Suggestions for Smart Defrag v2

[enoskype]

:-P

An improvement would be to have the same result (display of a definition) by hovering your mouse over any one of the 100s(1000s?) of colored squares on the display grid itself.

Hi Boca Dave,

 

Please bear in mind that the color of the colored squares is the color of the majority of the file types in that block, so the legend there may not reflect the real content, and even if it was not like that, IMHO it would be using resources when you hover all over the map and show a very cluttered view.

 

I would agree with you if the clicking of a block would open a small window showing the files content there though.8:)

 

Defrag individual files/directories?

Hi Monster_Mash,

 

Please have a look at road map in THIS thread by IObit Guy.

 

 

Cheers.

[solbjerg]

Hi enoskype

I tried to count the squares and came up with the number 1080.

My computer has 14.651.272 allocation units on the disk with 4.096 byte per unit which comes to more than 60 billion 6*10^10 byte capacity (60.011.610.112)

If the squares truly represents the whole disk it would mean that each square could contain 60011610112/1080 = ~55.566.305 byte

Which could be as much as about 16.000 pages of closely written text per square.

We would have our work cut out for us to just glance through it I think :-)

Granted some may be empty (by me more than 60%), - others only partly filled, but anyway I think it would be too much for me to check it even cursory. :-)

Then you could say that only the fragments should be shown,- but then again some of the fragments could contain many, many pages of information and why would I want to know precisely what that information was??

Cheers

solbjerg

p.s. if my brain functioned at the speed of light (300.000 km/s) I might reconsider, - but alas it only works at a speed of 10 meters per second - if I am lucky :-)

 

 

Hi Boca Dave,

 

Please bear in mind that the color of the colored squares is the color of the majority of the file types in that block, so the legend there may not reflect the real content, and even if it was not like that, IMHO it would be using resources when you hover all over the map and show a very cluttered view.

 

I would agree with you if the clicking of a block would open a small window showing the files content there though.8:)

 

 

Hi Monster_Mash,

 

Please have a look at road map in THIS thread by IObit Guy.

 

 

Cheers.

[enoskype]

Hi solbjerg,

 

After reading your post, I have seen my fault in English there.

 

I think I have used files content as a wrong definition for what I wanted to suggest. It should have been files included in blocks.

 

I didn't want to mean the content of files but the files that are in that block.

 

I should have given the example as "like in Ultimate defrag, or O&O defrag".

 

As an example, in Ultimate defrag, apart from seeing the files in each block (where you can defrag each of the fragmented files there), you can highlight the block(s) for a specific file/folder so you know in which block(s) a specific file/folder is located.

 

Cheers.

 

EDIT: I have attached an image which explains what I wanted to suggest

 

I imagine in my dreams having the same functions in Smart Defrag.:roll:

BTW, the blocks filled in the middle of the disk is Virtual XP Pro in Windows7, purposely seperated from Win7 files/folders.8:)

[solbjerg]

Ok enoskype

That does make it more manageable :-)

In your personal setup - do you then find that the inner tracks fragments only slightly? And do you see an improvement by having empty space adjacent to most used files?

Do you see an improvement - by see I mean do you experience a faster operation in your computer?

Cheers

solbjerg

p.s. still 50 MB per square could be a lot of files!! Does Ultimate defrag really list them all?

p.p.s. Ultimate defrag may have around 10 times as many blocks, which then in my computer will mean about 5 MB per square - still could be quite a number of files - but perhaps not too many :-)

 

 

Hi solbjerg,

 

After reading your post, I have seen my fault in English there.

 

I think I have used files content as a wrong definition for what I wanted to suggest. It should have been files included in blocks.

 

I didn't want to mean the content of files but the files that are in that block.

 

I should have given the example as "like in Ultimate defrag, or O&O defrag".

 

As an example, in Ultimate defrag, apart from seeing the files in each block (where you can defrag each of the fragmented files there), you can highlight the block(s) for a specific file/folder so you know in which block(s) a specific file/folder is located.

 

Cheers.

 

EDIT: I have attached an image which explains what I wanted to suggest

 

I imagine in my dreams having the same functions in Smart Defrag.:roll:

BTW, the blocks filled in the middle of the disk is Virtual XP Pro in Windows7, purposely separated from Win7 files/folders.8:)

[enoskype]

Well solbjerg, I have to post about 2 pages long to explain in detail, but I will give avery brief summary of the purpose and try to answer your questions in the mean time.

