Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mpdooley

  1. In my experience for every reader or post one might see on a board such as this - there are likely 10s or 100s that are in the same boat but do not post. This was a decision Piriform made. Still considering that there are alternatives still supported then this thread can best be utilized by readers if over time those still requiring a Win2K version to comment on their experience with other systems and hopefully the 2nd best alternative to using Defraggler for a Win2K system can be arrived at. My take.....
  2. Comments - Suggestions [2 Items] based on current Version of Defraggler - Version 2.00.230 Item 1: Command Line - Silent Mode - Features or options as per: http://www.piriform.com/docs/defraggler/advanced-usage/command-line-parameters Currently I have Defraggler running in silent mode (has been running for hours) and cannot determine where (how far along in process) the program that is running actually is - ergo - how soon will/can I expect it to complete. I cannot start Defraggler in graphical mode to see the status as it detects the "other" version is running and appears I would have to "kill" that to see any elements of status or recover graphical mode and that alone defeats the process or issue I am trying to resolve. I also do not see any command line options for the silent mode to display or ascertain status or to allow for any display of status via a command line feature that one could use. I am also aware that there are differences in how these two forms of the program treat certain scenarios (e.g. drives with TrueCrypt volumes and possibly other software or hardware issues). As such my query is whether it is possible to enable a command line or visualization mode for the silent version while it is running or a priori to allow user to get some evidence of program status. In short df.exe is running but: A. Is it actually doing anything? or B. How far along in the process is it? I understand the logic behind not using resources for a graphical display that no one is looking at, but also have concerns for programs running silently that cannot be accessed or indicate status or monitor progress. Would an option or default for df.exe to include an icon in the systray or elsewhere that includes a display of relative status (%completed) be possible or reasonable? It is one thing to wait another hour but will it take one more or two or ten? I know I can "stop" the program but prefer to allow programs to run to their logical completion of a scheduled task. An indicator option might help here. ITEM 2: Bootup option to run Defraggler is quite similar to Sysinternals procedure as per; http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspx Are these processes identical? For those of us already using the Sysinternals Page Defrag option is there any benefit to those elements incorporated in Defraggler? Possibly there are benefits of one over the other but does not appear on cursory analysis there is much if any difference. Suggest this could be addressed in the FAQ or Manuals to clarify if there are differences - if any and what they actually are? HTH Mike
  3. After doing some testing earlier today - I realize that what you described may or actually is the case. I was interpreting the changes I observed when moving the window size around as simply "accessing" more of the drive map. Appeared today that the Drive Map may just be a "relative" display anyway. Seems on re-sizing that some of the blocks "change" or become more or less of an approximation of the Drive Map. As such appears this is not a simple "scroll issue" but I do note changes in the block pattern over time on resizing that I cannot account for other than the display "approximates" what is actually "there". In my current display having run a "free space" defrag only I was able to isolate some of this issue as I had an area surrounded by Free Space with some non-fragmented files. As such I could note and follow changes in an area that contained: Empty blocks - with a block of unfragmented data bracketed with two more blocks that were slightly lighter in color (blue - but not a shade shown in the legend) but clearly different from the color of an empty block. As I increased the size of the Drive Map this area changed from an area of Empty blocks surrounding an area of "3 blocks" of a color different to that of an empty block to one in which there are now "5" blocks of different color (three of these match the legend color for a non fragmented block and these three blocks then have a lighter blue block on either end). As such this (Drive Map display behavior) is much like a "microscope effect" where one is simply seeing more detail on re-sizing and I confused this with having thought I had "scrolled the display" into different areas of an existing Drive Map when I was simply re-sizing the display and accessing more or less detail. Thanks for the follow-up. Appears this is not a simply "scroll bar" type of a fix or change as I originally suspected was the case.
  4. Defraggler Drive Map does not create or allow a scroll bar for user to cursor up or down to view the entire drive map during routine use. As per: At a glance, you can see how fragmented your hard drive is. Defraggler's drive map shows you blocks that are empty, not fragmented, or needing defragmentation. Now the entire drive map can be displayed but I seem to need to resize both of the upper and lower screen panels. That is the area showing the list of drives which "has" a vertical scroll bar and the lower panel or area that shows both the program Status and Drive properties. Not that this cannot be "worked around" to see full drive map but suggest that if a vertical scroll bar was included with Drive Map would facilitate user review of drive map and program status and avoid the need to resize the Defraggler Window during a drive fragmentation where the Drive Map is being monitored. Above noted for Version: 1.18.185 HTH Mike
  5. Still, a new version causes or can cause havoc for developers. The question can also be raised as to how much of a "heads up" the SM2 developers gave to 3rd Party Software Developers such as Piriform so that they could "anticipate" where changes to a program (SM 2) would impact their software applications. In my case, I am using (trying to use for over a month now) SeaMonkey 2 and had also begun the process to evaluate some of Piriform's products (many of which were downloaded over a month ago) but have held off waiting for a compatibility update for SeaMonkey. As such, I and possibly others, have held off on any real use of their (Piriform) products until they have "accounted" for the new or current SeaMonkey iteration. In my particular case, I did not have or use SM 1.x due to multiple issues in switching from Mozilla 1x to the early versions of SM (at which time I simply gave up on the early platform iterations) but was and am a "fan" of the concept of the "old Netscape" and/or the Mozilla Application Suite (which I had used for years for the majority of my online browsing until I was simply "forced" due to response and security issues to migrate to other supported platforms for routine use). In short, if Piriform is going to adapt CCleaner and their other products, I certainly would appreciate a heads up as to when to expect this might be accomplished. Alternatively, if they choose (which is their perogative) not to support it or make allowances for it - would appreciate a heads up also. In light of the little I have seen via e-mail updates or read online in recent weeks - Piriform seemingly has little or no desire to make adaptations for the SM 2 platform to accommodate users or potential new users of their software - or did I miss something? HTH
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.