jamvaru
-
Posts
20 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by jamvaru
-
-
I finally got my colors and layout of the display adjusted to my liking.
The only thing I want more is to have a dark theme/skin for defraggler.
What do you think of my selections? Post screen cap of your layout and color preference below with comments, thanks.
.thumb.png.a52885e2df5a7694f8b36a85ad555e0d.png)
-
ya, i agree; was gonna post a new post, but why not bump this one;.
.
this image is of the drive map with the options set to 3 wide by 9 tall for the blocks, with gradient and bars selected, which looks great, except for the border, as you say; the black here is the empty, grey is fill; other colors default
.
perhaps the border could be removed, or also interesting would be color options for the borders, or theme options for the app itself, so it can have black workspace backgrounds, instead of windows default (or whichever the setting in the crappy windows color options for the drive map background)
.
presumably one way to change the background color of the drive map would be to install some sort of 3rd party theme program for windows or hack it yourself; tutorials online, search 'windows 7 theme custom'
.
however, i am loathe to do so as i really don't like windows and try to cut my usage of it to a minimum, so i suffer with the bright white nonsense; just turn your monitor contrast down
.
so, how bout some theme options and possibly some more drive map options? unlocking any other options available to a defragger would be cool, too; I've used smart defrag, but just want a simple push button solution and like defraggler for that; that and the guy hasn't updated it in years, though it still works fine; i feel compelled to overwrite it's default scripts; I'd prefer some simple checkboxes and sliders and such instead of typing script commands tho
-
Post a screenshot of your defraggler in action.
http://picbox.im/images/2014/06/05/defraggler.png
In this case I have a drive full of junk that has plenty of free space, but no large free areas to move files of significant size when defragmenting. Running defrag freespace with fragmentation should make for plenty of room to work with. Defraggler has all the options I need in a defragmentation program. The standard defrag option is highly optimized.One thing I would prefer is the placement of the system files, such as mft and folders, etc. to be more in the middle of the occupied volume, or wherever the optimal placement would be for least movement of the read arm. I reckon about 1/3 in from the outside edge of the partition, depending on the amount of space occupied. A toggle option would be nice.It just occurred to me that putting the mft, etc, in front means the smallest files would be closest to the mft, if I am correct in assuming defraggler puts the smallest files at the beginning of the disk by default, using the standard defrag option. Perhaps there would be a way of assigning file placement closest to the mft by file size, with the option of moving the mft to front, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 3/4, or wherever. So, if the mft is 1/3 into the disk, or optionally the volume occupied on the disk, then the smallest files would be clustered around the 1/3 mark, in ascending order according to size. Eventually the front of the disk would be hit and the rest of the files would all go after the mft, and whichever smaller files were placed there before. At any rate, it would be an intriguing option for an advanced selection window. I'm sure it doesn't matter much to most. -
i am not really impressed by your response
i understand that as it stands your product is ok and people might even buy it, i guess
hey, it works; and it has more customization features than some others, and is fairly easy and user friendly; it seems to speak my language
i think it needs more work, but so does everything, really
your response should have been better
heres a cute photo
i like 'quick defrag' ... i use it just for fun, like to watch the display
there are several issues to explore if you decide to read the whole post, but if you aren't intuitive enough... too bad for you
-
wow, maybe not... just lost my post... ok, skipping the rambling, lets just get to the final decision
quick defrag is good up to a point, but slow if there is alot to do; if you don't have any urgency, no problem
defrag is same but even more involved and slow
defrag freespace; nice to keep drive compacted
defrag freespace (allow fragmentation) only if you want to shrink your partition
the thing just seems to drag as if there is too much for it to handle... some threshold or glass ceiling; if you wanna run it all night or night and day, it seems to work ok; perhaps it is conserving resources; solution?
try adding a throttle; throttle up when you aren't using computer, throttle down when you are; manual, that is, user controlled; add customization settings for auto-throttle if already implemented; i'd like to know it is working the way i want
if it is just slow, well, i wonder why (meaning other programs seem to be faster and more comprehensive)
i have been perplexed at this deficiency for a while
anyways... i'm not sure what happend, but my screen jumped to 'report' by itself, or so it seemed, erasing my post, forcing this rewrite... no problem; but, i've lost my train of thought and don't know what else to say
i'm using it right now to 'scrunch' my portable hard drive, just for the heck of it; i don't really want to use it out on my other drives, though i have;
what settings would you recommend for a 2TB portable hard drive with lots of media and portable apps?
