Maximum PC gui RSS Feed

Murphy's Law: What is Skype Up To?

David Murphy — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:00:00 -0600

The recent announcement of Skype turning quote-unquote open source has me twirling a finger with delicious glee. It's not that I dislike Skype. And it's not that I'm about to get into one of my 1,500-word debates on the differences between the definition of "free" and "open-source," I promise. This is nevertheless an important premise of Skype's entire move, as some Internet commenters are crying foul that Skype is only half-opening its popular application to the crowd. The GUI code will be yours to play with as you please. The underlying Skype protocol... nope!

To them I say: Duh.

I don't want to put words where they don't exist, but I'm willing to bet that Skype's sudden shift toward open-source waters has more to do with applying a giant, universal band-aid to staggered Linux development. It's not quite an altruistic gift to the community so much as it is a package and a bow with the phrase, "you fix it" written on the label. And that's fine. Let the community create the functional GUIs for Skype. It would be suicide for the company to release its heavily encrypted voice protocols for common use.

So what, then, is Skype up to?

Stronger Integration

Linux isn't just for geeks in the basement anymore. The open-source operating system powers an innumerable amount of devices, including super-small netbook PCs, equally small tablet PCs, mobile phones, et cetera. While opening up the Linux GUI still requires the underlying architecture of the Skype client in order to have any semblance of functionality, this is at least a first step toward smoothing the integration of Skype into Linux-based devices of all shapes and sizes. Developers could freely embed the Skype client and skin it to match the look and feel of a particular device--surely a boon versus, say, waiting for Skype to come into the app center of-sorts for each and every permutation of product.

Third-Party Takeover

And we now venture into the realm of the hypothetical. Imagine, if you will, that Skype's opening of the Linux GUI is but the first step in a gradual elimination of the Skype Client as a whole. Sure, this downloadable application would still exist for those that care to use it, but what if Skype was looking to offload the client's functionality into any software platform that wants to take it? Skype would still control the underlying protocol (depending on how the legal battle sorts out), yet this "naked GUI" approach, as it's been dubbed, would allow one to perform the same call functions using an application like Pidgin, for example.

For consumers, this approach would be a marvelous way to integrate Skype into existing "favorite applications." But there's also a fairly large flaw surrounding this plan. Skype would need to come up with some ingenious way to keep its services relevant, because you can bet that I'd want to add more VoIP services than just Skype to my communications app of choice. I'd love to be able to receive calls on Skype and call other people for free on Skype... but if there was a way to use a cheaper provider for outbound calls, I'd cast off the Skype experience like a boot on the end of a fishing line. Integration with third-party apps is truly a double-edged sword.

Skype as a Service?

Suppose Skype opts for option two and extends its service into third-party applications. What if this is not a measure of altruism, but rather, an investment? With countless developers around the world working on their own programming variants that somehow tie back into the underlying Skype protocol, what's to stop this mass intelligence from coming up with The Next Best Thing for Skype integration?

Both TechCrunch and I envision a future where even the desktop client has been rendered useless by the Skype service. No more installations; no more new applications to load up. Skype would be as permanent and unobtrusive a fixture in your operating system as Windows Contacts. Or, better still, you'd be able to dial up Skype directly through a Web application. As soon as you were to click on a phone number, the call would launch right in your browser of choice.

These are all far-off ideas. Some could even be ideas that only exist in a dreamy haze. Skype is promising a "larger offering" to come centered on its open-source Linux GUI announcement. When that big thing happens, do give me a ring.

David Murphy (@ Acererak) is a technology journalist and former Maximum PC editor. He writes weekly columns about the wide world of open-source as well as weekly roundups of awesome, freebie software. Befriend him on Twitter, especially if you have an awesome app or game you're dying to recommend!

A Visual History of the Windows GUI

Alex Castle and Florence Ion — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:00:00 -0500

Do you have fond memories of Window's 3.1's retro graphics? Do you remember the wonder you felt the first time you used the taskbar? Well we do, and that's why we're using Windows 7 Week as an excuse to take a moment for a quick, visual tour of Windows’ constantly-changing GUI. From 1.01 to Windows 7, we’ll show you how the operating system has gradually evolved from an ugly duckling to snazzy, Aero-powered swan.

Windows 1.0

The very first version of Microsoft’s massive OS franchise was little more than a graphical front-end for DOS. Though capable of handling layered windows, legal concerns about similarities with the Macintosh forced Microsoft to limit Windows 1.0 to use tiled Windows, except for notification boxes.

