12 replies to this topic

[MrG]

This is the first release candidate of Defraggler. We've updated the interface to focus on both full drive and individual file defragmentation. We'll be tweaking this version ready for a final release in the coming weeks.

Defraggler v1.02.077 BETA

• New tabbed UI.
  
• Improved 64bit support.
  
• Fixed bug that could cause small files to be placed in MFT buffer zone.
  
• Minor bug fixes.

Download now from www.defraggler.com

View the full blog post

[Guest_Jim_*]

Looks nice (both appearance and function), I just have three things about the interface. One, why don't you have tabs for all of the drives and get rid of the list on top (or have an option for that). Two, I liked having the stats on how many fragments there were when I was looking at the file list, and now that's on a separate tab. Three, could you have the option to have a split view where one side is the drive's information and the other is the file list?
None of these are really important, just aesthetic, but forums are for making suggestions, even small unimportant ones.

[galileo]

The interface "seems" to have lost just a little of its original simplicity. I say "seems" in that it is still functionally quite simple. Perhaps it is the addition of the drive plot that "seems" to make the gui just a tad bit more busy. Personally, I tend to prefer interfaces that are visually simple, intuitive, and present the fundamentals in one screen/tab.

Given the space available within your "Status" box, I would suggest moving the "Analysis", "Defrag", and "Stop" buttons into that box's outline (noting also that the buttons do not appear in the "File List" tab). This would make better use of the white space available within the "Status" box and reduce the overall size of the Defraggler window - which has grown a bit in this release. OR, just reduce the height of the two outline boxes since both have unused white space at their bottoms.....

Given that you now provide a drive plot with the new "Properties" box - why not put a "Check Drive For Errors" button within that outline box....! (seems like an obvious positive addition)....

Another - more personal - peeve, when I click the "Analyze" button, I really really really want to analyze the drive - even if I have just analyzed it a few seconds previously. I find the "Do you want to re-analyze this drive" message box really really really annoying and completely redundant.....please do away with this "message" box....as I said, a somewhat personal peeve.....

And yet another (final) feature related observation: It would be desirable to have the ability to defrag and move "folders" to the front of the drive (ala JKDefrag, Diskeeper, et al) and to utilize/respect the "Layout.ini" file for maximizing boot/frequently accessed files placement....

And-------THANKS for all your efforts on all three of your products !!!

(add Registry defragging..... )

[Whiteshark]

In my opinion it's not that easy and intuitive to use like the previous versions
Unless i'm missing something, to defrag the fragmented files only i need:

1 perform the analysis
2 change tab (or click the 'View files' button)
3 check all the fragmented files
4 select "defrag checked' on the right click menu

My suggestion is:
add a button to automatically check and defrag all fragmented files only, and change the
caption on the 'Defrag' button to 'Defrag Drive', to clarify that it will defrag the whole drive.




(what above if possible, of course. Be a wannabe developer using Paint is too much easy, i know )

[fredvries]

I don't like this new GUI. It isn't really that simple as before anymore.

Please go back to the original design.

[MrG]

Thanks for the suggestions!

Keep them coming and we'll get the ones we like (or the ones most people shout about) implemented!



MrG

[mr.brownstone]

MrG, on Jun 10 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

Thanks for the suggestions!

Keep them coming and we'll get the ones we like (or the ones most people shout about) implemented!



MrG

Another vote for getting back the old interface..or do something with the new one.
Everything else seems good on my Vista 64 bit.

[YoKenny]

MrG, on Jun 10 2008, 04:23 AM, said:

Thanks for the suggestions!

Keep them coming and we'll get the ones we like (or the ones most people shout about) implemented!



MrG

I'm with the others because I like the old interface better as there are less clicks required to accomplish tasks.

[galileo]

@MrG

The more I use RC1 the more I am convinced that something is not right:

Scenario #1: select a drive and click Analyze; then View Files; select all the files for defrag; return to the Drive tab; click Defrag....what is being defragged - only the selected files or the entire drive? The defrag seems to run noticeably longer than the previous version for just the selected files. After completing the defrag; Analyze again (no fragmented file are found); click Defrag anyway - a defrag begins....what is being defragged since there were no fragmented files nor was the "Defrag Drive" menu item selected.....??? The feedback should have been "No files to Defrag"....

Scenario #2: select a drive; click Analyze; View Files and select...say about 5 small files; return to the Drive tab and click Defrag.....what is being analyzed....it seems like WAY more than the files that were selected. The defrag operation appears to proceed as though either all of the files were selected or as though the entire drive is being defragged; After completing the defrag, Analyze again (no files found), click Defrag anyway....the defrag process begins again... The feedback again should have been "No files to Defrag"

Scenario #3: select drive; Analyze; DO NOT select ANY files; click Defrag....a defrag begins....the feedback should have been (you guessed it) "No files to Defrag".....something is broken.

Scenario #4: select drive; DO NOT Analyze; click Defrag....a defrag begins....seem like a "No files to Defrag" or better yet, "No Analyze has been conducted" message should have shown up.....something feels broken.

Something appears and feels broken between this build and the previous build(s). The interface has become more cumbersome to use and the previously elegant and quick file defragging process seems lost and "feedback" to the user "feels" disconnected. Most importantly, the quick defragging of selected files seems replaced by a rather lengthy defrag of considerably more than just the selected files.

Please do not construe the comments negatively, rather, I love Defraggler and am offering constructive testing feedback. I am curious though, it also seems odd that you would make such a notable interface change as you moved from "beta" to "RC"...I would have thought that the progression to "RC" would in itself be a statement that the interface and features were frozen and that debugging the correct functionality had entered its final step....

Unfortunately, it feels that quite a bit has been destabilized (regression for sure) in this build....

galileo

[MrG]

Thanks for the ideas. We're reviewing the UI today and shall come up with a better solution.
I'll keep you posted!

[Ediseye]

Just downloaded it and took it through a test run, and it seems pretty nice to me. It's pretty quick and easy to use.

I do have one question though. When defragmenting a drive, does it do free space defragmentation as well? I see that there is an advance option to defrag the free space, but I was just wondering if I had to run them separate to achieve both. If I do have to run them separate to get both, could there possibly be an option implemented that allows defragmenting of the drive and free space at the same time?

[DJpailo]

This is the best defragmenter I have ever used. It is quick, smooth and I have never had any problems with it. Thanks for making life easy!

[tcoffeep]

I don't mind the new GUI, however, it seems to be taking longer to defrag my system.

Compared to the general 1 hour it takes after a 'one-month-no-defrag' defrag, it takes 1 1/2-2 hours to do a 'hey-new-defraggler-release-with-2-weeks-no-defrag' defrag. My heart... One can hear thunder as it breaks.