Smart Defrag 2.3

[Ted]

Okay, I upgraded to Smart Defrag 2.3 and did a Defrag and Fully Optimize. As usual it did its good efficient job. I decided to start it at Windows Startup and try out the Automatic Defrag. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the defrag was done silently without affecting my idle time slideshow and no entry was added to my msconfig list. In fact the only gripe I have is the grotty icon in the Notification Area. I know I can hide the icon, but it could be handy.

[Melvin_Deal]

Go Ted Go!

 

I for one will be interested to read your comments and observations!:-)

 

Sincerely,

-Mel

Live long and Prosper!

[solbjerg]

Hey Ted

When you have had it running for awhile, so that you have some autodefrag statistics to show, - please take a screenshot and let us see how often and at what level it makes its autodefrag.

You do close your computer daily don't you? (in the interest of energy consumption saving) :-)

Cheers

solbjerg

p.s. I think you should be able to change the icon yourself to one you like better

p.p.s. I take that back apparently it is not easy to do - haven't yet found a method

 

 

Okay, I upgraded to Smart Defrag 2.3 and did a Defrag and Fully Optimize. As usual it did its good efficient job. I decided to start it at Windows Startup and try out the Automatic Defrag. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the defrag was done silently without affecting my idle time slideshow and no entry was added to my msconfig list. In fact the only gripe I have is the grotty icon in the Notification Area. I know I can hide the icon, but it could be handy.

[enoskype]

p.s. I think you should be able to change the icon yourself to one you like better

p.p.s. I take that back apparently it is not easy to do - haven't yet found a method

 

Hi solbjerg,

 

I have changed the content of my post after seeing your p.p.s. :lol:

 

There is a method to do that, but only with changing the Data of the executable. You need to have a special program for that. That will concern the copyright issues then.:mrgreen: For personal use, it can be applied though.

 

Cheers.

[solbjerg]

Thank you enoskype

I have no intention of changing the icon, but I found out by trying on my computer that it was not as easy as I thought at first.

I will leave that up to Ted to try :-)

Cheers

solbjerg

 

 

Hi solbjerg,

 

I have changed the content of my post after seeing your p.p.s. :lol:

 

There is a method to do that, but only with changing the Data of the executable. You need to have a special program for that. That will concern the copyright issues then.:mrgreen: For personal use, it can be applied though.

 

Cheers.

[Ted]

Hi, Mel, solbjerg and enoskype, Yes, I do switch everything off at night. Not sure if these are the screenshots you want, solbjerg and I'll give that icon some serious thought.

[solbjerg]

Hi Ted

No, it was a screenshot of the contents of your auto defrag window, to see how often (at what date) and at what level it had done the autodefrag.

I had mine running for a week in January to test it, and it showed that it had made 2 auto defrags in that time (the day I started it and 6 days later) - my settings were that it should run at 1% fragmentention then - when it was idle.

Now I have gone back to the manual defrag and usually don't do it before it reaches 3% fragmentation. (I check the analyze when I think it is time or when I feel like it.)

If I know that I have used the computer much or have uninstalled many or large programs I just run the defrag anyway.

Cheers

solbjerg

 

Hi, Mel, solbjerg and enoskype, Yes, I do switch everything off at night. Not sure if these are the screenshots you want, solbjerg and I'll give that icon some serious thought.

[Ted]

Hi, solbjerg,

Silly me! Is this the one you meant?

[Ted]

Hi again, solbjerg,

I have changed the default defrag setting from 1% to 3% now. Just set it and forget it, eh?

[enoskype]

Hi Ted,

 

I find second of your previous images a bit strange, as the map on the GUI doesn't seem to show that your system drive (C:) is nearly 30% free.:-o

 

I would once use Windows' own defragmenter and see if it changes.

 

Perhaps you have not used optimized defrag. Right?

 

Cheers.

[Ted]

Hi, enoskype,

 

Just did a manual defrag and Fully Optimize, does this look better?

[enoskype]

Thanks Ted, the placement of files is of course better, but still 30% empty space in your disk is not seen on the map.

 

It shows as though your disk is 90-95% full.

 

Please try Windows' own defragmenter or Puran Defrag (free edition, the one at the bottom) only once to see if it is corrected when you use Smart Defrag. (Please exit SD when using other defragmenters.)

 

Cheers.

[solbjerg]

Hi enoskype

Yes I counted the free space (always assuming that the default colour scheme is used) and it yielded a result that said 6,5% free space (70 out of 1080) but the numbers for C: said 29,1% free - so you were uncommonly close in your estimation :-) (uncommonly as opposed to common people) :-)

@Ted

Do you use the default colour scheme or have you changed the colours?

Cheers

solbjerg

 

 

Thanks Ted, the placement of files is of course better, but still 30% empty space in your disk is not seen on the map.

 

It shows as though your disk is 90-95% full.

