[Defragmentation] Feature request!

The fact remains that a greater proportion of people "never" manually
defragged their hard drives because they couldn't be "bothered" or didn't
know it should be done. So Microsoft went this way. At least the job gets
done.

Want a picture - buy a 3rd party tool!

"Mark" <83097markcynt@cox.net> wrote in message
news:BA086F5A-ADBB-414E-9376-86A89C143855@microsoft.com...
> Why is it so hard to understand what this person wants. A lot of people
> want to see what is going on.
>
> Mark
>
> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OkeAjOJoIHA.2636@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Most people have better things to do with their time than sit and watch
>> little boxes or bars being shifted around.
>>
>> The Vista defragmenter is a background service that does what must be
>> done - when your computer is idle. It needs no interaction from you and
>> is sufficient for the task.
>>
>>
>> "Markus Eßmayr" <essmayr/at/racon-linz.at> wrote in message
>> news:%23mgfesHoIHA.4928@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Hello to the defragmentation-tool-developer-team,
>>>
>>> please please add some progress information to the tool.
>>> Thanks very much!
>>>
>>> Max
>>>
>>
>

Oh for gods sake. It their product. They can design it the way they want.

"Tom Lake" <toml_12953@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2AF52A72-45CE-4A01-9ABD-9EB404B1AF23@microsoft.com...
>
> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OkeAjOJoIHA.2636@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Most people have better things to do with their time than sit and watch
>> little boxes or bars being shifted around.
>>
>> The Vista defragmenter is a background service that does what must be
>> done - when your computer is idle. It needs no interaction from you and
>> is sufficient for the task.
>
> How about Microsoft letting *US* decide what we want to see or not see?
> They could add an option to run in either GUI mode or in background mode.
>
> I don't like companies (or governments or other people for that matter)
> deciding what I should be allowed to see.
>
> Tom Lake
>
> --
>
> Libertarian Forever!
>
>

In message <O9HFz2LoIHA.5016@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl> "LesleyO "
<lesleyo@DELETETHIStelusplanet.net> wrote:

>I'm with you, Mark. Have been using Diskeeper for several years, now, on
>several units - it's efficient and reliable, and I love being able to
>customize when it does its thing and how often. I have it defragging my
>tower's drives and my USB drive as well, in the wee small hours when I'm
>asleep.

So with your love of being able to customize, you configure it to do
exactly what Vista's built in defrag already does by default?

Oh, and in case you didn't notice, you can reschedule Vista's defrag
tool as well, should you be so inclined.

>>>So with your love of being able to customize, you configure it to do
exactly what Vista's built in defrag already does by default?<<<

And that is?
Do you know 100% that the MS version of Defrag works better than a 3rd.
party app?
If someone wants to set and watch defrag work the that's their business. I
personally use
PerfectDisk2008 and is superior to the MS version. I ran the MS version
first then ran PerfectDisk2008 and was very surprised how much more
PerfectDisk2008 found that needed more defragging. Yes I'm very aware they
all do things differently, but IMO the MS version lacks a lot.

http://www.raxco.com/products/downloadit/
Try before you buy.

--
All the best,
SG

Is your computer system ready for Vista?
https://winqual.microsoft.com/hcl/

"DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:aihf045kodvrvodug6tergdjnclkd30635@4ax.com...
> In message <O9HFz2LoIHA.5016@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl> "LesleyO "
> <lesleyo@DELETETHIStelusplanet.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm with you, Mark. Have been using Diskeeper for several years, now, on
>>several units - it's efficient and reliable, and I love being able to
>>customize when it does its thing and how often. I have it defragging my
>>tower's drives and my USB drive as well, in the wee small hours when I'm
>>asleep.
>
> So with your love of being able to customize, you configure it to do
> exactly what Vista's built in defrag already does by default?
>
> Oh, and in case you didn't notice, you can reschedule Vista's defrag
> tool as well, should you be so inclined.

In message <OS6qXEboIHA.5836@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl> "SG"
<sorry@nomail.com> wrote:

>Do you know 100% that the MS version of Defrag works better than a 3rd.
>party app?

No. Do you know 100% that other versions work better, and if so, does
it save enough time to justify it's cost?

>If someone wants to set and watch defrag work the that's their business. I
>personally use
>PerfectDisk2008 and is superior to the MS version. I ran the MS version
>first then ran PerfectDisk2008 and was very surprised how much more
>PerfectDisk2008 found that needed more defragging. Yes I'm very aware they
>all do things differently, but IMO the MS version lacks a lot.

The "do things differently" can be important, there are several
different concepts that get lumped into "defragmentation" (or more
rightly, optimization)

Different tools can be built on different optimization theories and
algorithms with regards to optimization, and will report other tools'
optimized results as being less then optimal. No one method or
algorithm is ideal for all users, all usage patterns, all of the time.

