Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

scan disk, defrag

Tags:
  • Defragment
  • Microsoft
  • Windows
Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 1:55:01 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Usually when I run either one I have to use ctrl, alt, del and close all
programs except systray and explorer or scan disk will just keep on
restarting. After running scan disk then I run defrag. It zips along at high
speed until it gets to 61% and then it stalls. It doesn't freeze. You can
still hit pause and resume. Under the progress bar 61% just flashes at a high
rate of speed. Dell 4100, 512 RAM, 40 G with 30 G remaining. Seems like I
left it on all night once and it was finished when I got up. Not sure, I may
have been drowsey lol. All my spy programs show no problems.

More about : scan disk defrag

June 6, 2005 11:32:28 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

First do a clean up and then scan disk and then the defrag. With Win Me,
it's better to do it all in Safe Mode.

Alias

"kbsmith9" wrote

> Usually when I run either one I have to use ctrl, alt, del and close all
> programs except systray and explorer or scan disk will just keep on
> restarting. After running scan disk then I run defrag. It zips along at
> high
> speed until it gets to 61% and then it stalls. It doesn't freeze. You can
> still hit pause and resume. Under the progress bar 61% just flashes at a
> high
> rate of speed. Dell 4100, 512 RAM, 40 G with 30 G remaining. Seems like I
> left it on all night once and it was finished when I got up. Not sure, I
> may
> have been drowsey lol. All my spy programs show no problems.
>
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 12:35:01 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

hi there,
get 'ScanDefrag', makes things much easier.....lol.....bob

"kbsmith9" wrote:

> Usually when I run either one I have to use ctrl, alt, del and close all
> programs except systray and explorer or scan disk will just keep on
> restarting. After running scan disk then I run defrag. It zips along at high
> speed until it gets to 61% and then it stalls. It doesn't freeze. You can
> still hit pause and resume. Under the progress bar 61% just flashes at a high
> rate of speed. Dell 4100, 512 RAM, 40 G with 30 G remaining. Seems like I
> left it on all night once and it was finished when I got up. Not sure, I may
> have been drowsey lol. All my spy programs show no problems.
>
Related resources
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 9:49:31 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

>hi there,
> get 'ScanDefrag', makes things much easier.....lol.....bob
>
>Better still get something like Diskeeper (free version is Diskeeper Lite) - this will defrag the drive more thoroughly , much much faster and isn't affected by other programs running.
To give you some idea , I often start Diskeeper Lite and then play a
game of Freecell Pro. They take about the same amount of time as each
other.
June 7, 2005 9:49:32 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

I bought Diskeeper but finally removed it. Initially, it was partly my
fault. I would also use Norton's optimizer along with Diskeeper. There was
a conflict which resulted in my having to reinstall ME. However, you would
think that Diskeeper would have warned me. More recently, I ran into
another problem, wherein I could not boot up. I had to use a start up disk
but with a registry a year old, resulting in many more problems. I don't
know if Diskeeper was responsible for that. Possibly, possibly not.
Norton's may have been responsible someway. I don't know. In any event, I
removed both Diskeeper and Norton, signed up with AVG, and use Window's ME
defrag now. In Safe Mode, it took only ten minutes for me to defrag today,
as it did last week. I've discovered that, so far at least, if you defrag
once a week with Window's defrag in safe mode, it takes only ten minutes.
In addition, whenever Diskeeper was active, it would slow down the puter.
Much better just to invest ten minutes of my time once a week and be safe.
"valeofbelvoirdrinker" <pete@vob.net> wrote in message
news:n0kba1lgrhkmhiekqp21i3mva2a7s1ocqr@4ax.com...
>
>
> >hi there,
> > get 'ScanDefrag', makes things much easier.....lol.....bob
> >
> >Better still get something like Diskeeper (free version is Diskeeper
Lite) - this will defrag the drive more thoroughly , much much faster and
isn't affected by other programs running.
> To give you some idea , I often start Diskeeper Lite and then play a
> game of Freecell Pro. They take about the same amount of time as each
> other.
June 8, 2005 1:00:05 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

It probably was Norton, esp. if you mean Norton Optimizer rather than simply
Speed Disk. And if you used Norton Optimizer one would assume you also used
worse stuff, eg Norton System Doctor, or System Check/WinDoctor which makes
inappropriate *repairs*.