Windows 2.0

Windows 2.0 didn’t shake things up too much, although it did enable support for overlapping Windows, which had been previously disabled. Additionally, Windows 2.0 introduced the now familiar “Minimize” and “Maximize” terminology. Before that, the functions had been called “Iconize” and “Zoom.” It also allowed minimized programs to be moved around the desktop.

Windows 3.x

The first widely adopted version of Windows brought with it a number of GUI improvements. Windows 3.0 was first to introduce the Program Manager shell, which allows programs to be launched by clicking on icons. Previous versions had used a file manager called the MS-DOS Executive to launch applications. Additionally, this was the first release to allow users to select their desktop background, and all the icons in Windows 3.0 were given an overhaul to take advantage of all 16 colors available with VGA. Additionally, in this release buttons were given the familiar “3D” effect with shading, though the windows themselves didn’t receive this treatment until the next release. Windows 3.1 gained wider use than 3.0, and was notable primarily for support of TrueType fonts, something that required third-party software in Windows 3.0.

Windows 95

Windows 95 is the first version of the OS that introduced the user interface concepts that are common to every version of Windows since. Windows Explorer replaced the File Manager, and the old Program Manager was replaced by the Taskbar and the Start Menu.

Windows 98

Windows 98 was the first version of Windows to support Active Desktop, out of the box. Active Desktop, which allows users to add HTML-based content onto the desktop, was also included in the “Windows Desktop Update” for Windows 95, which was installed with Internet Explorer 4.0. It was also the first version of Windows that shipped with the Quick Launch shortcut bar enabled.

Windows ME

Windows Millennium Edition was designed specifically for home computer users, and included a streamlined and simplified UI, which was widely panned. Windows ME also added on a System Restore feature allowing users to roll back their systems to a date or time of the past before an issue occurred.

Windows 2000

Still sporting the blue desktop background, Windows 2000 was more than just an upgrade for Windows NT. It integrated a full version of DirectX and included support for Plug and Play hardware, finally removing the need for the Add New Hardware Wizard. From a user interface perspective, Windows 2000 is very similar to ME, other than the Control Panel differences necessitated by its NT heritage.

Windows XP

Windows XP came with another fresh coat of paint in the form of the Luna interface. Promising to combine Microsoft's consumer and business operating systems, uniting them both to offer a unique “experience” for computer users. XP's brightly colored UI wasn't popular with many power users, but it did introduce the collapsable System Tray--allowing you to hide, but not close, system tray apps.

Although the visual style changed, the core functionality and navigation was essentially the same as previous versions, with two exceptions. XP's Start Menu was redesigned to put commonly-used applications front and center. Additionally, the Control Panel received a makeover. While it was intended to be easier-to-use, most users actually switched over to the “Classic View” to figure out how to customize anything.

Windows Vista

While many of the most interesting new features didn't make the cut for Vista, the big enhancement that did was Vista's Aero desktop UI and the WDDM, which replaced GDI as the underpinnings for display drawing technology in Windows Vista. Aero took advantage of PC's GPUs to render 2D surfaces using some rudimentary 3D hardware. For example, Aero included window transparency as well as live thumbnails and live window previews. This new look to Windows was not just a skin; Aero required WDDM-compatible hardware to run.

Vista also added speedy search, not just for finding documents, but for tracking down hidden Control Panel settings or hidden applications. Finally, Microsoft stopped the ever-expanding Programs menu, preferring to keep it constrained within the confines of the Start Menu. While these changes were significant, many users complained that they were simply eye candy, and didn't warrant the increase in hardware requirements and performance hit they required.

Windows 7

Windows 7 marks the first real redesign of the core Windows UI since Windows 95. While interim versions of the OS have added and tweaked functionality, replaced the underlying technology, and changed the color scheme, the basics have remained unchanged. Windows 7's Taskbar combines the application launching functionality of the Quick Launch bar with the traditional Taskbar. To open an application, click the icon pinned to the Taskbar. To switch to an already-open app, click the same icon. The new Taskbar, in addition to widespread use of the window drawing and preview capabilities, finally make good use of the enhancements made with WDDM and Aero.

How to Customize Your Linux Desktop - From GTK to Compiz

Will Kraft — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:30:00 -0500

The days of ugly Linux desktops are a thing of the past. Modern distros include many tools and options that enable them to look good and be more useful.