 

Please try Windows' own defragmenter or Puran Defrag (free edition, the one on the bottom) only once to see if it is corrected when you use Smart Defrag.

 

Cheers.

[Ted]

Hi, enoskype,

 

Windows defrag is showing the 30% of free space, but a new Defrag and Fully Optimize with Smart Defrag shows less than before! Incidentally, partitions C: and D: are on the same HDD and E: is on a separate drive. I only have music, photos and video files stored on D: do I really need to defrag this partition?

 

A much better result after the Puran defrag, eh?

 

Hi, solbjerg,

Yes, I use the default colour scheme.

[solbjerg]

Hi Ted

That was it!

Do you remember why the auto-defrag ran at those days only?

30-07-2011; 4-09-2011; 26-10-2011; 22-12-2011; 6-02-2012; 7-02-2012; 8-02-2012

The last three I understand partly but wonder why they ran with so little to do.

Cheers

solbjerg

 

 

Hi, solbjerg,

Silly me! Is this the one you meant?

[solbjerg]

Hi Ted

It looks like the program attempts to show both C: and D: partitions at the same time to get the picture almost completely filled up, but it can't do that life-like it seems. It must be because they are partitions and not two physical harddisks?

Try running the partitions seperately to find out if it then shows a true image of each partition.

The last screenshot third from the left showed what looked like a true picture of the C: partition.

With all this defragging it shouldn't take more than some seconds to run it :-)

 

If you do not use the D: partition very often I would just select to run the C: partition in the auto-defrag and do the other one manually from time to time.

But according to your record of auto-defrags it seems to run one auto-defrag every day regardless of how fragmented it is, at least the last three days?

Cheers

solbjerg

p.s. I usually only defrag one harddisk at a time and almost always only C:

I have no partitions, only 3 different harddiscs.

I only use the auto option if I need to test it to be able to talk in an informed manner about it otherwise I always defrag manually.

 

 

Hi, enoskype,

 

Windows defrag is showing the 30% of free space, but a new Defrag and Fully Optimize with Smart Defrag shows less than before! Incidentally, partitions C: and D: are on the same HDD and E: is on a separate drive. I only have music, photos and video files stored on D: do I really need to defrag this partition?

 

A much better result after the Puran defrag, eh?

 

Hi, solbjerg,

Yes, I use the default colour scheme.

[enoskype]

Ted, now it looks more logical!:-D

 

The reason is the gaps in and between clusters are used for accomodation of the smaller files, giving more contiguous free space that we see.

 

I would like to see the image of SD with a bigger window (SD maximized) of the GUI. I think it will give a better view closer to reality.

 

I believe, if System Restore points are less, the black legends will be less.

 

Hi Ted

It looks like the program attempts to show both C: and D: partitions at the same time to get the picture almost completely filled up, but it can't do that life-like it seems. It must be because they are partitions and not two physical harddisks?

 

Well, if I understand it correctly, I don't think this is the case with the image showing less space than realty.

 

Partitions on the same hard disk are interpreted as 2 different disks by SD and all the other defragmenters.

FYI, assuming that C: is created before D:, the first cluster of D: starts after the last cluster of C: and certainly slower than the first cluster and even last cluster of C: by theory.

The clusters of D: is not shown on the GUI which is showing the clusters of C:.

 

Cheers.

[solbjerg]

Hi enoskype

"FYI, assuming that C: is created before D:, the first cluster of D: starts after the last cluster of C: and certainly slower than the first cluster and even last cluster of C: by theory.

The clusters of D: is not shown on the GUI which is showing the clusters of C:."

I do not understand :?: :cry: :-)

By me it only shows the C: window if I run both C: and D: and the C: looks just like it normally does when I run it alone.

Cheers

solbjerg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ted, now it looks more logical!:-D

 

The reason is the gaps in and between clusters are used for accomodation of the smaller files, giving more contiguous free space that we see.

 

I would like to see the image of SD with a bigger window (SD maximized) of the GUI. I think it will give a better view closer to reality.

 

I believe, if System Restore points are less, the black legends will be less.

 

 

 

Well, if I understand it correctly, I don't think this is the case with the image showing less space than realty.

 

Partitions on the same hard disk are interpreted as 2 different disks by SD and all the other defragmenters.

FYI, assuming that C: is created before D:, the first cluster of D: starts after the last cluster of C: and certainly slower than the first cluster and even last cluster of C: by theory.

The clusters of D: is not shown on the GUI which is showing the clusters of C:.

 

Cheers.

[Ted]

Hi, solbjerg,

I have only been using the auto-defrag option for a couple of days so don't know why those earlier entries are recorded. I reckon I'll change back to manual defragging from now on. That'll get rid of that scungy icon too!

 

Hi to you, enoskype. I just ran a defrag and full optimise of my C:drive only. I only have two current Restore Points.