Otherwise, the length of time any defragger takes, depends largely on the
size of the disk.


Shane


"Someone" <someone@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ujTJq$5aFHA.3876@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I bought Diskeeper but finally removed it. Initially, it was partly my
> fault. I would also use Norton's optimizer along with Diskeeper. There
was
> a conflict which resulted in my having to reinstall ME. However, you
would
> think that Diskeeper would have warned me. More recently, I ran into
> another problem, wherein I could not boot up. I had to use a start up
disk
> but with a registry a year old, resulting in many more problems. I don't
> know if Diskeeper was responsible for that. Possibly, possibly not.
> Norton's may have been responsible someway. I don't know. In any event,
I
> removed both Diskeeper and Norton, signed up with AVG, and use Window's ME
> defrag now. In Safe Mode, it took only ten minutes for me to defrag
today,
> as it did last week. I've discovered that, so far at least, if you defrag
> once a week with Window's defrag in safe mode, it takes only ten minutes.
> In addition, whenever Diskeeper was active, it would slow down the puter.
> Much better just to invest ten minutes of my time once a week and be safe.
> "valeofbelvoirdrinker" <pete@vob.net> wrote in message
> news:n0kba1lgrhkmhiekqp21i3mva2a7s1ocqr@4ax.com...
> >
> >
> > >hi there,
> > > get 'ScanDefrag', makes things much easier.....lol.....bob
> > >
> > >Better still get something like Diskeeper (free version is Diskeeper
> Lite) - this will defrag the drive more thoroughly , much much faster and
> isn't affected by other programs running.
> > To give you some idea , I often start Diskeeper Lite and then play a
> > game of Freecell Pro. They take about the same amount of time as each
> > other.
>
>
June 8, 2005 5:24:14 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

I stopped using Norton Optimizer after the first disaster, but did use
Norton System Doctor on occasion, but mostly the OBC utility in Norton,
which sometimes showed that I had to use the Doctor. I believe that in
addition to the size of the disk, the amount of fragmentation is also a
factor in the time. The first time I used the ME defrag (after removing
Diskeeper), it took over an hour. The next time was about 20 minutes, but
it has been about 10 minutes since.
"Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23DhyaAAbFHA.3488@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> It probably was Norton, esp. if you mean Norton Optimizer rather than
simply
> Speed Disk. And if you used Norton Optimizer one would assume you also
used
> worse stuff, eg Norton System Doctor, or System Check/WinDoctor which
makes
> inappropriate *repairs*.
>
> Otherwise, the length of time any defragger takes, depends largely on the
> size of the disk.
>
>
> Shane
>
>
> "Someone" <someone@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ujTJq$5aFHA.3876@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > I bought Diskeeper but finally removed it. Initially, it was partly my
> > fault. I would also use Norton's optimizer along with Diskeeper. There
> was
> > a conflict which resulted in my having to reinstall ME. However, you
> would
> > think that Diskeeper would have warned me. More recently, I ran into
> > another problem, wherein I could not boot up. I had to use a start up
> disk
> > but with a registry a year old, resulting in many more problems. I
don't
> > know if Diskeeper was responsible for that. Possibly, possibly not.
> > Norton's may have been responsible someway. I don't know. In any
event,
> I
> > removed both Diskeeper and Norton, signed up with AVG, and use Window's
ME
> > defrag now. In Safe Mode, it took only ten minutes for me to defrag
> today,
> > as it did last week. I've discovered that, so far at least, if you
defrag
> > once a week with Window's defrag in safe mode, it takes only ten
minutes.
> > In addition, whenever Diskeeper was active, it would slow down the
puter.
> > Much better just to invest ten minutes of my time once a week and be
safe.
> > "valeofbelvoirdrinker" <pete@vob.net> wrote in message
> > news:n0kba1lgrhkmhiekqp21i3mva2a7s1ocqr@4ax.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > >hi there,
> > > > get 'ScanDefrag', makes things much easier.....lol.....bob
> > > >
> > > >Better still get something like Diskeeper (free version is Diskeeper
> > Lite) - this will defrag the drive more thoroughly , much much faster
and
> > isn't affected by other programs running.
> > > To give you some idea , I often start Diskeeper Lite and then play a
> > > game of Freecell Pro. They take about the same amount of time as each
> > > other.
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 10:35:20 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:00:05 +0100, "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com>

>the length of time any defragger takes, depends largely on the
>size of the disk.

Things that can affect defrag time:

1) Conflicting defrag logic

The objective of defrag is to speed access, which until Win98 was
taken to mean ensuring the contents of all files lay in a contiguous
chain of clusters. This changed in Win98, when Intel's new defrag
logic moved often-used parts of code files closer to the "front" of
the volume, even if this meant fragmenting the files.

Which parts of which files are "frequently used" is typically
determined by running a "watcher" underfoot, that builds a list of
such files and parts thereof. In Win98 and WinME, that's held in the
AppLog folder within the OS subtree; in XP it's held as a collection
of .PF files (not to be confused with .PIF shortcuts to DOS code).

If a defragger of one logic is used, then another of a differing logic
is used, then the second defrag will take ages, because it's
"correcting" the work of the earlier defragger. This applies also if
the Applog, .PF or similar info store is lost, or has been rebuilt
after being lost, or if a different defragger is using the same new
logic, but is referencing a different info store for this purpose

2) Sick HD

A failing HD should never be defragged! Sectors that are failing may
take multiple retries to access, and/or invoke the HD's firmware
defect management that tries to copy the contents of the sick sector
to a spare one. If XP and NTFS, then there will be NTFS driver code
that's trying to do the same thing.

3) Slow HD data throughput mode

If in Safe Mode, any special Win32 driver code is bypassed, and with
that will generally go the faster UDMA transfer modes, If Win9x,
you'd likely fall back to PIO Mode 1 or something slow like that.

You may also fall back to this slower mode if Win9x is in DOS
Compatability Mode for some reason, as per...

http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/doscompat.htm

....or you may fall to a less drastically slow mode if you are using a
40-pin rather than 80-pin UIDE cable, or a removable HD bracket. Both
of these have limits on how fast they can go; around UDMA33 or so.

4) Underfootware interference

This would usually cause Defrag to keep restarting, at least in Win9x
(XP seems to just keep on defraggin'). If you can't account for this
effect, having killed all visible tasks, disconnected all external
devices and networking, etc. then suspect malware activity.

5) Low volume free space

It's really painful to defrag when free space is really low, as this
limits how much data defrag can swing around at a time. Typically
Defrag will warn you about this

6) Substantial changes since last defrag

Usually, such circumstances are a good indication to defrag, but as
defrag has more work to do, you can expect it to take longer.
Examples include clearing out bloated TIF full of tiny files,
uninstalling a large app or few, and converting the file system or
volume size in ways that alter slack space and so on.

7) Disk compression

Everything on a compressed disk is slow and risky, and that certainly
does include defrag!

8) NTFS with 512-byte clusters

This is the result of converting an "improperly-aligned" volume from
FATxx to NTFS. If using BING (www.bootitng.com) to manage partitions,
it may ask you "do you intend converting to NTFS?" and if you say Yes,
the volume will be aligned so as not to give 512-byte clusters should
the volume ever be converted to NTFS in the future. Just say Yes :-)



>------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
Forget http://cquirke.blogspot.com and check out a
better one at http://topicdrift.blogspot.com instead!
>------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
June 9, 2005 10:35:21 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

But all else being equal.............


<vbg>

Shane


"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
message news:asqga1t475d00g2ohcjt4nbcsm67ad2l9b@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:00:05 +0100, "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com>
>
> >the length of time any defragger takes, depends largely on the
> >size of the disk.
>
> Things that can affect defrag time:
>
> 1) Conflicting defrag logic
>
> The objective of defrag is to speed access, which until Win98 was
> taken to mean ensuring the contents of all files lay in a contiguous
> chain of clusters. This changed in Win98, when Intel's new defrag
> logic moved often-used parts of code files closer to the "front" of
> the volume, even if this meant fragmenting the files.
>
> Which parts of which files are "frequently used" is typically
> determined by running a "watcher" underfoot, that builds a list of
> such files and parts thereof. In Win98 and WinME, that's held in the
> AppLog folder within the OS subtree; in XP it's held as a collection
> of .PF files (not to be confused with .PIF shortcuts to DOS code).
>
> If a defragger of one logic is used, then another of a differing logic
> is used, then the second defrag will take ages, because it's
> "correcting" the work of the earlier defragger. This applies also if
> the Applog, .PF or similar info store is lost, or has been rebuilt
> after being lost, or if a different defragger is using the same new
> logic, but is referencing a different info store for this purpose
>
> 2) Sick HD
>
> A failing HD should never be defragged! Sectors that are failing may
> take multiple retries to access, and/or invoke the HD's firmware
> defect management that tries to copy the contents of the sick sector
> to a spare one. If XP and NTFS, then there will be NTFS driver code
> that's trying to do the same thing.
>
> 3) Slow HD data throughput mode
>
> If in Safe Mode, any special Win32 driver code is bypassed, and with
> that will generally go the faster UDMA transfer modes, If Win9x,
> you'd likely fall back to PIO Mode 1 or something slow like that.
>
> You may also fall back to this slower mode if Win9x is in DOS
> Compatability Mode for some reason, as per...
>
> http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/doscompat.htm
>
> ...or you may fall to a less drastically slow mode if you are using a
> 40-pin rather than 80-pin UIDE cable, or a removable HD bracket. Both
> of these have limits on how fast they can go; around UDMA33 or so.
>
> 4) Underfootware interference
>
> This would usually cause Defrag to keep restarting, at least in Win9x
> (XP seems to just keep on defraggin'). If you can't account for this
> effect, having killed all visible tasks, disconnected all external
> devices and networking, etc. then suspect malware activity.
>
> 5) Low volume free space
>
> It's really painful to defrag when free space is really low, as this
> limits how much data defrag can swing around at a time. Typically
> Defrag will warn you about this
>
> 6) Substantial changes since last defrag
>
> Usually, such circumstances are a good indication to defrag, but as
> defrag has more work to do, you can expect it to take longer.
> Examples include clearing out bloated TIF full of tiny files,
> uninstalling a large app or few, and converting the file system or
> volume size in ways that alter slack space and so on.
>
> 7) Disk compression
>
> Everything on a compressed disk is slow and risky, and that certainly
> does include defrag!
>
> 8) NTFS with 512-byte clusters
>
> This is the result of converting an "improperly-aligned" volume from
> FATxx to NTFS. If using BING (www.bootitng.com) to manage partitions,
> it may ask you "do you intend converting to NTFS?" and if you say Yes,
> the volume will be aligned so as not to give 512-byte clusters should
> the volume ever be converted to NTFS in the future. Just say Yes :-)
>
>
>
> >------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
> Forget http://cquirke.blogspot.com and check out a
> better one at http://topicdrift.blogspot.com instead!
> >------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 10:35:22 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Scandisk and Defrag with Windows tools:

cquirke
Your exposé is far behond my level, but by simple trial and error
I've always got by:
FOR SCANDISK:
- disconected from Internet
- set my screen saver to NONE and the settings to NEVER
- disabled the PC Health scheduler
- used the "Quit all Running Programs" as per KB 222469

FOR DEFRAG:
Use the "Clean Boot the Computer" method as per KB 186978
- In the System Configuration Utility, disable:
. Process System.ini File
. Process Win.ini File
. Load Startup Group Items

