I hear so many people complain about Vista's defrag tool lately. Sure it's not all pretty and what not, it looks a lot simpler, but here is why some things are the way they are, and why they are better. Less is more!
For those who do not know, Defrag is a special program, which on Vista runs even automatically in the background, whereby parts of data files on all segments of a computer hard disk are taken from their fragmented state (with parts of files spread all over the disk), and grouped together in complete-file segments. This makes it quicker for applications to find the files they need and frees up disk space, making the computer run more efficiently.
In XP, defrag program would go, check the current status of the drive and suggest if we should defragment the drive. Then, it would read those files and try to piece their parts as close together as possible in order to remove those fragments and speed up the system. That was pretty much it. A linear process where your computer knew what has to be done pretty much before it even starts.
In Vista, this process is a lot more complicated, but yet a lot more effective. One of the changes is the shadow copy optimization during the defragmentation in a way which optimizes the system and minimizes the space used by the shadow copy. (This space is significantly large; more on this in later posts).
Also, Vista's defrag is smarter in comparison to the XP's defrag because it checks if the amount of time that would take to move files is larger than the performance benefit you gain. If the performance benefit is not too significant, it moves on to other files.
The thing most people complain about is that there is no progress bar. This is because the defragmentation in Vista is non-linear, so there is no way to estimate (correctly) how much time a defrag could possibly take. Instead of trying to show estimates of how much the defragmentation will take, the defrag team worked on a better solution: reducing the impact of defragmentation on your computer by making it use low-priority I/O and low priority CPU, so you can still use it and do what ever it is you do while the defrag is on. No more wait like in XP...
Heck, I'd rather chose not to look at it than wait 3 hours for the process to complete. That was exactly their point of view - remove it from the face of the user, and for those who never use the defrag (and there are many people like this) now they do not have to - it runs itself!
And don't worry about sluggish performance while the automatic defrag is on - it wont happen... Defrag runs only while your computer is idle.
If you are interested in more check out Disk Defragmenter FAQ.
Comments (4)
You must have some very diligent friends. To have heard "so many people complain about Vista's defrag tool lately" is quite amazing. I would have doubted most new users would be still be working through the interface changes.
Still, happy to see Defrag rocks your world. Sounds great.
Posted by Mike | February 1, 2007 11:39 PM
Posted on February 1, 2007 23:39
Hey ...
I read on couple of forums and comments on blogs like Engadget, etc. of people complaining about it so I researched it a bit and thought I post the news about improvements.
I myself liked the defrag in Windows 98 when I could actually see exactly what files the program was working on (remember, square by square?) :)
I find my friends and here at home too - no one having some major difficulties with the new UI. It really is not that much different from XP, but it does have a lot of improvements and little niceties if you will ;) My girl's sister is playing with Vista a lot and when I show her a little thing, she says "I never knew that was there" - she still cannot get over the concept that she is not on XP - bur rather on Vista ... She just feels as if it is a pretty theme with all kinds of cool gadgetry.
Thanks for commenting, come back again! :)
Posted by Petar Smilajkov | February 1, 2007 11:54 PM
Posted on February 1, 2007 23:54
The new vista defrag is junk. some people are reporting having to wait up to 24 hours for it to finish. AND.. there is no visual is regards to progress. I HATE IT, but i'm sure MS will change it. So i would just wait until service pack 1 comes out.
Posted by Mike D | February 19, 2007 1:23 PM
Posted on February 19, 2007 13:23
The lack of the visual part in defrag has been explained in the post as I recall, so what can one do. The truth is, it does take longer - but it's because it's smarter. Also, the thing about Vista is that you do NOT have to run the defrag yourself - system will run auto defrag when ever possible so you do not even have to worry about this any more.
Posted by Petar Smilajkov | February 20, 2007 1:43 PM
Posted on February 20, 2007 13:43