John,

First, thank you for expressing your thoughts here. You are not alone in
your opinions. But, the people that this particular defrag was designed for
are not power users like yourself--they are home users who have no idea what
a defragmenter even is and have probably never run defrag. You stated this
yourself, "Only
somewhat knowledgable Windows users knew how to find the defragger." As the
FAQ explains, we wanted to design a defragmenter that runs on a scheduled
basis to keep your system defragmented. With the defrag running
automatically when there is no user activity, there was no need to have a
graphical UI showing progress if nobody is there to see it.

Granted, these decisions have left a lot of power users unhappy, and we've
heard plenty of feedback from beta participants about this. (Check out the
chat transcript at [url]http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/pages/447168.aspx[/url] for
examples.) But the thing is, the people who are benefitting from this
defragger are not the types to come here to the newsgroups and defend
defrag--they probably don't even realize that defragmentation is occuring,
let alone that such a thing exists.

You mention the things that the defrag UI doesn't do, but have you checked
out the command-line parameters for defrag.exe? This is the way to get the
most information from defrag. For example, you can use the -a parameter to
perform an analysis to determine whether defragmentation is needed. The -v
parameter gives more verbose output for both the defrag and analysis output.



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

Want to learn more about Windows Server file and storage technologies? Visit
our team blog at [url]http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/default.aspx[/url].


"John Smith" <johnsmith@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eRQ4mmq8GHA.208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Jill:
>
> Hopefully, rather than excusing the complete demasculation of this
> extremely important system tool, you will go back to your beta team and
> insist that they should re-tool defragmenter so that Windows users can
> interact with it again. I don't know whether the defragger is licensed
> from Diskeeper or Raxco (although the signature indicates the copyright is
> owned by MS), but to effectively disable the tool to the degree to which
> your team has done so is to remove significant control and management of
> the primary bottleneck in the Windows system.
>
> Somehow, someone at Microsoft decided that disk performance is
> significantly less important to Windows users than the color of the
> background on the Windows desktop, since so much energy and creative
> thought has been allocated to desktop colors as to provide a true color
> palette. So, I can pick from a seemingly infinite range of colors to
> pretty up the desktop, but I get a de-tuned disk optimizer that gives me
> no clue as to its progress, no indication whether or not defragmentation
> is required, little hint that it is actually performing, and no idea
> whatsoever of the degree of fragmentation that might or might not exist
> within the slowest performing component inside the PC cabinet.
>
> Perhaps we should all just feel badly for the defrag team that Microsoft
> product strategists decided that their work was simply an insignificant
> component in the operating system. Perhaps the team tried and tried to
> convince product strategists of the importance of defrag management and
> simply lost the battle - so they're not to blame.
>
> The blog Jill references seems to explain it all: "we've automated it to
> get it 'out of users' faces'." Well, it never was in users' faces! You
> had to know what you were looking for, and you had to find it. Uneducated
> users NEVER launched the Computer Management Console in the first place.
> Only somewhat knowledgable Windows users knew how to find the defragger.
