Defragmentation of Hard Drive Partitions in Dual-Boot Scenario

  • Thread starter Thread starter thecreator
  • Start date Start date
T

thecreator

Hi All,

Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 2

Windows Vista -32-Bit Ultimate

Windows XP Home Edition, states that Windows XP Home Edition should be
Defragmented. So I booted into Windows Vista in order to Defragment Windows
XP Home Edition Partition, so the files to be moved would not be in used.

Also makes it easier to empty the \Temp folders, so no files would be in
use warning. This works great.

But Windows Vista reports that the drive in question, does not need to
be Defragmented.

Why the difference?
 
thecreator said:
Hi All,

Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 2

Windows Vista -32-Bit Ultimate

Windows XP Home Edition, states that Windows XP Home Edition should be
Defragmented. So I booted into Windows Vista in order to Defragment
Windows XP Home Edition Partition, so the files to be moved would not be
in used.

Also makes it easier to empty the \Temp folders, so no files would be
in use warning. This works great.

But Windows Vista reports that the drive in question, does not need to
be Defragmented.

Why the difference?
Click to expand...

Well, it could be that the defragment program in XP uses a different
algorithm than the one in Vista.

Perhaps using a third-party disk defragment tool from both systems would
show the same results, instead of different ones. It really comes down to a
question of which one do you trust, and then stick with it.
 
I sure second Mark, and I appreciate Colin's good point that by default the
defragger in Vista has been set to run once a week. I honestly don't know
who the defrag team for Vista has chosen along with management to make the
defragger for MSFT but someone does. I honestly have no idea without asking
those people how they think they compare. I strongly urge you to use a 3rd
party system. I'm not knowledgable enough to make comparisons of
alogarithms in different defraggers and I'm grateful to Mark for having
typed the word so all I had to do was look down at his spelling and not
undergo the painful thought process of why after so many years I have to
pause when I spell it or anything else that has rhythym in it, whether it's
rhythym and blues or arrhythmias or whatever.

Executive Soft has a whole support area that has white papers and other
articles by their technical team and managers in their company that do a
good job of teaching you file systems and defragmentation science.

I'm glad though that you're concerned about defrag because simply it is very
important. Investing in a good defragger is one of the biggest bangs for
your buck you're ever going to get with your computers. One member of the
File Core Services for Vista has commented that when you install Vista it
can become defragmented significantly. I suppose this is partly dependent
on the hard drive that you use and its condition at the time.

I have noticed that although I pound my computers and Vista gets a workout
every day for hours at a time sometimes, that its defragger has yet to say
it needs defragging. Taking Mark's advice, I don't trust the watered down
defragger that MSFT has gotten some company to make for it. I know that the
same company who made the defragger for XP, ExecutiveSoft then promptly
posted a chart on its web site at www.diskeeper.com comparing XP's defragger
and showcasing how inadequate it was.

I currently have done a mod to get Perfect Disk 8 to work on Vista.
Diskeeper also offers a trial for a Vista Capable defragger on their site.
Here's information on those guys and I strongly urge everyone to try Perfect
Disk (at least when Raxco becomes Vista compatible) and/or Diskeeper and
compare it to what the XP diskeeper does. You can drill into the results
and more sophisticated ways to compare, or if you're like most people, just
test all three of them several times after you've used some graphics
intensive applications or if you're a gamer or game enthusiast, done a lot
of gaming for several days, and then reflect on the results as Mark says.

I think you'll chose either Diskeeper or Perfect Disk. I like Perfect Disk
for every day use better--I like its interface better but for boot-time
defragmentation which XP and Vista's defragger do not do, I like Diskeeper.

Perfect Disk is at www.raxco.com and Diskeeper is at www.diskeeper.com (they
have a comparison chart on the site with other defraggers). Both of these
have defrag setups that can be pushed out on a network.

Currently to get PD working on Vista, you have to install the SDK>install
and use MSI called Orca> open
the PerfectDisk msi and patch the LaunchCondition table (select it fromthe
left list of tables). They'll get around to updating PD for Vista, but
right now Diskeeper 10 already is and a free full functionality trial is
avaialable for 30 days.

CH
 
According to the MS team it is theirs.

