I get the impression from you that the satisfaction and desires of the users
are not very important. Is MS incapable of providing both a great defrag
engine and a great interface?

--
Leo
Don't steal. The government hates competition.






"Victoria House [MSFT]" wrote in message
...
Other than the UI, which has created an overwhelming (majority good, tech
community often very very bad) response, why buy PerfectDisk?

I'd like to know if the UI is the "only" thing. If the UI is your beef,
what 1 thing in the UI do you want most? I know there may be 100's but
generally there is 1 thing that would affect your satisfaction with defrag
the most. Feel free to rant about the other things, but put the most
important thing at the top. UI or engine, 1 feature or thing that bothers
you/you want and would make you nearly happy.

CZ - I am especially interested to know what is disappointing with the
defragger (Does it not work on your volumes? Take too long? As mentioned
previously I know that the UI defragments all volumes with no control, is
that the big issue? Or is it the blue and red bars?)

Keep in mind that my agreeing with you or not does not guarantee anything.
But I am a good feedback/reference point.

Just please be nice...
-Victoria

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.




CZ
Victoria:

I just purchased PerfectDisk v8 for use with Vista as I was so
disappointed
with the Vista defragger.

"mayor" wrote in message
...
MS made the defragmenter better?

There you have it, the first joke of the year.

You should realize that what you consider 'better' is not worth a darn
unless it is what users want. You should also realize that you struck out
and created a monster that users hate and probably will not use.

--
Leo
Don't steal. The government hates competition.






"Victoria House [MSFT]" wrote in message
...
Remember that you can always turn scheduled defrag off in the defrag UI,
and then make your own task in task scheduler if you want it to run less
frequently.
Or just run it with "Defragment Now" or the command line. (running
with -v gives you statistics before/after as well so you know how badly
or how well we're doing).

The only lack of control I see, and I am in the geeky minority/20% just
as you are, is that scheduled defrag is on by default and I have to turn
it off. The true pain is indeed the loss of UI, but this represents no
loss of control. I can still defragment chosen drives manually on my
own weird schedule with (example) defrag c: z: x: -v at any time
and get before and after information. The UI could allow a little bit
more control so that one could defrag not all drives but other than
that there's no *functional (visual? perhaps) deficiency.

Since defrag is a tool, we made the tool better and dumped the
inaccurate UI.



"frankm" wrote in message
...
I do understand what you are saying.
I look at a system holistically: ok I have Virus Scan, Defender,
Adaware, defrag et al running.
I would really like more control over what happens so I don't hit
interference intersections.
I do backend disk design for systems and databases (SAN, NAS, local
etc). So my concern is that amount of control "I" am allowed on my own
system.
Yes I agree that 80% of the users out there NEED defrag to run for
them, you don't know how many times I have installed "RUNFAST.EXE"; my
euphemism for defrag.

But MS shouldn't tell the rest of the 20% (the group that has to
support the MS stuff for the other 80%) that our views are moot.

"Victoria House [MSFT]" wrote in message
...
Other than the UI, which has created an overwhelming (majority good, tech
community often very very bad) response, why buy PerfectDisk?

I'd like to know if the UI is the "only" thing. If the UI is your beef,
what 1 thing in the UI do you want most? I know there may be 100's but
generally there is 1 thing that would affect your satisfaction with defrag
the most. Feel free to rant about the other things, but put the most
important thing at the top. UI or engine, 1 feature or thing that bothers
you/you want and would make you nearly happy.

If you're request for feedback isn't facetious, I'd like to add my bit:
I'd like an engine that totally defrags ALL fragmented files, system or not
at the option of the user. If it has to run before Windows starts to
complete
the user's chosen level of defrag, so be it.
I'd like the GUI to accurately reflect the process and I'd like the ability
to
turn off the GUI if I wanted the defrag to run in the background.

In short, LET US, NOT THE PROGRAMMER, DECIDE WHAT'S
GOOD FOR US!!!

Tom Lake
Tom Lake

Wasn't facetious. Will take into consideration.

May I recap/verify:

-The non-UI issue (most important to you?) is the ALL defragment file
(excluding of course unmovable files which... we can't move... but including
system files that might be considered risky.)
-The UI issues are all design issues based on your desire for more knowledge
about your system and what your software is doing. This seems to be what
people are mostly uhappy with.
-You are not prioritizing beefs with speed of defrag or effectiveness of
defrag, so these are at least good enough that they don't warrant
mentioning.


Anyone else?

Thanks for responding.
-Victoria

"Tom Lake" wrote in message
...

"Victoria House [MSFT]" wrote in message
...
Other than the UI, which has created an overwhelming (majority good, tech
community often very very bad) response, why buy PerfectDisk?

I'd like to know if the UI is the "only" thing. If the UI is your beef,
what 1 thing in the UI do you want most? I know there may be 100's but
generally there is 1 thing that would affect your satisfaction with
defrag the most. Feel free to rant about the other things, but put the
most important thing at the top. UI or engine, 1 feature or thing that
bothers you/you want and would make you nearly happy.

If you're request for feedback isn't facetious, I'd like to add my bit:
I'd like an engine that totally defrags ALL fragmented files, system or
not
at the option of the user. If it has to run before Windows starts to
complete
the user's chosen level of defrag, so be it.
I'd like the GUI to accurately reflect the process and I'd like the
ability to
turn off the GUI if I wanted the defrag to run in the background.

In short, LET US, NOT THE PROGRAMMER, DECIDE WHAT'S
GOOD FOR US!!!

Tom Lake
Tom Lake

Believe it or not, my biggest gripe with the defragmenter is the total lack
of a pretty picture showing me what's going on. I find such a display very
useful for eye-balling how badly fragmented the drive is and about how long
it will take to finish defragmenting. I understand Microsoft's rationale
for removing the pretty picture (don't confuse us rubes with unnecessary
distractions (i.a., keep everything clean and simple)), but I'd still like
an option to turn the pretty picture back on for those of us capable of
finding the option (though maybe I've already failed that test ).


"Victoria House [MSFT]" wrote in message
...
Other than the UI, which has created an overwhelming (majority good, tech
community often very very bad) response, why buy PerfectDisk?

I'd like to know if the UI is the "only" thing. If the UI is your beef,
what 1 thing in the UI do you want most? I know there may be 100's but
generally there is 1 thing that would affect your satisfaction with defrag
the most. Feel free to rant about the other things, but put the most
important thing at the top. UI or engine, 1 feature or thing that bothers
you/you want and would make you nearly happy.

CZ - I am especially interested to know what is disappointing with the
defragger (Does it not work on your volumes? Take too long? As mentioned
previously I know that the UI defragments all volumes with no control, is
that the big issue? Or is it the blue and red bars?)

Keep in mind that my agreeing with you or not does not guarantee anything.
But I am a good feedback/reference point.

Just please be nice...
-Victoria

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.




CZ
Victoria:

I just purchased PerfectDisk v8 for use with Vista as I was so
disappointed
with the Vista defragger.

"mayor" wrote in message
...
MS made the defragmenter better?

There you have it, the first joke of the year.

You should realize that what you consider 'better' is not worth a darn
unless it is what users want. You should also realize that you struck out
and created a monster that users hate and probably will not use.

--
Leo
Don't steal. The government hates competition.






"Victoria House [MSFT]" wrote in message
...
Remember that you can always turn scheduled defrag off in the defrag UI,
and then make your own task in task scheduler if you want it to run less
frequently.
Or just run it with "Defragment Now" or the command line. (running
with -v gives you statistics before/after as well so you know how badly
or how well we're doing).

The only lack of control I see, and I am in the geeky minority/20% just
as you are, is that scheduled defrag is on by default and I have to turn
it off. The true pain is indeed the loss of UI, but this represents no
loss of control. I can still defragment chosen drives manually on my
own weird schedule with (example) defrag c: z: x: -v at any time
and get before and after information. The UI could allow a little bit
more control so that one could defrag not all drives but other than
that there's no *functional (visual? perhaps) deficiency.

Since defrag is a tool, we made the tool better and dumped the
inaccurate UI.



"frankm" wrote in message
...
I do understand what you are saying.
I look at a system holistically: ok I have Virus Scan, Defender,
Adaware, defrag et al running.
I would really like more control over what happens so I don't hit
interference intersections.
I do backend disk design for systems and databases (SAN, NAS, local
etc). So my concern is that amount of control "I" am allowed on my own
system.
Yes I agree that 80% of the users out there NEED defrag to run for
them, you don't know how many times I have installed "RUNFAST.EXE"; my
euphemism for defrag.

But MS shouldn't tell the rest of the 20% (the group that has to
support the MS stuff for the other 80%) that our views are moot.

"Victoria House [MSFT]" wrote in message
...
Wasn't facetious. Will take into consideration.

May I recap/verify:

-The non-UI issue (most important to you?) is the ALL defragment file (excluding of
course unmovable files which... we can't move... but including system files that
might be considered risky.)
-The UI issues are all design issues based on your desire for more knowledge about
your system and what your software is doing. This seems to be what people are
mostly uhappy with.
-You are not prioritizing beefs with speed of defrag or effectiveness of defrag, so
these are at least good enough that they don't warrant mentioning.


Since the defrag can be done in the background, speed isn't so important to me
since I'm not prevented from using my system while defragging.