> And automating something in Windows code, as every knowledgable Windows
> users knows, doesn't mean it works at all, not to mention that it works
> properly. We could quickly develop an endless list of Windows functions
> that have been automated for the poor user, but that it was learned
> (usually all too late) never worked or never worked properly (e.g., the
> defrag progress indicator, the MSI installation progress indicator (how
> many times have you watched the progress indicator tell you that there was
> 1 second left?).
>
> And don't forget that NT claimed the NTFS didn't need to be defragged.
> Only after sysinternals and Executive software proved this to be wrong did
> MS acknowledge the need to defragment its disks. Will someone like that
> have to come along now and show us that the new, improved, automated
> defragger is simply masking the fact that it's incapable? Without
> exceptions that I can think of, whenever Microsoft has hidden a management
> processes from user interaction, it has correspondingly hidden the fact
> that that management process simply didn't work (again, we can work up a
> pretty long list pretty quickly).
>
> Please fix the Disk Defragmenter before Vista goes gold, so that people
> can use it again.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> "Jill Zoeller [MSFT]" <jillz@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:ujoAPzj8GHA.1252@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> If you'd like some background on the design changes in Defrag, see our
>> blog post at
>> [url]http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/pages/disk-defragmenter-faq.aspx[/url] and a
>> recent chat transcript at
>> [url]http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/pages/447168.aspx[/url].
>>
>> As for the speed issue, our defrag uses low priority CPU and I/O to
>> reduce the impact on performance. It's really a trade-off between system
>> performance and defrag speed, and we chose system performance.
>>
>>
>> --
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>>
>> Want to learn more about Windows Server file and storage technologies?
>> Visit our team blog at [url]http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/default.aspx[/url].
>>
>>
>> "Travis King" <Anonymous@none.com> wrote in message
>> news:uYLPNpj8GHA.4012@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>>I agree with you. I hate the new disk defragmenter - it also takes a lot
>>>longer to defragment with it than XP's defragmenter. It seems with every
>>>release of Windows, the disk defragmenter gets dumbed down more and more.
>>> "Altimax98" <Altimax98@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:90437CFF-4175-408E-BF2E-818B2EA8C6DA@microsoft.com...
>>>> Does anyone else think Microsoft should quickly change the interface
>>>> with
>>>> defragmenter??? I cant tell if Vista had Locked up, or if it is
>>>> working, they
>>>> need the old screen that showed what it was doing. I like when my
>>>> computer
>>>> does some repairs to let me know the details not keep them hidden. Also
>>>> I
>>>> miss all those Pretty Colors, Especially the Red one....haha. Anyone
>>>> agree?
>>>> --
>>>> Im pretty Smart with computers but I even need help sometimes. Thats
>>>> why im
>>>> here.
>>>>
>>>> ----------------
>>>> This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
>>>> suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the
>>>> "I
>>>> Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow
>>>> this
>>>> link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and
>>>> then
>>>> click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>>>>
>>>> [url]http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.mspx?mid=90437cff-4175-408e-bf2e-818b2ea8c6da&dg=microsoft.public.windows.vista.general[/url]
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>[/color]

