Disk Defragmenting - please please update

[Alex Leonard]

Hi there,

I have just recently moved to Windows Vista Business and decided after all
my file transferring, installing and so on, that it would be a good idea to
run a defrag.

I was shocked to see that the Disk Defragmenter has actually gotten worse
from the old system and SHOWS NO PROGRESS INDICATION!

I am sitting here wondering how long the operation might take and I haven't
got a clue. It's incredibly frustrating and I would definitely like to see
this rectified as soon as possible in an update.

I have written a blog post about this as well with more detailed information:
http://www.pixelapes.com/index.php/2007/07/11/who-needs-a-progress-display.html

Kind regards,

Alex

 

[Andrew McLaren]

"Alex Leonard" <AlexLeonard@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote ...
> I was shocked to see that the Disk Defragmenter has actually gotten worse
> from the old system and SHOWS NO PROGRESS INDICATION!


Hi Alex,

This change was actually on purpose. As I understand it, in Vista, Defrag
was rewritten by Microsoft to remove the last of the code they'd licensed
from Executive Software. In the process, it was noted that the old Defrag
GUI, although visually appealing, was actually quite an inaccurate picture
of what was really happening on the disk. To rework the UI to provide an
accurate, real-time image of the disk would have been a major project. Even
keeping the existing GUI would have carried a cost, because that code would
have needed to pass a Vista security review - another major project, and for
tombstoned code.

Furthermore, in Vista Defrag is configured to run silently in the
background, as Scheduled Task so a glossy UI was less important than
earlier versions where Defrag only ran interactively. In Vista, all you get
is the "Disk Defragmanter" dialogue box, with a "Run on a Schedule" option
(selected by default) and a "Defragment Now" button to kick off a manual
defrag. The idea is that most of the time, most users will never run Defrag
interactively - it will be a weekly or daily background task they never
notice (like the many other regularly scheduled maintence tasks in Vista).

My understanding is that Microsoft hope to add a more descriptive visual GUI
in a later release, for users who wish to run Defrag interactively. They are
aware the users liked the old visuals. But for the release of Vista, it was
judged a reasonable trade-off, to ditch the misleading and unsecured old
GUI, in favor of the minimal but adequate (and secured) UI we see today.

Hope this helps,
--
Andrew McLaren
amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au

 

[Jerry Grabill]

downloaded that 'Disk Defrag - Reclaim the Speed Of
>> Your Disks' (http://www.auslogics.com/disk-defrag/)
>> program and that seems to be going good. Strange I cannot get
>> dfrgui.exe to
>> work though, maybe a service hasn't initialised?
>>
Click on the link above and download the program "Disk Defrag"
It works.


"Alex Leonard" <AlexLeonard@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BB6001B2-07F2-4D59-B7FB-B1E9F7C97889@microsoft.com...
> Hi there,
>
> I have just recently moved to Windows Vista Business and decided after all
> my file transferring, installing and so on, that it would be a good idea
> to
> run a defrag.
>
> I was shocked to see that the Disk Defragmenter has actually gotten worse
> from the old system and SHOWS NO PROGRESS INDICATION!
>
> I am sitting here wondering how long the operation might take and I
> haven't
> got a clue. It's incredibly frustrating and I would definitely like to see
> this rectified as soon as possible in an update.
>
> I have written a blog post about this as well with more detailed
> information:
> http://www.pixelapes.com/index.php/2007/07/11/who-needs-a-progress-display.html
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Alex

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

Alex

For Defrag to be shown accurately, the 'bar' would have to be measured in
miles, not pixels.. Defrag is now what it always should have been, a
seamless process that is neither interrupted or invasive..

I will admit that the old defrag animations made for a better sideshow than
UAE/GPF BSODs..

"Alex Leonard" <AlexLeonard@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BB6001B2-07F2-4D59-B7FB-B1E9F7C97889@microsoft.com...
> Hi there,
>
> I have just recently moved to Windows Vista Business and decided after all
> my file transferring, installing and so on, that it would be a good idea
> to
> run a defrag.
>
> I was shocked to see that the Disk Defragmenter has actually gotten worse
> from the old system and SHOWS NO PROGRESS INDICATION!
>
> I am sitting here wondering how long the operation might take and I
> haven't
> got a clue. It's incredibly frustrating and I would definitely like to see
> this rectified as soon as possible in an update.
>
> I have written a blog post about this as well with more detailed
> information:
> http://www.pixelapes.com/index.php/2007/07/11/who-needs-a-progress-display.html
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Alex

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

 

[Alex Leonard]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your reply. I am definitely appreciative that the disk defrag now
runs as a background task and doesn't need any tweaking. Mike Hall mentioned
that the bar would need to be pretty long too to show an accurate
representation.

