Spaz,

Take a look at following blog entries to see the reasoning behind defrag
design (including UI) in Vista:
http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/arc...r/default.aspx

Rest of comments inline.

"Spaz" wrote in message
...
It's slow
Does "I/O Prioritization" says something to you? Defrag in Vista is designed
to be a background task so it works at low I/O priority which allows users
to comfortably continue their work on computer while defrag is running but
increases time to complete defragmentation.

it gives no options
See above plus there's always defrag.exe command-line utility for advanced
users.

it gives no analysis before defrag
defrag.exe

it gives no progress bars
Sorry, no progress bar for you. I' missing it too a little bit. See link
above for excuses.

it gives no results, it gives no statistics.
defrag.exe

I'M ****ED!
before getting ****ed off it is a good idea to do some research especially
when you don't understand reasons behind particular software design, feature
or lack thereof. There's a good chance that software vendor has already
explained it in details... several times.

--
Alexander Suhovey

"Ken Gardner" wrote in message
...
This is especially true in Vista because of ReadyFetch and ReadyBoost

Uhm, it's *Super*Fetch and ReadyBoost, Ken...

And although I think there are scenarios where defragmentation probably can
make a difference even on Vista (think working with really big files like
video authoring), generally I agree with points you've made in this thread.

--
Alexander Suhovey

Regardless of all the arguments for and against...I agree with Spaz.

I liked the fact that I could see the visual aspect of what the pc was
doing. I liked the fact that I could see a percentage of completion. I'm one
of those freaky people who enjoys doing system maintenance. I'm not into the
schedule thingy. I like to do it myself so I can follow the processes and see
what my pc is up to.

I just think that the phrase..."This may take a couple of minutes or several
hours" is pretty poor for Microsofts new flagship os. Thay could have AT
LEAST included a percentage count so I could see how it was going. I mean
these guys are the CODE gods.

That being said...you get what you get and you use it if you want to. There
are plenty of other defrag programs out there.

"Spaz" wrote:

It's slow, it gives no options, it gives no analysis before defrag, it gives
no progress bars, it gives no results, it gives no statistics.

I'M ****ED!

"shannow777" wrote in message
...
I just think that the phrase..."This may take a couple of minutes or
several
hours" is pretty poor for Microsofts new flagship os. Thay could have AT
LEAST included a percentage count so I could see how it was going. I mean
these guys are the CODE gods.

The problem is, they can't. Defrag logic doesn't allow reliable prediction.
It was true for XP, it's also true for Vista.

Following quote is from the Defrag FAQ on TechNet blog I've mentioned
earlier (https://blogs.technet.com/filecab/ar.../440717.aspx):
"Why was the defrag progress indicator removed?
Part of the problem with the Windows XP defrag tool was that percent
complete was not accurate or meaningful. Depending on the phase of defrag,
1% of progress could take from several seconds to minutes, which made the
progress indicator highly unreliable. The difficulty here is that since
defrag is a multi-pass process (multiple iterations of file defragmentation
and free space consolidation) there is no way to accurately predict when
defrag will complete since the number of loop iterations and how long each
takes are highly dependent on the layout of the files on the volume, the
level of file and free space fragmentation, and the other system activity.
While I agree that having no progress is bad, misleading progress I believe
is worse. Also, the idea behind the new automated defrag is that users will
not have to think about it not worry about the progress it is making. With
defrag running regularly, the system will be close to optimal levels of
fragmentation, and subsequent defrag runs should not take long."

That being said...you get what you get and you use it if you want to.
There are plenty of other defrag programs out there.


Indeed.

--
Alexander Suhovey

"Ken Gardner" wrote in message
...
MICHAEL wrote:

If you really want to speed up performance, don't waste your money on a
defragger. Buy more RAM, or even a flash drive that works with ReadyBoost.
And let Vista do what little defragmentation still needs to be done.

Except for "Buy more RAM", you are so wrong.

And you know this...how, exactly? Do you understand how Vista memory management actually
works?

Years of experience. Running my own tests on my disks before
and after a defragmentation. The amount of fragmentation a disk may
have is mostly dependant on what user's do and don't do. When a
user needs to defrag will vary.

A defragmented HD certainly outperforms a fragmented HD. No argument there. But I am making
a different point. Fragmentation matters only at the point when a file is first read from
the HD into RAM. We are talking about a very short period of time -- from less than a second
to a few seconds at most. Once it is in RAM, it stays there. This is true with XP, and even
more true with Vista. If you have lots of RAM, it stays there that much longer. Your
processes retrieve code and data from RAM rather than the much slower (and possibly
fragmented to boot) HD. If you later read from or write to that file, it stays in RAM longer
still. And if you also use the ReadyBoost feature, that's where the file goes if and when it
is paged of RAM. Your flash drive is much faster than your HD (although the file is copied
to the HD as well).