Travis,

I haven't seen any perf numbers that claim Vista defrag is faster than XP
defrag. But I can provide some additional details about how defrag uses
low-priority CPU and disk I/O.

Low priority just means defrag yields when there's something else that wants
resources. It does not mean that defrag won't use all the resources it can
get its hands on when there's nothing else going on. So defrag *does* get
more power when there's nothing else happening on the computer.

You can see this by running a command-line defrag with just your task
manager running. Defrag will eventually take a lot of resources, but if you
start doing something else, it will back off.

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

Want to learn more about Windows Server file and storage technologies? Visit
our team blog at [url]http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/default.aspx[/url].


"Jill Zoeller [MSFT]" <jillz@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:uRY$9ts8GHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> John, great question. Let me ask about this and get back to you.
>
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
>
> Want to learn more about Windows Server file and storage technologies?
> Visit our team blog at [url]http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/default.aspx[/url].
>
>
> "Travis King" <Anonymous@none.com> wrote in message
> news:O6JQcNk8GHA.5020@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> But wouldn't it be just as fast as XP if the defrag is the only thing the
>> computer is doing?
>> "Jill Zoeller [MSFT]" <jillz@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:ujoAPzj8GHA.1252@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> If you'd like some background on the design changes in Defrag, see our
>>> blog post at
>>> [url]http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/pages/disk-defragmenter-faq.aspx[/url] and a
>>> recent chat transcript at
>>> [url]http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/pages/447168.aspx[/url].
>>>
>>> As for the speed issue, our defrag uses low priority CPU and I/O to
>>> reduce the impact on performance. It's really a trade-off between system
>>> performance and defrag speed, and we chose system performance.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>>> rights.
>>>
>>> Want to learn more about Windows Server file and storage technologies?
>>> Visit our team blog at [url]http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/default.aspx[/url].
>>>
>>>
>>> "Travis King" <Anonymous@none.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uYLPNpj8GHA.4012@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>I agree with you. I hate the new disk defragmenter - it also takes a
>>>>lot longer to defragment with it than XP's defragmenter. It seems with
>>>>every release of Windows, the disk defragmenter gets dumbed down more
>>>>and more.
>>>> "Altimax98" <Altimax98@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:90437CFF-4175-408E-BF2E-818B2EA8C6DA@microsoft.com...
>>>>> Does anyone else think Microsoft should quickly change the interface
>>>>> with
>>>>> defragmenter??? I cant tell if Vista had Locked up, or if it is
>>>>> working, they
>>>>> need the old screen that showed what it was doing. I like when my
>>>>> computer
>>>>> does some repairs to let me know the details not keep them hidden.
>>>>> Also I
>>>>> miss all those Pretty Colors, Especially the Red one....haha. Anyone
>>>>> agree?
>>>>> --
>>>>> Im pretty Smart with computers but I even need help sometimes. Thats
>>>>> why im
>>>>> here.
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------
>>>>> This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
>>>>> suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click
>>>>> the "I
>>>>> Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button,
>>>>> follow this
>>>>> link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and
>>>>> then
>>>>> click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>>>>>
>>>>> [url]http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.mspx?mid=90437cff-4175-408e-bf2e-818b2ea8c6da&dg=microsoft.public.windows.vista.general[/url]
>>>>
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

We've automated it so that everyone can benefit from having a less
fragmented hard drive. Although we don't have any studies here at Microsoft
on the efficiency of accessing defragmented files, there have been some
unofficial studies done that are posted free if you search for them... over
100% decreases in access time for some files.

You stated that:
"You had[color=blue]
> to know what you were looking for, and you had to find it. Uneducated
> users NEVER launched the Computer Management Console in the first place.
> Only somewhat knowledgable Windows users knew how to find the defragger.[/color]
"
This is exactly why defrag has been automated. So that uneducated users can
benefit from whatever % speed increase in access time defragmentation gives
them, and there will be one.

The old defrag monopolized your hard drive and didn't let you do anything
else. The ScheduledDefrag will still take resources as they become
available, but won't run while someone is using the computer. While this is
not a perfect arrangement for many of us, defrag does its job - it
defragments your files.

If you run defrag from the command line, you will notice that your computer
is still usable while defrag runs. Because of this, we've taken some
defragmentation speed hits. But you won't lose your computer completely for
a day because you're running defrag.
---
As far as the interface goes - I understand the frustration. Right now your
best option is the command line defrag <drive(s)> -v, which will give you a
lot of statistics on your system before and after defragging. We are
aware - the GUI is minimal and therefore frustrating for power users. The
reason (good or bad) and the new GUI remain - 95% of users will never even
know it exists.

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

"John Smith" <johnsmith@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:eRQ4mmq8GHA.208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Jill:
>
> Hopefully, rather than excusing the complete demasculation of this
> extremely important system tool, you will go back to your beta team and
> insist that they should re-tool defragmenter so that Windows users can
> interact with it again. I don't know whether the defragger is licensed
> from Diskeeper or Raxco (although the signature indicates the copyright is
> owned by MS), but to effectively disable the tool to the degree to which
> your team has done so is to remove significant control and management of
> the primary bottleneck in the Windows system.
>
> Somehow, someone at Microsoft decided that disk performance is
> significantly less important to Windows users than the color of the
> background on the Windows desktop, since so much energy and creative
> thought has been allocated to desktop colors as to provide a true color
> palette. So, I can pick from a seemingly infinite range of colors to
> pretty up the desktop, but I get a de-tuned disk optimizer that gives me
> no clue as to its progress, no indication whether or not defragmentation
> is required, little hint that it is actually performing, and no idea
> whatsoever of the degree of fragmentation that might or might not exist
> within the slowest performing component inside the PC cabinet.
>
> Perhaps we should all just feel badly for the defrag team that Microsoft
> product strategists decided that their work was simply an insignificant
> component in the operating system. Perhaps the team tried and tried to
> convince product strategists of the importance of defrag management and
> simply lost the battle - so they're not to blame.
>
> The blog Jill references seems to explain it all: "we've automated it to
> get it 'out of users' faces'." Well, it never was in users' faces! You
> had to know what you were looking for, and you had to find it. Uneducated
> users NEVER launched the Computer Management Console in the first place.
> Only somewhat knowledgable Windows users knew how to find the defragger.
> And automating something in Windows code, as every knowledgable Windows
> users knows, doesn't mean it works at all, not to mention that it works
> properly. We could quickly develop an endless list of Windows functions
> that have been automated for the poor user, but that it was learned
> (usually all too late) never worked or never worked properly (e.g., the
> defrag progress indicator, the MSI installation progress indicator (how
> many times have you watched the progress indicator tell you that there was
> 1 second left?).
>
> And don't forget that NT claimed the NTFS didn't need to be defragged.
> Only after sysinternals and Executive software proved this to be wrong did
> MS acknowledge the need to defragment its disks. Will someone like that
> have to come along now and show us that the new, improved, automated
> defragger is simply masking the fact that it's incapable? Without
> exceptions that I can think of, whenever Microsoft has hidden a management
> processes from user interaction, it has correspondingly hidden the fact
> that that management process simply didn't work (again, we can work up a
> pretty long list pretty quickly).
>
> Please fix the Disk Defragmenter before Vista goes gold, so that people
> can use it again.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> "Jill Zoeller [MSFT]" <jillz@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:ujoAPzj8GHA.1252@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> If you'd like some background on the design changes in Defrag, see our
>> blog post at
>> [url]http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/pages/disk-defragmenter-faq.aspx[/url] and a
>> recent chat transcript at
>> [url]http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/pages/447168.aspx[/url].
>>
>> As for the speed issue, our defrag uses low priority CPU and I/O to
>> reduce the impact on performance. It's really a trade-off between system
>> performance and defrag speed, and we chose system performance.
>>
>>
>> --
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>>
>> Want to learn more about Windows Server file and storage technologies?
>> Visit our team blog at [url]http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/default.aspx[/url].
>>
>>
>> "Travis King" <Anonymous@none.com> wrote in message
>> news:uYLPNpj8GHA.4012@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>>I agree with you. I hate the new disk defragmenter - it also takes a lot
>>>longer to defragment with it than XP's defragmenter. It seems with every
>>>release of Windows, the disk defragmenter gets dumbed down more and more.
>>> "Altimax98" <Altimax98@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:90437CFF-4175-408E-BF2E-818B2EA8C6DA@microsoft.com...
>>>> Does anyone else think Microsoft should quickly change the interface
>>>> with
>>>> defragmenter??? I cant tell if Vista had Locked up, or if it is
>>>> working, they
>>>> need the old screen that showed what it was doing. I like when my
>>>> computer
>>>> does some repairs to let me know the details not keep them hidden. Also
>>>> I
>>>> miss all those Pretty Colors, Especially the Red one....haha. Anyone
>>>> agree?
>>>> --
>>>> Im pretty Smart with computers but I even need help sometimes. Thats
>>>> why im
>>>> here.
>>>>
>>>> ----------------
>>>> This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
>>>> suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the
>>>> "I
>>>> Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow
>>>> this
>>>> link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and
>>>> then
>>>> click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>>>>
>>>> [url]http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.mspx?mid=90437cff-4175-408e-bf2e-818b2ea8c6da&dg=microsoft.public.windows.vista.general[/url]
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>[/color]

The best solution would have been to run the scheduled defrag without any
GUI and retain some form of GUI for the interactive defrag. That's the way
it works in XP. While 95% of users won't know its there, the 5% of users
that do run this interactively don't want to sit there watching the spinning
doughnut with a message that says the defrag may take a long time. A simple
progress bar would have been better than nothing. It has been shown that for
processes that take a long time to complete, a user is less likely to
complain if there is some sort of "reasonable" progress indicator than if
the application is "frozen" until the process is complete. These surveys
also showed that a user was willing to wait significantly longer WITH a
progress indicator than WITHOUT -- up to twice as long (e.g., 10 minutes vs.
5 minutes, 20 minutes vs. 10 minutes). The more detailed the progress
indicator and the higher the update frequency, the longer the user was
willing to wait. Unless the non-GUI version reduces the defrag time to
single digit minutes, the decision to drop the GUI was IMO a bad one.