-
i had stopped the previous defrag around 66%, switched to quick defrag, now at 2% and 2h10m
basically same as my last test about 6 months ago
going back to mydefrag, for now
once i get this thing defragged again i might try one more time, but not using defrag freespace (allow frags)
-
so what i was saying is that i would like to be able to choose to defrag freespace without frags, no allow frags, rather than JUST defrag freespace... so it would defrag, or quick defrag first, then optimize freespace, but ideally at the same time, to be more efficient
checkboxes would be nice, or radio buttons
-
it is really going bonkers on defrag freespace ( no fragments allowed ) ... lots of activity all over (yellow)
pretty quickly shot to 9% and 10 minutes remaining
so far no new red squares... and there were none in bottom 25%, cept for the 1st one
very quickly went to 26% and 4 minutes to go
got past the first red square (light) without affecting it (caused by previous defrag freespace with allow frags)
5 more red squares ignored (says 650 fragged files at this time) 33% and 10 min
now 41 and 5
51 and 3
seems like defrag freespace don't do squat for fragmentation, still 650 fragged files, 58% and 3 min
was 0 on previous defrag... so the defrag freespace (allow frags) caused 2686 total fragments and 650 fragged files, but shows 0% fragmentation
im going to allow this to finish, then do a quick defrag and another defrag freespace (no frags)
-
hmm, came back @ 57% and 45 min to go
around 30 light red squares and a dark red one
might as well try the other option again
-
defrag freespace (allow fragmentation)
@5% shows 4 minutes to go
now 10 min
there was one point when a yellow box was preceding the green box, but i'm assuming that is just overlap
it is doing much better than the regular defrag freespace with 0 new red boxes, so far
oops, spoke too soon, have 2 now, in addition to the upper left corner box being red (light)
now 3 +1
7% and 45 min to go
no indication of which file(s) being moved
aside: what is the avg error rate on defragmentation?
wowzers, the red boxes disappeared (cept for the first one)
now @ 12% and 45 minutes to go
so, at this point (and i remember i did this test before with same results) looks like defrag whitespace and defrage whitespace (allow frags) are backwards, one is the other
could someone verify this?
ima let this finish, now at 16% and 30 minutes to go, but no red squares at all
-
the defrag whitespace is leaving fragments (red boxes) even though i did NOT select 'allow fragmentation'
perhaps the quick defrag option is better?
currently @ 8% and 30 minutes to go on defrage freespace
trying quick defrag
I have 18% freespace on 2tb (almost) btw
QD shot up to 15% real quick, says 4 minutes to go
the red squares aren't changing, yet
now 36% and 3 minutes to go
still 4 red squares caused by freespace defrag (no fragmentation allowed)
it got one of em at 55% and 2 minutes to go
the resolution isn't really high enough (block size) to see, but it is taking small bits (yellow squares) from multiple locations, while the squares remain dark blue, rather than turning light blue, indicating partially filled areas
so, holes remain, though they aren't visible on the display
it got all but one of the red squares, though, except for the first one, top left corner
several light blue squares here and there, even a couple of white ones not at the end
but 0% fragmentation, 0 total fragments, 0 fragged files
I think I will give the defrag whitespace another try, this time 'allow fragmentation'
-
it seems to get bogged down moving mp3's around after 5%, so i quit and tried a defrag whitespace
it says 10 minutes to go... forgot to check time on previous defrag, must be new feature... hmm
now it says 15 minutes, now 30... but it is at 6% now, now 7%
stopping to check regular defrag for time
4%, >1day, now 5%, quickly caught up to itself
methinks the optimization is too intense for a portablehard drive, but if you have portable apps of some sort, it seems it detects this and puts them first... then when it starts munching on your mp3's or something, you can switch to defrag whitespace
time still says >1day @ 5%
-
I recently decided to give defraggler another try. Generally it conflicts with other defraggers, as all do their own thing, mainly, though some things are similar in function, the end result is always slightly different, so each one has to start from scratch every time if you use different ones.
