defrag no time limit

Why does defrag not show you a bar telling how far along degrag is in
completing its work? It just leaves the front end there with a sign
saying"this may take from a few minutes to a few hours. Dud. Suppose I want
to wait five minutes but not five hours??


Rober Hale

"Robert Hale" wrote:

> Why does defrag not show you a bar telling how far along degrag is in
> completing its work? It just leaves the front end there with a sign
> saying"this may take from a few minutes to a few hours. Dud. Suppose I want
> to wait five minutes but not five hours??
>
>
> Rober Hale

I agree that it should at least show the percentage done and it also should
let you see how badly it is fragmented. XP showed it..all other versions
showed it...why can't vista show it? Another bad thing is that when you click
on defrag, it automatically analyzes your system. This slows down the
process again too. To me, it is another case of microsoft wanting to control
everything.

"Robert Hale" wrote:

> Why does defrag not show you a bar telling how far along degrag is in
> completing its work? It just leaves the front end there with a sign
> saying"this may take from a few minutes to a few hours. Dud. Suppose I want
> to wait five minutes but not five hours??
>
>
> Rober Hale

In Vista, the defrag is designed to work in the background, just schedule
the time you want it to run and forget it. It has been changed to run when
the system is idle and to pause when the system is in use.

Take a look at the following pages for complete information.

http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/default.aspx

http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/pag...enter-faq.aspx

http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/arc...r/default.aspx

http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/arc...arameters.aspx

--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User


"Robert Hale" <RobertHale@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:13CEE0B5-ACD2-42D6-B838-F21B20BD3C58@microsoft.com...
> Why does defrag not show you a bar telling how far along degrag is in
> completing its work? It just leaves the front end there with a sign
> saying"this may take from a few minutes to a few hours. Dud. Suppose I
> want
> to wait five minutes but not five hours??
>
>
> Rober Hale

In message <13CEE0B5-ACD2-42D6-B838-F21B20BD3C58@microsoft.com> Robert
Hale <RobertHale@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Why does defrag not show you a bar telling how far along degrag is in
>completing its work? It just leaves the front end there with a sign
>saying"this may take from a few minutes to a few hours. Dud. Suppose I want
>to wait five minutes but not five hours??

Because it isn't possible to accurately predict how far along a
defragmentation is.

More importantly, it reduces the user inclination to sit there and wait
for it to finish, or avoid using your PC while defragmenting.

Either defrag or don't (it runs automatically on a schedule anyway),
keep using your PC or don't, whatever makes you happier, but it
generally won't make a difference on e way or the other as far as Vista
is concerned.
--
Insert something clever here.

You make this sound really sinister. Microsoft certainly doesn't want to
control the defragmenting of your hard drive. It's just been moved to a
background process because of requests.

Watching the defrag program work has always seemed to me like watching the
grass grow or paint dry.

If you must see this, you can see most of the information at a command
prompt.

Open a command prompt and type defrag /? for the syntax of the possible
commands.

--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User


"Rick Kirchoff" <RickKirchoff@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C80587B8-BAC0-4859-B950-1DCA8D768C94@microsoft.com...
>I agree that it should at least show the percentage done and it also should
> let you see how badly it is fragmented. XP showed it..all other versions
> showed it...why can't vista show it? Another bad thing is that when you
> click
> on defrag, it automatically analyzes your system. This slows down the
> process again too. To me, it is another case of microsoft wanting to
> control
> everything.
>
> "Robert Hale" wrote:
>
>> Why does defrag not show you a bar telling how far along degrag is in
>> completing its work? It just leaves the front end there with a sign
>> saying"this may take from a few minutes to a few hours. Dud. Suppose I
>> want
>> to wait five minutes but not five hours??
>>
>>
>> Rober Hale

defrag does not run automatically on a schedule unless you tell it to. I am
in the computer repair business and I find it necessary to see the
fragmentation of the hard drive of all my clients and future clients. If I
can see how badly a computer is fragmented, it will then tell me in my mind
that the client does not know anything about this program and I will then
teach them about it. Some computers run slow after defragging and by being
able to see the fragmentation level, I can also run other checks to see what
it slowing it down. To me, seeing file fragments is a must requirement.
Again, Microsoft is trying to take control.

