The more i use vista, the more i feel dissappointed. Why the disk
defragmenter interface is so simple? I can never see how many percentage of
disk is fragmented, do i need to perform defragmentation, and the current
status of defragmentation. I can only wait......till it finish without
knowing what happen. Is this true?


Some guy told me, " I am looking forward to the next version of Windows to 
see what is "different" - not what is the same!"

Are we expecting a better usability os or a jsut a different os? just to 
change for the sake of change.
Is it very difficult for microsoft to maintain those simple advantages of 
xp?

Alan316;853526 Wrote: 
> The more i use vista, the more i feel dissappointed. Why the disk
> defragmenter interface is so simple? I can never see how many
> percentage of
> disk is fragmented, do i need to perform defragmentation, and the
> current
> status of defragmentation. I can only wait......till it finish without
> knowing what happen. Is this true?
> 
> 
> Some guy told me, " I am looking forward to the next version of Windows
> to
> see what is "different" - not what is the same!"
> 
> Are we expecting a better usability os or a jsut a different os? just
> to
> change for the sake of change.
> Is it very difficult for microsoft to maintain those simple advantages
> of
> xp?

Hello Alan,

I believe microsoft thought many people would see it as a standard
maintenance task, and would prefer it to run in the background so they
could continue to use their machines.

If you prefer a defragger you can watch, you may like the free one from
Auslogics

'Auslogics - Download Auslogics Disk Defrag'
(http://www.auslogics.com/en/software/disk-defrag/download)

Hope that helps

SIW2


-- 
SIW2

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:02:38 -0500, SIW2 
wrote:

>
>Alan316;853526 Wrote: 
>> The more i use vista, the more i feel dissappointed. Why the disk
>> defragmenter interface is so simple? I can never see how many
>> percentage of
>> disk is fragmented, do i need to perform defragmentation, and the
>> current
>> status of defragmentation. I can only wait......till it finish without
>> knowing what happen. Is this true?
>> 
>> 
>> Some guy told me, " I am looking forward to the next version of Windows
>> to
>> see what is "different" - not what is the same!"
>> 
>> Are we expecting a better usability os or a jsut a different os? just
>> to
>> change for the sake of change.
>> Is it very difficult for microsoft to maintain those simple advantages
>> of
>> xp?
>
>Hello Alan,
>
>I believe microsoft thought many people would see it as a standard
>maintenance task, and would prefer it to run in the background so they
>could continue to use their machines.
>
>If you prefer a defragger you can watch, you may like the free one from
>Auslogics

I've tried that one and it's good.  Better than JKDefrag. 

Here's an even better (and NEW) one: freeware Diskeeper-type that can
be run manually so one can look at all the pretty little boxes and
progress bar, or it can run in the background like Diskeeper.

http://downloads.zdnet.com/abstract.aspx?docid=386109

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:36:42 +0800, Alan316 wrote:

> The more i use vista, the more i feel dissappointed. Why the disk
> defragmenter interface is so simple? I can never see how many percentage
> of disk is fragmented, do i need to perform defragmentation, and the
> current status of defragmentation. I can only wait......till it finish
> without knowing what happen. Is this true?
> 
> 
> Some guy told me, " I am looking forward to the next version of Windows
> to see what is "different" - not what is the same!"
> 
> Are we expecting a better usability os or a jsut a different os? just to
> change for the sake of change.
> Is it very difficult for microsoft to maintain those simple advantages
> of xp?

With a modern file system, of course, you would not even need a disk 
defragmenter - this IS the 21st century. *nix has done quite nicely 
without them for over 10 years now.

>> Some guy told me, " I am looking forward to the next version of Windows
>> to see what is "different" - not what is the same!"
>>
>> Are we expecting a better usability os or a jsut a different os? just to
>> change for the sake of change.
>> Is it very difficult for microsoft to maintain those simple advantages
>> of xp?
>
> With a modern file system, of course, you would not even need a disk
> defragmenter - this IS the 21st century. *nix has done quite nicely
> without them for over 10 years now.

Really?? Then why each time it run, message pop up said this may take from a 
few minutes to a few hour?

In article , ray@zianet.com says...
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:36:42 +0800, Alan316 wrote:
> 
> 
> With a modern file system, of course, you would not even need a disk 
> defragmenter - this IS the 21st century. *nix has done quite nicely 
> without them for over 10 years now.
> 
interesting is, that ext4 FS includes deftagmentation tool.....

-- 
Poutnik

Different opinions oftem means people know only their own parts of the 
truth.

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 09:36:42 +0800, Alan316 wrote:

> The more i use vista, the more i feel dissappointed. Why the disk
> defragmenter interface is so simple? I can never see how many percentage of
> disk is fragmented, do i need to perform defragmentation, and the current
> status of defragmentation. I can only wait......till it finish without
> knowing what happen. Is this true?
> 
> 
> Some guy told me, " I am looking forward to the next version of Windows to 
> see what is "different" - not what is the same!"
> 
> Are we expecting a better usability os or a jsut a different os? just to 
> change for the sake of change.
> Is it very difficult for microsoft to maintain those simple advantages of 
> xp?

Interesting stuff...defrag etc. etc.
https://ms.istreamplanet.com/springboard/

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:57:40 +0800, _CragTheCode wrote:

>>> Some guy told me, " I am looking forward to the next version of
>>> Windows to see what is "different" - not what is the same!"
>>>
>>> Are we expecting a better usability os or a jsut a different os? just
>>> to change for the sake of change.
>>> Is it very difficult for microsoft to maintain those simple advantages
>>> of xp?
>>
>> With a modern file system, of course, you would not even need a disk
>> defragmenter - this IS the 21st century. *nix has done quite nicely
>> without them for over 10 years now.
> 
> Really?? Then why each time it run, message pop up said this may take
> from a few minutes to a few hour?

Certain Linux file systems do a consistency check when they boot up. This 
most likely happens with unjournaled systems like ext2. It is not doing a 
defrag, it is doing a consistency check. This issue has been completely 
avoided with newer systems like reiser - does not have that issue at al.

In article , ray@zianet.com says...
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:57:40 +0800, _CragTheCode wrote:
> 
> >>> Some guy told me, " I am looking forward to the next version of
> >>> Windows to see what is "different" - not what is the same!"
> >>>
> >>> Are we expecting a better usability os or a jsut a different os? just
> >>> to change for the sake of change.
> >>> Is it very difficult for microsoft to maintain those simple advantages
> >>> of xp?
> >>
> >> With a modern file system, of course, you would not even need a disk
> >> defragmenter - this IS the 21st century. *nix has done quite nicely
> >> without them for over 10 years now.
> > 
> > Really?? Then why each time it run, message pop up said this may take
> > from a few minutes to a few hour?
> 
> Certain Linux file systems do a consistency check when they boot up. This 
> most likely happens with unjournaled systems like ext2. It is not doing a 
> defrag, it is doing a consistency check. This issue has been completely 
> avoided with newer systems like reiser - does not have that issue at al.
> 

This article is also quite interesting...

Measuring fragmentation of ext3 in linux
http://www2.lut.fi/~ilonen/ext3_fragmentation.html

Wikipedia - ext3 - Disadvantages   - Defragmentation                           
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext3#Defragmentation

Not to initiate flame, just to point out that
all analyzed items ( e.g. OSs ) need 
the same level of criticism approach.

Am I critical to my "favorite" at same level as to my "enemy" ?

note that I confess I do not know much about advanced *nic systems,
but I am persuaded they are superior at least in performance.

-- 
Poutnik

Different opinions oftem means people know only their own parts of the 
truth.