I agree with Richard. Windows defrag does an adequate job for me. I've run
a couple of other programs, and they indicate to me that I don't need to run
them. But, as to "knowing", how do we really know that PerfectDisk, et al
are telling us the truth? If you pay for a program, is it more accurate, or
more honest? I've always suspected that many programs, like
anti-spyware,etc. always find "something", to justify us using them.

As long as I'm satisfied with the disk performance, I'm fine with MS Defrag.

--
Vista Home Premium 32 SP1
http://get.live.com/wlmail/overview


"SG" wrote in message
...
Richard,

That's your opinion and you are for sure entitled to it, however, that's
your view and myself and others disagree. It's not a matter of watching
little colors move around nor do I think anyone gets turned on by it,
that's a pretty silly comment. If YOU trust a program such as MS Defrag to
run in the background never knowing how or even if it's doing an adequate
job then by all means go for it, I don't. I ran MS Defrag for awhile until
I tried a few 3rd party Defrag programs and the one I settled with was
PerfectDisk 2008. You made the comment in another post "At least the job
gets done" are you sure? and if it does to what degree does the job get
done? nothing to see, so how does one know? If I want a program to run
I'll be the one to decide what and when it runs, not MS.


--
All the best,
SG

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

"Richard Urban" wrote in message
...
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" wrote in message
...

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

"Richard Urban" wrote in message
...

snip

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.

I know what you mean, gerbil-butt. Windows and it's silly GUI have all
these icons, colors and window-frames that can be endlessly resized and
moved around. No wonder the U.S. economy is going into the tank. Jobs are
not getting done.

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

Say hi to your Mom & Dad for me ...

Visible clusters and sectors to all,
netlink b

SG;691643 Wrote:

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.
I used PerfectDisk 2008 on my Vista Ultimate machine, and I discovered
corrupted file attributes when I ran chkdsk. I also had a problem with
boot time defrag using that program. So I uninstalled it and am now
using the Auslogics defrag program. I don't get anymore corrupted
files. PerfectDisk 2008 seems to run fine on my XP machines.


--
EPJ

I just read ALL this discussion and see that nobody has made the simple point
that EVERY other Vista application that takes time to complete has a progress
bar, Internet Explorer for instance.
The Win98 defrag tool had a progress bar (one could also see details of the
defrag as well if one wanted), and its scandisc had a progress monitor as
well.
So the point one really needs to get MS to understand is "if it ain't broke
then don't fix it".
Give me my progress display back in defrag and scandisc, and I want the
scandisc options back as well.

"NetLink_Blue" wrote:


"Richard Urban" wrote in message
...

snip

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.

I know what you mean, gerbil-butt. Windows and it's silly GUI have all
these icons, colors and window-frames that can be endlessly resized and
moved around. No wonder the U.S. economy is going into the tank. Jobs are
not getting done.

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

Say hi to your Mom & Dad for me ...

Visible clusters and sectors to all,
netlink b

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:18:07 -0700, Avery Tom Deacon Harry
wrote:

So the point one really needs to get MS to understand is "if it ain't broke
then don't fix it".
Give me my progress display back in defrag and scandisc, and I want the
scandisc options back as well.

Yes sir. Right away sir. Whatever you say sir.

The problem is that it 'was' broke.

Have you forgotten that you could not do anything else on the system while
defrag was running without having it start all over again?

Have you forgotten that it stayed at 0% forever? Or when it finally did
start, it jumped to 10% and then stayed there forever?

The progress bar was never a reliable indicator of the actual progress.

This is why it was completely rebuilt to run as a low priority background
process, that you never see and never need to worry about.

--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience


"Avery Tom Deacon Harry"
wrote in message ...
I just read ALL this discussion and see that nobody has made the simple
point
that EVERY other Vista application that takes time to complete has a
progress
bar, Internet Explorer for instance.
The Win98 defrag tool had a progress bar (one could also see details of
the
defrag as well if one wanted), and its scandisc had a progress monitor as
well.
So the point one really needs to get MS to understand is "if it ain't
broke
then don't fix it".
Give me my progress display back in defrag and scandisc, and I want the
scandisc options back as well.

"NetLink_Blue" wrote:


"Richard Urban" wrote in message
...

snip

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.

I know what you mean, gerbil-butt. Windows and it's silly GUI have all
these icons, colors and window-frames that can be endlessly resized and
moved around. No wonder the U.S. economy is going into the tank. Jobs
are
not getting done.

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

Say hi to your Mom & Dad for me ...