 

With the personal setup, since there are 2 OSss in the same drive, to minimize the seek time and minimize the future fragmentation, the files for the different OSs are seperated and actually located to the different parts of the disk (for XP inner part, and for Windows7 starting from the outer edge of the disk, rest of it.

 

The procedure stars with defragmenting XP by it's own defragmenters and placing the files optimally with those defragmenters. (I use SmartDefrag, PerfectDisk and UltimateDefrag for that, since XP has it's own system files including MFT, MFT zone, paging file, etc.)

 

When it is finished, then it comes to Win7 to be defragged so that all files belonging to Virtual XP are located to inner part of the disk. (All defragmented internally and as quite large GB files for XP, externally.) (Internally in XP and externally Win 7.)

 

The third stage is excluding all virtual XP files, and all Win7 files are defragmented optimally starting from the outer adge of the disk. (SD only defrag, Boot defag by Puran defrag with space minimizing (filling gaps) but of course there are spaces between file groups.

 

Conclusion and answers to your questions:

 

Although the inner part of the disk is slower, because of the file seperation and the defragmented very large files of virtual XP, when you run XP and Win 7 together, both are very fast, and fragmentation in XP is considerably lower.

 

Of course, since there are more recently and most used files in Win 7 and because of the spaces allocated for their enlargement, there is significant improvement of the performance of Win 7 also.

 

Most space consuming and mostly fragmented files in Win7 are the System Restore files.

 

BTW, total RAM is 2GB and when virtual XP is run, 750 MB is allocated to XP Pro and 1250 MB is allocated to Win7 Pro. (It seems more than enough for both.:!:8:))

 

Yes, UD lists all of the files in the disk by clicking on blocks. More of it, you can change the size of the blocks by zooming in and out in the GUI, so you can adjust to see less files in a block by zooming in. Infact, this is also the answer to your p.s and p.s.s. (Never needed to use zooming for that purpose though.)

 

Examples are attached.

 

I think that's all for now.:lol:

 

Cheers.

[solbjerg]

hi enoskype

Thank you very much!

wow - it really is ultimate! :-) And only <4MB per block in XP/ 65MB in Windows7 (had some trouble trying to count the blocks in your picture, so I used rule of thumb too much apparently) :-)

How long time does the whole procedure take?

Thank you again for taking the trouble to explain!!!

Cheers

solbjerg

 

EDIT: FYI, the images which shows 3.94 MB per block and 65.11 MB per block are both for the whole disk for Windows7, so it is the same image zoomed in or out.

 

Well solbjerg, I have to post about 2 pages long to explain in detail, but I will give a very brief summary of the purpose and try to answer your questions in the mean time.

 

With the personal setup, since there are 2 OSss in the same drive, to minimize the seek time and minimize the future fragmentation, the files for the different OSs are seperated and actually located to the different parts of the disk (for XP inner part, and for Windows7 starting from the outer edge of the disk, rest of it.

 

The procedure stars with defragmenting XP by it's own defragmenters and placing the files optimally with those defragmenters. (I use SmartDefrag, PerfectDisk and UltimateDefrag for that, since XP has it's own system files including MFT, MFT zone, paging file, etc.)

 

When it is finished, then it comes to Win7 to be defragged so that all files belonging to Virtual XP are located to inner part of the disk. (All defragmented internally and as quite large GB files for XP, externally.) (Internally in XP and externally Win 7.)

 

The third stage is excluding all virtual XP files, and all Win7 files are defragmented optimally starting from the outer adge of the disk. (SD only defrag, Boot defag by Puran defrag with space minimizing (filling gaps) but of course there are spaces between file groups.

 

Conclusion and answers to your questions:

 

Although the inner part of the disk is slower, because of the file seperation and the defragmented very large files of virtual XP, when you run XP and Win 7 together, both are very fast, and fragmentation in XP is considerably lower.

 

Of course, since there are more recently and most used files in Win 7 and because of the spaces allocated for their enlargement, there is significant improvement of the performance of Win 7 also.

 

Most space consuming and mostly fragmented files in Win7 are the System Restore files.