That's not all. ReadyFetch loads often-used programs from your HD into RAM during idle
periods. For example, if you start up your computer and begin using Windows Mail, ReadyFetch
will likely load your Internet browser in the background. When you then click on your
internet browser, it is already in the Vista cache and therefore loads instantly. Even if
these files are fragmented on your HD, you don't notice any performance penalty at all
because you aren't then accessing them manually.

What this all means is that under Vista fragmentation no longer has a transparent effect on
overall system performance. I'm not even sure that it made that much difference on XP
systems with lots of RAM. So, you no longer need to be fanatical about keeping your hard
drive defragmented. Vista can take care of whatever you need automatically. And you can
STILL do a manual defrag anytime you want. It's the best of all possible worlds.

I will say some users do defrag too much, believing it is a cure all.
Imagining better performance gains than just the few milliseconds that
usually occur.

I used to be one of those people. Then I learned about how memory management actually works
and why the real key to system performance is a fast CPU and lots of RAM. This is why your
best performance tool is Task Manager, not Disk Defragmenter. Again, this is true on XP and
much more true on Vista.

I, my computer, my hard drives are busy all day. I work with several
large programs throughout the day... some rather busy programs. Much
thrashing of the disks. Defragging does make a difference, that I
have no doubt.

Again, no one can seriously dispute that a defragmented HD outperforms a fragmented HD,
especially on servers and on systems with low RAM.

I also know who makes the Defrag for Windows, and I know that
the guts of that program hasn't been updated in years.

Obviously, YMMV and your opinion will, too. That's your prerogative.
However, most users will benefit from regular defragging.

I fully agree. I still defrag more than I should, but I am no longer a fanatic about it.

Ken

Ken, I think we are actually more in agreement than disagreement.

That was good post. I appreciate you input.

Take care,

Michael

"Alexander Suhovey" wrote:

This is especially true in Vista because of ReadyFetch and ReadyBoost

Uhm, it's *Super*Fetch and ReadyBoost, Ken...

Uh, right. I hate it when the spellchecker lets me down like that.

And although I think there are scenarios where defragmentation probably
can make a difference even on Vista (think working with really big files
like video authoring), generally I agree with points you've made in this
thread.

I can think of several. One is where the system doesn't have lots of RAM.
Another is where it functions primarily as a server, where disk activity is
more prevalent. Another is what you mentioned: lots of adding, modifying,
or deleting large files.

My point to Michael is not that defragmentation is now a waste of time, but
that it doesn't have the same impact on overall system performance that
earlier versions of Windows had. Vista's memory management design is
designed to keep as much useful code and data in to RAM for as long as
possible. To this end, it makes better decisions about what to keep in RAM
than the demand paging algorithms of prior versions of Windows.

Ken

Super! Thanks.

Ken

"MICHAEL" wrote in message
...

"Ken Gardner" wrote in message
...
MICHAEL wrote:

If you really want to speed up performance, don't waste your money on
a
defragger. Buy more RAM, or even a flash drive that works with
ReadyBoost.
And let Vista do what little defragmentation still needs to be done.

Except for "Buy more RAM", you are so wrong.

And you know this...how, exactly? Do you understand how Vista memory
management actually works?

Years of experience. Running my own tests on my disks before
and after a defragmentation. The amount of fragmentation a disk may
have is mostly dependant on what user's do and don't do. When a
user needs to defrag will vary.

A defragmented HD certainly outperforms a fragmented HD. No argument
there. But I am making a different point. Fragmentation matters only at
the point when a file is first read from the HD into RAM. We are talking
about a very short period of time -- from less than a second to a few
seconds at most. Once it is in RAM, it stays there. This is true with
XP, and even more true with Vista. If you have lots of RAM, it stays
there that much longer. Your processes retrieve code and data from RAM
rather than the much slower (and possibly fragmented to boot) HD. If you
later read from or write to that file, it stays in RAM longer still. And
if you also use the ReadyBoost feature, that's where the file goes if and
when it is paged of RAM. Your flash drive is much faster than your HD
(although the file is copied to the HD as well).

That's not all. ReadyFetch loads often-used programs from your HD into
RAM during idle periods. For example, if you start up your computer and
begin using Windows Mail, ReadyFetch will likely load your Internet
browser in the background. When you then click on your internet browser,
it is already in the Vista cache and therefore loads instantly. Even if
these files are fragmented on your HD, you don't notice any performance
penalty at all because you aren't then accessing them manually.

What this all means is that under Vista fragmentation no longer has a
transparent effect on overall system performance. I'm not even sure that
it made that much difference on XP systems with lots of RAM. So, you no
longer need to be fanatical about keeping your hard drive defragmented.
Vista can take care of whatever you need automatically. And you can
STILL do a manual defrag anytime you want. It's the best of all possible
worlds.

