Vista Defragmenter

[Bill Daggett]

Defrag diagnostics tells me I don't need to defrag but it takes over 2 hours
to complete the task when I tell it to defrag anyway??!

Leave well enough alone and let Vista's defrag do its thing on its own
in the background. It does all that's needed.

Defragging used to be important "back in the day" but with today's
fast processors and disks, it's not worth worrying about.

 

[Bill Sharpe]

A fragmented HDD is one of the least likely causes of a slow machine....

True enough, but if defrag will slow down the machine while it's
running. Since defrag seems to work in the background it's not always
easy to tell that it is running.

I like jkdefrag, whatever the name has been changed to.

Bill

 

[db]

there are benefits gained
by defragging the disk.

however the larger the disk
and the more free space
it has,

fragmentation is minimal
and virtually not necessary.

but as the disk space shrinks,
then defragging can improve
system performance.

--------------

the "real" benefit from
defragging is simply derived
by having less fragments.

you see if one itty bitty
fragment of the many
that comprises a file,
becomes corrupted.

then that entire file
becomes corrupted.

so by reducing the amount
of fragments, you are reducing
the chance of loosing files.

also, if fragments are becoming
corrupted, then it is a sign that
the master file table and the
file system are becoming
corrupted as well.

so running check disk and
defrag regularly is simply added
insurance for your peace of
mind and data.

the same logic above also
applies to the registry hive.

the dirtier it is because it
contains many obsolete and
orphaned keys,

the larger the registry hive is
and the more fragments it will
have.

so removing unnecessary keys
shrinks the registry file and
reduces the number of fragments
that comprises the registry.

again, if one itty bitty fragment
of the registry file becomes
corrupted and that particular
fragment contained data to
an obsolete key,

then the entire registry will
become corrupted.

and we all know what kind
of a headache that can be.

------------------

interestingly, the microsoft's
one care on-line scanner
is a quick way to fix all of
the above.

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- Microsoft Partner
- @hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~"share the nirvana" - dbZen

 

[Bill Daggett]

True enough, but if defrag will slow down the machine while it's
running. Since defrag seems to work in the background it's not always
easy to tell that it is running.

Why worry about it? Defragging is over-rated anyway.

 

[ray]

Ubuntu/Linux - Same thing.

Not at all. Ubuntu is a Linux distribution - not every Linux distribution
is Ubuntu. Every diamond is a gem - not every gem is a diamond.

Not what I was talking about. Re-read my statement.

At least as relevant as what you said - it's not a very good analogy. I
would not walk into the Chevy dealer and state "you can't do real work on
a Chevy - you need a Ford" - I doubt you would either.

 

[ray]

So what Linux program/programs can do with ADOBE Photoshop does? I am
not talking about a stripped down EL_CHEAPO Free version, tell me what
has the same features? I'll bet you can't.

For the needs of most folks dealing with photo editing, ufraw and GIMP
are quite sufficient. It's all about what is sufficient - not what has a
bunch of features that most folks never use.

BTW - how, exactly does that relate to the need to defragment or not?

 

[Dave Warren]

In message <[email protected]> "JamesJ"

Defrag diagnostics tells me I don't need to defrag but it takes over 2 hours
to complete the task
when I tell it to defrag anyway??!

Okay -- What is the question?

Assuming you're asking why the above happens, there is a difference
between not needing to defragment, and being completely defragmented.

The analysis tells you whether or not the defrag tool believes
fragmentation is impacting performance, but when you tell it to defrag,
it optimizes beyond the point of currently impacting performance.

 

[Ashton Crusher]

Hi:

Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever seen. It
does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.

Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or suggestion?

Thanks,

ColTom2

I understand your desire to watch colors change on the screen but the
built in defrager works fine if you use it as defraging is intended to
be used - as an out of sight/out of mind background task. I set it up
that way 18 months ago and I have never even noticed it running since
then.

 

[+Bob+]

I understand your desire to watch colors change on the screen but the
built in defrager works fine if you use it as defraging is intended to
be used - as an out of sight/out of mind background task. I set it up
that way 18 months ago and I have never even noticed it running since
then.

Background defrag is a waste of performance you could be using in the
foreground. Not to mention, defragging a disk is a moderately risky
operation on the drive. Doing it while foreground tasks are running is
not very smart.

