They haven't made it a menu option yet...

Basically you have to zero out all the free space - then call VboxManage to compact it.

Just did a quick google search:

http://maketecheasier.com/shrink-your-virtualbox-vm/2009/04/06

I did it, too. But with VirtualBox the image will grow rapidly.

You probably know this, but you can also shrink the VirtualBox image if going back to a snapshot isn't an option. 

Many otherwise good software programs are still in the Win9x era, security-wise.

You hit the nail on the head!  That's exactly why some programs still have security issues.  Either they write with no security in mind - or they're written with the assumption that everyone has admin rights.  That's becoming less frequent now as Microsoft is taking a similar approach that Linux systems have in that the user doesn't have write access to much of the system - only to the areas that the USER controls.  And such if a program is designed with that in mind - it will work fine in a tightly controlled security environment.

We had to redesign much of the product I develop on because it was initially designed in the Win9x era where everything was FAT32 with no lock down.   Once NTFS and user permissions really started becoming the norm (especially in businesses), we had to adjust.

The biggest security treat sits in front of the computer screen. Brain 1.0 is a good malware detector.

Personally, I wouldn't touch Symantec's products with a 10 foot pole. The Peter Norton products (Norton Commander, Norton Utilities,...) once ruled. This changed when Symantec aquired the TM.

I agree Symantec has gone down hill..  I remember when you HAD to have a norton product...

To throw another couple of nice freeware utilities out:

Avira is a great AntiVirus program that is not only free, but also ranks consistently at the top of independent virus/malware tests.  Take a look at the charts on AV-Comparatives - see for yourself where your antivirus program ranks:  http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/main-tests   
The on-demand comparatives show how the major antivirus programs stack up - look at the total percentage for a general feel for how they rate.

I use Avira and then combine that with Comodo Internet Security (minus it's own anti-virus program)  Between those two programs I'm protected from viruses, malware, as well as any program that attempts to go out to the internet without my knowledge.

Never having used User IDs or Administrator IDs I find these suggestions baffling.  What really intrigues me is that I have other scheduled tasks running on a regular basis (Antimalware for instance) which I set up without this performance.  I have two antispyware and 1 antivirus program which perform regular daily updates and scans and they do not demand administrator rights or passwords.  Why is this otherwise beautifully simple and user-friendly program so demanding?  Could this be a suggestion for a rewrite for the next version?

Most application developers today recognize that if they don't adapt to the security present in the operating system, they won't be fully compatible.  You ask why some other programs are able to do things without Administrator Rights or passwords - well most programs that need low-level system access run as a windows service.  For example when I install an AntiVirus program it has to plug into the lowest level of file access to intercept I/O before it gets to the OS.  One of the best ways to program around security is to build your program as a windows service.  When you install it with Administrator rights, the service is then trusted by the OS and is essentially running with full system rights to everything on your computer.   Basically you then have a front end application that gives the end user the ability to interact with your program and it communicates to the service layer which has the full system rights regardless of whether the user does or not.

Unfortunally today working in a user limited environement is not secure anymore because malware and other unwanted software is able to get administrator rights anyways.

Working in a limited environment still is far more secure than not at all.  Malware and unwanted software gets on a person's computer because the user does something they shouldn't.  Like click an executable attachment in an email from someone they don't know.

I use Windows 7 - 64 Bit version and I have no problems defragging a USB connected drive.  I have three usb connected drives that I've defragged with MyDefrag before.

Is it possible something is wrong with the file system on that drive?  Did you try a chkdsk on that drive?  I know other defraggers are working - but its the only thing I can think of.

Yeah, that's another thing that is very weird on your computer. For everybody else the screensaver writes to the debuglogfile in the MyDefrag installation directory.

By default a non-administrator does not have write access to the Program Files directory.  I'd actually suggest creating a MyDefrag folder under %AppData% for writing of output and user created scripts.   That's actually the standard for writing data to be compatible with user level security.

Haha... Then don't use any Microsoft products as they're commercial...  Anyone who makes paid software wants to make a profit - that's the goal.  They want to help their users with something they're missing - but they want to make money doing so.

Only use freeware OS running only freeware software. 

I've had MyDefrag problems before with PCs using both ATI and nVidia video cards - and I was able to fix it for both by doing a driver update.  Both companies allow you to download the latest signed driver as well as beta versions, but I suspect using the latest signed will resolve your problem.

On Windows Vista and 7, that's impossible. Do you know the big folder "WinSxs"? Windows stores older versions of dlls and components there to mantain compatibility of all applications. The System Restore has nothing to do with it any more.

No that's incorrect.  WinSxs is "Windows Side by Side" which Microsoft added to Vista and Windows 7 as a way to store multiple versions of the same DLL's for backwards compatibility.  It's a way to allow older and newer programs using similar (But different version) dll's to both function and not break the other.  Really a means to get away from the "DLL Hell" all of us developers have been fighting for years.  You still can damage main system or driver files if you have administrator rights to your machine.  So can poorly written installers.

My only point in this discussion was you made a sweeping statement saying "First disable System Restore. This thing is totally useless."  It's only useless to you because you do full system backups.  Most people don't do full system backups because they don't have the necessary space, time, and/or know-how to do so.  You shouldn't make a sweeping statement like that when many people wouldn't fully understand the consequences.

System Restore for most people is a nice safety net and its not totally useless.  I agree it takes up a lot of space under it's default setting, but for the 99.99% of computer users out there (who don't do backups) - it does give a way to restore an unstable system.   If you don't like the amount of space restore points use - change that setting.  Or you can disable it - just make sure if you tell people to do so, also explain the risks.  Or do what I do.. temporarily disable it so you get your nice clean defrag and then re-enable it.

And it will backup malware.

haha - so will full disc backups if you have malware on your computer... that's beside the point.

I don't disagree with what you guys said...

But suggesting that people turn it off isn't really a smart thing either because most people do not do full disc backups like you or I.  I not only have a RAID6, but I also have multiple backups of my key files on different drives just in case I have catastrophic failure.   But for the 99.99% of people who don't do backups or can't afford the extra space, they probably shouldn't disable System Restore for good.

System Restore can and does save users when they have new driver issues or they install a program that stupidly downgrades a system file.  Its not meant to save them from deleting things by mistake - only to help recover from a system that suddenly becomes unstable. 

When I turn off System Restore, it does remove the saved restore points as you pointed out.  I then run MyDefrag Monthly.. Then I turn System Restore back on.  So for the next Month I have System Restore points just in case... even though I have backups too

Most of the newer SSDs today have lifespans that will vastly outlive the computer they reside in.  I read an article recently where they did some testing and based on the results said that even if you were to fully fill and wipe the SSD drive 5 times a day that the mean lifespan would still be close to 10 years.  I guess its because there are no moving parts and no heat generation.

Older Flash disks couldn't do this...

I wouldn't call System Restore useless.  It can help you restore to a point in time and while I agree backups are the best way to go, there still is value in System Restore in that you aren't backing up the entire drive - just point in time system file snapshots.

When I do my once a month defrag process... I disable system restore... run MyDefrag...  then re-enable system restore...  Works perfectly.

That's a pretty cool idea.  I'd just add that it would still need to move the file if it were in a different zone but within the 60 megs... You still want your zones correct.

I like what you're doing - great idea!