Based on past experiences with computers, I've found that defragging is a
requirment to keep the system healthy. Not defragging can lead to
unrecoverable hive errors thus making drive replacement necessary. So far,
Vista is a joke. XP was the better of the 2 operating systems. Vista
reminds me so much of Win-Me...another dud!
"DevilsPGD" wrote:

> In message <13CEE0B5-ACD2-42D6-B838-F21B20BD3C58@microsoft.com> Robert
> Hale <RobertHale@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >Why does defrag not show you a bar telling how far along degrag is in
> >completing its work? It just leaves the front end there with a sign
> >saying"this may take from a few minutes to a few hours. Dud. Suppose I want
> >to wait five minutes but not five hours??
>
> Because it isn't possible to accurately predict how far along a
> defragmentation is.
>
> More importantly, it reduces the user inclination to sit there and wait
> for it to finish, or avoid using your PC while defragmenting.
>
> Either defrag or don't (it runs automatically on a schedule anyway),
> keep using your PC or don't, whatever makes you happier, but it
> generally won't make a difference on e way or the other as far as Vista
> is concerned.
> --
> Insert something clever here.
>

In message <0588898F-05F7-464F-A9FD-B40D0C3B06CF@microsoft.com> Rick
Kirchoff <RickKirchoff@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>defrag does not run automatically on a schedule unless you tell it to.

On Vista, it does.

>I am
>in the computer repair business and I find it necessary to see the
>fragmentation of the hard drive of all my clients and future clients.

From an elevated command line, "defrag c: -a"

>If I
>can see how badly a computer is fragmented, it will then tell me in my mind
>that the client does not know anything about this program and I will then
>teach them about it.

Better yet, don't -- Let Windows take care of it. Let the computer work
for you, don't work for the computer.

>Some computers run slow after defragging and by being
>able to see the fragmentation level, I can also run other checks to see what
>it slowing it down. To me, seeing file fragments is a must requirement.
>Again, Microsoft is trying to take control.

If defragmenting slows things down past a reboot (to let any odd file
caching weirdness clear out), you're using the wrong defragmentation
tool.

>Based on past experiences with computers, I've found that defragging is a
>requirment to keep the system healthy.

Which is exactly why it runs by default automatically.

--
Insert something clever here.

"Rick Kirchoff" <RickKirchoff@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0588898F-05F7-464F-A9FD-B40D0C3B06CF@microsoft.com...
> I am in the computer repair business and I find it necessary to see the
> fragmentation of the hard drive of all my clients and future clients.

> Based on past experiences with computers, I've found that defragging is a
> requirment to keep the system healthy. Not defragging can lead to
> unrecoverable hive errors thus making drive replacement necessary. So
> far,
> Vista is a joke. XP was the better of the 2 operating systems. Vista
> reminds me so much of Win-Me...another dud!

There is no such thing as "unrecoverable hive errors thus making drive
replacement necessary". A reinstall is all that's needed. You should NOT be
taking money for repair and advice. Shame on you!

mi

In message <ub9U8TybHHA.2448@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl> "miss-information"
<invalid@invalid.net> wrote:

>"Rick Kirchoff" <RickKirchoff@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:0588898F-05F7-464F-A9FD-B40D0C3B06CF@microsoft.com...
>> I am in the computer repair business and I find it necessary to see the
>> fragmentation of the hard drive of all my clients and future clients.
>
>> Based on past experiences with computers, I've found that defragging is a
>> requirment to keep the system healthy. Not defragging can lead to
>> unrecoverable hive errors thus making drive replacement necessary. So
>> far,
>> Vista is a joke. XP was the better of the 2 operating systems. Vista
>> reminds me so much of Win-Me...another dud!
>
> There is no such thing as "unrecoverable hive errors thus making drive
>replacement necessary". A reinstall is all that's needed. You should NOT be
>taking money for repair and advice. Shame on you!

Not only that, but fragmentation wouldn't impact it anyway.
--
Insert something clever here.