Just get a decent defrag utility and run it periodically when you
won't be doing anything on the system. Shut off Vista's useless dumbed
down defrag. All fixed.

 

[Gordon]

Background defrag is a waste of performance you could be using in the
foreground.

The Vista defrag only kicks in when the system is IDLE......so no loss of
performance there then, is there?

 

[Gordon]

I set it up that way 18 months ago and I have never even noticed it
running since
then.

And there was no need to - that's the default setting of the Vista defrag
utility anyway - in the background, on system idle....

 

[JamesJ]

If it's not importanct to defrag ones drive why did I need to disable
automatic defrag?
I do the maintenance, I believe to be nescessary for my system, on my own
once a week.
And I can't afford to go out and upgrade my processor and disk everytime my
system slows down.
And it does slow down after time.

James

 

[Gordon]

If it's not importanct to defrag ones drive why did I need to disable
automatic defrag?

Why DID you "disable automatic defrag"? That's why it IS automatic so you
don't have to think about it.

I do the maintenance, I believe to be nescessary for my system, on my own
once a week.

And if you leave Vista defrag in the default setting, which is to defrag on
an on-going basis when the machine is idle, that's one less thing you need
to worry about and actually DO.

And it does slow down after time.

But that is NOT, in general, due to a fragmented HDD!
Defragging makes very little difference, in general, to system performance.

 

[Bill Daggett]

If it's not importanct to defrag ones drive why did I need to disable
automatic defrag?

You didn't "need" to, you wanted to. Why, I don't know.

I do the maintenance, I believe to be nescessary for my system, on my own
once a week.

That's commendable. Manually defragging is a waste of your time.

And I can't afford to go out and upgrade my processor and disk everytime my
system slows down.

That's a ridiculous statement.

And it does slow down after time.

James

You have a wild imagination, or something else is wrong with your
computer.

My system has been up and running for over two years with Vista on it
without my ever having run a manual defrag. It has never slowed down
that I have noticed.

 

[JamesJ]

I don't worry about it. I just do those things for myself.
I defrag, maybe once a month. I just feel the more items running
slows my system down. And since I've been tweaking Vista services
I've noticed my system starting faster and not having to wait for 5 minutes
after the desktop shows up before I can do anything.

James

 

[JamesJ]

You didn't "need" to, you wanted to. Why, I don't know.


That's commendable. Manually defragging is a waste of your time.


That's a ridiculous statement.


You have a wild imagination, or something else is wrong with your
computer.

My system has been up and running for over two years with Vista on it
without my ever having run a manual defrag. It has never slowed down
that I have noticed.

 

[JamesJ]

Why is not being able to afford upgrading a ridiculous statement??
I don't have the money do it.
When your car needs an oil change I'll bet you buy a new car.

James

 

[Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth]

Why DID you "disable automatic defrag"? That's why it IS automatic so
you don't have to think about it.



And if you leave Vista defrag in the default setting, which is to defrag
on an on-going basis when the machine is idle, that's one less thing you
need to worry about and actually DO.


But that is NOT, in general, due to a fragmented HDD!
Defragging makes very little difference, in general, to system performance.

But Err, it just Err might be related. Err, the OP may or may not know
it. Err.

 

[Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth]

Not at all. Ubuntu is a Linux distribution - not every Linux distribution
is Ubuntu. Every diamond is a gem - not every gem is a diamond.


At least as relevant as what you said - it's not a very good analogy. I
would not walk into the Chevy dealer and state "you can't do real work on
a Chevy - you need a Ford" - I doubt you would either.

BINGO - That was my point exactly. If you wouldn't do that, then why
would you push Ubuntu in the Vista forum? Got it now?

 

[Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth]

Background defrag is a waste of performance you could be using in the
foreground. Not to mention, defragging a disk is a moderately risky
operation on the drive. Doing it while foreground tasks are running is
not very smart.

Just get a decent defrag utility and run it periodically when you
won't be doing anything on the system. Shut off Vista's useless dumbed
down defrag. All fixed.

Just because the Vista defrag doesn't show you pretty graphs, does that
mean it's worthless?

Kinda like you +BOB+. Worthless.