This way I dont have to use extra "help" especially Norton's. And as Shane
said: But all else being equal... Also "Someone" said if you do it weekly
it takes less time. Your post is very interesting and it will be part of my
ongoing learning process.
Good luck kbsmith9
Paul
--
cogito ergo sum


"Shane" wrote:

> But all else being equal.............
>
>
> <vbg>
>
> Shane
>
>
> "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
> message news:asqga1t475d00g2ohcjt4nbcsm67ad2l9b@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:00:05 +0100, "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com>
> >
> > >the length of time any defragger takes, depends largely on the
> > >size of the disk.
> >
> > Things that can affect defrag time:
> >
> > 1) Conflicting defrag logic
> >
> > The objective of defrag is to speed access, which until Win98 was
> > taken to mean ensuring the contents of all files lay in a contiguous
> > chain of clusters. This changed in Win98, when Intel's new defrag
> > logic moved often-used parts of code files closer to the "front" of
> > the volume, even if this meant fragmenting the files.
> >
> > Which parts of which files are "frequently used" is typically
> > determined by running a "watcher" underfoot, that builds a list of
> > such files and parts thereof. In Win98 and WinME, that's held in the
> > AppLog folder within the OS subtree; in XP it's held as a collection
> > of .PF files (not to be confused with .PIF shortcuts to DOS code).
> >
> > If a defragger of one logic is used, then another of a differing logic
> > is used, then the second defrag will take ages, because it's
> > "correcting" the work of the earlier defragger. This applies also if
> > the Applog, .PF or similar info store is lost, or has been rebuilt
> > after being lost, or if a different defragger is using the same new
> > logic, but is referencing a different info store for this purpose
> >
> > 2) Sick HD
> >
> > A failing HD should never be defragged! Sectors that are failing may
> > take multiple retries to access, and/or invoke the HD's firmware
> > defect management that tries to copy the contents of the sick sector
> > to a spare one. If XP and NTFS, then there will be NTFS driver code
> > that's trying to do the same thing.
> >
> > 3) Slow HD data throughput mode
> >
> > If in Safe Mode, any special Win32 driver code is bypassed, and with
> > that will generally go the faster UDMA transfer modes, If Win9x,
> > you'd likely fall back to PIO Mode 1 or something slow like that.
> >
> > You may also fall back to this slower mode if Win9x is in DOS
> > Compatability Mode for some reason, as per...
> >
> > http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/doscompat.htm
> >
> > ...or you may fall to a less drastically slow mode if you are using a
> > 40-pin rather than 80-pin UIDE cable, or a removable HD bracket. Both
> > of these have limits on how fast they can go; around UDMA33 or so.
> >
> > 4) Underfootware interference
> >
> > This would usually cause Defrag to keep restarting, at least in Win9x
> > (XP seems to just keep on defraggin'). If you can't account for this
> > effect, having killed all visible tasks, disconnected all external
> > devices and networking, etc. then suspect malware activity.
> >
> > 5) Low volume free space
> >
> > It's really painful to defrag when free space is really low, as this
> > limits how much data defrag can swing around at a time. Typically
> > Defrag will warn you about this
> >
> > 6) Substantial changes since last defrag
> >
> > Usually, such circumstances are a good indication to defrag, but as
> > defrag has more work to do, you can expect it to take longer.
> > Examples include clearing out bloated TIF full of tiny files,
> > uninstalling a large app or few, and converting the file system or
> > volume size in ways that alter slack space and so on.
> >
> > 7) Disk compression
> >
> > Everything on a compressed disk is slow and risky, and that certainly
> > does include defrag!
> >
> > 8) NTFS with 512-byte clusters
> >
> > This is the result of converting an "improperly-aligned" volume from
> > FATxx to NTFS. If using BING (www.bootitng.com) to manage partitions,
> > it may ask you "do you intend converting to NTFS?" and if you say Yes,
> > the volume will be aligned so as not to give 512-byte clusters should
> > the volume ever be converted to NTFS in the future. Just say Yes :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > >------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
> > Forget http://cquirke.blogspot.com and check out a
> > better one at http://topicdrift.blogspot.com instead!
> > >------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
>
>
>
!