FWIW, I looked at an "automatically" defragmented Vista OS partition (with
24% free space) from XP and there was still 7% total fragmentation, 13% file
fragmentation, and 2% free space fragmentation. Could it be that the GUI was
removed because the defrag program isn't really doing what it's supposed to
do and MSFT doesn't want anybody to know?

P.S.
In order to decrease the access time for a file over 100%, you would need to
read minds:

T = access time
S = savings over T
T-S = new access time
if S < 100% of T, then T - S > 0 (faster access) (e.g., 0% = 1x (same
speed), 50% = 2x (twice as fast), etc.)
if S = 100% of T, then T - S = 0 (instant access)
if S > 100% of T, then T - S < 0 (negative access time = predicted
access)


"Victoria House [MSFT]" <vhouse@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23Liqqm68GHA.3552@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> We've automated it so that everyone can benefit from having a less
> fragmented hard drive. Although we don't have any studies here at
> Microsoft on the efficiency of accessing defragmented files, there have
> been some unofficial studies done that are posted free if you search for
> them... over 100% decreases in access time for some files.
>
> You stated that:
> "You had[color=green]
>> to know what you were looking for, and you had to find it. Uneducated
>> users NEVER launched the Computer Management Console in the first place.
>> Only somewhat knowledgable Windows users knew how to find the defragger.[/color]
> "
> This is exactly why defrag has been automated. So that uneducated users
> can benefit from whatever % speed increase in access time defragmentation
> gives them, and there will be one.
>
> The old defrag monopolized your hard drive and didn't let you do anything
> else. The ScheduledDefrag will still take resources as they become
> available, but won't run while someone is using the computer. While this
> is not a perfect arrangement for many of us, defrag does its job - it
> defragments your files.
>
> If you run defrag from the command line, you will notice that your
> computer is still usable while defrag runs. Because of this, we've taken
> some defragmentation speed hits. But you won't lose your computer
> completely for a day because you're running defrag.
> ---
> As far as the interface goes - I understand the frustration. Right now
> your best option is the command line defrag <drive(s)> -v, which will give
> you a lot of statistics on your system before and after defragging. We
> are aware - the GUI is minimal and therefore frustrating for power users.
> The reason (good or bad) and the new GUI remain - 95% of users will never
> even know it exists.
>
> -Victoria
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
>
> "John Smith" <johnsmith@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:eRQ4mmq8GHA.208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Jill:
>>
>> Hopefully, rather than excusing the complete demasculation of this
>> extremely important system tool, you will go back to your beta team and
>> insist that they should re-tool defragmenter so that Windows users can
>> interact with it again. I don't know whether the defragger is licensed
>> from Diskeeper or Raxco (although the signature indicates the copyright
>> is owned by MS), but to effectively disable the tool to the degree to
>> which your team has done so is to remove significant control and
>> management of the primary bottleneck in the Windows system.
>>
>> Somehow, someone at Microsoft decided that disk performance is
>> significantly less important to Windows users than the color of the
>> background on the Windows desktop, since so much energy and creative
>> thought has been allocated to desktop colors as to provide a true color
>> palette. So, I can pick from a seemingly infinite range of colors to
>> pretty up the desktop, but I get a de-tuned disk optimizer that gives me
>> no clue as to its progress, no indication whether or not defragmentation
>> is required, little hint that it is actually performing, and no idea
>> whatsoever of the degree of fragmentation that might or might not exist
>> within the slowest performing component inside the PC cabinet.
>>
>> Perhaps we should all just feel badly for the defrag team that Microsoft
>> product strategists decided that their work was simply an insignificant
>> component in the operating system. Perhaps the team tried and tried to
>> convince product strategists of the importance of defrag management and
>> simply lost the battle - so they're not to blame.
>>
