Point taken, but in the end you and I just have different opinions.
Maybe calling Windows' defragger worthless was a poor choice of wording on my part.
I'm a minimalist too, and for that very reason Defraggler is optimal for me. It's small, quick and hardly uses any resources. It also has additional features and I find the graphical display indispensible. (I want to see
how the HD is defragged.)
I don't disagree that Windows 7 does a fine job all by itself and doesn't nearly need the kind of third-party enhancements that XP did, but it comes down to choice in the end. If IE comes with Windows, why do many people prefer Firefox or Chrome? You wouldn't tell them they installed another browser "just because" and that IE already works fine, would you.