However it does seem strange that there isn't even a rough "8% complete.
Time Taken: 30min, Estimated time remaining: 1 hour 13 minutes" indication or
anything.

The only reason I would ever manually run a defrag is just before one of my
gigs to ensure that the hard drive in my laptop is running as optimally as
possible as hard drive access times can cause problems with sample loading.
It would be nice if I knew how long it was going to take.

I hope this clarifies my initial comment a bit more.

"Andrew McLaren" wrote:

> Hi Alex,
>
> This change was actually on purpose. As I understand it, in Vista, Defrag
> was rewritten by Microsoft to remove the last of the code they'd licensed
> from Executive Software. In the process, it was noted that the old Defrag
> GUI, although visually appealing, was actually quite an inaccurate picture
> of what was really happening on the disk. To rework the UI to provide an
> accurate, real-time image of the disk would have been a major project. Even
> keeping the existing GUI would have carried a cost, because that code would
> have needed to pass a Vista security review - another major project, and for
> tombstoned code.
>
> Furthermore, in Vista Defrag is configured to run silently in the
> background, as Scheduled Task so a glossy UI was less important than
> earlier versions where Defrag only ran interactively. In Vista, all you get
> is the "Disk Defragmanter" dialogue box, with a "Run on a Schedule" option
> (selected by default) and a "Defragment Now" button to kick off a manual
> defrag. The idea is that most of the time, most users will never run Defrag
> interactively - it will be a weekly or daily background task they never
> notice (like the many other regularly scheduled maintence tasks in Vista).
>
> My understanding is that Microsoft hope to add a more descriptive visual GUI
> in a later release, for users who wish to run Defrag interactively. They are
> aware the users liked the old visuals. But for the release of Vista, it was
> judged a reasonable trade-off, to ditch the misleading and unsecured old
> GUI, in favor of the minimal but adequate (and secured) UI we see today.
>
> Hope this helps,
> --
> Andrew McLaren
> amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
>
>

 

[Adam Albright]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:34:01 -0700, Alex Leonard
<AlexLeonard@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Hi Andrew,
>
>Thanks for your reply. I am definitely appreciative that the disk defrag now
>runs as a background task and doesn't need any tweaking. Mike Hall mentioned
>that the bar would need to be pretty long too to show an accurate
>representation.
>
>However it does seem strange that there isn't even a rough "8% complete.
>Time Taken: 30min, Estimated time remaining: 1 hour 13 minutes" indication or
>anything.
>
>The only reason I would ever manually run a defrag is just before one of my
>gigs to ensure that the hard drive in my laptop is running as optimally as
>possible as hard drive access times can cause problems with sample loading.
>It would be nice if I knew how long it was going to take.
>
>I hope this clarifies my initial comment a bit more.

You are aware you were just fed a line of bull aren't you? It truly is
amazing to what lengths MVPs and fanboys go to defend Microsoft
blunders. There isn't anything overly complicated about writing a
defrag routine. There is no reason why it can't run in the background
or show a visual representation of it's progress. All major third
party defrag applications have done both for years. Security? More BS.
All any defrag does is move file pieces from their current sectors to
new ones it an attempt to make files less fragmented. Major project my
rear end. Foot dragging and incompetence... what Microsoft is infamous
for.

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

Being an ongoing process and without obvious end as long as the computer is
in use, it can't show any %age complete..