>> The blog Jill references seems to explain it all: "we've automated it to
>> get it 'out of users' faces'." Well, it never was in users' faces! You
>> had to know what you were looking for, and you had to find it.
>> Uneducated users NEVER launched the Computer Management Console in the
>> first place. Only somewhat knowledgable Windows users knew how to find
>> the defragger. And automating something in Windows code, as every
>> knowledgable Windows users knows, doesn't mean it works at all, not to
>> mention that it works properly. We could quickly develop an endless list
>> of Windows functions that have been automated for the poor user, but that
>> it was learned (usually all too late) never worked or never worked
>> properly (e.g., the defrag progress indicator, the MSI installation
>> progress indicator (how many times have you watched the progress
>> indicator tell you that there was 1 second left?).
>>
>> And don't forget that NT claimed the NTFS didn't need to be defragged.
>> Only after sysinternals and Executive software proved this to be wrong
>> did MS acknowledge the need to defragment its disks. Will someone like
>> that have to come along now and show us that the new, improved, automated
>> defragger is simply masking the fact that it's incapable? Without
>> exceptions that I can think of, whenever Microsoft has hidden a
>> management processes from user interaction, it has correspondingly hidden
>> the fact that that management process simply didn't work (again, we can
>> work up a pretty long list pretty quickly).
>>
>> Please fix the Disk Defragmenter before Vista goes gold, so that people
>> can use it again.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> "Jill Zoeller [MSFT]" <jillz@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:ujoAPzj8GHA.1252@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> If you'd like some background on the design changes in Defrag, see our
>>> blog post at
>>> [url]http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/pages/disk-defragmenter-faq.aspx[/url] and a
>>> recent chat transcript at
>>> [url]http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/pages/447168.aspx[/url].
>>>
>>> As for the speed issue, our defrag uses low priority CPU and I/O to
>>> reduce the impact on performance. It's really a trade-off between system
>>> performance and defrag speed, and we chose system performance.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>>> rights.
>>>
>>> Want to learn more about Windows Server file and storage technologies?
>>> Visit our team blog at [url]http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/default.aspx[/url].
>>>
>>>
>>> "Travis King" <Anonymous@none.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uYLPNpj8GHA.4012@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>I agree with you. I hate the new disk defragmenter - it also takes a
>>>>lot longer to defragment with it than XP's defragmenter. It seems with
>>>>every release of Windows, the disk defragmenter gets dumbed down more
>>>>and more.
>>>> "Altimax98" <Altimax98@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:90437CFF-4175-408E-BF2E-818B2EA8C6DA@microsoft.com...
>>>>> Does anyone else think Microsoft should quickly change the interface
>>>>> with
>>>>> defragmenter??? I cant tell if Vista had Locked up, or if it is
>>>>> working, they
>>>>> need the old screen that showed what it was doing. I like when my
>>>>> computer
>>>>> does some repairs to let me know the details not keep them hidden.
>>>>> Also I
>>>>> miss all those Pretty Colors, Especially the Red one....haha. Anyone
>>>>> agree?
>>>>> --
>>>>> Im pretty Smart with computers but I even need help sometimes. Thats
>>>>> why im
>>>>> here.
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------
>>>>> This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
>>>>> suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click
>>>>> the "I
>>>>> Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button,
>>>>> follow this
>>>>> link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and
>>>>> then
>>>>> click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>>>>>
>>>>> [url]http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.mspx?mid=90437cff-4175-408e-bf2e-818b2ea8c6da&dg=microsoft.public.windows.vista.general[/url]
>>>>
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>[/color]
>[/color]

the new defrag in vista is booooooooorrrinnggg. i miss the graphics in the
older windows systems. i can't even tell if the thing is working or not -
just that little blue circle keeps going round and round and round...