Unlike Windows, Linux has several different widget toolkits. The most well-known widget engines are GTK+, (distributed with GNOME) and QT. (pronounced “cute”) Widgets are the various elements which make up a program's GUI: scrollbars, arrows, checkboxes, etc. However, take note that QT or GTK widgets are not the same thing as desktop widgets.

Widgets and other things like window chrome (the toolbars, panels, etc. of a programs interface) and window decoration (the window's title bar, minimize/maximize/close buttons, and the window border) are the various elements that, when joined together, create a theme for QT or GTK. It is possible to modify the various themes in Linux to change how they look or even create your own. This article will address the various resources that are out there to help make your desktop look its best and help you get the most out of it.

Manipulating GTK Themes

GTK themes are among the most versatile when it comes to customization. Originally created for the GIMP, (GNU Image Manipulation Program) GTK is used in many applications, especially in the GNOME desktop environment. Some of the more elaborate GTK themes use rasterized PNG graphics to create the visual appearance of the widgets, but most GTK themes use effects created by the GTK engine itself. Each installed GTK theme is stored in its own folder in /usr/share/themes and has a gtkrc file that is used to store the parameters of the theme, such as element colors, size, position, etc. Although gtkrc files are plain text and are therefore human-readable, there is still a small learning curve in relation to working with them.

Fortunately, GNOME's Appearance module has a built-in tool to allow you to create your own themes in an easy-to-use interface. (To access the Appearance module in GNOME, go to System → Preferences → Appearance → Customize) This tool uses themes that have already been installed and allows you to mix and match parts from different themes to create your own hybrid designs; you can use icons from one theme, widgets from another, window decorations from yet another, etc. The more themes you have installed, the more versatile this tool can be, since the possible number of combinations can rise exponentially if you install only a few extra themes. For this reason, it is a good idea to install as many themes as possible, since each theme (even ones you don't like) can provide a larger inventory of spare parts to work with.

This tool is best for those who don't know how to work with gtkrc files directly or don't want to spend too much time creating their own theme. If you're more artistically inclined, you may wish to create your own themes from scratch. Since themes can be image-based, you are limited only by your creativity. A good way for beginners to learn how to create themes is to download a few and then analyze them to see how other artists made theirs. By using pre-existing themes as a guide, you can then create one of your own.

Plasma Themes

Unlike GTK themes, Plasma themes used in KDE4 are predominately made up of scalable vector graphics. (SVG) These are made in vector graphics editing software like Inkscape, Karbon, or anything else that can export SVG. (even Adobe Illustrator)

KDE4's appearance management system is much less straightforward than GNOME. While GNOME has one interface module to control its appearance, KDE4 has several. The modules which allow you to switch between themes is located on the desktop right-click menu instead of the control center, so newbies may be confused at first about how to switch between different themes.

Most Plasma themes are quite simple, (mostly glass-like with a few minimalistic and metallic variants) and only affect desktop widgets, the taskbar, etc. Windows are not affected by the Plasma theme you use, since they are not part of the Plasma system. Rather, window appearance is governed through choosing a color scheme and a widget/window decoration style just like in classic KDE. This is done through the Appearance module in the KDE4 control center and is rather straightforward. KDE has a built-in tool to acquire new wallpapers, Plasma themes, etc. so adding additional Plasma themes is simple.

Next, how to troubleshoot some common theme-related problems.

Dealing with Common Theme-related Problems

Since most programs are set up to use light-colored themes, you may encounter problems if you use a dark-colored or otherwise unusual theme. OpenOffice.org in particular has an annoying bug where the toolbar icons will switch to a rather awful-looking high-contrast icon pack without asking you when a dark theme is detected by the program. If the high-color icon pack is not installed, (as it seldom is out of the box) Openoffice.org will display text instead of icons, which looks even worse and is very space-inefficient. Fortunately, this problem can be easily dealt with.

The easiest way to rectify this problem is to change the icon pack in the OpenOffice.org configuration. (this is done through Tools → Options → View in OpenOffice.org) If the first method fails to work, there is a way to trick OpenOffice.org into using the icon set you want to use. OpenOffice.org stores its icon graphics in zip files, which makes them very easy to manage. These icon packs are buried rather deeply in the filesystem, so they can be difficult to find. Ubuntu stores them in /usr/lib/openoffice/share/config/, but the location varies from distro to distro.

