Defrag status/progress information

"VistaNewbie" wrote:

> Is there a way to perform an analysis of the fragmentation level of a drive
> in Vista Home Premium? I miss being able to see a graphic representation of
> a disk's fragmentation. Also, previous versions of Windows provided the
> user a progress bar than informed them of the status of the defrag program
> when it was running. It appears that Home Premium runs in the background
> and one never gets a "defragmentation complete" dialog box with options to
> see a report. I've tried running it manually and not closing the Run dialog
> box, but it seems to run for hours without any feedback to the user.
>

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:01:02 -0700
yolita <yolita@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>
>
> "VistaNewbie" wrote:
>
> > Is there a way to perform an analysis of the fragmentation level of
> > a drive in Vista Home Premium? I miss being able to see a graphic
> > representation of a disk's fragmentation. Also, previous versions
> > of Windows provided the user a progress bar than informed them of
> > the status of the defrag program when it was running. It appears
> > that Home Premium runs in the background and one never gets a
> > "defragmentation complete" dialog box with options to see a report.
> > I've tried running it manually and not closing the Run dialog box,
> > but it seems to run for hours without any feedback to the user.
> >

command prompt...run as admin...defrag c: -v will give an
analysis...tho not graphical.



--
Hobbes,Tiger Extraordinaire

"Mark L. Ferguson" wrote:

> Whatever defragmentation might be needed on your system is either
> non-existent, or in the process of becoming that. Watching it happen is moot
> to it's operation.

I just wiped several GB, and would like some indicator, more like the old
DOS display rather than the simple progress bar, of what the system is doing
and how long it might take. Watching startup command echos, initialization
failure messages, startup sequence scripting, and sculpting the registry
database are also intelligent activities. It's only moot if you don't
understand it. The more you know.

"DenniSys" <DenniSys@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:08D8CDC7-FC3F-4A5F-83F2-06F80F2E9FDE@microsoft.com...
> "Mark L. Ferguson" wrote:
>
>> Whatever defragmentation might be needed on your system is either
>> non-existent, or in the process of becoming that. Watching it happen is
>> moot
>> to it's operation.
>
> I just wiped several GB, and would like some indicator, more like the old
> DOS display rather than the simple progress bar, of what the system is
> doing
> and how long it might take. Watching startup command echos, initialization
> failure messages, startup sequence scripting, and sculpting the registry
> database are also intelligent activities. It's only moot if you don't
> understand it. The more you know.


Do you actually do any WORK with your machine?

Do you use it for anything else than downloaded naked goat images?

"Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:uX7XUidMJHA.456@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "DenniSys" <DenniSys@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:08D8CDC7-FC3F-4A5F-83F2-06F80F2E9FDE@microsoft.com...
>> "Mark L. Ferguson" wrote:
>>
>>> Whatever defragmentation might be needed on your system is either
>>> non-existent, or in the process of becoming that. Watching it happen is
>>> moot
>>> to it's operation.
>>
>> I just wiped several GB, and would like some indicator, more like the old
>> DOS display rather than the simple progress bar, of what the system is
>> doing
>> and how long it might take. Watching startup command echos,
>> initialization
>> failure messages, startup sequence scripting, and sculpting the registry
>> database are also intelligent activities. It's only moot if you don't
>> understand it. The more you know.
>
>
> Do you actually do any WORK with your machine?

"Gordon" wrote:

> Do you actually do any WORK with your machine?
>
>
Yes.

A virtual multi-tasking system with multiple processors doesn't have a
problem running multiple applications. Why not have multiple services
profiles available or selectable for the different phases of operations such
as startup (initialization), processing, no-processing, performance tuning,
and shutdown.

Why not redesign processors from scratch, removing circuits that are no
longer useful, rather than simply adding to an already incomprehensible mess?

The paradigm of how legacy systems (and protocols) are supported at the
expense of new machine technology should be scratched and re-designed.

The argument that, "It's too expensive." is a false argument. Additionally,
marketing follows technology. Do technology right, and marketing will follow.

It's good to have a brain.