wearenotamused

I haven't used the "move large files to end" option, but... In the interim, when that happens, stop it, add an exclusion for the file it won't get past, then restart it. I would think a "move to end" option without this would be of limited utility. Pssst. Why are you using NTFS? Go to ext3/4 and never think about it again. I'd think the simplest solution to this would be similar to the one used in thermostats to keep them from constantly cycling on and off: make your target significantly "safer" than your threshold. For example, when the trailing free space is less than... idk, 5% of the file's size--or maybe just when it reaches zero and starts fragmenting-- trigger a move and/or defragmentation that'll leave it with, e.g., 15% to spare. It won't be moved again until it's eaten up the difference. You could apply this for not only the last file on the disk, but each one ahead of it. So it'd be targeting a certain amount free space after each file, regardless of whether the end of that space is marked by another big file or the end of the disk. I have a really cool (I think ) idea growing off this--a particular AI-driven proactive defragmentation--but... I can't just offer it up for free!

Have you ever maintained software? A colorblind user should just customize the colors to ones they can differentiate. (There's more than one type of colorblindness anyway.) As for languages, I have the same thought when I see a program installing DLLs for languages I don't speak, but each should just be an option in the installer, not a whole other download. (They're not large enough to warrant that, in my opinion.) The file size increase associated with an option to alert the user would be trivial.

It'd be a feature as long as it were an option and not an imposition! Otherwise, you'd just get feature requests that it be removed.

Btw...anyone out there defragging their USB thumb drive, those're flash memory, too. Agreed. A warning would be fine, but stay away from hard-coded blanket assumptions that "software knows better than user". Offer the user your advice, but at some point just do as they say. There's at least one benefit of defragmentation that still applies for SSDs: recoverability. If a file system gets corrupted, you stand a MUCH better chance of recovering contiguous files than fragmented ones. (The degree to which that's an understatement depends on the particular file system and nature of the data, to my knowledge. ) The practicality of even determining whether a drive is SS or not may well be an issue. The driver and OS intentionally abstract the details of file storage volumes. Unless Windows is aware of the difference and makes that info available through an API, a program might have to go to the effort of maintaining a database of vendor and device ID codes.

I do! Piriform, please cover all the histories kept by various parts of the Windows OS before worrying about the countless 3rd party apps out there.