 

Many thanks to you both for all your time and help.

[enoskype]

Hi solbjerg,

 

I will try to explain with an image.

 

Suppose that the disk in the image is divided in 2 partitions, C: and D:.

the first cluster of D: should start just after last cluster of C:, certainly PC will be slower when usind D: than using C: because of Zoned-Bit Recording.

 

A defragmenter with rectangular GUI will only show either C: or D: part of the partion on the same disk.

 

So the cluster shown for D: on top left of the GUI map is in fact the cluster just after the last cluster of C:, of which will be shown on a seperate GUI map

 

I am not sure if I explained it clearly. :-(

 

Perhaps I did not understand your saying:

"It looks like the program attempts to show both C: and D: partitions at the same time to get the picture almost completely filled up"

 

 

What I am saying in short is that if a disk is partitioned, each partition will be seen on a seperate GUI map. (Not superimposed, or following each other.)

 

Cheers.

[solbjerg]

Hi Ted

That looks more normal and more true-to-life

You do have a fair amount of unmoveables for some reason and you D: partition also shows a fair amount of MFT's

But all in all more understandable.

Good luck Ted!

Cheers

solbjerg

 

 

Hi, solbjerg,

I have only been using the auto-defrag option for a couple of days so don't know why those earlier entries are recorded. I reckon I'll change back to manual defragging from now on. That'll get rid of that scungy icon too!

 

Hi to you, enoskype. I just ran a defrag and full optimise of my C:drive only. I only have two current Restore Points.

 

Many thanks to you both for all your time and help.

[enoskype]

Ted, I would turn System Restore Off and then On to create clean contiguous system restore files.

 

A Boot Time Defrag should help too.

 

Cheers.

[solbjerg]

Hi enoskype

Your screenshot did show what you are saying clearly. Thanks - that I understand.

But I still fail to understand why Ted's screenshot showed only 6,5% of free space - when in reality he had 29,1% free space - and my comment was addressed to this fact. :-)

But it is not something we have to solve right now - even if it would be nice to know the why of it. :-)

Thanks for trying again to get something into my thick head :-)

Cheers

solbjerg

 

 

Hi solbjerg,

 

I will try to explain with an image.

 

Suppose that the disk in the image is divided in 2 partitions, C: and D:.

the first cluster of D: should start just after last cluster of C:, certainly PC will be slower when usind D: than using C: because of Zoned-Bit Recording.

 

A defragmenter with rectangular GUI will only show either C: or D: part of the partion on the same disk.

 

So the cluster shown for D: on top left of the GUI map is in fact the cluster just after the last cluster of C:, of which will be shown on a seperate GUI map

 

I am not sure if I explained it clearly. :-(

 

Perhaps I did not understand your saying:

"It looks like the program attempts to show both C: and D: partitions at the same time to get the picture almost completely filled up"

 

 

What I am saying in short is that if a disk is partitioned, each partition will be seen on a seperate GUI map. (Not superimposed, or following each other.)

 

Cheers.

[enoskype]

But I still fail to understand why Ted's screenshot showed only 6,5% of free space - when in reality he had 29,1% free space - and my comment was addressed to this fact. :-)

 

I think SD shows a cluster full with files, when in fact most part of a cluster is empty.

When the totally empty clusters follow each other (contigious), SD would show them empty anyhow.

 

In that effect, having a bigger GUI of SD shows much more clusters (The sizes of the clusters shown beeing smaller.), so chances of seeing more # of empty clusters are much bigger. (As they were partially filled with files before and seen as occupied.)

 

As a result, when you count the # of empty squares with respect to # of total squares, the % of # of empty squares with respect to #total of squares will be more in a bigger GUI.

Theoratically, if the GUI is big enough, in Ted's case, it will end up with 29.1% even if the files are scattered all over on the disk.

Well contrary to that, if the GUI can be small enough, in anycase, it will be seen as 100% full.

 

Wowww, what did I say? :lol:

 

 

Cheers.

[solbjerg]

Ok enoskype

You may be right - and the explanation is also understandable even for me. :-)

Thanks!

Cheers

solbjerg

 

I think SD shows a cluster full with files, when in fact most part of a cluster is empty.

When the totally empty clusters follow each other (contigious), SD would show them empty anyhow.

 

In that effect, having a bigger GUI of SD shows much more clusters (The sizes of the clusters shown beeing smaller.), so chances of seeing more # of empty clusters are much bigger. (As they were partially filled with files before and seen as occupied.)

 

As a result, when you count the # of empty squares with respect to # of total squares, the % of # of empty squares with respect to # of total squares will be more in a bigger GUI.

Theoratically, if the GUI is big enough, in Ted's case, it will end up with 29.1%.

Well contrary to that, if the GUI can be small enough, in anycase, it will be seen as 100% full.

 

Wowww, what did I say? :lol:

 

 

Cheers.