometimes take days. None of this matters. Defragging is a deeply low-level OS housekeeping function which the user needs to know nothing whatever about. The idea is that you just use your computer. Let it worry about defragging. Sheesh! SteveT Steve Thackery .. ... interesting response 1. I do like to know about stuff that runs on my computer 2. I also like the Op Sys to be kind enough to inform me of such, how to deal with such, and advise success/failure 3. Where do I find the info that you quoted: ' Vista defrags automatically and invisibly, kicking off the process once per week by default. It runs slowly and with zero impact, and can sometimes take days.' and 'None of this matters. Defragging is a deeply low-level OS housekeeping function which the user needs to know nothing whatever about.' 4. In your wisdom Steve, what made you say, ' Look, you've gotta be particularly anal to obsess about defragging?' Take care. Jim ***************************************** > Look, you've gotta be particularly anal to obsess about defragging. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > SteveT > In your wisdom Steve, what made you say, ' Look, you've gotta be > particularly anal to obsess about defragging? I would prefer you to do your own research, but here are four really good starter articles: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;942092 http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/articles/440717.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/pages/447168.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/archive/2007/01/26/don-t-judge-a-book-by-its-co ver-why-windows-vista-defrag-is-cool.aspx SteveT Steve Thackery ... Thanks for the links; I have also gathered many. Please review my initial questions: "3. Defragmenter told me ... I didn't need to defrag 4. I had a bit of time to kill, so I started Defrag ... 5. It now is approaching 3 hours and I do not know how much longer it might take 6. The 'defrag' display is gone ... leaving this user without a clue re: time to finish 7. I have the option to 'cancel' but have no idea what the result of a 'cancel' is" What I was looking for Steve, were answers to Questions 3 through 7 ... at the time of my initiating/running Defrag ... that's when the answers would have helped, not later after reading, reading, reading ... For my knowledge Steve, what are your credentials relative to Windows Vista, as I like to learn from the best. Take care. Jim **************************** >> In your wisdom Steve, what made you say, ' Look, you've gotta be >> particularly anal to obsess about defragging? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > SteveT > For my knowledge Steve, what are your credentials relative to Windows > Vista, as I like to learn from the best. Ooooh hooooh! Sarcastic or what? Me? I'm just an interested and informed user who has studied OS technology for many years. In particular I try to read up on the new technologies as they come out, including Microsoft's (arguably controversial) take on defragging. > "3. Defragmenter told me ... I didn't need to defrag > 4. I had a bit of time to kill, so I started Defrag ... > 5. It now is approaching 3 hours and I do not know how much longer it > might > take OK, you will find this with all the commercially available defraggers (and yes, I've tried 'em all). They all have a certain threshold of fragmentation on the disk before they claim defragging is "necessary". And in all cases, if you ignore that and tell them to defrag anyway, they will indeed go away and run their defragging algorithms. My point being that Vista's defrag is no different from anyone else's in this respect. > 6. The 'defrag' display is gone ... leaving this user without a clue re: > time to finish Microsoft's approach is that you don't *need* to know when it will finish, because it's designed to run as an invisible, zero-impact background task anyway. For what it's worth, having been a great fan of Diskeeper and O&O in my time, I've come to agree with Microsoft. No user should need to worry or concern themselves about the really low-level housekeeping activities that an OS does. After all, defragging is only one. Vista likes to shuffle its files around to improve its startup time; pre-load its RAM with files it anticipates you wanting, and all sorts of stuff like that. Nobody asks for a colourful display for those, do they? Or asks "How long before it finishes?". > 7. I have the option to 'cancel' but have no idea what the result of a > 'cancel' is" Jim, I think this must be a rhetorical question. The effect of 'cancel' is to stop the defragging algorithm at the next safe point - exactly like 'cancel' works in every other defragging program. I think you knew that, really. I repeat my assertion: the user has no need to think about defragging with Vista, any more than you need to "think" about Superfetch or any of the other things that go on in the background and keep things running nicely. Hence I support the removal of the user interface (which Microsoft has argued is meaningless anyway, because there aren't enough pixels on your screen to usefully represent the sectors and files on your disk, so Diskeeper's display is - to put it politely - "indicative" only. If you really do want some meaningless but pretty coloured blocks to watch, there are some free defraggers around that do what you want. SteveT Steve Thackery ... My approach is different. I believe that there should be enough info for anyone to make a decision of choice ... based upon data presented by 'the