In message <O9HFz2LoIHA.5016@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl> "LesleyO "
<lesleyo@DELETETHIStelusplanet.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>I'm with you, Mark. Have been using Diskeeper for several years, now, on
>several units - it's efficient and reliable, and I love being able to
>customize when it does its thing and how often. I have it defragging my
>tower's drives and my USB drive as well, in the wee small hours when I'm
>asleep.[/color]

So with your love of being able to customize, you configure it to do
exactly what Vista's built in defrag already does by default?

Oh, and in case you didn't notice, you can reschedule Vista's defrag
tool as well, should you be so inclined.

>>>So with your love of being able to customize, you configure it to do
exactly what Vista's built in defrag already does by default?<<<

And that is?
Do you know 100% that the MS version of Defrag works better than a 3rd.
party app?
If someone wants to set and watch defrag work the that's their business. I
personally use
PerfectDisk2008 and is superior to the MS version. I ran the MS version
first then ran PerfectDisk2008 and was very surprised how much more
PerfectDisk2008 found that needed more defragging. Yes I'm very aware they
all do things differently, but IMO the MS version lacks a lot.

[url]http://www.raxco.com/products/downloadit/[/url]
Try before you buy.

--
All the best,
SG

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

"DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:aihf045kodvrvodug6tergdjnclkd30635@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> In message <O9HFz2LoIHA.5016@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl> "LesleyO "
> <lesleyo@DELETETHIStelusplanet.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>I'm with you, Mark. Have been using Diskeeper for several years, now, on
>>several units - it's efficient and reliable, and I love being able to
>>customize when it does its thing and how often. I have it defragging my
>>tower's drives and my USB drive as well, in the wee small hours when I'm
>>asleep.[/color]
>
> So with your love of being able to customize, you configure it to do
> exactly what Vista's built in defrag already does by default?
>
> Oh, and in case you didn't notice, you can reschedule Vista's defrag
> tool as well, should you be so inclined.[/color]

In message <OS6qXEboIHA.5836@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl> "SG"
<sorry@nomail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Do you know 100% that the MS version of Defrag works better than a 3rd.
>party app?[/color]

No. Do you know 100% that other versions work better, and if so, does
it save enough time to justify it's cost?
[color=blue]
>If someone wants to set and watch defrag work the that's their business. I
>personally use
>PerfectDisk2008 and is superior to the MS version. I ran the MS version
>first then ran PerfectDisk2008 and was very surprised how much more
>PerfectDisk2008 found that needed more defragging. Yes I'm very aware they
>all do things differently, but IMO the MS version lacks a lot.[/color]

The "do things differently" can be important, there are several
different concepts that get lumped into "defragmentation" (or more
rightly, optimization)

Different tools can be built on different optimization theories and
algorithms with regards to optimization, and will report other tools'
optimized results as being less then optimal. No one method or
algorithm is ideal for all users, all usage patterns, all of the time.

This doesn't mean that it's impossible or even difficult to compare
tools or results, but rather, that you cannot look at what one tool's
analysis reports to evaluate another defragmentation tool.

"Even if it did have a progress bar, they're very rarely accurate"
So what. At least it would give a rough idea of the progress of the defrag.

"Paul Smith" wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Markus Emayr" <essmayr/at/racon-linz.at> wrote in message
> news:%23mgfesHoIHA.4928@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
> > Hello to the defragmentation-tool-developer-team,
> >
> > please please add some progress information to the tool.
> > Thanks very much![/color]
>
> The built-in defragmenter is very much more of a background process, most
> users won't ever open the UI. Even if it did have a progress bar, they're
> very rarely accurate.
>
> --
> Paul Smith,
> Yeovil, UK.
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
> [url]http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/[/url]
> [url]http://www.windowsresource.net/[/url]
>
> *Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*
>[/color]

The Vista defragmenter normally runs when needed in the background.
"Avery Tom Deacon Harry" <AveryTomDeaconHarry@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in message news:8FC6601E-0DD6-4871-A6FB-55CE5FA92541@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> "Even if it did have a progress bar, they're very rarely accurate"
> So what. At least it would give a rough idea of the progress of the
> defrag.
>
> "Paul Smith" wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "Markus Emayr" <essmayr/at/racon-linz.at> wrote in message
>> news:%23mgfesHoIHA.4928@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>> > Hello to the defragmentation-tool-developer-team,
>> >
>> > please please add some progress information to the tool.
>> > Thanks very much![/color]
>>
>> The built-in defragmenter is very much more of a background process, most
>> users won't ever open the UI. Even if it did have a progress bar,
>> they're
>> very rarely accurate.
>>
>> --
>> Paul Smith,
>> Yeovil, UK.
>> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
>> [url]http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/[/url]
>> [url]http://www.windowsresource.net/[/url]
>>
>> *Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*
>>[/color][/color]

"Avery Tom Deacon Harry" <AveryTomDeaconHarry@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in message news:8FC6601E-0DD6-4871-A6FB-55CE5FA92541@microsoft.com...
[color=blue]
> "Even if it did have a progress bar, they're very rarely accurate"[/color]
[color=blue]
> So what. At least it would give a rough idea of the progress of the
> defrag.[/color]


The progress bar would have to be made to show backward progress!

Don't forget, one aspect of Vista's "invisible" constant defrag operation
is quietly and slowing running in the background all the time. After
several hours of normal Vista use, my "other" defrag program shows the
results of Vista's digital confetti parade. A couple hundred fragmented
files. Since I don't leave my computer powered up all the time, there isn't
enough quiet time for Vista's background "turtle" defrag to trudge thru and
pick up all the picnic scraps. For this aspect of defrag, a progress bar
doesn't make sense.

And yes, my "other" defrag program has the option to respect layout.ini
mapping that Vista creates for file/hard-drive spiffiness.

Microsoft ( for whatever reason ) has decided to remove defrag consciousness
from Vista users as much as possible.

digital mysteries, magnetic domains ... netlink

= - = - =
[color=blue]
>
> "Paul Smith" wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "Markus Emayr" <essmayr/at/racon-linz.at> wrote in message
>> news:%23mgfesHoIHA.4928@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>> > Hello to the defragmentation-tool-developer-team,
>> >
>> > please please add some progress information to the tool.
>> > Thanks very much![/color]
>>
>> The built-in defragmenter is very much more of a background process, most
>> users won't ever open the UI. Even if it did have a progress bar,
>> they're
>> very rarely accurate.
>>
>> --
>> Paul Smith,
>> Yeovil, UK.
>> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
>> [url]http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/[/url]
>> [url]http://www.windowsresource.net/[/url]
>>
>> *Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*
>>[/color][/color]