Graphical Display Change Request

[MerleOne]

Hi,

I just discovered JkDefrag and I am really impressed (I use it in conjonction with the GUI launcher).  

I have a suggestion : would it be possible to have the graphical display turned upside down, to match those of other defragmenters. I am more used to their display.  That is : start of partition is displayed on top, end of partition on bottom.

If I am not wrong, it's the opposite with JkDefrag, and it's slightly disturbing.

Maybe a switch could be added to the command line ?

Thanks.

.Merle1.

[jeroen]

start of partition is displayed on top, end of partition on bottom.

Thanks for sharing your idea, I appreciate it! Very early versions of JkDefrag had a display where the harddisk began at the top-left, just like other defraggers, but I found that unnatural and strange. So I changed it. When you fill a glass with water it fills from the bottom up, right? I think most people will have an analogy like that in mind when thinking of data on harddisks. Displaying the data at the top of the screen floating above empty space is unnatural, it's defying gravity. I know it's just a display and nothing to do with gravity, but having the data at the bottom of the screen works better for me.

[MerleOne]

Thanks for the reply.  I understand your point of view, but I am so used to have a "reverse" display !  There another reason for having the start of the HDD on top : it's because we read from left to right and from top to bottom.  So I think the top is associated to the beginnning, hence my suggestion.

If you want to see if it's a general opinion, we could try to organize a vote on this forum ?  Also, having the reverse display as an option (if it's not too difficult to implement) would solve this - well, there would still be debate on the default option  :wink: !!!

.merle1.

[jeroen]

we read from left to right and from top to bottom.

Middle eastern languages such as Hebrew and Arabic are written predominantly right-to-left, so I'd have to include that, too. Yet another way is top to bottom and left to right, so it looks a bit like the bar that the Windows defragger shows, with the end of the harddisk to the right. I can think of 8 permutations in all, so that would be 8 commandline switches.

If you want to see if it's a general opinion, we could try to organize a vote on this forum ?

I'm sorry, but I simply don't want to implement this. I'm a strong believer in the KISS principle, keep it simple. I don't think the display order is important enough to warrant yet another commandline option, plus yet more code making the program bigger and more complex. There are lot's of more important things for which I could add commandline options, but I have to draw the line somewhere. I will write your idea down though, for perhaps a future "pro" version. So thanks again for sharing your idea, I appreciate it!

[MerleOne]

Thanks for the clarification.  Maybe my example with cultural reading was ill-chosen.  I simply notice that all defragmenters I know, except yours, have chosen the "reverse" view.  Some, like UltimateDefrag or System Mechanic, use a cylinder display and a clockwise orientation. Or Windows defrag, which is horizontal (start of disk lying left...).

I perfectly respect your choice, all the more that I am for instance unable to play a FPS game if the reverse mouse option is not activated.  

The important thing is that JkDefrag is excellent as it is.  I also strongly support like you the KISS principle.

.merle1.

[jeroen]

I simply notice that all defragmenters I know, except yours, have chosen the "reverse" view.

Televisions build the image on the screen by drawing lines beginning at the top-left and ending at the bottom-right. Computers to this day therefore have a memory map of the display where address zero corresponds to the top-left of the screen. Other defraggers show the begin of the disk (address zero) at the top-left not because it's the best way, but because of lazy programming...  

[galileo]

Hello:

Interesting that the very item that I was considering commenting on was recently mentioned in your forum.

Before any other comments - thank you for your effort at producing such a wonderful and free tool!  It is quite a generous offering!

I also would like to see a change to the graphic display.  To me, the current display is not particularly useful and probably gives a bit of a negative image of a wonderful little piece of software.  The display is - and please forgive by honesty - a bit poor on the graphic quality side and really does not give one readable or useful information about the disk layout or what is going on during the defrag (sorry, but that is the "image" that the graphics give - at least to me).

I would rather see single bar image below the text lines - sort of similar to the built-in XP defrag graphic bar.  The bar could still utilize your color scheme and preferably would read from left to right.  But, only use one bar rather than the two that XP uses.  The existing graphic window is relatively large for the minimally useful and difficult to read information that it presents (again, apology for the frankness).  Personally, I would prefer a very compact window but one that still gives one some graphic indication of file types and distributions.  The linear bar can be thought of as a continuous track reading of the disk from outside to inside.

If you are a real graphic programming genius you could use the circular graphic image that the "UltiimateDefrag" folks are using in their defrag app....but, admittedly that is probably considerably more coding effort than you might wish to invest in.

Again, your tool is wonderful and you have been very gracious in providing it to all who are interested.  Please take my comments from a constructive perspective - the intent is to give feedback and help.

[jeroen]

Thanks you very much for sharing your ideas, I appreciate it! The current display is very stark - even ugly. I know. I have it on my list to make it prettier, but so far I've been concentrating on functionality instead of looks. Sometime in the future....

[galileo]

I can't argue with your priorities - funtionality trumps graphics without a doubt.  And, implementing some type of "smart" placement scheme would be a great step ahead....even if you are only following the "layout.ini" data from XP.  

Speaking of "smart" placement strategies - the outer perimeter of the disk is the highest speed and thus fastest access location.  However, it is also the location that will permit re-fragmentation disruption over the greatest surface of the disk when using that location for files that have frequently changing data and thus require frequent writing and re-writing.  A good smart placement strategy that would reduce downstream re-fragmentation would locate frequently accessed "static" files (generally static system files) on the outermost tracks and locate frequently accessed "dynamic" files (i.e. those with frequently changing data) on the innermost tracks and locate infrequently accessed "static" files in the intermediate region.  True - while the innermost tracks are the slowest from an access perspective, they delay the re-fragmentation of the disk since the re-writing of the files would not occur in the relatively "quiet" outer or intermediate track regions....ah well, just some thoughts.....

Until you can get around to revising your graphics, can you add an option to simply not display the graphics - i.e. only display the text portion file/defragmentation process?  Or maybe just display some "spiffy" little wheel going round and round or a progress bar along with the graphics....Turning off the graphics should at the very least generate some reduction in processing demand.....and produce a more compact on screen display.

Nonetheless, your priority on funtionality is wise.