To fix the dark theme bug, all you must do is rename the icon pack of your choice (like images_human.zip) to “images_hicontrast.zip”. You should replace “images_hicontrast.zip” if it exists. After applying this fix and re-starting OpenOffice.org, OpenOffice.org will think it is using high-contrast icons, but it will actually be using the icon set you want to use and icons will look the way you want them to.

Sometimes, websites use stylesheets that conflict with your system colors, particularly if you use a dark theme with white text. Many stylesheets set a certain background color on form elements and neglect to set a particular text color. Quite often, this results in white or light-colored text on a light background, since system colors are used for any attributes not defined by stylesheets. Although you can configure Firefox to use system colors for web elements, this solution is often too imprecise and makes most websites look ugly. Fortunately, there is a better way.

One of Firefox's greatest strengths is its sheer hackability. Firefox has general settings in its about:config section that allow you to fine-tune the browser's performance and configuration, but Firefox can also be customized very precisely on a per-user basis. Each Firefox profile has its own userContent.css file. (not to be confused with userChrome.css, which is used to manipulate the Firefox GUI itself) userContent.css does not exist by default and must be created in ~/.mozilla/firefox/[your_profile_name]/chrome. Fortunately, Firefox provides a template to start with for both userContent.css and userChrome.css. userContent.css is used to declare rendering guidelines on either a global basis or for specific websites.

If you are using an unusual color scheme, you are able to use userContent.css to force Firefox to override a site's stylesheet in favor of your own preferences. As the extension suggests, userContent.css is just like any other cascading style sheet, but it does have a few Firefox-specific differences. If you have any CSS experience at all, you should not find it too difficult to configure userContent.css. (If you are new to CSS, it is easy to learn and rather straightforward) If you run into problems, there are many online guides that cover the differences between userContent.css and standard CSS in detail in addition to the many CSS tutorials out there.

Desktop Compositing

Many operating systems have shifted from using software rendering for desktop effects, instead opting for 3d-accelerated desktop effects. Linux has offered compositing features for years, starting with the original Compiz Quinn, followed by Beryl. Those two projects have culminated in Compiz Fusion, which is discussed in-depth in this section.

Compiz Fusion Overview

GNOME and KDE 3 have built-in interfaces to use Compiz Fusion, a desktop compositing tool and window manager that is a drop-in replacement for the Metacity Window manager in GNOME and the old Kwin window manager in KDE 3.5. KDE4 has its own compositing engine, but Compiz Fusion is able to override it. Compiz Fusion is a descendant of and replacement for Beryl, a compositing manager that was popular several years ago. Beryl was originally a fork of the original Compiz Quinn project; both projects are now obsolete.

Compiz Fusion uses your computer's 3d-acceleration capabilities to produce special visual effects that conventional software-driven graphics are not able to match. The extra burden of rendering these effects is shifted to the GPU on your graphics card or chipset (which would otherwise be idle) instead of the main CPU that is used for everything else. Because of this, you need to make sure your graphics card or chipset is supported in Linux and there is a driver for it if necessary if you want Compiz Fusion to work. (Nvidia support is very good from our experience) Compiz Fusion runs with very little overhead and does not slow down old or low-end machines.

Compiz Fusion can do much more than Windows Vista's “Aero” compositing engine. Although GNOME and KDE 3.5 include several presets on some distros, (notably Ubuntu) Compiz can be fine-tuned with the Compiz Config Settings Manager. (CCSM) CCSM can be invoked either through your favorite desktop environment/window manager's menu system or by typing “ccsm” into a terminal. (assuming that CCSM is installed)

Working with Compiz Fusion

CCSM gives you the full scope of effects that the Compiz Fusion engine is capable of. It can replicate all of the features that are in Vista's Aero, and Compiz still has plenty of unique features of its own that have been inherited from Beryl and the original Compiz. Many people have the misconception that Compiz Fusion is merely eye-candy that is meant to “wow” and impress new users. Although there is a grain of truth to that, it is not fair to over-generalize. While some of Compiz's functionality is purely decorative, (and can be way over the top if you use all of it at once) some of it is meant to compensate for certain disabilities or to help make using your computer easier.

For instance, the ADD helper tool can help those afflicted with the disorder by dimming all windows except the current active one to minimize distraction and to make the task at hand easier to focus on. Likewise, the magnifier tool makes text easier to read on programs that do not support dynamic text zooming and the negative tool can make some interfaces easier to read by inverting the colors. All of these effects could not be easily implemented through conventional software acceleration without slowing the computer down significantly.

On distros like Ubuntu, Compiz Fusion is installed by default but must be activated manually once the requisite video card drivers have been acquired. To enable Compiz Fusion in GNOME, go to System → Preferences → Appearance → Visual Effects and select the preset level you want or use CCSM to configure the desired effects. (CCSM is not required to use the presets in GNOME's Appearance module)

Emerald Overview

Although Compiz Fusion renders the actual windows and controls their behavior effects, you are still stuck with the original GNOME/KDE window decorations by default. However, there is a window decorator program called Emerald that allows you to use better-looking window decorations. Emerald was originally designed to work with Beryl, hence the naming trend; the gemstone emerald is technically a variety of Beryllium. Emerald has been around for awhile, but it still works as a drop-in replacement for the standard Window decorator in GNOME or KDE.

Emerald uses “theme” files to produce window decoration effects. These themes each use an engine that specializes in a different effect (e.g. TruGlass for transparency effects and Vrunner for gradients) Each theme is built around a specific engine; this is a factor to consider when constructing your theme since switching engines can produce vastly different effects.

If you want to use Emerald, you must install it manually. Fortunately, Ubuntu and many other distros have Emerald in their repositories; Ubuntu users need only type “sudo apt-get install emerald” to install Emerald. By default, Compiz Fusion will not use Emerald; you must manually invoke it through CCSM in the “window decorations” module. To do this, locate the “command” field in the window decoration module and replace the original value with “/usr/bin/emerald --replace”. The changes should take effect at the next login. You can invoke the changes immediately by opening a terminal and running “nohup emerald --replace” after re-configuring CCSM to use Emerald with the previous command.

To avoid problems, make sure you have at least one Emerald theme installed before you enable Emerald in Compiz Fusion. If you try to use Emerald without any themes, no window decorations will be rendered at all.

Creating Emerald Themes

If you just want to use other people's Emerald themes, there is an abundance of them at gnome-look.org. To install a theme, extract the .emerald theme file you wish to install from its tarball to a location in your home folder and click the “import” button in the Emerald program interface. Locate the file you extracted, select it, and then click “open” to install it. Emerald provides a list of installed themes; to switch to a theme, click on its entry in the main list.

The Emerald program also has a built-in interface for creating themes. Although the feature is called “Edit Theme” it can do far more than that. Once you understand how Emerald handles various graphics, it is possible to create new ones from scratch while using pre-existing ones as a reference. You do not need to include effects like drop shadows or glow in the image components of your theme, since Emerald is capable of generating such things dynamically.

Desktop Widgets

In recent years, Widgets have become standard fare in all modern operating systems, although they take different forms depending on the operating system in question. (OS X has the Dashboard while Vista has the Sidebar) Linux also features multiple widget engines for multiple desktop environments to fill space on the desktop that would otherwise be wasted. This section will discuss the various theme engines that are available for Linux and what each of them can do.

Screenlets

GNOME's only real widget system (aside from various things that can be placed on the GNOME panels) is an external program called Screenlets. As far as widgets go, the Screenlets program is very decent. It has a wide variety of widgets available out of the box, with multiple calendars, clocks, system monitors, email checkers, RSS readers, etc. to choose from. From our experience, the Screenlets program is the best widget system available for Linux since the Widgets work equally well on GNOME, KDE and many other window managers.

In Ubuntu, the Screenlets Manager can be installed by running “sudo apt-get install screenlets”. The Screenlet manager software also allows you to install additional screenlets; (most are located on Linux resource sites like gnome-look.org) these must be extracted to your home folder and be placed in the “.screenlets” directory.

Plasma Widgets

The widget system in KDE4 is rather unique. KDE4 was originally meant as a reinvention of the traditional desktop concept; virtually everything (including any desktop shortcut icons) is made out of individual entities called plasmoids that are directly integrated with the new Plasma rendering system. This is a radical departure from other widget systems mentioned in this article, since those are essentially programs that run on top of another desktop environment without actually being part of it.

Plasma widgets are simple to use. To add widget plasmoids to your desktop, right-click anywhere on the desktop in KDE4 and choose the “Add Widgets” option. Many distros include only a few widgets out of the box, but more are available. (KDE4 includes a built-in tool for acquiring new widgets, wallpapers, etc.) However, the selection is not as diverse as Screenlets or SuperKaramba, but this is only because KDE4 is still fairly new. Given time, this deficiency should resolve itself.

If KDE4 is present, nothing else needs to be installed to be able to use KDE4 widgets. KDE4 widgets are not available in any other desktop environment.

SuperKaramba

SuperKaramba saw most of its use several years ago, and still serves as the widget engine for older versions of KDE. SuperKaramba is a remake of Karamba, an even older widget engine. SuperKaramba took Karamba's foundation and added additional features to make widgets easier to use (the original Karamba had no GUI and no easy way to add new widgets)

Due to its age, SuperKaramba has plenty of widgets for every conceivable purpose, and many of them can be found at KDE-oriented resource sites like KDE-look.org. SuperKaramba is best used in older versions of KDE, since KDE4 has its own built-in widget engine and GNOME is not able to handle transparency in SuperKaramba widgets very well. Furthermore, the Screenlets program has the capability to use SuperKaramba widgets, although that feature is still in beta.

The Disk Defrag Difference

David Murphy — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:32:29 -0500

In a perfect world, the data on your hard drive would line up on the platters like little soldiers, all in perfect rows and grouped by class, frequency of use, and size. But modern-day Windows operating systems don’t behave in such a way, leading to data fragmentation—and, by necessity, the rise of defragmentation routines.

As for how this happens, we’ll offer a simplified version of a typical file-system architecture. Envision a blank drive. When an operating system writes a series of files to the drive, it might place them in sequential order—say, five different chunks of data lined up one after the other with each chunk taking up 20 blocks of space. Removing one of the files creates a hole that the operating system can then fill either completely or partially with new information.

Now suppose the new file needs to get bigger. Since the existing data takes up space immediately following the file that needs to grow, the operating system is forced to continue the file elsewhere on the drive. Take the large number of files on a typical hard drive and the massive number of writes and deletions that happen constantly and you get a perfect storm of file fragmentation.
Fragmentation forces the drive head to jump all over the place to find the bits and pieces of files whenever you access them. Defragmentation, then, is the means by which these files are realigned into contiguous chunks. Windows Vista does this automatically, only the slow speed at which it defrags makes us wonder: Is the time spent worth the supposed performance payoff? And do third-party defragmenters, free or otherwise, do a better job?

Designing the Experiment

Fragmenting a hard drive is harder than you think, thanks to Windows Vista

The System

HP’s TouchSmart IQ770 Desktop isn’t the speediest of rigs, which forced us to measure our defragmentation runs in hours rather than minutes.

For our tests, we’re using an HP TouchSmart IQ770 Desktop machine that has been in constant service as a security-monitoring webcam workstation for the last several months. Due to the amount of use (and abuse) this poor 1.6GHz AMD Turion-based machine has endured, we expected it to be fragmented beyond belief. And it would have been, were it not for the fact that Vista’s automatic defragmentation utility is scheduled to run every week.

Unlike Windows XP, which uses a stripped-down version of Diskeeper to defrag drives, the Windows Vista application has been redesigned from the ground up. Microsoft claims that the new defragger makes for faster, less processor-intensive defragmentation. While it’s true that the Vista defragger doesn’t hit our system as hard as the XP defrag process, it takes much, much longer to complete, making Microsoft’s claim of faster performance baffling.

Because Vista’s defragger runs automatically every week, it would be extremely unusual to find a heavily fragmented Vista drive in the real world. That said, prior to testing, we disabled Vista’s defragger, uninstalled a few apps, and then filled the empty space with a collection of MP3s and other newly installed applications to replicate a busy week for a power user.

The Defraggers

We’ve chosen four products for this challenge, starting with Vista’s built-in defragmentation program. Against that, we’re testing the free Auslogics Disk Defrag, as well as two commercial defragging utilities: Raxco’s PerfectDisk 2008 and Diskeeper 2008. This healthy mix of free and paid-for defragmentation software will allow us to determine if there is any benefit to using a third-party defragger, and if so, just how much the commercial apps can improve our rig’s performance.

The Benchmarks

So that each defrag utility operates on an identical machine, we captured a complete image of the original drive using Norton Ghost 12 and then reloaded it onto the machine prior to running each program. To measure the performance impact of each utility, we looked at the machine’s startup times, shutdown times, and PCMark Vantage scores before and after the defrag. We chose Vantage as our primary benchmark because it represents a number of real-world performance scenarios one would encounter during an extended period of computer use. We also factored in the time each utility took to perform its defrag to test our theory that Vista’s defragger—low priority though it may be—still takes an inordinate length of time to complete.

Prior to making the Ghost image of our drive, we ran PCMark Vantage’s hard drive performance script 20 times. Since typical defragmentation programs reorder data based on frequency of use, we wanted to make sure they take our benchmark into account.

