I, too, prefer the old GUI.
+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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.Can you elaborate on what you did and what happened?
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!
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.