 

BTW, total RAM is 2GB and when virtual XP is run, 750 MB is allocated to XP Pro and 1250 MB is allocated to Win7 Pro. (It seems more than enough for both.:!:8:))

 

Yes, UD lists all of the files in the disk by clicking on blocks. More of it, you can change the size of the blocks by zooming in and out in the GUI, so you can adjust to see less files in a block by zooming in. Infact, this is also the answer to your p.s and p.s.s. (Never needed to use zooming for that purpose though.)

 

Examples are attached.

 

I think that's all for now.:lol:

 

Cheers.

[enoskype]

The whole process of defragmentation for both OSs takes about 20-30 minutes depending of the fragmentation of the virtual XP files (When Windows7 is defragmented).

 

Wow, what a great approach by rule of thumb 50/5 MB vs 65/4 MB.

 

Cheers.

[solbjerg]

Hi enoskype

Thank you again!

I found this link to describe UD:

http://www.disktrix.com/ultimatedefrag_about_long.htm

Cheers

solbjerg

 

 

The whole process of defragmentation for both OSs takes about 20-30 minutes depending of the fragmentation of the virtual XP files (When Windows7 is defagmented).

 

Wow, what a great approach by rule of thumb 50/5 MB vs 65/4 MB.

 

Cheers.

[Toppack]

enoskype,

Very Interesting :!:

 

Thank you from me Also,

 

 

solbjerg,

Your link to Disktrix is not working. The underscores in .htm file are being hidden by underline evidently?

Why does the Forum software Underline the Links?

[solbjerg]

Hi Toppack

No problem by me - it works fine here! Try again?

http://www.disktrix.com/ultimatedefrag_about_long.htm

 

Cheers

solbjerg

 

 

Very Interesting :!:

 

Thank you from me Also,

 

 

Solbjerg, Your link to Disktrix is not working. The underscores in .htm file are bring hidden by underline evidently?

[Toppack]

No, Still No Joy,

I also went to the site, copied the URL, and pasted it into my post.

Still did Not work.

Are you seeing an Underline of link URL?

Is there a way to Turn Off Underlining of links in the Forum setup?

I think that's what is causing the problem, since there is an underscore already before and after the word 'about' in file.

 

This computer is using Windows-Internet-Explorer 32-bit, with Windows-7.

[solbjerg]

OK Toppack

Try this then :-)

http://www.disktrix.com/ultimatedefrag_about.htm

And when you are on that site scoll down to this:

Choose Your Product Description Option...

I Am Very Curious And Have All The Time In The World.

Educate And Enlighten Me In Great Detail

CLICK HERE

 

Cheers

solbjerg

p.s. You could also try to edit the link in the post, mark it /click insert link/ copy the link - make sure it has the underscores/ insert it in the addressline in IE

p.p.s. If you click edit to the post do you then see a button "go advanced"

there you ought to be able to delink the link - this removes the underlining.

http://www.disktrix.com/ultimatedefrag_about_long.htm

here the underscores show through the underlining while in edit mode

 

 

 

 

No, Still No Joy,

I also went to the site, copied the URL, and pasted it into my post.

Still did Not work.

Are you seeing an Underline of link URL?

Is there a way to Turn Off Underlining of links in the Forum setup?

I think that's what is causing the problem, since there is an underscore already before and after the word 'about' in file.

[Toppack]

Sorry, All of your links are displayed underlined and do Not work.

 

I can get to the website tho, since I figured out what was happening.

 

I'm just trying to let website admin know that evidently there is a problem

with Underlineing links, in the Forum software, if there is No way for me to turn that Off. I did Not find anyway to do that.

[solbjerg]

Ok, but until we find out what has happened try right clicking the link, choose properties - it will then show the link correctly - copy it and insert it in the address line-

 

could it somehow be the recent security updates from Microsoft?

Cheers

solbjerg

 

Sorry,All of your links are displayed underlined and do Not work.

 

I can get to the website tho, since I figured out what was happening.

 

I'm just trying to let website admin know that evidently there is a problem

with Underlineing links, in the Forum software, if there is No way for me to turn that Off. I did Not find anyway to do that.

[Toppack]

could it somehow be the recent security updates from Microsoft?

 

You never said if you are always seeing the Underline but I assume that you Are.

If so, I don't see how it would ever work, with the Underline 'Over-writeing' the underscores in the link address :?:

It seems to me, that is the same as deleteing part of the link-address and replacing them with something else ?