The command-line version of Vista’s defragger provides much more information than the GUI version.

Vista’s built-in defrag program reported a fragmentation level of 11 percent prior to the defragmentation process. We were able to obtain this information only by using the command-line version of the app—the standard interface doesn’t provide any information about your drive’s state, nor does it report on the defragmenter’s progress. It took Vista’s app three and a half hours to defrag our test drive. Vista’s lengthy defrag times are due largely to the fact that it runs as a low-priority process. The application won’t make full use of your processor unless the computer sits idle for several minutes.

While the program reportedly reduced fragmentation on our drive to zero percent, we saw negligible performance gains in our PCMark Vantage tests. The startup time improved by 39 seconds, but the process added an additional 14 seconds to our shutdown time. Regardless of whether the culprit is our slow test rig, Vista itself, or the insignificance of drive fragmentation on performance, Vista’s built-in defragmentation application did little to improve the real-world performance of our computer.

BENCHMARKS
	Fragmented Vista Drive	Window Vista Defrag
PCMark Overall	3,114	3,162
Startup (sec)	172	133
Shutdown (sec)	20	34
best scores are bolded.

Next: The Contenders! >

Auslogics Disk Defrag

It’s free and fast but doesn’t improve system performance

Auslogics’s Disk Defrag skimps on features, but it still offers more than Vista’s native defragmentation client—including a graphical interface.

Auslogics’s Disk Defrag (free, www.auslogics.com) is a no-frills entry point into the world of defragmentation. It offers just what the name implies: a disk defragger, plain and simple. From a drop-down menu you select the drive you want to defrag and then press a button to start the procedure. (An upcoming version of the app will reportedly feature a scheduler, as well.)

We love the program’s graphical analysis of the drive’s fragmentation level—it’s interesting to see what’s being done to your computer (which allows you to estimate how long the procedure will take). Disk Defrag doesn’t come with a pre-defragmentation analysis tool, though a results screen following the defrag shows what the program “improved”; still, it wasn’t clear to us in our benchmarking that Disk Defrag actually did anything.

The program quoted an initial fragmentation level of 4.21 percent, the lowest figure of the four programs we tested. That said, Disk Defrag still took two hours, 45 minutes to complete its run on our drive. Our test rig’s shutdown time improved by three seconds compared to the shutdown time after a Vista defrag (although it was still slower than pre-defrag), but this was offset by a dramatic 45-second increase in our startup time.

Stranger still, we saw a 5 percent drop in performance as measured by our PCMark Vantage benchmark. There were no noticeable negative effects during normal usage, but we didn’t see a benefit from running the defragmentation either. The only true positive this program offers is speed—it completed the defrag process 45 minutes faster than the built-in Vista client.

BENCHMARKS
	Fragmented Vista Drive	Window Vista Defrag	Auslogics Disk Defrag
PCMark Overall	3,114	3,162	2,979
Startup (sec)	172	133	176
Shutdown (sec)	20	34	31
best scores are bolded.

Diskeeper 2008

For all its options, Diskeeper did nothing to increase our rig’s performance

Diskeeper’s drive analysis provides plenty of information about the fragmented status of your drive, but no estimate of how long the defragmentation will take.

Diskeeper 2008 ($30, www.diskeeper.com) comes with a few features that are above and beyond anything you’ll find in a free defragmentation application. For starters, the utility’s built-in automatic defragmentation option negates the need to ever run a manual defragmentation of any sort. The program makes full use of underused resources on your computer by defragmenting your drive in the background. You can let the program figure out your typical computer use and run accordingly or dictate when you want the full use of your processing capabilities.

Since Diskeeper runs inside the operating system, it includes a boot-time defragmentation option which manipulates files that would otherwise be locked by Vista. The program will even lock off your master file tables and paging files to prevent any future fragmentation, a feature unique to Diskeeper. Considering these would be handled by a boot-time defragmentation, it’s nice to see the program making even its own workload easier.

Diskeeper reported a fragmentation level of 14 percent on our test drive, the highest of any program we tested. Of the third-party programs, Diskeeper took the longest to finish its defragmentation routine, but at two hours, 48 minutes it still took less time than Vista’s built-in program. However, we saw no improvement whatsoever in Vista’s startup or shutdown times. In fact, it took an additional minute for the computer to boot compared to boot times after Vista’s defragger ran. Our PCMark Vantage test showed a negligible loss of performance, and we didn’t’ see any differences in speeds when running common Vista-based tasks.

