Sob

Support for mounted drives would be nice. Built-in Windows defragmenter supports them, while Defraggler - which aims to be a better replacement - does not. Doesn't it feel wrong? And even more now, since there's an option to replace built-in defragmenter. You open mounted drive's properties, click Defragment button and see that it simply won't happen, because Defraggler won't show the drive in list.

I did and the problem does not happen now. Unfortunately it does not say much, because neither it happens now with VSS running. So I can only keep the option checked and see what it does over time. If I don't see the problem for month or so, then it was probably the solution.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by auto-fit, maybe the same thing I do? IMHO it would be best to dynamically rearrange the info in tabs, depending on available horizontal and vertical space. Take a look at current content: - Drive tab It uses at most ~950px width. All the rest is wasted space. And in fact, everything fits great in even smaller width, so the waste is even bigger. Yet the info insists on taking up mostly vertical space. The content of Status frame could easily take advantage of wider window. The icon with status and health, Analysis results and Current state could nicely go next to each other horizontally. Some space saving for Properties frame also isn't problem. Name of currently processed file would benefit from this too, because the path can be long. Or even better, the file name could be moved to status bar. After all, status bar has the word "status" directly in its name, wouldn't it be nice if it actually showed some status? "Online Help" and "Check for updates..." are not really a status. - Search and Drive map tabs With the the content currently artifically stretched so that the tabs do not look too empty, would it be hard to make it lower if needed? Not at all. - Health tab Again the same thing. It can easily go to half height by reducing gaps between parameters on the left. And optionally, if it wasn't enough, dividing the parameters to two groups placed horizontally next to each other would be doable too.

I do have the latest version, forgot to write that. Running processes, well yes, it's Windows and system drive, there's always something touching it. But nothing intensive. Other settings, maybe. Unfortunately, another thing about this is that it does not happen every time. So it's hard to tell if different settings really helped or if it just didn't happen regardless of them. Anyway, it seems to be harmless, it just looks really strange. But something somewhere must be wrong. If you watched the video, it's like the whole content of the drive completely changed several times in just few seconds. And not randomly, there are those strangely regular patterns.

Raw Value - the value of the attribute Real Value - what the raw value means The other three are sort of user-friendly rating and higher is better. Current - current value Worst - worst value of all times Threshold - current/worst should not get below this But it's more useful to look at real values. Because if e.g. there's just single unreadable sector, it will barely change Current value, but it's clear sign that drive is going bad. You can find description of individual attributes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T.

Same thing here. It happens when defragmenting C:\$MFT. Sometimes it's just one messed up screen, other times it's more of them and it looks like it's just trashing all the data on the drive. Fortunately it seems to be only visual glitch. But it got me really worried for the first time. Here it can be seen in action: http://web.hisoftware.cz/sob/tmp/defraggler-bug.avi (700kB) Windows 7 x64, regular non-SSD disk.

So new Defraggler got support for displaying S.M.A.R.T. info which has nothing to do directly with defragmenting. But at least it's related somehow, you know, defragmenting, files, disk drives, S.M.A.R.T., it's kind of there. Still it feels a little strange to add such features before the main functionality is complete. Because lets face it, Defraggler still can't defragment (defragment everything that is . Is it maybe because of some religious reasons? Perhaps authors have firm belief that every partition should have its own letter and letter-less partitions are heresy? Will we get ... I don't know ... maybe file backup functionality, which would also be remotely related to defragmenting, before support for letter-less partitions?

Well, I checked other Piriform products... Recuva seems to be completely standard application. The dark top may stand out a little, but I can't really say anything against it. It's still perfectly acceptable. At first look it even seems to respect system settings (colors, fonts...). On second look it's not so perfect with fonts, dialog definitions in executable have MS Shell Dlg and it's mapped to Microsoft Sans Serif by default (at least on my Win7), so fans of new Segoe UI may be a little dissapointed. But the mapping can be easily changed in registry, so it's fine. Speccy is more radical. At least it uses standard Windows menu and not some self-drawn Office clone. But that's it. The rest of the window... I don't say it's ugly, because it isn't. It just doesn't fit anywhere. Speccy looks like it doesn't belong there with any theme available by default on XP or Win7. It may probably fit with Vista, it has dark theme if I remember correctly. CCleaner is basically the same as Speccy. And both have hardcoded Tahoma almost everywhere, not exactly user friendly approach. All three apps in general are still relatively decent. At least they use standard Windows controls (buttons, etc..) and respect some of user's preferences. It could be much worse (see new FoxIt Reader 5, it's like authors saying "users are idiots, we know best what's good for them", it ignores colors, fonts, window styles, everything). But while it's not that bad with Piriform apps, is it really needed? Does it add anything functionality wise? It doesn't. Does it limit user's customization options? It does. Wouldn't be the needed effort better spent somewhere else? Some useful new functionality for example? Definitely yes, in my opinion. I fully support your goal to have your applications look exactly as you like. But it's something that would be much better done in system-wide way. Because unless these four Piriform apps are the only ones you use, you still have the same problem with most other existing apps - they look differently.

Please no! I don't want another great application ruined by custom "oh so cool" hardcoded skin... Sure, it might match the three other applications (which I don't use, so I don't really care how they look), but it would make it not match thousands of other applications. I don't get this. Microsoft did great job in the past with system-wide settings. If someone liked green, he could have all his apps green in only a few clicks. Someone else more into pink could be happy too. There was choice for everyone. And for those who felt too limited by what Windows offered, there was WindowsBlinds, available for ages, to satisfy even the craziest skinning needs. But for some strange reason some application makers feel the urge to ignore this great system and make their applications stick out. Screw user preferences, we know best how our application should look. It usually happens when they run out of useful ideas and are desperately looking for anything to add that might attract few new users. Who cares about old ones, most of them will stay anyway. And it's so easy, just add new shiny skin and voila, it's completely new application that everyone must be just dying to have it. Or maybe not? One problem with hardcoded skins, if we're talking only about visual appearance, is their inconsistency. Take ten applications from ten different developers who implemented this and you'll find out that you have zero chance to make them match visually. Ok, you may have some chance if you like some dark theme, it is often there in some form (but still not always). But if you like anything else, you're out of luck and end up with whole heap of "sore thumbs". But I guess this fight is lost anyway. If MS Office did it, then the message is clear. Skins are super-cool and three color schemes must be enough for everyone! Sigh...

I can't imagine where could be the problem. Deframentation API, if I found it correctly, works with volume paths. So instead of starting with GetLogicalDrives() API function (I did a little spying on Defraggler), all what's needed is to start directly with FindFirstVolume() and voila...

Yes, without any problem (tested with WinXP and Win7).

I'm also wondering why Defraggler can't do this. Windows can work with mounted volumes for more than ten years. And I won't insult the developers by thinking that they don't know how to get list of all volumes in system. So what are they waiting for? Defraggler is perfect, except for this only one missing feature. Please add it.