CH said:
I sure second Mark, and I appreciate Colin's good point that by default the
defragger in Vista has been set to run once a week. I honestly don't know
who the defrag team for Vista has chosen along with management to make the
defragger for MSFT but someone does. I honestly have no idea without
asking those people how they think they compare. I strongly urge you to
use a 3rd party system. I'm not knowledgable enough to make comparisons of
alogarithms in different defraggers and I'm grateful to Mark for having
typed the word so all I had to do was look down at his spelling and not
undergo the painful thought process of why after so many years I have to
pause when I spell it or anything else that has rhythym in it, whether it's
rhythym and blues or arrhythmias or whatever.

Executive Soft has a whole support area that has white papers and other
articles by their technical team and managers in their company that do a
good job of teaching you file systems and defragmentation science.

I'm glad though that you're concerned about defrag because simply it is
very important. Investing in a good defragger is one of the biggest bangs
for your buck you're ever going to get with your computers. One member of
the File Core Services for Vista has commented that when you install
Vista it can become defragmented significantly. I suppose this is partly
dependent on the hard drive that you use and its condition at the time.

I have noticed that although I pound my computers and Vista gets a workout
every day for hours at a time sometimes, that its defragger has yet to say
it needs defragging. Taking Mark's advice, I don't trust the watered down
defragger that MSFT has gotten some company to make for it. I know that
the same company who made the defragger for XP, ExecutiveSoft then
promptly posted a chart on its web site at www.diskeeper.com comparing
XP's defragger and showcasing how inadequate it was.

I currently have done a mod to get Perfect Disk 8 to work on Vista.
Diskeeper also offers a trial for a Vista Capable defragger on their site.
Here's information on those guys and I strongly urge everyone to try
Perfect Disk (at least when Raxco becomes Vista compatible) and/or
Diskeeper and compare it to what the XP diskeeper does. You can drill
into the results and more sophisticated ways to compare, or if you're like
most people, just test all three of them several times after you've used
some graphics intensive applications or if you're a gamer or game
enthusiast, done a lot of gaming for several days, and then reflect on
the results as Mark says.

I think you'll chose either Diskeeper or Perfect Disk. I like Perfect
Disk for every day use better--I like its interface better but for
boot-time defragmentation which XP and Vista's defragger do not do, I like
Diskeeper.

Perfect Disk is at www.raxco.com and Diskeeper is at www.diskeeper.com
(they have a comparison chart on the site with other defraggers). Both of
these have defrag setups that can be pushed out on a network.

Currently to get PD working on Vista, you have to install the SDK>install
and use MSI called Orca> open
the PerfectDisk msi and patch the LaunchCondition table (select it fromthe
left list of tables). They'll get around to updating PD for Vista, but
right now Diskeeper 10 already is and a free full functionality trial is
avaialable for 30 days.

CH
Click to expand...
 
Depending on how much your machine gets used by fragmenting apps you might
need to defrag more often than once a week. Perfect Disk and Diskeeper will
ID areas you haven't defragged when you allow the default defragger in Vista
to run. I know they are far better than the watered down defragger that
Execsoft made for XP. There is a chart comparing them that Diskeeper puts
on their site. There are specific limitations of the Defraggers in XP and
afik the same limitation of the watered down one in Vista. No doubt time
will make it easier to find direct comparisons of the Vista Defragger and
perhaps time will make it easier for MSFT to get off it's very slow butt and
publish information on key Vista utilities like Win RE, System Restore, and
System File Checker.

In Vista the MFT (Master File Table) can get highly fragmented and there is
no way for the Vista defragger to defrag it. Some believe overtime this
will hurt the performance of the new Vista Transactional NTFS File System
and this topic is debated on threads all over the web. In Vista, defrag
runs at low CPU priority and uses low priority I/O which helps ensure
minimal impact and high responsiveness for the rest of the system. This is a
big change from XP where the system was more or less unusable when defrag
was running. The interface has been dumbed down in Vista to make it usable
by anyone that can type defrag into search.

Colin did not mention it, but I don't see any mechanism at all for boot time
defrag of the paging file or Master File Table in the XP or Vista Defrag.
Information on why you need to do so periodically is below in the Extreme
Tech Article.

Hacking Windows XP: Speed Up Your Boot: Using Other Shareware Boot Defrag
Programs
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1786010,00.asp

Why is it crucial to defrag your drives daily?