BENCHMARKS
	Fragmented Vista Drive	Window Vista Defrag	Diskeeper 2008 Defrag
PCMark Overall	3,114	3,162	3,102
Startup (sec)	172	133	186
Shutdown (sec)	20	34	36
best scores are bolded.

Next: PerfectDisk 2008 and Final Thoughts >

PerfectDisk 2008

PerfectDisk defrags the fastest, but fails in the subsequent benchmarks

You won’t see all of PerfectDisk’s available defragmentation options unless you first run an analysis of the drive.

PerfectDisk 2008 ($40, www.raxco.com) sports a similar feature set to Diskeeper 2008. In fact, the programs are nearly identical in basic functionality. But PerfectDisk does tweak a few of our favorite features just a bit. For example, PerfectDisk, like Diskeeper, allows you to establish an automatic defragmentation that runs whenever your computer is idle; however, it also lets you tie defragmentation runs to your screensaver. When your screensaver starts, PerfectDisk starts. We like this additional flexibility and would welcome even further customization in future editions of the software.

For the time conscious, PerfectDisk 2008 does a great job of estimating exactly how long the defragmentation process will take and provides approximate CPU usage info and fragmentation level at the beginning and end of the run. After a thorough analysis of your drive, the program suggests ways to improve performance. In our case, we needed a boot-time defragmentation. But we couldn’t select it from a menu—we had to run the analysis first, which then gave us that option.

The program reported that our test drive was 7.5-percent fragmented. Following a two hour, 24 minute defragmentation, our startup times increased by approximately 40 seconds compared to the startup times following Vista’s defragmentation and increased by two seconds when compared to the fragmented drive. PerfectDisk was the only defragger that improved our original shutdown time, albeit by just four seconds. But it also netted us a minor loss of performance in the PCMark Vantage benchmark—a decrease of 6 percent over the measured performance following a defragmentation by Vista’s built-in application.

BENCHMARKS
	Fragmented Vista Drive	Window Vista Defrag	PerfectDisk 2008
PCMark Overall	3,114	3,162	2,952
Startup (sec)	172	133	170
Shutdown (sec)	20	34	16
best scores are bolded.

Don’t Waste Your Money or Time!

You shouldn’t break the bank for negligible performance gains

With all of the benchmarking completed, we find it rather suspicious that disk defragmentation did nothing to improve the performance of our machine. However, we must note that our test drive was not terribly fragmented to begin with due to Vista’s auto-defragger running on our test bed. Even the paid-for programs were unable to yield any positive gains—quite the opposite, in some instances.

We had high hopes for Diskeeper at first. Given the relatively high level of fragmentation it quoted compared to Vista’s built-in app, we assumed the program’s analysis routines were seeing fragmentation that Vista couldn’t. In turn, we expected Diskeeper to do a better job of moving files around and ultimately give us better benchmark numbers than the Vista client.

That was wishful thinking on our part, as Diskeeper didn’t trump the Vista defragmentation routine at all. While it did beat PerfectDisk by 150 points in our PCMark Vantage test, we hardly consider this a trouncing. We even fired up both programs’ boot-time defragmentation options to see if these additional features would make any difference on our benchmarks. Zilch.
We like the Vista defragmentation program for the simple fact that it’s, well, there. It comes with Vista and is enabled by default and runs its defragmentation routines during the wee hours of the morning. And even if you alter this time or run your own manual defragmentation, the program runs at a low processor priority, so you can easily multitask without hampering your computing experience.

That said, we hate that Vista gives you no estimated time of completion. You also get no way to see what the application is doing, any graphical representation of how fragmented your drive is, or any of the other features we’ve come to expect in even the most entry-level of defragmentation applications. Even if the pretty moving colored blocks don’t correspond to the actual data on our drives, at least they give us something to look at during the interminable two-hour-plus defrag process. You even have to run a command-line version of the application just to see an analysis of your drive’s fragmentation level.

If you don’t mind manually running your defragger and you can’t live without a visual representation of the fragmentation level of your drive, try Auslogics’s Disk Defrag. It doesn’t outperform Vista in our tests, but it runs faster than the operating system’s built-in defragger, and it displays a pretty picture to let you know that it’s working. Even if disk defragmentation ultimately does nothing for your computer—as our benchmark numbers would have us believe—you don’t need to spend money on a third-party program when Auslogics’s Disk Defrag is a serviceable free solution.