I will say some users do defrag too much, believing it is a cure all.
Imagining better performance gains than just the few milliseconds that
usually occur.

I used to be one of those people. Then I learned about how memory
management actually works and why the real key to system performance is a
fast CPU and lots of RAM. This is why your best performance tool is Task
Manager, not Disk Defragmenter. Again, this is true on XP and much more
true on Vista.

I, my computer, my hard drives are busy all day. I work with several
large programs throughout the day... some rather busy programs. Much
thrashing of the disks. Defragging does make a difference, that I
have no doubt.

Again, no one can seriously dispute that a defragmented HD outperforms a
fragmented HD, especially on servers and on systems with low RAM.

I also know who makes the Defrag for Windows, and I know that
the guts of that program hasn't been updated in years.

Obviously, YMMV and your opinion will, too. That's your prerogative.
However, most users will benefit from regular defragging.

I fully agree. I still defrag more than I should, but I am no longer a
fanatic about it.

Ken

Ken, I think we are actually more in agreement than disagreement.

That was good post. I appreciate you input.

Take care,

Michael

Ken Gardner wrote:
MICHAEL wrote:

If you really want to speed up performance, don't waste your money
on a
defragger. Buy more RAM, or even a flash drive that works with
ReadyBoost.
And let Vista do what little defragmentation still needs to be done.

Except for "Buy more RAM", you are so wrong.

And you know this...how, exactly? Do you understand how Vista memory
management actually works?

Years of experience. Running my own tests on my disks before
and after a defragmentation. The amount of fragmentation a disk may
have is mostly dependant on what user's do and don't do. When a
user needs to defrag will vary.

A defragmented HD certainly outperforms a fragmented HD. No argument
there. But I am making a different point. Fragmentation matters only at
the point when a file is first read from the HD into RAM. We are
talking about a very short period of time -- from less than a second to
a few seconds at most. Once it is in RAM, it stays there. This is true
with XP, and even more true with Vista. If you have lots of RAM, it
stays there that much longer. Your processes retrieve code and data
from RAM rather than the much slower (and possibly fragmented to boot)
HD. If you later read from or write to that file, it stays in RAM
longer still. And if you also use the ReadyBoost feature, that's where
the file goes if and when it is paged of RAM. Your flash drive is much
faster than your HD (although the file is copied to the HD as well).

That's not all. ReadyFetch loads often-used programs from your HD into
RAM during idle periods. For example, if you start up your computer and
begin using Windows Mail, ReadyFetch will likely load your Internet
browser in the background. When you then click on your internet
browser, it is already in the Vista cache and therefore loads
instantly. Even if these files are fragmented on your HD, you don't
notice any performance penalty at all because you aren't then accessing
them manually.

What this all means is that under Vista fragmentation no longer has a
transparent effect on overall system performance. I'm not even sure
that it made that much difference on XP systems with lots of RAM. So,
you no longer need to be fanatical about keeping your hard drive
defragmented. Vista can take care of whatever you need automatically.
And you can STILL do a manual defrag anytime you want. It's the best of
all possible worlds.

I will say some users do defrag too much, believing it is a cure all.
Imagining better performance gains than just the few milliseconds that
usually occur.

I used to be one of those people. Then I learned about how memory
management actually works and why the real key to system performance is
a fast CPU and lots of RAM. This is why your best performance tool is
Task Manager, not Disk Defragmenter. Again, this is true on XP and much
more true on Vista.

I, my computer, my hard drives are busy all day. I work with several
large programs throughout the day... some rather busy programs. Much
thrashing of the disks. Defragging does make a difference, that I
have no doubt.

Again, no one can seriously dispute that a defragmented HD outperforms a
fragmented HD, especially on servers and on systems with low RAM.

I also know who makes the Defrag for Windows, and I know that
the guts of that program hasn't been updated in years.

Obviously, YMMV and your opinion will, too. That's your prerogative.
However, most users will benefit from regular defragging.

I fully agree. I still defrag more than I should, but I am no longer a
fanatic about it.

Ken
How much RAM is "lots of RAM"? 2Gb, 3Gb ,....

"Daniel Royer" wrote:

How much RAM is "lots of RAM"? 2Gb, 3Gb ,....

I would say at least 1GB (with ReadyBoost) or 2 GB (without it) or more,
with no upper limit. There is no such thing as too much RAM in any Windows
system, especially Vista.

Ken

For the average joe, it may be too much information! For power users,
try a third party utility. They give you much more power over the
options and a little more speed!

MS is catering to the average user that wants internet, email, and
solitare. Not a bad idea, as it's easier for them, and makes my job a
bit easier (no more "I broke it!")

Dustin Harper

http://www.vistarip.com



Spaz wrote:
It's slow, it gives no options, it gives no analysis before defrag, it
gives no progress bars, it gives no results, it gives no statistics.

I'M ****ED!