Tom Lake

There were a couple of other reasons other than confusing my dear mom with
the complicated interface
https://blogs.technet.com/filecab/articles/440717.aspx

Seriously though, thanks for the feedback.

Another comment stated that speed is not an issue if you can choose to have
graphics or not, since one can use the volume during defrag.
Is this true for you as well?



"David A. Lessnau" wrote in
message news
Believe it or not, my biggest gripe with the defragmenter is the total
lack of a pretty picture showing me what's going on. I find such a
display very useful for eye-balling how badly fragmented the drive is and
about how long it will take to finish defragmenting. I understand
Microsoft's rationale for removing the pretty picture (don't confuse us
rubes with unnecessary distractions (i.a., keep everything clean and
simple)), but I'd still like an option to turn the pretty picture back on
for those of us capable of finding the option (though maybe I've already
failed that test ).


"Victoria House [MSFT]" wrote in message
...
Other than the UI, which has created an overwhelming (majority good, tech
community often very very bad) response, why buy PerfectDisk?

I'd like to know if the UI is the "only" thing. If the UI is your beef,
what 1 thing in the UI do you want most? I know there may be 100's but
generally there is 1 thing that would affect your satisfaction with
defrag the most. Feel free to rant about the other things, but put the
most important thing at the top. UI or engine, 1 feature or thing that
bothers you/you want and would make you nearly happy.

CZ - I am especially interested to know what is disappointing with the
defragger (Does it not work on your volumes? Take too long? As
mentioned previously I know that the UI defragments all volumes with no
control, is that the big issue? Or is it the blue and red bars?)

Keep in mind that my agreeing with you or not does not guarantee
anything. But I am a good feedback/reference point.

Just please be nice...
-Victoria

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.




CZ
Victoria:

I just purchased PerfectDisk v8 for use with Vista as I was so
disappointed
with the Vista defragger.

"mayor" wrote in message
...
MS made the defragmenter better?

There you have it, the first joke of the year.

You should realize that what you consider 'better' is not worth a darn
unless it is what users want. You should also realize that you struck
out and created a monster that users hate and probably will not use.

--
Leo
Don't steal. The government hates competition.






"Victoria House [MSFT]" wrote in message
...
Remember that you can always turn scheduled defrag off in the defrag
UI, and then make your own task in task scheduler if you want it to run
less frequently.
Or just run it with "Defragment Now" or the command line. (running
with -v gives you statistics before/after as well so you know how badly
or how well we're doing).

The only lack of control I see, and I am in the geeky minority/20% just
as you are, is that scheduled defrag is on by default and I have to
turn it off. The true pain is indeed the loss of UI, but this
represents no loss of control. I can still defragment chosen drives
manually on my own weird schedule with (example) defrag c: z: x: -v
at any time
and get before and after information. The UI could allow a little bit
more control so that one could defrag not all drives but other than
that there's no *functional (visual? perhaps) deficiency.

Since defrag is a tool, we made the tool better and dumped the
inaccurate UI.



"frankm" wrote in message
...
I do understand what you are saying.
I look at a system holistically: ok I have Virus Scan, Defender,
Adaware, defrag et al running.
I would really like more control over what happens so I don't hit
interference intersections.
I do backend disk design for systems and databases (SAN, NAS, local
etc). So my concern is that amount of control "I" am allowed on my own
system.
Yes I agree that 80% of the users out there NEED defrag to run for
them, you don't know how many times I have installed "RUNFAST.EXE"; my
euphemism for defrag.

But MS shouldn't tell the rest of the 20% (the group that has to
support the MS stuff for the other 80%) that our views are moot.

Given the choice, I'd rather have the defragmenter tie up the whole system
for 10 minutes while it does the job, instead of seeing it sitting there
slowly chugging away for an hour. But, I fully realize I'm in a minority
there. Regardless of speed, I really miss seeing those little red lines
move around and turn green. It gives me a sense of accomplishment (I gotta
get a job ). I'm not losing sleep over this, it's just that I'd prefer
having an image showing me what's happening while it's working.


"Victoria House [MSFT]" wrote in message
...
There were a couple of other reasons other than confusing my dear mom with
the complicated interface
https://blogs.technet.com/filecab/articles/440717.aspx

Seriously though, thanks for the feedback.

Another comment stated that speed is not an issue if you can choose to
have graphics or not, since one can use the volume during defrag.
Is this true for you as well?


"David A. Lessnau" wrote in
message news
Believe it or not, my biggest gripe with the defragmenter is the total
lack of a pretty picture showing me what's going on. I find such a
display very useful for eye-balling how badly fragmented the drive is and
about how long it will take to finish defragmenting. I understand
Microsoft's rationale for removing the pretty picture (don't confuse us
rubes with unnecessary distractions (i.a., keep everything clean and
simple)), but I'd still like an option to turn the pretty picture back on
for those of us capable of finding the option (though maybe I've already
failed that test ).