Visible clusters and sectors to all,
netlink b

0%-4% Scaning the disk for errors
5%-9% Reading the disk layout
10% Optimising programs (this takes the longest time)
11%-100% Optimising the rest of the disk
Or if it's a Drivespace drive...
11%-49% Optimising the container file
50%-100% Optimising the Drivespace disk


"Ronnie Vernon MVP" wrote in message
...
The problem is that it 'was' broke.

Have you forgotten that you could not do anything else on the system while
defrag was running without having it start all over again?

Have you forgotten that it stayed at 0% forever? Or when it finally did
start, it jumped to 10% and then stayed there forever?

The progress bar was never a reliable indicator of the actual progress.

This is why it was completely rebuilt to run as a low priority background
process, that you never see and never need to worry about.

--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience


"Avery Tom Deacon Harry"
wrote in message
...
I just read ALL this discussion and see that nobody has made the simple
point
that EVERY other Vista application that takes time to complete has a
progress
bar, Internet Explorer for instance.
The Win98 defrag tool had a progress bar (one could also see details of
the
defrag as well if one wanted), and its scandisc had a progress monitor as
well.
So the point one really needs to get MS to understand is "if it ain't
broke
then don't fix it".
Give me my progress display back in defrag and scandisc, and I want the
scandisc options back as well.

"NetLink_Blue" wrote:


"Richard Urban" wrote in message
...

snip

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.

I know what you mean, gerbil-butt. Windows and it's silly GUI have all
these icons, colors and window-frames that can be endlessly resized and
moved around. No wonder the U.S. economy is going into the tank. Jobs
are
not getting done.

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

Say hi to your Mom & Dad for me ...

Visible clusters and sectors to all,
netlink b

Ronnie:

I never had these (or any, for that matter) problems with Disk Defragmenter
in Windows XP, and I must admit that I really miss the option of seeing the
defragmentation map and progress indicator.

Michael Wyland
Sumption & Wyland
Sioux Falls, SD

"Ronnie Vernon MVP" wrote in message
...

The problem is that it 'was' broke.

Defrag was not broken under Win2000, WinXP or Server 2003. The original
poster made mention of Win98, unfortunately. I would consider a lot of
things "broke" if you wish to compare Win98 to newer Windows versions! Not
just defragmentation.


Have you forgotten that you could not do anything else on the system while
defrag was running without having it start all over again?

Have you forgotten that it stayed at 0% forever? Or when it finally did
start, it jumped to 10% and then stayed there forever?

The progress bar was never a reliable indicator of the actual progress.

(sob) ... this hard-luck story always brings a tear to my eye.

This is why it was completely rebuilt to run as a low priority background
process, that you never see and never need to worry about.

So defrag never changed from Win98 up until Vista? What a shill you are,
Ronnie. At least have the intelluctual honesty to admit it was just a
judgement call by MS. Maybe Microsoft decided to just let users buy/support
the third-party market for defrag if they wanted some anime.

--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience

- netlink




"Avery Tom Deacon Harry"
wrote in message
...
I just read ALL this discussion and see that nobody has made the simple
point
that EVERY other Vista application that takes time to complete has a
progress
bar, Internet Explorer for instance.
The Win98 defrag tool had a progress bar (one could also see details of
the
defrag as well if one wanted), and its scandisc had a progress monitor as
well.
So the point one really needs to get MS to understand is "if it ain't
broke
then don't fix it".
Give me my progress display back in defrag and scandisc, and I want the
scandisc options back as well.

"NetLink_Blue" wrote:


"Richard Urban" wrote in message
...

snip

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.

I know what you mean, gerbil-butt. Windows and it's silly GUI have all
these icons, colors and window-frames that can be endlessly resized and
moved around. No wonder the U.S. economy is going into the tank. Jobs
are
not getting done.

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

Say hi to your Mom & Dad for me ...

Visible clusters and sectors to all,
netlink b

"NetLink_Blue" wrote in message
...

So defrag never changed from Win98 up until Vista? What a shill you are

Exactly where did you see me say this?

Your definition of a shill is probably "someone who says something that I
don't agree with."

At least have the intelluctual honesty to admit it was just a
judgement call by MS. Maybe Microsoft decided to just let users
buy/support the third-party market for defrag if they wanted some anime.

It was not a 'judgement call', it was in response to people who actually use
the operating system, and who don't want to be bothered with mundane
maintenance processes that take up time and resources.

What part of a 'low priority 'background process' do you not understand?

What part of a completely new defrag algorithm do you not understand?

The Storage Team at Microsoft - File Cabinet Blog : Don’t judge a book by
its cover – why Windows Vista Defrag is cool:
http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/arc...g-is-cool.aspx

The Storage Team at Microsoft - File Cabinet Blog : Disk Defragmenter FAQ:
http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/articles/440717.aspx

--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience