J
John
Is it my imagination or are defraggers getting slower - or is it just
that the HDDs are getting bigger?
that the HDDs are getting bigger?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
C
Colin Barnhorst
What defragger are you using? Certainly the larger file sizes of the last
two years have an effect, but it is usually offset by faster memory and
cpu's. Also, the commercial defraggers have gotten faster. Post your OS,
cpu and speed, and amount of memory and someone may have ideas.
I use Diskeeper 9 and find it pretty fast.
two years have an effect, but it is usually offset by faster memory and
cpu's. Also, the commercial defraggers have gotten faster. Post your OS,
cpu and speed, and amount of memory and someone may have ideas.
I use Diskeeper 9 and find it pretty fast.
T
TAJ Simmons
John,
HDDs are getting bigger
Virus checkers are quite often set to check everything these days....this
has a massive effect on defragging.
Turn the virus checker off while you defrag (at your own risk!)
Cheers
TAJ Simmons
microsoft powerpoint mvp
awesome - powerpoint backgrounds,
free powerpoint templates, tutorials, hints and tips etc
http://www.powerpointbackgrounds.com
HDDs are getting bigger
Virus checkers are quite often set to check everything these days....this
has a massive effect on defragging.
Turn the virus checker off while you defrag (at your own risk!)
Cheers
TAJ Simmons
microsoft powerpoint mvp
awesome - powerpoint backgrounds,
free powerpoint templates, tutorials, hints and tips etc
http://www.powerpointbackgrounds.com
J
johnf
I also use Diskeeper Pro 9 & have no speed problems.
I do suppose your HDD is NTFS & not FAT32?
Anyway, in general, defrag should not be used too often - once every month
or two as it doesn't have any noticeable effect on performance if all your
hardware (HDD, RAM etc.) is a fairly late version & your system is tuned
properly.
There was a lengthy discussion on this several days ago, either on this NG
or microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
--
johnf
I do suppose your HDD is NTFS & not FAT32?
Anyway, in general, defrag should not be used too often - once every month
or two as it doesn't have any noticeable effect on performance if all your
hardware (HDD, RAM etc.) is a fairly late version & your system is tuned
properly.
There was a lengthy discussion on this several days ago, either on this NG
or microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
--
johnf
What defragger are you using? Certainly the larger file sizes of the
last two years have an effect, but it is usually offset by faster
memory and cpu's. Also, the commercial defraggers have gotten faster.
Post your OS, cpu and speed, and amount of memory and someone may have
ideas.
I use Diskeeper 9 and find it pretty fast.
--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
John said:Is it my imagination or are defraggers getting slower - or is it just
that the HDDs are getting bigger?
A
Andrew Murray
HDD getting bigger - and defrag does tell you it may take a while depending on
system speed and hdd size.
system speed and hdd size.
A
Alex Nichol
John said:Is it my imagination or are defraggers getting slower - or is it just
that the HDDs are getting bigger?
Bigger HD partitions will certainly take longer. Also defrag designed
for XP will be using its Prefetch data to optimise layout of files so
that programs (and the system) load faster. This is worth while, but
takes time, especially on the first two or three occasions
J
John
Alex Nichol said:Bigger HD partitions will certainly take longer. Also defrag designed
for XP will be using its Prefetch data to optimise layout of files so
that programs (and the system) load faster. This is worth while, but
takes time, especially on the first two or three occasions
Thanks one and all - I'm sorry I missed the earlier debate but will
look back in case it was on this group.
I too have diskeeper but, after deciding that it was very very slow,
even when I turned off both firewall and antiv., I tried the resident
version that comes with XP - same result. So I decided to install
Norton's Speed Disc and try that - same result and hence my post.
I have to say I was a little surprised that one of you used diskeeper
once a month - the selling point of this software, AFAIK, was
continuous defragging on the fly - a feature which I quickly turned
off when it stopped me getting any serious work done.
Oh, the system questions: I have a Toshiba Notebook about two years
old now, a Sat Pro 6000 with a 1 Gig PIII processor, half a gig of RAM
and a 20 gig HDD (3 approx equal FAT32 partitions, one with win98se,
one with win98 progs and data and a new partition with xp pro, progs
and data. I'm about to upgrade the HDD to 60 gig.
K
Ken Blake
In
What you're seeing is probably neither. It's more probably that
you have more data on your drive (although a bigger drive may
make that possible, that's not quite the same things as a bigger
drive), so there's more to defrag
John said:Is it my imagination or are defraggers getting slower - or is
it just
that the HDDs are getting bigger?
What you're seeing is probably neither. It's more probably that
you have more data on your drive (although a bigger drive may
make that possible, that's not quite the same things as a bigger
drive), so there's more to defrag
D
Dok
Ah ,er,if I may, I have both win ME and xp PRO running,ME is on a 80g
western digital hdd and xp on a 120wd and I have had ME on the 120,now
then it goes without saying that I have sufficent CPU horsepower and ram
to do the job.
It has been my experience that xp defrags slower than molasses running
uphill in a 4 day january blizzard , furthermore if you examine an xp,
partition,say your primary,you folkz do partition these big
hdd's?,eh??,you will find that it looks like someone blasted it with a
double barrel shotgun several timez,my experience has been that xp totally
trashes the HDD,with respect to orderly and optimal positioning of my
data,this is a dedicated gaming? machine so hdd organization is
crucial,and i defrag daily as needed.And the defrag util in ME was not
built by microshaft,not their area of expertise,came from
Symantec/Intel.And finally when i defrag xp with me it does in secondz
what xp takes hrs to do,fat32 BTW,so as y'all can see i am really serious
about this,some fool utility that takes no input from the user is out of
the question i got here from dos/unix etc,and got into the habit of not
tolerating crappy defragerz and software..i was hoping that some
enterprising reader of this forum had found what i had not :ie:a really
good and fast XP defragger.Ah w'eel,c'est la vie..
western digital hdd and xp on a 120wd and I have had ME on the 120,now
then it goes without saying that I have sufficent CPU horsepower and ram
to do the job
It has been my experience that xp defrags slower than molasses running
uphill in a 4 day january blizzard , furthermore if you examine an xp,
partition,say your primary,you folkz do partition these big
hdd's?,eh??,you will find that it looks like someone blasted it with a
double barrel shotgun several timez,my experience has been that xp totally
trashes the HDD,with respect to orderly and optimal positioning of my
data,this is a dedicated gaming? machine so hdd organization is
crucial,and i defrag daily as needed.And the defrag util in ME was not
built by microshaft,not their area of expertise,came from
Symantec/Intel.And finally when i defrag xp with me it does in secondz
what xp takes hrs to do,fat32 BTW,so as y'all can see i am really serious
about this,some fool utility that takes no input from the user is out of
the question i got here from dos/unix etc,and got into the habit of not
tolerating crappy defragerz and software..i was hoping that some
enterprising reader of this forum had found what i had not :ie:a really
good and fast XP defragger.Ah w'eel,c'est la vie..
D
Dok
Ah ,er,if I may, I have both win ME and xp PRO running,ME is on a 80g
western digital hdd and xp on a 120wd and I have had ME on the 120,now
then it goes without saying that I have sufficent CPU horsepower and ram
to do the job.
It has been my experience that xp defrags slower than molasses running
uphill in a 4 day january blizzard , furthermore if you examine an xp,
partition,say your primary,you folkz do partition these big
hdd's?,eh??,you will find that it looks like someone blasted it with a
double barrel shotgun several timez,my experience has been that xp totally
trashes the HDD,with respect to orderly and optimal positioning of my
data,this is a dedicated gaming? machine so hdd organization is
crucial,and i defrag daily as needed.And the defrag util in ME was not
built by microshaft,not their area of expertise,came from
Symantec/Intel.And finally when i defrag xp with me it does in secondz
what xp takes hrs to do,fat32 BTW,so as y'all can see i am really serious
about this,some fool utility that takes no input from the user is out of
the question i got here from dos/unix etc,and got into the habit of not
tolerating crappy defragerz and software..i was hoping that some
enterprising reader of this forum had found what i had not :ie:a really
good and fast XP defragger.Ah w'eel,c'est la vie..
western digital hdd and xp on a 120wd and I have had ME on the 120,now
then it goes without saying that I have sufficent CPU horsepower and ram
to do the job
It has been my experience that xp defrags slower than molasses running
uphill in a 4 day january blizzard , furthermore if you examine an xp,
partition,say your primary,you folkz do partition these big
hdd's?,eh??,you will find that it looks like someone blasted it with a
double barrel shotgun several timez,my experience has been that xp totally
trashes the HDD,with respect to orderly and optimal positioning of my
data,this is a dedicated gaming? machine so hdd organization is
crucial,and i defrag daily as needed.And the defrag util in ME was not
built by microshaft,not their area of expertise,came from
Symantec/Intel.And finally when i defrag xp with me it does in secondz
what xp takes hrs to do,fat32 BTW,so as y'all can see i am really serious
about this,some fool utility that takes no input from the user is out of
the question i got here from dos/unix etc,and got into the habit of not
tolerating crappy defragerz and software..i was hoping that some
enterprising reader of this forum had found what i had not :ie:a really
good and fast XP defragger.Ah w'eel,c'est la vie..
