Help
I don't know if there's something wrong with my settings or the views but I tried to defrag the disk for the first time (I'm a new Vista user) and I noticed that the defrag window doesn't show the graphics or the progress being made while defragmenting like in XP . It dosen'teven tells when it's done, not to mention it took forever. The only message I got in the end was that schedule defrag was enabled, but I didn't even get an option to disable that feature. Is this normal? Thanks
Page 1 of 1
Vista's Disk Defragmenter window Shows no graphics and not as detailed as XP's, why???
Back to top
#2
- Forum Addict
-
- Group: Moderator
- Posts: 3,198
- Joined: 28-January 06
- Gender:Male
- Location:Australia
Posted 04 December 2008 - 06:06 PM
Defrag is implemented somewhat differently in Vista.
The obvious appearance difference of having no progress indication or graphics is due to the confusing information that these actually gave in XP and earlier versions. The graphics were rudimentary and made it appear that defragmentation gave only partial results.
The Vista defrag uses more advanced and complex algorithms, and it would be difficult to display information about the process that would be meaningful to the user.
The MS Storage team have blogged about it here:
http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/archive/2...ag-is-cool.aspx
The obvious appearance difference of having no progress indication or graphics is due to the confusing information that these actually gave in XP and earlier versions. The graphics were rudimentary and made it appear that defragmentation gave only partial results.
The Vista defrag uses more advanced and complex algorithms, and it would be difficult to display information about the process that would be meaningful to the user.
The MS Storage team have blogged about it here:
http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/archive/2...ag-is-cool.aspx
Pleased to have been a Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) 2007/8, 2008/9
I pressed F5, and I'm feeling refreshed...
I pressed F5, and I'm feeling refreshed...
#3
- Still visually handicapped, new avatar (a camel) :0)
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 16,690
- Joined: 02-October 05
- Gender:Male
- Location:Southeastern CT, USA
Posted 04 December 2008 - 08:32 PM
Great link Platypus! Thanks! 
- John
**If you need a more detailed explanation, please ask for it. I have the Knack. **
**If you need a more detailed explanation, please ask for it. I have the Knack. **
#4
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 27
- Joined: 25-June 07
Posted 05 December 2008 - 08:06 AM
Vista's defragger is slow and inefficient, taking upto 9 hours on a 200GB drive. When I used to run Vista* on my laptop, I used Diskeeper 2008 Pro for the defrag, and it was far better than Vista's slow defragger. Although the principles of operation were superficially similar, DK was really quick, efficient and thorough in it's defrag, even when on fully automatic mode. No churning of the disk for hours, or skipping fragmented files, unlike with Vista's own. DK was unfortunately not free, but was good enough for me to buy it.
* I no longer run Vista. After I upgraded my laptop HDD to 500GB, I run XP pro SP3 on it, and now I wonder why I ever stuck with vista for nearly a year
PS: VSS service impedes defrag to an extent on Vista, so be careful while choosing third party defraggers, whether free or paid. Select one that has VSS compatibility. Also, I don't think Diskeeper 08 is available anymore; i believe a newer, more powerful '09 version is out now.
* I no longer run Vista. After I upgraded my laptop HDD to 500GB, I run XP pro SP3 on it, and now I wonder why I ever stuck with vista for nearly a year
PS: VSS service impedes defrag to an extent on Vista, so be careful while choosing third party defraggers, whether free or paid. Select one that has VSS compatibility. Also, I don't think Diskeeper 08 is available anymore; i believe a newer, more powerful '09 version is out now.
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1