"Altimax98" wrote:
[color=blue]
> Does anyone else think Microsoft should quickly change the interface with
> defragmenter??? I cant tell if Vista had Locked up, or if it is working, they
> need the old screen that showed what it was doing. I like when my computer
> does some repairs to let me know the details not keep them hidden. Also I
> miss all those Pretty Colors, Especially the Red one....haha. Anyone agree?
> --
> Im pretty Smart with computers but I even need help sometimes. Thats why im
> here.
>
> ----------------
> This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
> suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
> Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
> link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
> click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>
> [url]http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.mspx?mid=90437cff-4175-408e-bf2e-818b2ea8c6da&dg=microsoft.public.windows.vista.general[/url][/color]

I would like to watch a movie that only showed a defragmenting session. Kind
of like those fire log movies I love to watch around the Holiday Season.
Similar defrag like scenes are included in 2001: a Space Odyssey and Altered
States.

"KingOfChaos" <KingOfChaos.35u3l6@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:KingOfChaos.35u3l6@no-mx.forums.net...[color=blue]
>
> Why the HELL would anyone want to sit around and watch their computer
> defrag? It's like watching water evaporate. Seriously, watch a movie
> or go DO something.
>
>
> --
> KingOfChaos[/color]

I think it's very entertaining, but not as much as many years ago and way
before Cable TV when all you had was rabbit ears or if you were rich you had
an Antenna. Right after Johnny Carson with off the air we use to set and
watch the Ants fight. you know some called it snow, but those little black
and white rascals would really go at it until 6:00 am when the local news
would come on, sure miss that :>)

--
All the best,
SG

ALEX NICHOL
(1935-2005)
[url]http://www.aumha.org/alex.htm[/url]
You will never be forgotten my friend

"KingOfChaos" <KingOfChaos.35u3l6@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:KingOfChaos.35u3l6@no-mx.forums.net...[color=blue]
>
> Why the HELL would anyone want to sit around and watch their computer
> defrag? It's like watching water evaporate. Seriously, watch a movie
> or go DO something.
>
>
> --
> KingOfChaos[/color]

Gary Mount wrote:
[color=blue]
> I would like to watch a movie that only showed a defragmenting session.
> Kind of like those fire log movies I love to watch around the Holiday
> Season. Similar defrag like scenes are included in 2001: a Space Odyssey
> and Altered States.
>[/color]


Well you can always stare at this message ....


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
oooooooooooooooooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooooooooXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX oooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Cheers.

--
What does Bill Gates use?
[url]http://tinyurl.com/2zxhdl[/url]

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

AlexB's abacus: [url]http://www.poppystoys.co.uk/shop/baby-toys/caterpillar.jpg[/url]
The closest to "computing" that man should go.

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
[url]http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm[/url]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:38:43 -0600, KingOfChaos wrote:
[color=blue]
> Why the HELL would anyone want to sit around and watch their computer
> defrag? It's like watching water evaporate. Seriously, watch a movie
> or go DO something.[/color]

Or, better yet, use a modern filesystem that does not need to be
defragmented!

ray wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:38:43 -0600, KingOfChaos wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Why the HELL would anyone want to sit around and watch their computer
>> defrag? It's like watching water evaporate. Seriously, watch a movie
>> or go DO something.[/color]
>
> Or, better yet, use a modern filesystem that does not need to be
> defragmented![/color]

Ooops, sorry, but can't be done with Windoze. Any other suggestions?

Cheers.

--
What does Bill Gates use?
[url]http://tinyurl.com/2zxhdl[/url]

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

AlexB's abacus: [url]http://www.poppystoys.co.uk/shop/baby-toys/caterpillar.jpg[/url]
The closest to "computing" that man should go.