 

But if you are Not having that problem, I have No Idea what could cause it?

Maybe I Need to Re-Boot or something. :lol:

[Toppack]

Wow, I was joking when I said I may need to Re-Boot.

But after finding that the link worked on another computer here, I desided to try the Re-boot anyway, and 'would you Believe',

That Fixed the Problem:!:

Computers Continue to Amaze me. :roll:

 

Sorry about that, :oops:

[Hiroyuki]

Add an Estimated time of Completion

 

Honestly, im a busy person and I would like to know how long it will take my PC to finish defraging The concept is simple to me anyways, you would just have to take the average Read and Wright rate, then divide the amount(size) of files by the read and wright rate

or somehthing simmler to that

[Tomorrow]

Honestly, im a busy person and I would like to know how long it will take my PC to finish defraging The concept is simple to me anyways, you would just have to take the average Read and Wright rate, then divide the amount(size) of files by the read and wright rate

or somehthing simmler to that

 

SD already shows time of completion.Granted this is separately for each drive.

[Toppack]

SD already shows time of completion.Granted this is separately for each drive.

 

I see Only the Percentage (%) of completion (for Analyze and then defrag or optimize), Not the Time remaining to completion. (In SD 2-beta)

Time remaining would be a Good thing to have.

I always do Optimize manually, not Auto or at Boot, so a count-down clock would be handy. :-)

 

I don't know how the 'Speed of computer' (processor, ram, drives, etc.) could be accurately calculated in, but it can probably be done?

I've seen other software that does that, but I think that is usually just a rough estimate.

A Time 'Estimate' would be much easier to do, but would not really be an accurate clock tho.

[solbjerg]

Hi Toppack

For me it is easy to estimate how long it is going to take by looking at the % of completion and the time used.

The prior timing was in the most instances very imprecise, so I think this is better.

For some reason it is difficult to time the time left accurately - we see that in several other programs too, - and as it apparently is like that I find it better just to know how long it usually takes.

Cheers

solbjerg

 

 

I see Only the Percentage (%) of completion (for Analyze and then defrag or optimize), Not the Time remaining to completion.

Time remaining would be a Good thing to have.

I always do Optimize manually, not Auto or at Boot, so a count-down clock would be handy. :-)

 

I don't know how the 'Speed of computer' (processor, ram, drives, etc.) could be accurately calculated in, but it can probably be done?

I've seen other software that does that, but I think that is usually just a rough estimate.

A Time 'Estimate' would be much easier to do, but would not really be an accurate clock tho.

[Toppack]

Hi Toppack

For me it is easy to estimate how long it is going to take by looking at the % of completion and the time used.

 

Yes, for drives that have been optimized recently there's No problem, but when it will be Hours until completion, a count-down clock would be advantagious.

I think an accurate clock would be Impossible tho, there's just too many variables. :-(

[Tomorrow]

I see Only the Percentage (%) of completion (for Analyze and then defrag or optimize), Not the Time remaining to completion. (In SD 2-beta)

I see.I was under the impression that you meant 1.5 stable not the beta.

[InnocentForScratches]

I was confident about the performance of the software.

But some of the settings should be turned off in the first like the Defrag on boot option. It sometimes kills my system and brings it to a hard reboot! :-x

I miss a countdown timer and/or a timer it shows how much time was gone after starting the process. :!:

I´ve got to defrag 4 hdds (physically separate) and I was recommended to change the modes between sequence hdd defragmenting and a simultanious process of all physically seperate drives. :roll:

At most I miss to set different modes preprocessed for each of the drives like the runing operational gets a defrag with full optimization and the storage drives with non executable data get only a defragmentation without optimization.

So if theres something to append to I was open for corrections.:mrgreen:

[Doc Farmer]

Like the new interface, but...

 

Looks good, feels good, a couple of minor suggestions:

 

• Return the "timer" to give estimated completion time for all three types of defrags
  
• On the defrag display, show disk location and (if possible) file(s) contained in that space
  
• Under Boot Defrag, allow items to remain checked (stored) as a permanent choice.
  

[BocaDave]

I like the way it works on my 3 drive system.:smile:

 

A nice additional feature, not directly related to defragging, would be to indicate which files and/or programs are taking up the most space on each drive.