I'm unconvinced by the new tabbed UI: it typically means more clicks
to do the defragging.

The "Defrag" button now appears to do a full disk defrag, i.e. files, folders
and freespace. This is only needed occasionally. In previous versions
this would just defrag the selected files, so for a quick defrag, could just
click Analyze, then select all files and click Defrag.

Now, with the new version, to do the same thing you have to click Analyze,
then View Files, then select all files, then remember to right click to get the
context menu and then scroll down to Defrag Checked and left-click on that.
Not that that is difficult, but I don't think it is particularly obvious and could
put off some newcomers to the program (they may not find out how to do it).

Now, not everyone wants to look at the list of fragmented files anyway, so
how about the following compromise between the old UI and the new...

Having the tabbed UI means more space on the "Drive" tab in which extra
buttons could be placed.

So...how about slimming down the height of the Status and Properties groups
and adding buttons at the bottom of the Drive tab to the right of the Analyze
button something like this...

-------------------- Defrag Options -------------------------
[Just Files] [Files+Folders] [Free space] [Entire Drive]


...The Files button would defrag all the files found in a previous Analyze run
(or if none done, then would effect an analysis first). Similarly for the Files+Folders
button, except that folders too would be included.

This would mean that most users could choose exactly what type of defrag
they wanted very quickly and easily (and obviously).

For those relatively rare occasions when one only wants to defrag certain files,
one could just do the Analyze, then click View Files, select the target files and
use the context menu to defrag those selected. This is an excellent feature of
Defraggler, it's just that [IMHO] it is less likely to be used than the other options
- particularly the first two (Files, Files+Folders)

What does the forum think of that ?

It's good that Defraggler now persists the window properties (size, position etc)
- could the "Priority" option be persisted also, perhaps ?

I, too, prefer the old GUI.


My own proposal: I think there should be two views instead of the two tabs. The default view would be basically the default tab as it is now, and the other view would be the way it used to look (the buttons, the smaller white defrag prompt, etc., not just the file list as it is now). When clicking the view files button, it would open the old view (and allowing the user somehow to easily navigate back to the other view). Also, it would save your preferred view as the default view.

I too like the old interface. I felt unconfortalbly with the tabs. lost in some cases.

thm is absolutely right on this

If you insist in keeping the new look can i suggest to have the defrag/analyze/stop controls on both tabs
in exaclty the same position so that we can avoid right clicking

Please
1. keep it simple (the previous interface prety much accomplished that)
2. take note of peoples' suggestions -> one click sequential defragging is the most asked feature
(mine is a screensaver-defragger, but probably not many users need or want this feature)

I hope defraggler will be improved in ways that iwill keep it small, simple and useful.

- New to defraggler so I've never seen the old interface. I found the new one to be pretty intuitive for the most part.

- Would be nice to have a "Defrag" menu item where you could toggle which type you wanted to use, i.e. Just Files, Files+Folders, Free space, Entire Drive (as mentioned in a previous post).

- The drive map legend should be displayed at all times. There's plenty of room in the interface for this. Suggest adding a "View" menu item and having the drive map legend option there where you could toggle on/off.

- The drive map legend seems to be missing a color, i.e. a blue/grey.

- When you Analyze, it'd be helpful for the tool to suggest whether or not you should defrag and which type to use.

I personally like the new tabs. I like seeing more information then previously like the pie chart or analysis results vs. current state. I also like that this information is on the default tab, it's better for new users. I do agree with thm though that there should be the four different defrag options. I know that you can defrag freespace through the advanced menu but it should be a more accessible option. I do have a couple of additional comments about the latest version though.

-Should add a timer that shows time elapsed and estimated time remaining.
-The percentage complete is not very accurate. It jumps around a lot and then stays at a certain percentage for 40 min., and then will jump quickly again.
-When you maximize the window, the UI does not resize accordingly. It just stays the same small size in a now big white window.
-I also really like jd's idea. "When you Analyze, have Defraggler suggest whether or not you should defrag and which type to use."
-Add in a scheduler for analysis. It will automatically defrag based on the analysis results given using the above method.

Overall this was a nice release though, good work.

