benfranklin

I don't know if it's Microsoft's fault. Everyone is always quick to place the blame on them. I've never had a problem with XP during installation, and if I've had a problem with it in general I could fix it in 5 seconds with a virus scanner or a quick google search. There is something wrong with your computer maybe a bios problem or something else with the disc drives you aren't aware of (something internal indirectly or directly related to the IDE/SATA system you might have. Vista was just fine for me, it just felt bloated and games didn't run as good as they did in XP. Seemed to hog more resources as well. Plus getting used to a new operating system is something not many people have the time for anymore. I eventually reinstalled XP because I game quite often and I didn't feel like re-learning my computer once again. I'll reinstall it eventually but I'm going to wait until SP1's issues (if there are any) our fleshed out and till I get anouther GB of ram. Also something to look to regarding Vista is this guy who owns the TweakGuides website. He did a good performance report before/after he used various tweaks (removing stuff that is highly unneccessary and just general optimizations in Vista) and it's quite positive. There are many people on the forums who, after using his guide here have reported significant performance increase. But I don't care what OS you use. I'm mainly saying that you can't expect programmers to waste time for the 3% (I'm being very very very generous here) of people who don't use at least Windows 2000/XP/Vista. All the programs that work only on those OS's are worth the upgrade alone, in my opinion.

Do yourself a favor and upgrade to XP or Vista. It can't hurt. Unless you have an old computer, given the cheap prices of today's computers I see no reason why.

Why would it allow multiple instances? If you want to defrag your whole drive all at once I'd suggest use Windows Defrag until Defraggler is out of beta. Defraggler works perfect if you defrag only certain files (such as the My Music folder, newly installed programs/games, etc). Just give it time.

I'd recommend 7-zip to be honest. I've used both. Also if all you do is Extract Files, especially lots of files at one time, you should go with extractnow (extractnow.com). It extracts a considerable amount faster than 7-zip in my experience. Mostly in larger files. It doesn't compress though but I never have a need for that. Ill throw in some programs I like: IrfanView (image viewer, batch renamer and recoder, much more) GIMP & Paint.NET (image manipulation) Audacity (music editor) Spybot (anti spam, comes with seperate file shredder) VLC (great movie playback program, never had a problem playing anything with it) Winamp (music player, even though I use windows media player) thats my 2 dirhams

Love the program and I know it's in BETA but I feel like pointing out some superficial but arguably important features that Defraggler needs. # Save window location and size on program close # Tab Column organization and again the ability to save the position, add/remove tabs, and save the length (ie. customs lengths to fit the window) # Settings dialog of course # Auto Update feature and/or an more direct link to the latest version instead of just the Piriform homepage # Explorer Context Menu Option (say I right click on a folder in explorer, it would be very helpful if it had a "defrag folder/file" option where it would start the program up immediately and defrag it) # Option to save the settings to ini file # Option to close program and/or shut-down computer after a defrag # Multiple Language support # Less confusing Drive Map colouring and legend. I believe fragmented files, files that can't be fragmented, and free space is more than enough. # Advanced Report dialog (ie windows defrag) that would include everything including the drive legend and other info that non-laymen people need. I doubt I'm alone in the fact that I only want to see the files that are fragmented, unfragmented, and free space. these are some things that I would think would make the program 10x better. Which, of course, is difficult since it already rules and it's just beta! I appreciate you developer(s) on such a good program. As much as make it a point to only use freeware or nothing at all I wouldn't bat an eye if you charged for CCleaner/Defraggler (not so much Recuva, never had such a use for that type of software). I'ms ure you have some of thes in the works already but just throwing some things out there. OK, thanks. edit: I forgot to mention that I only wrote this because I saw there was an absence of a Road map or future additions log. Also, I think I should mention I just purchased Assassin's Creed today and I did not defrag the folder after installing (impatience) but the loading times were about 10 to 15 seconds long, so I decided to open up Defraggler and defrag the Ubisoft folder. Now when I start it up and load a level it is around 5 seconds average ,to 8 seconds MAX. So yeah...even if this was the very last Defraggler I would use it until something (I doubt it) would come along and beat it. Small file size and memory footprint is win.

sorry, what is the point of this post? I have no idea what you are asking about, or if you are trying to initiate conversation. Seems like English isn't your first language. But maybe you could try and clarify what you are trying to get across. I do not mean to offend, I just want to understand.

I didn't like the interface to that program and the fact you can't defrag specific files/folders. It never seemed to offer any advantage over the built in Windows Defrag utility as well. Also it seemed to skip many files that I wanted to defrag in the first place, mainly larger files such as .flac audio files and certain large level files in video games (Crysis and BioShock come to mind). It would run and defrag but I would double check with Windows Defrag and it still displayed them as fragmented. Defraggler doesn't seem to have that problem, at least with the couple weeks since I've had it. I can't recall how it handled free space, since people on here seem to say that Defraggler does not handle free space well yet. Honestly, I'd rather torture/murder a baby bald eagle than use that dreadful AusLogics program ever again. What I do now is run Windows Defrag when my hdd is full of fragmented files and then I pop up Defraggler when I want to defrag movies, .flac files, and recently installed video games (to save time instead of waiting to defrag my whole drive everytime I install a new game). Anyways to end this I'm just going to say use whatever you want to. If you like AusLogics' program just use it. BBBUT run it once and defrag your hard drive and then double check with defraggler/windows defrag and see what it missed. Or if you're really in a pickle compare to discrepancies and the time it takes for each program (minus defraggler since it shines more on selected files rather than the whole hdd).

Defraggler too slow? Use it to only defrag a certain folder like everyone is mentioning. As for me, I just recently reinstalled the classic game Deus Ex. It took what seemed like a very long time (15+ seconds) to load a level and it bothered me. But I just opened up Defraggler selected the folder and in 5 or less minutes it was done (790mb, can't remember how fragmented it was). Then I popped open Deus Ex and each level takes no more than 4 seconds to load and I'm giving it a lot of breathing room. Instead of popping open Windows Defrag and waiting an hour or so to Defrag everything I just do what I want when I want with Defraggler. I got immediate results. I always hated paying for software and the last freeware Defrag program I used messed up my separate Vista partition. So if I calculate the time it took to reformat, reinstall Vista, defrag my whole hdd, I would say Defraggler is faster than the speed of light. Ho ho.