J
johnf
Three points -
If you must insist on using the generic XP Defrag - as I said previously. "I
use Diskeeper Pro 9 & have no speed problems"
As you're possiby are aware - or probably not, by the tone of your posts, XP
Defrag is a very, very, basic version of Diskeeper Pro, written under
licence for MS-XP & the difference is chalk & cheese.
I can advise you right now, convert your bloody PC from FAT32 to NTFS & then
get your stopwatch out. Why anyone would run XP on FAT32 has me beat - it
has the same effect as driving with your handbrake on, plus half your
security protection & disk-space is wasted.
If you must insist on using the generic XP Defrag - as I said previously. "I
use Diskeeper Pro 9 & have no speed problems"
As you're possiby are aware - or probably not, by the tone of your posts, XP
Defrag is a very, very, basic version of Diskeeper Pro, written under
licence for MS-XP & the difference is chalk & cheese.
I can advise you right now, convert your bloody PC from FAT32 to NTFS & then
get your stopwatch out. Why anyone would run XP on FAT32 has me beat - it
has the same effect as driving with your handbrake on, plus half your
security protection & disk-space is wasted.
A
André Gulliksen
Dok said:And the defrag
util in ME was not built by microshaft,not their area of
expertise,came from Symantec/Intel.
Microsoft has never produced a single defrag utility themselves, AFAIK. The
defrag.exe bundled with MS-DOS was really a licensed version of Nortons
Speed Disk. I also believe that the one used in Windows 95 was Norton, and
later altered to handle FAT32 (sloooowly!). I have no knowledge of ME, NT
had no bundled defrag, and the one in 2000 and XP is (as others have pointed
out) DiskKeeper.
And please, could you learn how to use your enter-key once in a while?
J
John
I can advise you right now, convert your bloody PC from FAT32 to NTFS & then
get your stopwatch out. Why anyone would run XP on FAT32 has me beat - it
has the same effect as driving with your handbrake on, plus half your
security protection & disk-space is wasted.
That doesn't recognise my need to manage, as efficiently as possible,
a transition from a heavily-used Win98SE workhorse, with many
applications gathered over several years, to one capable of running
some of the latest versions which are no longer written for 98SE.
J
johnf
Sorry, you lost me.
I assume you're running XP, otherwise you wouldn't post to an XP NG. If they
run ok on XP FAT32, why wouldn't they run on XP NTFS??
The file system has nothing to do with whether an old program runs or not,
that's entirely up to XP compatibility - AFAIK, if it works on one, it'll
work on the other.
I assume you're running XP, otherwise you wouldn't post to an XP NG. If they
run ok on XP FAT32, why wouldn't they run on XP NTFS??
The file system has nothing to do with whether an old program runs or not,
that's entirely up to XP compatibility - AFAIK, if it works on one, it'll
work on the other.
K
Ken Blake
In
What you say is largely true, but I wanted to add one caveat,
lest anyoneget the wrong impression from the above: it is *not*
true of disk utilities.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
johnf said:Sorry, you lost me.
I assume you're running XP, otherwise you wouldn't post to an
XP NG.
If they run ok on XP FAT32, why wouldn't they run on XP NTFS??
The file system has nothing to do with whether an old program
runs or
not, that's entirely up to XP compatibility - AFAIK, if it
works on
one, it'll work on the other.
What you say is largely true, but I wanted to add one caveat,
lest anyoneget the wrong impression from the above: it is *not*
true of disk utilities.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
G
Greg Hayes/Raxco Software
While MS licensed Diskeeper technology for Windows 2000, with Windows XP and
Windows Server 2003 MS is in strict control of the software and direction.
Executive Software is no longer involved in the continuing development of
the built-in defragmenter.
- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System
Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.
Want to email me? Delete ntloader.
Windows Server 2003 MS is in strict control of the software and direction.
Executive Software is no longer involved in the continuing development of
the built-in defragmenter.
- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System
Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.
Want to email me? Delete ntloader.