Disk fragmentation causes crashes, slowdowns, freeze-ups and even total
system failures. The number one reason for performance bottlenecks is
fragmentation. Even the best hardware will eventually slow down unless the
drive is defragmented daily.
The disk drive is by far the slowest of the three main components of your
computer: CPU, memory and disk. If the drive isn't defragmented the fastest
CPU in the world won't improve your system's performance, because
information from the disk simply can't be delivered fast enough.
Manual defragmentation just isn't practical-who has time to defrag every
system, every day? Manual defragmentation is a break-fix situation.
Automatic defragmentation with Diskeeper, the Number One Automatic
Defragmenter, is the only true defrag solution. Diskeeper 10 uses "Set It
and Forget It"®, Smart Scheduling and I-FAAST technologies to defrag drives
as needed, keeping your systems running as fast as they did when they were
brand-new.
The various editions of Diskeeper run on the Intel® x86 platform (including
the Intel PentiumT and Pentium-compatible CPUs from other manufacturers)
running Microsoft Windows XP (Professional / Home / Tablet PC / Media Center
editions), Windows 2000 (all Professional and Server editions), Windows
Server 2003 (all editions), Windows NT 4.0 (all Server and Workstation
editions), and Windows 95 / 98 / Me. For more information on compatibility
read the Microsoft Knowledgebase article about Diskeeper, view our product
compatibility list, or select the type of environment your computers run in
from the following choices: Home User, Small Business or
Corporate/Government.

Third-party disk defragmenter tools for Windows Server 2003, Windows XP, and
Windows 2000
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;130539

Disk Defragmenter Limitations in Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows
Server 2003
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/227463/

Diskeeper versus windows xp defrag
http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-6142-0.html?forumID=5&threadID=58776&messageID=1478909

http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=129934

Diskeeper References and Documentation
http://www.diskeeper.com/products/documentation/documentation.asp


Diskeeper Comparison Utility
http://www.diskeeper.com/downloads/survey.aspx?PId=62
http://www.diskeeper.com/downloads/survey.aspx?PId=62


Magic Defrag vs. Diskeeper
http://www.infopackets.com/channels.../20051118_magic_defrag_vs_diskeeper_et_al.htm


CH


Colin Barnhorst said:
Because the defragger in Vista runs once a week on its own.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Mark,

Chad, Thank you. Mark, that particular page does not have an expired
certificate, as in my Internet Options, on Advanced tab, I have Warn about
invalid site certificates checked and checked also is Check for publisher's
certificate revocation.


--
thecreator


Mark D. VandenBerg said:
Good article, Chad. Explains a few of the issues we have been trying to
relay very well! Funny that the TechNet blog site has an expired
certificate, though...
Click to expand...
 
Using Opera, which I do, I get a warning saying:

"- The certificate for "blogs.technet.com" is signed by the unknown
Certificate Authority "Microsoft Secure Server Authority". It is not
possible to verify that this is a valid certificate"

So I was incorrect in saying "expired" and should have more closely read the
warning that the certificate signer could not be verified.

It may be a little "tit for tat" since Microsoft refuses to recognize Opera,
either.[/QUOTE]
 
Mark D. VandenBerg said:
Good article, Chad. Explains a few of the issues we have been trying to
relay very well! Funny that the TechNet blog site has an expired
certificate, though...
Click to expand...
 
Mark--

This may be a slightly different nuance but in using Vista due to UAC I
think, I'll go to MSFT pages--even Connect once and have it tell me that the
page doesn't have a trusted certificate or I'll get other messages from MSFT
saying they don't know the company who issued the page, i.e. MSFT claiming
it doesn't know MSFT which LOL I take to be the current argument going on
now about

1) when and what to release in RC1
2) the insane timetable that RC1 would release this week to some testers and
then later to CPP and they would slap RTM on it a few days and builds later

The last two were true accurate statements but meant tongue in cheek about
the true messages that I did get about MSFT pages when using Vista (UAC).

I remember a workaround I had to use *for a while* * for a particular Vista
build in order to get the FTP server to work on Connect where I got an error
GTE Unsigned Content Unknown location that has "invalid signatures" when
MSFT controls
the signing process and the approval process for Active X content? A
message came up http://www.genopro.com/ReportGenerator/ActiveContent/

The information bar in Vista is a carryover from XP SP2:

Description of the Internet Explorer Information Bar in Windows XP SP2
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/843017


The workaround was that I had to go to a setting at Tools>Options>Advanced
Tab>Security>Allow Active Content to Run
on My Computer *in order to allow the active X control to run that would
bring up the FTP server. Knowing the source of the active X control was
MSFT, I suppose, with all the mixed message I didn't consider it a risk to
allow for the time I needed to get access to the server.