So, I decided to dedicate Defraggler to my PortableApps.com portable hard drive. It optimizes the portable apps first, then the rest, leaving no spaces, so less future fragmentation.
Not yet sure how much I will be using it for other drives. My defrag is really nice.
I think if there are enough customization options (on the defrag itself) I would switch, mainly because I dislike programming and have no desire to write mydefrag scripts.
anybody have any views on comparisons between Defraggler and MyDefrag?
Also, what are the real gains when using usb 2.0 interface? surely my hd (2tb) is faster than USB on its worst day (most fragmented)
-
curious, why not move this to the 'suggestions' forum?
also, modifying the front post, OP, would be helpful, if not too hard; like summarizing all the posted ideas with a green check or red x in front of each on the list, the date it was adopted or rejected, and by whom
;}
-
Haha, epic fail, no files exist on my windows partition ^^!
-
I am thinking that a defragmenter should be something open source and free as in freedom and beer.
It should be for the good of the community and empower individuals to take control of their own hard drives (and other drives), completely...
I'm new to defraggler, but I like what I see so far.
I'm also interested in making my own or collaborating on one with others.
So, yes, defraggler should have these features fixed/added, and yes it is nice and good, and yes we ARE happy...
we are also happy to offer improvement suggestions, etc.
enjoy
-
cool, i'll try it, though the bug seems to have been fixed with the newest version
-
NTFS is faster. ext3 defrags itself every time there'll be fragments => slower.
doesnt it put the priority of the drive usage on user requests and program requests over defragging?
anyway, if it writes a file in a contiguous block then it is faster than if it writes it in fragments, so NTFS would be slower. (and if it is always defragging, then there is more contiguous space available and less 'holes')
on the word usage of "1 fragment"... it is more or less an accurate and easy to understand message, but when you aren't really looking close I find you can confuse it for 2 or more fragments, as it is in the same list with the fragmented files ( i think )...
anyway... it should say "no fragments" ... xxx.xxx file . . . . . no fragments (or: contiguous)
that easily differentiates it from "2 fragments" "1 fragment", etc...
changing "1 fragment" to "contiguous file" would definitely be a more elegant and respectable approach
just because everyone does something a certain way ( ie - 1 fragment ) ... doesn't mean YOU should
----
on re-de-fragging... absolutely:
I've been using jkdefrag, and it is very nice, but it has to redo everything up a notch or two if you add anything... it is not "smart" though it is "neat"...
smart would be:
options to control various settings of the WIN-defrag API, such as having a default position for files of various sizes, such as mashing all the large files (>100mb) to the back of the drive, having a mid-section for wav's, mp3's, etc (files 100>x>50, 50>y>25, 25>z>10, etc.), keeping system files at the front of the drive, and so on.
expecially that you should be able to control all options of the defrag setup!
and I want all my system files in the front of the drive optimized by a combined algorythm of size (smallest) and usage (most recently accessed)
at any rate,
Is this open source?
hmm...
----
a last note on the first note:
it need only say (when hovering):
1 file (or name of the one to three files)
you can click if you want to, it doesn't have to tell you, that's what help files are for, to tell you how to use the program so you don't feel stupid every time you see the message:
click to view the file list
-
Ok,
1. Do a defrag.
2. Wait for completion (df is stable during defrag) or cancel the defrag
3. Move mouse pointer up to graphical display area
4. Crash
Alternative
1. Do defrag.
2. Complete or cancel/stop.
3. Move mouse pointer around graphical display area.
4. Select a defrag option (possibly any option).
5. Crash (without hitting the graphical area)
I'm running win2ksp4, ntfs drives
Secondary problem... the defrag free space gets to 57% and slows way down... I haven't had the patience to get it above 62% yet. I plan on trying...
I have to restart the program after every attempt at a defrag, whether complete or not.
So, hope to see a new version soon, i like it. What does each block represent in disk area? Why not more blocks?
.png.c850ad8c39762b768d205deb144bd8c0.png)
Custom Display Colors and Layout
in Defraggler
Posted
lol, only 150 GB or so full
what windows does, rather inefficient imo; downright lazy on their part to not have better drive management