"Alex Leonard" <AlexLeonard@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3502D416-9F4D-4030-BDFA-45555AB8D7A1@microsoft.com...
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thanks for your reply. I am definitely appreciative that the disk defrag
> now
> runs as a background task and doesn't need any tweaking. Mike Hall
> mentioned
> that the bar would need to be pretty long too to show an accurate
> representation.
>
> However it does seem strange that there isn't even a rough "8% complete.
> Time Taken: 30min, Estimated time remaining: 1 hour 13 minutes" indication
> or
> anything.
>
> The only reason I would ever manually run a defrag is just before one of
> my
> gigs to ensure that the hard drive in my laptop is running as optimally as
> possible as hard drive access times can cause problems with sample
> loading.
> It would be nice if I knew how long it was going to take.
>
> I hope this clarifies my initial comment a bit more.
>
> "Andrew McLaren" wrote:
>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> This change was actually on purpose. As I understand it, in Vista, Defrag
>> was rewritten by Microsoft to remove the last of the code they'd licensed
>> from Executive Software. In the process, it was noted that the old Defrag
>> GUI, although visually appealing, was actually quite an inaccurate
>> picture
>> of what was really happening on the disk. To rework the UI to provide an
>> accurate, real-time image of the disk would have been a major project.
>> Even
>> keeping the existing GUI would have carried a cost, because that code
>> would
>> have needed to pass a Vista security review - another major project, and
>> for
>> tombstoned code.
>>
>> Furthermore, in Vista Defrag is configured to run silently in the
>> background, as Scheduled Task so a glossy UI was less important than
>> earlier versions where Defrag only ran interactively. In Vista, all you
>> get
>> is the "Disk Defragmanter" dialogue box, with a "Run on a Schedule"
>> option
>> (selected by default) and a "Defragment Now" button to kick off a manual
>> defrag. The idea is that most of the time, most users will never run
>> Defrag
>> interactively - it will be a weekly or daily background task they never
>> notice (like the many other regularly scheduled maintence tasks in
>> Vista).
>>
>> My understanding is that Microsoft hope to add a more descriptive visual
>> GUI
>> in a later release, for users who wish to run Defrag interactively. They
>> are
>> aware the users liked the old visuals. But for the release of Vista, it
>> was
>> judged a reasonable trade-off, to ditch the misleading and unsecured old
>> GUI, in favor of the minimal but adequate (and secured) UI we see today.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>> --
>> Andrew McLaren
>> amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
>>
>>

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

 

[ray]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:04:07 -0400, Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

> Alex
>
> For Defrag to be shown accurately, the 'bar' would have to be measured in
> miles, not pixels.. Defrag is now what it always should have been, a
> seamless process that is neither interrupted or invasive..

IMHO what is 'should have been' is eliminated. It boggles the mind that
this is still necessary in the 21st century.

 

[Jeff]

>
> You are aware you were just fed a line of bull aren't you? It truly is
> amazing to what lengths MVPs and fanboys go to defend Microsoft
> blunders. There isn't anything overly complicated about writing a
> defrag routine. There is no reason why it can't run in the background
> or show a visual representation of it's progress. All major third
> party defrag applications have done both for years. Security? More BS.
> All any defrag does is move file pieces from their current sectors to
> new ones it an attempt to make files less fragmented. Major project my
> rear end. Foot dragging and incompetence... what Microsoft is infamous
> for.
>


Actually, that's not BS from an MVP. I heard the same thing from a guy from
Microsoft when they were doing a launch event. Explained it (not covering
the security part as much) that since it is supposed to run in the
background as a task at a time when normally people would not be using it
(probably sleeping....) that it wouldn't matter anyways. I personally don't
stay up late just to watch my computer defrag...

Jeff

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:46:05 +1000, "Andrew McLaren"
>"Alex Leonard" <AlexLeonard@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote ...

>> I was shocked to see that the Disk Defragmenter has actually gotten worse
>> from the old system and SHOWS NO PROGRESS INDICATION!

I know. I didn't like it either (to put it mildly).

>This change was actually on purpose. As I understand it, in Vista, Defrag
>was rewritten by Microsoft to remove the last of the code they'd licensed
>from Executive Software. In the process, it was noted that the old Defrag
>GUI, although visually appealing, was actually quite an inaccurate picture
>of what was really happening on the disk. To rework the UI to provide an
>accurate, real-time image of the disk would have been a major project.

I see. So the idea is, we get new features that we don't have a need
for as yet, while the features we already use get lost. The phrase
"short attention span" comes to mind...

>Furthermore, in Vista Defrag is configured to run silently in the
>background, as Scheduled Task so a glossy UI was less important than
>earlier versions where Defrag only ran interactively.

Some folks like control over their PCs, and like interaction with
things that screw around with the file system that holds our data by
the nads, such as ChkDsk. MS recognised the need for interactive
control over ChkDsk oin MS-DOS 6 what's taking NT so long?

>My understanding is that Microsoft hope to add a more descriptive visual GUI
>in a later release, for users who wish to run Defrag interactively. They are
>aware the users liked the old visuals.

It's not a matter of "liking the old visuals", like we're some sort of
drolling idiot in a mental home. A file system maintenance cock-up
kills data in hard to undo ways (with NTFS's useless toolset, the
damage is more likely to be irreversable) and we really do want and
need control over those sorts of things.

Still, I would be less annoyed if they finally finish writing the OS
later (say, SP1) and give us what they took away. I'd happily swap
decent file maintenance tools for a useless [*1] indexer that fiddles
with my files in the background all the time.

[*1] As in "why doesn't Search show me what I know is there?"



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -