Jump to content


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.

Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.


Vista's Disk Defragmenter window

  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 MyCompterSucks


  • Members
  • 21 posts
  • Local time:06:17 PM

Posted 04 December 2008 - 05:30 PM

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

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)


#2 Platypus


  • Moderator
  • 14,962 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:09:17 AM

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:


Top 5 things that never get done:


#3 usasma


    Still visually handicapped (avatar is memory developed by my Dad

  • BSOD Kernel Dump Expert
  • 25,091 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern CT, USA
  • Local time:07:17 PM

Posted 04 December 2008 - 08:32 PM

Great link Platypus! Thanks! :huh:
My browser caused a flood of traffic, sio my IP address was banned. Hope to fix it soon. Will get back to posting as soon as Im able.

- John  (my website: http://www.carrona.org/ )**If you need a more detailed explanation, please ask for it. I have the Knack. **  If I haven't replied in 48 hours, please send me a message. My eye problems have recently increased and I'm having difficult reading posts. (23 Nov 2017)FYI - I am completely blind in the right eye and ~30% blind in the left eye.<p>If the eye problems get worse suddenly, I may not be able to respond.If that's the case and help is needed, please PM a staff member for assistance.

#4 speedbird76


  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • Local time:07:17 AM

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 :huh:

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.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users