runner, the OS' of the application. I also believe that any piece of code is 'written once' and 'executed a gazillion times,' ... therefore, write the best code possible and document that code for all audiences ... if not, don't write it. >> For my knowledge Steve, what are your credentials relative to Windows >> Vista, as I like to learn from the best. > > Ooooh hooooh! Sarcastic or what? Not at all, just trying to determine whether or not your info is worth reading. > Me? I'm just an interested and informed user who has studied OS > technology for many years. In particular I try to read up on the new [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > will indeed go away and run their defragging algorithms. My point being > that Vista's defrag is no different from anyone else's in this respect. I still need to know an answer to Question 5 ... from Vista's POV, not other defrag programs because I did not run other defrag programs. I want Vista to give me a clue ... once given said data, I'll render a decision. >> 6. The 'defrag' display is gone ... leaving this user without a clue re: >> time to finish [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > for a colourful display for those, do they? Or asks "How long before it > finishes?". I did not/do not know that ' it's designed to run as an invisible, zero-impact background task anyway.' Therefore I sat, left, returned, sat again, trying to determine whether or not to 'cancel' or leave running. Again, I do not care about Diskeeper or others, I cared only about Vista Defrag and its ability to communicate with me. >> 7. I have the option to 'cancel' but have no idea what the result of a >> 'cancel' is" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 'cancel' works in every other defragging program. I think you knew that, > really. Steve ... not a rhetorical question. Why, pray tell should I assume that Vista Defrag will exit at the next safe point ... if I press Cancel? Vista Defrag should not assume that I/all users will also know exactly what Cancel will do. Again, tiny piece of code to document those options to present to the user. I do not care about 'other defrag programs' nor did I mention such in my initial questions. The matter is directed solely to Vista Defrag. > I repeat my assertion: the user has no need to think about defragging with > Vista, any more than you need to "think" about Superfetch or any of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > screen to usefully represent the sectors and files on your disk, so > Diskeeper's display is - to put it politely - "indicative" only. I am looking for a 'time to complete,' so I can again, make a decision re: Vista Defrag. > If you really do want some meaningless but pretty coloured blocks to > watch, there are some free defraggers around that do what you want. I did not ask for coloured blocks Steve, again, re-read the question. Steve, thanks for your effort ... it took time for you to do such, that's appreciated. However, we come from different 'schools of thought,' and, never the twain shall meet. Please review the emails back & forth, please consider the time, research, and effort to create those emails. Consider then, if any of those emails would be necessary if Mr Vista Defrag had included a line or two to explain Defrag. Then, multiply our exchange of emails by maybe another 100 to 1000 similar questions to gather a time ... and it adds up to a bunch of minutes ... not a good ROI. You take care Steve. I'm finished penning more about Defrag ... Jim *************************** > SteveT > Steve Thackery ... > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Not at all, just trying to determine whether or not your info is worth > reading. Now you've got me wondering. Just what would the determining factors be that would convince you whether or not his info is worth reading? Hobo >>Me? I'm just an interested and informed user who has studied OS >>technology for many years. In particular I try to read up on the new [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > >>SteveT OK Steve, let me correct my post from below. Man, I think I must be loosing it bad. Oh well, I will be 64 on August 1st. (no birthday reminders everyone. I don't need that. I just hope these mistakes are not early symptons of that disease, oh, what's it called? ertzheimers or something like that!) Here's the post with corrections on the names: Oooooh hooooh! ???? Whoooah!!! Sarcastic or What???? :) :) :) LOL LOL ROFLMAO!!! I must apologize Steve, I came on the scene a bit late, looking for some of the same answers JIM is looking for! and then I see this comment, "Scarcastic of What????" This is more than a tad bit more than the kettle calling the pot black! LOL!!! This is actually hiliarious!!! First Jim comes on seeking some honest answers and guidance. You (STEVE) suggest he is being "anal" right off the bat. He (JIM) suggests something concerning your credentials, and <b>YOU</b> (STEVE) immediately suggest SARCASM on his part. I mean, at about 12:19 pm, I have already now had my laugh for the day, but I still would like to see some of the blocks and pixels (DUH!!) without having to install one of the FREE programs you are suggesting. But alas, I probably won't get ANY help here. I probably will get some more laughs though, so, come on STEVE (I really meant STEVE, not JIM), pour it on! I love a good laugh, MR. I.T. semi pro! Pour it <b>ON</b>! Ken, a not-pro, non-IT, not-in-waiting! LOL.... Dear MS (not Steve), can you PLEASE do something for us dummies (Ken and Jim <sorry