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
[url]http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm[/url]

ray wrote:[color=blue]
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:38:43 -0600, KingOfChaos wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>Why the HELL would anyone want to sit around and watch their computer
>>defrag? It's like watching water evaporate. Seriously, watch a movie
>>or go DO something.[/color]
>
>
> Or, better yet, use a modern filesystem that does not need to be
> defragmented![/color]

Or you can just pretend it does not need to be defragged...LOL!
Frank

NoStop wrote:[color=blue]
> ray wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:38:43 -0600, KingOfChaos wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Why the HELL would anyone want to sit around and watch their computer
>>>defrag? It's like watching water evaporate. Seriously, watch a movie
>>>or go DO something.[/color]
>>
>>Or, better yet, use a modern filesystem that does not need to be
>>defragmented![/color]
>
>
> Ooops, sorry, but can't be done with Windoze. Any other suggestions?
>
> Cheers.
>[/color]

Like I said, run linux and pretend like you have a file system that
never needs to be defragged...even though linux code writers keep
writing defrag apps for linux file systems...LOL!
Then pretend like no one notices...hahaha!
Frank

Frank wrote:
[color=blue]
> NoStop wrote:[color=green]
>> ray wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:38:43 -0600, KingOfChaos wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Why the HELL would anyone want to sit around and watch their computer
>>>>defrag? It's like watching water evaporate. Seriously, watch a movie
>>>>or go DO something.
>>>
>>>Or, better yet, use a modern filesystem that does not need to be
>>>defragmented![/color]
>>
>>
>> Ooops, sorry, but can't be done with Windoze. Any other suggestions?
>>
>> Cheers.
>>[/color]
>
> Like I said, run linux and pretend like you have a file system that
> never needs to be defragged...even though linux code writers keep
> writing defrag apps for linux file systems...LOL!
> Then pretend like no one notices...hahaha!
> Frank[/color]

Sorry, wrong again Francis. Maybe some day you'll get something right. But
nobody is going to hold their breath waiting for that moment. You really
are stupid, aren't you?

Cheers and LOL!
hahaahahahhhahahahahhahhhah

--
What does Bill Gates use?
[url]http://tinyurl.com/2zxhdl[/url]

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

AlexB's abacus: [url]http://www.poppystoys.co.uk/shop/baby-toys/caterpillar.jpg[/url]
The closest to "computing" that man should go.

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
[url]http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm[/url]

Frank wrote:
[color=blue]
> ray wrote:[color=green]
>> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:38:43 -0600, KingOfChaos wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Why the HELL would anyone want to sit around and watch their computer
>>>defrag? It's like watching water evaporate. Seriously, watch a movie
>>>or go DO something.[/color]
>>
>>
>> Or, better yet, use a modern filesystem that does not need to be
>> defragmented![/color]
>
> Or you can just pretend it does not need to be defragged...LOL!
> Frank[/color]

Like Francis pretends that Vista is the BEST operating system out there?
Thought so.

Cheers and LOL!


--
What does Bill Gates use?
[url]http://tinyurl.com/2zxhdl[/url]

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

AlexB's abacus: [url]http://www.poppystoys.co.uk/shop/baby-toys/caterpillar.jpg[/url]
The closest to "computing" that man should go.

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
[url]http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm[/url]

NoStop wrote:
[color=blue]
> Frank wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>NoStop wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>ray wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:38:43 -0600, KingOfChaos wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Why the HELL would anyone want to sit around and watch their computer
>>>>>defrag? It's like watching water evaporate. Seriously, watch a movie
>>>>>or go DO something.
>>>>
>>>>Or, better yet, use a modern filesystem that does not need to be
>>>>defragmented!
>>>
>>>
>>>Ooops, sorry, but can't be done with Windoze. Any other suggestions?
>>>
>>>Cheers.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>Like I said, run linux and pretend like you have a file system that
>>never needs to be defragged...even though linux code writers keep
>>writing defrag apps for linux file systems...LOL!
>>Then pretend like no one notices...hahaha!
>>Frank[/color]
>
>
> Sorry, wrong again Francis.[/color]

Sorry, but I'm RIGHT doris...LOL!

Maybe some day you'll get something right.

hehehe...tell me mr moron idiot POS lying linux troll...why is that guy
in the garage in germany still writing defrag apps for linux...!

But[color=blue]
> nobody is going to hold their breath waiting for that moment. You really
> are stupid, aren't you?[/color]

Well, why are they still writing defrag apps for linux.
Tell us?
This should be good...LOL!
Frank