This doesn't mean that it's impossible or even difficult to compare
tools or results, but rather, that you cannot look at what one tool's
analysis reports to evaluate another defragmentation tool.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:25:00 -0600, DevilsPGD
<spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:

>In message <OS6qXEboIHA.5836@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl> "SG"
><sorry@nomail.com> wrote:
>
>>Do you know 100% that the MS version of Defrag works better than a 3rd.
>>party app?
>
>No. Do you know 100% that other versions work better, and if so, does
>it save enough time to justify it's cost?
>
>>If someone wants to set and watch defrag work the that's their business. I
>>personally use
>>PerfectDisk2008 and is superior to the MS version. I ran the MS version
>>first then ran PerfectDisk2008 and was very surprised how much more
>>PerfectDisk2008 found that needed more defragging. Yes I'm very aware they
>>all do things differently, but IMO the MS version lacks a lot.
>
>The "do things differently" can be important, there are several
>different concepts that get lumped into "defragmentation" (or more
>rightly, optimization)
>
>Different tools can be built on different optimization theories and
>algorithms with regards to optimization, and will report other tools'
>optimized results as being less then optimal. No one method or
>algorithm is ideal for all users, all usage patterns, all of the time.
>
>This doesn't mean that it's impossible or even difficult to compare
>tools or results, but rather, that you cannot look at what one tool's
>analysis reports to evaluate another defragmentation tool.

Try www.auslogic.com it has a VERY good defragmenter and it is free.
It works on Win2k, XP and Vista, so should cover all your pc's.
Significantly faster than Vistas built in one.

"f/fgeorge" <ffgeorge@yourplace.com> wrote in message
news:56nr04dm3f1sstqgn339d9g00gjv81gdou@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:25:00 -0600, DevilsPGD
> <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>>In message <OS6qXEboIHA.5836@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl> "SG"
>><sorry@nomail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Do you know 100% that the MS version of Defrag works better than a 3rd.
>>>party app?
>>
>>No. Do you know 100% that other versions work better, and if so, does
>>it save enough time to justify it's cost?
>>
>>>If someone wants to set and watch defrag work the that's their business.
>>>I
>>>personally use
>>>PerfectDisk2008 and is superior to the MS version. I ran the MS version
>>>first then ran PerfectDisk2008 and was very surprised how much more
>>>PerfectDisk2008 found that needed more defragging. Yes I'm very aware
>>>they
>>>all do things differently, but IMO the MS version lacks a lot.
>>
>>The "do things differently" can be important, there are several
>>different concepts that get lumped into "defragmentation" (or more
>>rightly, optimization)
>>
>>Different tools can be built on different optimization theories and
>>algorithms with regards to optimization, and will report other tools'
>>optimized results as being less then optimal. No one method or
>>algorithm is ideal for all users, all usage patterns, all of the time.
>>
>>This doesn't mean that it's impossible or even difficult to compare
>>tools or results, but rather, that you cannot look at what one tool's
>>analysis reports to evaluate another defragmentation tool.
>
> Try www.auslogic.com it has a VERY good defragmenter and it is free.
> It works on Win2k, XP and Vista, so should cover all your pc's.
> Significantly faster than Vistas built in one.
Since the defragmenter in my Vista system runs in the background and I have
never noticed it. Why would I want any thing faster? So the background can
sit idle?

While you are at work I shall come and pick up your automobile, work on it
and never tell you what was done. I shall come to your home, fix things that
I feel needed fixed my way, but you shall never know. I will do these things
in the background, so don't worry you will never know. See Charles it's not
that MS Defrag doesn't do an reasonable job, for many it does, but for many
as myself it doesn't. I like more control of what goes on behind the scenes
and I do not or better yet will not allow any Vendor, MS or whomever to run
any Defrag program in the background and "trust" what they believe is best
for everyone.

I prefer PerfectDisk 2008 Professional
It is certified by Microsoft, ensuring the highest standards of quality. As
a Microsoft Gold Certified Partner and member of the Microsoft Developers
Network, Raxco maintains a close partnership with MS to ensure ongoing
quality and compatibility.

If defragmenter in your Vista is doing what you want it to do and you are
satisfied then by all means stick to it, not a thing wrong with that. As I
said for me it's more control and better options as to why I made the change
and I'm glad I did.

--
All the best,
SG

Is your computer system ready for Vista?
https://winqual.microsoft.com/hcl/

"Charles W Davis" <Anthemwebs@lvcoxmail.com> wrote in message
news:1D913BA9-DD92-4ACF-A0B9-463190447247@microsoft.com...

SNIPPED

Since the defragmenter in my Vista system runs in the background and I have
never noticed it. Why would I want any thing faster? So the background can
sit idle?

Markus Eßmayr;686112 Wrote:
> Hello to the defragmentation-tool-developer-team,
>
> please please add some progress information to the tool.
> Thanks very much!
>
> Max
I'd like to see the progress like I could see it in XP as well. Another
minus point from me to Vista as there is NO NEED AT ALL to make the
progress bar disappear. I wanna see how far the process has come and how
much more there is to wait. I don't like to run things in the background
at all.


--
aaalp

There is no waiting. If you want to shut down your computer - go ahead and
do it. The defragmenting will continue when you next boot the computer.

Again, unless a person is anal and gets turned on by watching little colors
move around there is no reason to have a display - as long as the job gets
done.

But, some people like to watch grass grow and paint dry also!


"aaalp" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
news:de427074d8ecebd02a5c75f98e75c38f@nntp-gateway.com...
>
> Markus Eßmayr;686112 Wrote:
>> Hello to the defragmentation-tool-developer-team,
>>
>> please please add some progress information to the tool.
>> Thanks very much!
>>
>> Max
> I'd like to see the progress like I could see it in XP as well. Another
> minus point from me to Vista as there is NO NEED AT ALL to make the
> progress bar disappear. I wanna see how far the process has come and how
> much more there is to wait. I don't like to run things in the background
> at all.
>
>
> --
> aaalp