See:
http://www.winxptutor.com/lmzunlock.htm

"When you encounter a Web page that is trying to run active content on your
computer, you will receive a message prompting you to indicate whether you
want to allow this. If you are certain that you want to allow the Web page
to run ActiveX controls or scripts, click Yes in the message box. By
clicking Yes, you allow the active content to run on the Web page you're
viewing, but only on that occasion. If you leave the page and return to it
later, you will receive the message again (because you did not change the
setting that allows active content to run on your computer).

The only question is why a box would come up that says Source Unknown
Location Unknown when the Source is from MSFT and one of its web pages and I
think it's a bug. Understanding the bug and the workaround makes it easier.


1) There was an issue with Connect for many people that I remember well in
one of the builds where many people couldn't get the FTP server up for
downloads because this happened--it was a bug that probably got fixed
although crazilyy MSFT often gives a "by design" or "resolved" type message
and is fixing the bug but communications are muddled from their teams.

2) I have seen many angry messages to the Beta from people I regard highly
on bugs that could be reproed time and time again that they falsely said
were fixed or by design. They wern't and this wasn't. Communications on
bugs remain a mess and remain non-transparent and it's harming the product
severely and systemically and I have a collection of MSFT MVP/book authors
saying just that I've posted.

____________

The error with the FTP server went like this:

1) Up came an error message that reads: "VBScript: There was an error
launching File Transfer Manager.If you are running Windows XP with SP2 or
Windows Server 2003 SP1 this installation may have been blocked." If the
gold IE information bar is present, please click the bar and install the
active X control. For additional assistance, please visit the web site
http://transfers.ds.microsoft.com (which offers absolutely no assistance
just a definition of some of the functionality of FTP 5.0

2) Next I click to install Active X just as in IE 6SP2, and I get a blank
page that just sits there. I get a pink box first on the Connect page that
says "a separate file and transfer Manager will be open." Nothing happens.

3) Next I get a message "Your security settings do not allow websites to use
active X Controls. But they absolutely do, and these settings in Vista 5365
are no different than in XP SP2's beta from the day it released December 13,
2003.
I have gone over both Internet Security settings and Intranet and they are
fine to allow Active X installation.

4) Then I get a referral to Windows Help and Support but like a lot of Help
and Support pages still in Vista, the content is not available yet--the page
is blank. By the way when Help and Support Searches the web instead of as in
XP offering specific articles with links to locations on the OS, and on the
right page at the bottom all available MSKB articles, what happened to that
in Vista?

5) Then if you click the lock icon that shows up in the IE address bar, a
box pops up that is interesting. It says

:GTE Corporation (which is now Verizon after a merger of GTE and Bell
Atlantic) how'd they become a part of Vista and Connect--apparently they are
a contractor for the Security component of Vista in some way--

On Clicking the locker Icon on the Connect IE address bar I get this
interesting info:

"GTE Corp. has identified this site (they don't have anything to do with my
ISP) this is part of a Windows error cascade)
http://connect.microsoft.com
Owner Unverified The owner is Microsoft
Location Unverified The location is Redmond, Washington

Limited Information about this website is available. You should send
confidential information about this website only if you trust this website."

Come again? Connect and MSFT have limited info on Connect and MSFT?

I remember saying at the time I suppose I can try to workaround by
downloading from Connect on my XP boot and sending the download to a folder
that I can hopefully use on Connect because it's pretty inconvenient to have
to go back to the XP boot every time I want to file a bug report--and the
Tools>Advanced>Security>"Allow Active Content to Run
on My Computer" worked fine as a temporary go around. Also in one build, a
lot of people were having trouble accessing folders created on an XP boot
or with an earlier Vista build.that to quote Ed Bott "has permissions
attached to a SID that doesn't exist in the current security environment."


This is a quintissential representation though of the state of error
messages in Windows and their ability to convey useful and meaningful
information instead of coded log messages and hex messages and reminds me of
what you'll see if you go to http://oca.microsoft.com that has promised to
have useful info for many many years.


At the time I wondered

Does this have anything to do with permissions and UAP besides IE security
levels which I know are fine for installation of Active X?

Many people said they had bugged it and gotten no answer. Typical and very
par for the course of this Beta.

CH






Mark D. VandenBerg said:
Good article, Chad. Explains a few of the issues we have been trying to
relay very well! Funny that the TechNet blog site has an expired
certificate, though...
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top