"Victoria House [MSFT]" wrote in message
...
Other than the UI, which has created an overwhelming (majority good,
tech community often very very bad) response, why buy PerfectDisk?

I'd like to know if the UI is the "only" thing. If the UI is your beef,
what 1 thing in the UI do you want most? I know there may be 100's but
generally there is 1 thing that would affect your satisfaction with
defrag the most. Feel free to rant about the other things, but put the
most important thing at the top. UI or engine, 1 feature or thing that
bothers you/you want and would make you nearly happy.

CZ - I am especially interested to know what is disappointing with the
defragger (Does it not work on your volumes? Take too long? As
mentioned previously I know that the UI defragments all volumes with no
control, is that the big issue? Or is it the blue and red bars?)

Keep in mind that my agreeing with you or not does not guarantee
anything. But I am a good feedback/reference point.

Just please be nice...
-Victoria

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.




CZ
Victoria:

I just purchased PerfectDisk v8 for use with Vista as I was so
disappointed
with the Vista defragger.

"mayor" wrote in message
...
MS made the defragmenter better?

There you have it, the first joke of the year.

You should realize that what you consider 'better' is not worth a darn
unless it is what users want. You should also realize that you struck
out and created a monster that users hate and probably will not use.

--
Leo
Don't steal. The government hates competition.






"Victoria House [MSFT]" wrote in message
...
Remember that you can always turn scheduled defrag off in the defrag
UI, and then make your own task in task scheduler if you want it to
run less frequently.
Or just run it with "Defragment Now" or the command line. (running
with -v gives you statistics before/after as well so you know how
badly or how well we're doing).

The only lack of control I see, and I am in the geeky minority/20%
just as you are, is that scheduled defrag is on by default and I have
to turn it off. The true pain is indeed the loss of UI, but this
represents no loss of control. I can still defragment chosen drives
manually on my own weird schedule with (example) defrag c: z: x: -v at
any time
and get before and after information. The UI could allow a little bit
more control so that one could defrag not all drives but other than
that there's no *functional (visual? perhaps) deficiency.

Since defrag is a tool, we made the tool better and dumped the
inaccurate UI.



"frankm" wrote in message
...
I do understand what you are saying.
I look at a system holistically: ok I have Virus Scan, Defender,
Adaware, defrag et al running.
I would really like more control over what happens so I don't hit
interference intersections.
I do backend disk design for systems and databases (SAN, NAS, local
etc). So my concern is that amount of control "I" am allowed on my
own system.
Yes I agree that 80% of the users out there NEED defrag to run for
them, you don't know how many times I have installed "RUNFAST.EXE";
my euphemism for defrag.

But MS shouldn't tell the rest of the 20% (the group that has to
support the MS stuff for the other 80%) that our views are moot.

http://auslogics.com/

I have been using defragger from "Auslogics: since early in the beta
test,fast and 'shows" what is happeningg
Rgds
"mayor" wrote in message
...
I am displeased with the 'choice' MS has made with the defrag in Vista.
The 'brilliant' comment was directed at MS for that inexplicable 'choice.'

Because of the defrag issue and other 'choices' MS has made with Vista I
am leaning toward retaining XP and not purchasing Vista.

--
Leo
If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished.






"Ray " wrote in message
...
Ok I'll take the sigh back. Does the rest of the post please you, or is
my interpretation of the way you are using the word "Brilliant!"
incorrect?
Are you praising Microsoft for allowing defrag to run later, or are you
being sarcastic?
You seem to be saying two different things here, or not.

Ray


"mayor" wrote in message
...
Why the sigh? My preference is to control what takes place with my
computer and when it occurs. Why MS wants to decide for me is something
I cannot understand nor accept.

--
Leo
If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished.






"Ray " wrote in message
...
Sigh!

Quote from the FAQ at
http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/pag...enter-faq.aspx

"What about if the computer is off when it is supposed to be
defragmented? When will the next defrag take place?
Disk Defragmenter will run when the computer comes back up for the
first time after the missed scheduled task. The tasks scheduler team
has implemented some nice safeguards to limit the impact of such
“missed” tasks on system performance. More specifically, execution of
such tasks will be delayed by a few minutes so that they do not
interfere with a computer booting up or resuming from hibernate/sleep.
In addition, such tasks are serialized and occur one at a time."


"mayor" wrote in message
...
Brilliant! People who do not let their computers run overnight will
never reap the benefits of the crippled defrag, if any.

--
Leo
If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished.