We're almost there -- really

We are planning to release a new build of PerfectDisk 8 next Tuesday. This new build will correct some bugs with the GUI resizing and positioning, and will also contain some performance enhancements. I appreciate that many of you have been frustrated by the resizing problem and thank you for your patience as we also address some other issues to bring you the best product we can.

Thanks for your continued support.

Comments

[PerfectDisk]

Hi Oliver,

Thanks again for your input. I can tell you that we are looking at this area. I won't make you any promises, but we are investigating.

Now, I also have to add that, as can be expected with a product that has millions of users, this is not the only request we have. And, believe it or not, there are many others that actually have differing views. Take reporting, as just one example. It may be BS to you, but we have lots of users who want and desperately need robust reporting, pretty or otherwise.

And arranging files for speed may be nice, but one thing no other defragger is doing is free space consolidation to the level PD does, and the performance benefits over other defraggers as a result of this is proven time and again in independent tests.

So, Oliver - I sincerely appreciate your input and it is for our consideration. And I am not intending to sound defensive - you have great input. I merely want to point out that there are lots of issues and also point out that not all defraggers are equal. Any defragger that is not consolidating free space is missing a HUGE piece of the puzzle, no matter what its marketing might say. And yes, I understand you are saying we are missing a huge piece...

Thanks again - very much,
Joe

[Oliver]

Hi Joe,

thanks very much for your comment. It is very nice to be able to have a forum within your company where one feels that the comments/suggestions we make actually get noticed - unlike on 3rd party forum boards.

I appreciate that changing your file placement strategy is a major issue for you.

But just remember - the most important thing for MOST users (I agree not all, but most) is that defragging actually improves the performance of their computer. Full stop (or 'period' as you yanks say it).

Some users won't want future fragmenting to occur as quickly, but I suggest that most users would rather have a greater improvement in their program loading speed over the course of a week, at the expense of a little quicker future fragmentation and thus a minute or two longer in defragging at the end of the week.

To my mind that means only one thing - put the most accessed files on the fastest part of the drive.
Full stop.

Simply defragging has been done 'to death' over the past 10 years and, let's be honest, there is really no performance improvement between the various defraggers that just defrag (other than the speed of the actual defrag which is no big deal to most users). They all do the same general thing and provide the same end result - defragged files that are scattered all over the disk without any (or very little) consideration of where particular ones should go so as to improve the overall day-to-day performance for the user.

Updating a product with fancy charts and graphs is, pardon my bluntness, bull***t. Who gives a damn about such things. It contributes NOTHING WHATSOEVER to improving the end result of what the product is trying to achieve.

The ONLY performance enhancement is now coming from defraggers that arrange the files in such a way that those mostly accessed in running day to day programs (eg the big, lumbering, exe's and dll's and all the other little components that actually get Word or Firefox or Quickbooks running) are loaded as quickly as absolutely possible.

It's only when these programs load quicker and smoother THAN WHAT THEY OTHERWISE WOULD after a simple defrag that I can sit back and honestly say "the defragger that did that, is better than all the rest".

I can also tell you that I am using UltimateDefrag on one computer and actually feel an improvement in program loading after defragging with that, compared to after having defragged with Perfectdisk. And yes, the refragmentation occurs over the entire drive with that program - but you know what, the time taken to defrag with such scattered fragmentation is only fractionally longer than the time taken for Perfectdisk to defragment its "recently modified" files. I kid you not!

I don't want to appear as rubbing your corporate face in it, but I do want you to realise that (in my humble opinion anyway) your file placement strategy desperately needs a complete overhaul if you want to remain competitive.

I don't believe you have any choice but to make this the number one priority of your development team at the moment. To point to another competitor, it has saddened me that a nice product like Perfectdisk appears to being over taken by Diskeeper in terms of a file placement strategy that places SOME emphasis (and only in their most ludicrously expensive versions) on improving performance of the most regularly used files/programs - I hope you can gain the advantage again in the next version 9 release ... please don't leave it until version 10! Please!

Anyway, I've said enough.

I thank you kindly for the opportunity to finally get this off my chest.

regards to you Joe and your comrades and keep smiling,

Oliver

[PerfectDisk]

Hi Oliver,

Thanks for your comments. We are reviewing all options for changing file placement schemes in the future. We have to consider the ramifications of whatever and everything we do. For example, if we put the recently accessed files at the beginning of the drive, we could end up with faster file fragmentation, which is the opposite of what we try to achieve with SMARTPlacement and Space Restoration Technology. But we will look at everything.

Thanks again,
Joe

[gmarketer]

Oliver, as I know Windows doesn't allow programs to physically place files on drive, only logically. So programs doesn't know there file is located. They can do such things if they call drive controller directly.

Ultimatedefrag claims they use only Windows API to place files, so the whole Ultimatedefrag is the pack of lies.

However, if program can measure the speed of access to sectors with disk caching turned off, then program can use such information to place files to fastest place on disk. As I know, nobody implement that method nowadays.

[PerfectDisk]

Hi Andrew,

Well, as the song says - it's 5 o'clock somewhere. Same thing goes for Tuesday, eh? Sorry about that - we are shooting for Tuesday where we live - United States.

Thanks,
Joe

[PerfectDisk]

Hi IAM,

If you are running V8, it will be just a patch and everything will be fixed.

Thanks,
Joe

[Andrew K]

hey big guys at Raxco, its tuesday in australia tomorrow:)better release it in the morning!

[IAN]

With the new build do we need to completly uninstal
the old one?
Just how do we instal it,please.

[Oliver]

(Follow up from my last comment)
And yes, I realise that Perfectdisk already puts the boot files at the start (ie outside) of the disk, but it's far, far, far too limited.
What's needed is for ALL the recently ACCESSED files to be put on the outside tracks. Not just a few of the crucial boot files (which is a good start, don't get me wrong).
If my ranting still hasn't explained things clearly enough, have a look at www.disktrix.com/ultimatedefrag/ultimatedefrag.htm for an explanation of what I'm talking about.
Here's hoping for a version of Perfectdisk with such an ability in the near future.
thanks guys.
Oliver

[Oliver]

This is good news ... finally!
I would hope that Raxco also use the opportunity of including a feature for sorting the files on the disk by ACCESSED date, rather than MODIFIED date (though a suspect that this would be too big a deal for just a new build).
Simply defragging is SO 1990's nowdays. What's needed is to put the most ACCESSED files (ie the ones that we use every day for booting and starting our applications) on the FASTEST part of the disk - ie the outside tracks.
Yes, I know that if they're modified then that might slow the next defragment run. But so what! I'd much rather wait an extra minute once a week to have my most accessed files put on the fastest part of the drive, rather than have all the recently modified files (which by definition are also accessed) on the INSIDE of the drive which is the SLOWEST part (which is what Perfectdisk now does).
C'mon Raxco, get with the performance drive. The crucial thing is NOT putting the recently modified files on the SLOWEST part of the drive. The CRUCIAL thing is putting the most accessed files on the FASTEST part of the drive.
Simple really.
Anyway, that's my rant for the day.
regards,
Oliver