I've been using defraggler for a short while and it's pretty good. I only have few comments about 1.02.077

1. Make the fact it is beta a lot more obvious. I spotted the new version last night, downloaded and started running it at home. Only this morning did I twig it was beta. Please put the warning at the top and provide a link to the previous stable release on the download page.
2. It's very, very slow. On a drive which had previously been de-fraggled, it seems to be moving every single file about and creating masses of fragments. This is my home PC and it has been running for a good 12 hours now (300gb drive, 200gb data). The PC seems to be stable, so I am not overly concerned about data loss, I am just wondering what on earth it is doing!
3. New UI. Sorry, I don't like it. Too many clicks. I selected the files and then stared dumbly at the screen whilst I looked for the defrag button. Obviously I found it, but I think it is now doing way more than I asked it (I only wanted the selected files defragged, not got a clue what it is up to).
4. Automation. I noticed "df.exe" this morning as well. I am going to guess that this is a command line so I can knock up a quick batch file and have that run at some specific time, would it be possible for defraggle to offer the ability to schedule such a task via the UI? Might help total beginners.
5. Monitor. I realise this may be bloat, but what about adding a feature to monitor driver(s)? A system tray icon which would pop up a message if the scheduled analysis (e.g. nightly) indicates that defragging might be a good idea. For this and the last one, defraggle should have the option wake the PC from any sleep-state it may be in to ensure the job gets done.

All in all, a good product, although I think I will stick to the previous release for now.

rS

I too prefer the old UI. Also I noticed the drive tab can have a lot of empty space:



It needs to be changed to use up the space. Maybe put "Properties" underneath "Status" and then move the file list to the right of those two?

I have used the May 08 version successfully for a few weeks & it was very good & fast, if a bit basic looking. I could do a 15Gb defrag in about 5-10 minutes. Have just downloaded the new version, tried a defrag, & aborted it , unfinished, after 2 hours !!!!!!!!!!!!!.

1. Agreed with above posters, the new UI is rather annoying. Instead of giving the pie chart a tab of it own, let it have it's own window that you are able to open optionally, such as with the Drive Map Legend (hell, COMBINE it with that one).
2. It defrags mindblowingly slow. What happened to the blazing fast defrag algorithms from the previous release? Were they less efficient than initially thought?

EDIT: In case it means anything:

Celeron 2.2Ghz (<-- Old, but not the cause for the poor performance unless it's a coding error with Intel CPUs)
1.5GB DDR PC2700 RAM
40GB HDD
Radeon X1550 PCI

Initially the new design pissed me off immensely.
Because it's different. ( Most people are like that. )

The "Defrag" button needs to say "FULL DEFRAG" and the file list needs its own defrag button.

also it would be nice to have a button for this macro:
1. Analyse selected drive.
2. Select all files on analysis.
3. Defrag checked.

This could be called QUICK DEFRAG in contrast with FULL DEFRAG.



You need to use it differently now, select all then right click and "Defrag checked."



2. <-- Apparently now "DEFRAG" does a FULL defrag, and not just defraging of fragmented files.
See post 1, to see how to do the quick defrag. ( Analyse -> List Files -> Select All -> (RIGHT CLICK) Defrag Checked )
The Full defrag is only useful for FUTURE performance, if you plan on doing quick defrags frequently, there is no real need for a full defrag.

Thanks for the info. Defgragging back to full speed. Would be clearer if there were seperate buttons for full & file defrags.

Thanks for that.

Poor design in this version methinks.

EDIT: I really wish thing would defrag my pagefile. This says it's in 2 fragments, but when I run PageDefrag from Mark Russonivich (or however his name is spelled), it says the Pagefile is as contiguous as possible. really, really annoying.

I came here to see what other people were saying about the new interface.


Old interface:
1. Load up program
2. Analyze
3. Click check box & defrag.
Simple.

New interface:
1. Load up program
2. see confusing empty-space pie-graph thing (what is this for??)
3. switch tab to file list
4. Right click drive and Analyze...
5. Then check off box
6. Find some place where you can right-click and then click on "defrag checked"

What the heck? A confusing interface AND twice as many steps?

I just downloaded the free defraggler software....after installation was complete... i was in a different program.... when all of a sudden my computer gave me a message of a drastic error.... and was closing down to avoid further harm to my computer.... I received an error message to report to microsoft about a harmful action to my driver device.... I had to do some cleanup on my computer and virus quarrantining... I have windows XP and have never had a problem like this.... I will be telling all my address friends to stay away....

Before you run around yelling The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling! please permit us to help you discover what the problem is and help you remove it.

What is your operating system and Service Packs installed.

Yeah, and I'm sure Defraggler broke your TV, stole your shoes, killed your dog, and made your penis shrink from 3 inches to 2 inches as well.

Such evil software!

You should demand a refund at once!

I just ran into the same problem on a friend's computer. First off, Mark's program (for the first time in my experience with it) did not make the page file contiguous despite the fact that there appeared to be more than enough free space before and after the larger portion of the page file to allow that to happen. I tried several times and the darn page file remained in two segments. So, (in Windows XP) I went to the Virtual Memory configuration window and changed the setting to no virtual memory. I then rebooted the machine and went back and reset the virtual memory setting to the value I wanted. Now the file is no longer fragmented.

Hope this helps.

Mitch

A note of warning to those following the above advice: do not disable [set to zero] the virtual memory
unless you have plenty of memory, otherwise your machine may not boot ! It's impossible to say
definitively how much memory you need to be safe [as that depends upon your configuration], but
you should be OK for Windows XP with 512 MB and above. Probably > 1GB for Vista. (?)
If you do have plenty of memory, then sometimes it is a good thing to do a thorough defrag
between scrapping the page file and recreating one.
- thm

I completel agree with this thm. It became less obvious to defrag a few files which is THE PRIME REASON why i used Defraggler. There should be analyze, defrag, defrag free space, & stop buttons on the same level as the tabs because these are options you want access to at anytime. I trust piriform will listen to us though so im not worried.

i like the new gui alot

+1

I also much prefer the previous GUI.

The new version of defraggler doesn't appear to only defrag selected files and takes an age to complete. I also miss seeing the defrag in action. All in all, the previous version (imho) was much better!
I have now reverted back to that!

Ok, the new GUI has killed the functionality for me.

Before, when listed all the files and having it defrag just the files, it the bottom of the program would display how many fragmented files and how much space the fragmented files were taking up.

I used it as a "count down" to see how far along the defrag was.

Now at the bottom it just has "Check for update" and NO file information. I also can no longer scroll down the file list when it is defragging.

This is why two heads are always better than one. I failed to mention that the XP machine I did this on had 1 Gb of memory. Sorry about that.



Edit: Actually, the virtual memory window says that the minimum page file size "allowed" (short of totally eliminating it) is 2 MB.

That all sounds like a bunch of crap.

I disable the page file on 256 Meg and even 128 Meg machines before running Defraggler. It works great.

Not having a page file and then running Defraggler should NEVER make your system "not boot" unless your system is a broken piece of junk in the first place.

This forum seems to be like some sort of fly trap for people to gather and spread retarded misinformation about their system and then blame it on this software.

Hmmm. IYNQSHO I suppose

Well I'm certainly not trying to cast aspersions on the excellent
Defraggler !

OK I'll try to explain why running a PC with no page file is a bit
risky if you have little physical RAM...

All programs will request VM from Windows when they run.
Usually this is far more memory than they actually need, and
Windows will typically allocate VM from the page file. However,
if there is no page file available, then Windows will allocate physical
RAM to these programs, and this can eat up a lot of memory,
and leave little for the system to work with.

For example, I've just run-up the following programs and used
Process Explorer to see how much VM they request when they
start up...
MSIE:109
FireFox: 145
Word: 188
Outlook: 529

...and yes: those are MB, not KB ! Big numbers indeed.

OK, so you are not likely to have any of these autostart on boot,
but you may have many other utilities set to autostart, and they
too may be wasteful of VM.

Of course, programs don't only request VM when they first run; they
may well request more VM later according to their dynamic needs.

For example, I've just run up Defraggler, and it needed 37 MB of VM
...then I did an "Analyze" on my C: drive, and noted that Defraggler's
allocated VM went up to 110 MB. Perfectly normal.

Now, most of the critical parts of the OS are "locked" into RAM, i.e.
they are never paged out and are safe, but even the OS may require
extra VM at some point, depending upon what's happening on the computer.
And if this happens to a critical part of the OS [e.g. a device driver] and there
is no VM and no more RAM available, then your computer can crash, with
a nice blue screen.

OK, this is fortunately a rare event; it just all depends upon the
particular configuration of your machine, and luck (or the lack of it).

Now, let's suppose that you have a machine that has no page file and
after booting has only ~50 MB of free RAM. OK, you could run up
Defraggler needing only ~37 MB of RAM, but what would happen if you
then tried to do an actual defrag, and Defraggler needed [say] 100 MB ?

Well, the most likely thing would be that Defraggler would fail when
it couldn't allocate enough memory, but there remains the possibility
that whilst Defraggler is requesting more memory, the OS itself may
require more memory for some critical function, and if that failed, then
this could crash the whole PC [=> blue screen]. And if you were in the
middle of a defrag when this happens, then your drive could well be
corrupted. This would be no fault of Defraggler [something similar
might happen for any program writing to the disk], just that it could
happen to be the "straw that breaks the camel's back". And of course,
ANY defragging tool is likely to write to the disk extensively...

So, it is indeed a rare scenario, but it can [and does] happen.
One of the reasons I always make sure that any machine of mine
has plenty of RAM.

The following links explain things much better than I can, and may
be worth a read ...

Virtual Memory...
==> http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

Page File...
==> http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-...11-5071997.html
==> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=185778
==> http://www.theeldergeek.com/sizing_the_page_file.htm

-thm

Having found CCleaner so useful, I've been watching and using Defraggler for several months now. The version previous to this, with the new algorithm, was brilliant - so much faster than before.

That's what people want! Fast defragging with simple UI.

Two tabs - why? The first tab has a huge amount of empty space even on 1024x768, and the second tab has no obvious functions (took me a while to work out the right-click thing).

Why the pie-chart? Takes up room (though it could still fit in a one-tab view maybe). It says at the top the percentage of the drive that is filled, we don't need to be told twice imo.

The Defrag function on the first tab is painfully slow. I have no idea what is going on either.

Right-clicking and defragging checked files on the second tab is more like normal speed. However I can't scroll the list anymore!

I know people can say "you just don't like change", but I seriously cannot see any advantages this all brings, unless the pie chart taken from My Computer Properties count. It's become less function and more confusing.

All in all, this latest release seems to be very unthought-out. I just hope the developers read all these comments and realise that this so-called Release Candidate is a backward-step, which is sooo disappointing after so any leap forwards. I really hope RC2 fixes some of these mistakes.

Previous versions were so quick but this version was only at 9% complete after 3 1/2 hours.
Aborted defrag and rolled back to previous version for now.

Defraggler slowed down my XP Home and Pro systems so much that I have un-installed it on both systems and used the built in Windows defrag to restore their performance to normal.

I'll stick to Windows defrag and the occasional JkDefrag once in a while.

Hey Yo,
Your input it just as important as everybody else.
Can you elaborate on what you did and what happened?

Admittedly I haven't tried the latest Defraggler.
I have been moving some of my files around to get them better arranged and using Defraggler last version on just a few specific files at a time.I haven't needed a major defrag in awhile.
davey

If I remember correctly I started the latest Defragler then I clicked on Defrag and it took ages to complete on my XP Pro system so while I was waiting I started up the defrag on my XP Home system then I rebooted both when it finished and noticed the slowdown right away.

I used both systems for about 1/2 day until I could no longer stand the un-responsiveness of the systems so I decided to undo the defrag that Defraggler did with the Windows defrag application waiting for the hour for them to complete then I rebooted them to find they were back to their usual responsiveness.

I have to say the GUI changed quite a lot. At first, I was surprised not to see the File list.
It is very nice that you can see howmany fragmented files there were at the start, and the current progress.
BUT, the 2-tab system isn't really handy..

As someone previously mentioned: An option to see the drive map legend at all time would be nice.

The different 'defrag' buttons really have to be sorted out.. I think that new users really don't know how to defrag single files, or just the whole drive.

Ok.. I took the liberty of trying a new design pasted some things in photoshop.. this is what I made.

The newest version of Defraggler takes forever to defrag, I prefer the previous version. Also, has anyone tried to run their built-in system defragger?

It goes to 3% of defrag and then gets hung up, you stop it close it and try to run it again and you get a pop-up telling you that your version only allows you run it once!

Apparently the newest version of Defraggler is removing a permission file.

If you reboot your system it allows you to run the disk defragment, but again it goes only to 3% and gets hung up.

Newest version has a couple of bugs that need to be fixed.

I like Defraggler very much but with this newest version causing problems, I'm thinking of just uninstalling it.

Angel155

I originally joined this forum to mention my problem with the .068 beta Defraggler. After downloading and install, the program
just would not defrag. I didn't bother to post the problem, in case it was something unique to my computer. I figured it would go away
with the next release and it did. Now with the latest RC1 I can report no problems. No matter the complaints, Defraggler just is faster
and better it seems than the default windows defrag program in Vista. I appreciate the effort Piriform makes with its freeware products.
CCleaner surely cleans out the crap, purging cookies, cache bloat, etc. as often as you want. All the stuff offered will only improve over
time.

...with the release of RC2, I suggest that we move onto the following thread...

http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=16319

Hey there, I've been using this software for a few weeks now and recently noticed there was a newer version and upgraded a few minutes ago.

I personally do not see what the problem with the GUI is, although everyone has thier own preferences, I'm happy as long as the prgram works, and it's a freebie. It does appear to work slower (although I'm currently using it on a Vista PC, I have not tried this on my XP laptop as yet) but if it does do the job betteer than Windows Defrag then I'm happy...and I expect a few problems here and there as it is in beta.

Great stuff though on the whole and kudos to the creators!

Upgraded a few minutes ago?

The current version does NOT have the crap interface everyone was complaining about.

The version out *before* this one had a crummy interface where you had to switch tabs, do all actions via Right click menus, didn't have buttons to click, etc. It was a mess.