Jim for including you> out here?) We really DO miss interfacing with seeing the progress of disk defragmenter. And why, since my system just completed an auto defrag a little while ago, and I did one manually yesterday that took 4 hours, and then I just initiated one 45 minutes ago, then why is it still running? Since there is nothing basically to defrag, as I have done virtually nothing on my computer since then, it should have only TAKEN the "few minutes", not the "several hours". It should be done NOW! Ken Lockhart Oooooh hooooh! ???? Whoooah!!! Sarcastic or What???? :) :) :) LOL LOL ROFLMAO!!! I must apologize Steve, I came on the scene a bit late, looking for some of the same answers Steve is looking for! and then I see this comment, "Scarcastic of What????" This is more than a tad bit more than the kettle calling the pot black! LOL!!! This is actually hiliarious!!! First Jim comes on seeking some honest answers and guidance. You suggest he is being "anal" right off the bat. He suggests something concerning your credentials, and <b>YOU</b> immediately suggest SARCASM on his part. I mean, at about 12:19 pm, I have already now had my laugh for the day, but I still would like to see some of the blocks and pixels (DUH!!) without having to install one of the FREE programs you are suggesting. But alas, I probably won't get ANY help here. I probably will get some more laughs though, so, come on Jim, pour it on! I love a good laugh, MR. I.T. semi pro! Pour it <b>ON</b>! Ken, a not-pro, non-IT, not-in-waiting! LOL.... Dear MS (not Steve), can you PLEASE do something for us dummies (Ken and Jim <sorry Jim for including you> out here? We really DO miss interfacing with seeing the progress of disk defragmenter. And why, since my system just completed an auto defrag a little while ago, and I did one manually yesterday that took 4 hours, and then I just initiated one 45 minutes ago, then why is it still running? Since there is nothing basically to defrag, as I have done virtually nothing on my computer since then, it should have only TAKEN the "few minutes", not the "several hours". It should be done NOW! Ken Lockhart > > For my knowledge Steve, what are your credentials relative to Windows > > Vista, as I like to learn from the best. [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > SteveT Correction: I meant to say, looking for the same answers that "Jim" was looking for! Also, I left a parenthesis off in this sentence after "out here") : Dear MS (not Steve), can you PLEASE do something for us dummies (Ken and Jim <sorry Jim for including you> out here?) We really DO miss interfacing with seeing the progress of disk defragmenter. KENNLOCK;698893 Wrote: > Oooooh hooooh! ???? Whoooah!!! > [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] > > > > > > SteveT Hello Ken, Vista defrag is forever slow. We all knew that. MS is not going to tell us why, that's for sure. If you have such a strong objection to " free program ", then there is nothing I can help. However if you ever change your mind, may I suggest Auslogics Disk Defrag. It's fast And it shows you the entire process plus a written summary. Give it a try. Uninstall it if you think it's garbage. Enter Auslogics in google search box and you'll find it.  Signaturet-4-2 Finally, T-4-2 (is that you Steve?) an answer that makes some sense. I will check it out! Ken Lockhart KENNLOCK;698968 Wrote: > Finally, T-4-2 (is that you Steve?) an answer that makes some sense. I > will > check it out! > > Ken Lockhart No way Jose, I'm not Steve. Signaturet-4-2 I have always found the Windows defragmenter inherently slow and with the interface now missing it is even worse. But it appears that the removal of the graphical interface was instigated by user feedback - they (the users in general) were fed up of watching the progress of defragmentation and would rather it run invisibly in the background. As the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few an invisible defragmenter is what everyone got. Personally I much prefer to use Raxco PerfectDisk. The process is faster, it is easy to schedule and you get to see all those little coloured blocks moving around. The only problem is, the software costs money. If you don't want to buy something like PerfectDisk a free alternative is Auslogics Defragmenter (www.auslogics.com). I have actually used this application and was impressed by its capabilities. Either way it is a lot better than the standard windows Vista defragmenter. Give it a try and see what you think, you have nothing to loose. Signature-- John Barnett MVP Associate Expert Windows Desktop Experience Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy, reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this mail/post.. > Oooooh hooooh! ???? Whoooah!!! > [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] >> >> SteveT Count me as one of those who would rather have defrag run in the background. But, perhaps you can answer a question. If this is a background process and the disk is therefore kept optimized, what is happening at 1 o'clock in the morning when it is being done on a schedule? Or why does it take so long when it is run manually? If the disk is fully or nearly optimized by a background defrag, what is left to be done in these two other instances? Thanks > I have always found the Windows defragmenter inherently slow and with the > interface now missing it is even worse. But it appears that the removal of [quoted text clipped - 133 lines] >>> >>> SteveT |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.