Defrag question please

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I have a smoothly running XP computer. For some time now, when I check
the defrag in control panel and analyze for possible defrag, I keep
getting the same notice that says a defrag isn't needed on this drive.
Right now I'm showing 84% free space and defrag not needed. The last
defrag was several months ago, and even that was done with the defrag
message telling me it wasn't needed.
What's unusual is that I used to get a "defrag this drive message every
month or so. There have been no changes made on the system, but the
defrag message calling for a defrag doesn't come up any more.
Is this a known issue in XP, or is there something I can do to check
that the defrag program is actually working properly?
Many thanks
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
17 answers Last reply
More about defrag question please
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Periodically, Windows XP will automatically perform a partial,
    behind the scenes defrag, while idle.

    --
    Carey Frisch
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows XP - Shell/User
    Microsoft Newsgroups

    Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
    http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.mspx

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

    "Dudley Henriques" wrote:

    | I have a smoothly running XP computer. For some time now, when I check
    | the defrag in control panel and analyze for possible defrag, I keep
    | getting the same notice that says a defrag isn't needed on this drive.
    | Right now I'm showing 84% free space and defrag not needed. The last
    | defrag was several months ago, and even that was done with the defrag
    | message telling me it wasn't needed.
    | What's unusual is that I used to get a "defrag this drive message every
    | month or so. There have been no changes made on the system, but the
    | defrag message calling for a defrag doesn't come up any more.
    | Is this a known issue in XP, or is there something I can do to check
    | that the defrag program is actually working properly?
    | Many thanks
    | Dudley Henriques
    | International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Thank you.
    DH
    "Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
    news:OUGW1b9EFHA.2756@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    > Periodically, Windows XP will automatically perform a partial,
    > behind the scenes defrag, while idle.
    >
    > --
    > Carey Frisch
    > Microsoft MVP
    > Windows XP - Shell/User
    > Microsoft Newsgroups
    >
    > Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
    > http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.mspx
    >
    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > "Dudley Henriques" wrote:
    >
    > | I have a smoothly running XP computer. For some time now, when I
    > check
    > | the defrag in control panel and analyze for possible defrag, I keep
    > | getting the same notice that says a defrag isn't needed on this
    > drive.
    > | Right now I'm showing 84% free space and defrag not needed. The last
    > | defrag was several months ago, and even that was done with the
    > defrag
    > | message telling me it wasn't needed.
    > | What's unusual is that I used to get a "defrag this drive message
    > every
    > | month or so. There have been no changes made on the system, but the
    > | defrag message calling for a defrag doesn't come up any more.
    > | Is this a known issue in XP, or is there something I can do to check
    > | that the defrag program is actually working properly?
    > | Many thanks
    > | Dudley Henriques
    > | International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
    >
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Dudley Henriques wrote:

    >I have a smoothly running XP computer. For some time now, when I check
    >the defrag in control panel and analyze for possible defrag, I keep
    >getting the same notice that says a defrag isn't needed on this drive.
    >Right now I'm showing 84% free space and defrag not needed. The last
    >defrag was several months ago, and even that was done with the defrag
    >message telling me it wasn't needed.

    I have always found the MS defrag far too likely to say not needed. Do
    it at convenience - say maybe once a month


    --
    Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
    Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Thanks Alex. I'm hearing that I should get the O&O defrag to replace the
    XP cut down version of Diskkeeper. Do you concur with this thinking, or
    is the XP supplied defrag sufficient?
    Dudley
    "Alex Nichol" <alexn.mvpdts@ntlworld.delete.com> wrote in message
    news:vvo611t3c63u59o5rqgfvum4v0ua8ml0di@4ax.com...
    > Dudley Henriques wrote:
    >
    >>I have a smoothly running XP computer. For some time now, when I check
    >>the defrag in control panel and analyze for possible defrag, I keep
    >>getting the same notice that says a defrag isn't needed on this drive.
    >>Right now I'm showing 84% free space and defrag not needed. The last
    >>defrag was several months ago, and even that was done with the defrag
    >>message telling me it wasn't needed.
    >
    > I have always found the MS defrag far too likely to say not needed.
    > Do
    > it at convenience - say maybe once a month
    >
    >
    > --
    > Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
    > Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Good Morning,
    Two things: (1) As has already been stated, I never pay any
    attention to the programs statement on the necessity of defragmentation.
    I just do it about every week or two. (2) Just what proof is offered to
    justify purchase of another defragger? I have seen this subject
    discussed many, many times WITHOUT any substantial facts presented to
    support another defragger. Just one opinion against another! So long as
    your computer has no problems you can relate specifically to the Windows
    defragger, I suggest you keep your money.
    Gene K

    Dudley Henriques wrote:
    > Thanks Alex. I'm hearing that I should get the O&O defrag to replace the
    > XP cut down version of Diskkeeper. Do you concur with this thinking, or
    > is the XP supplied defrag sufficient?
    > Dudley
    > "Alex Nichol" <alexn.mvpdts@ntlworld.delete.com> wrote in message
    > news:vvo611t3c63u59o5rqgfvum4v0ua8ml0di@4ax.com...
    >
    >>Dudley Henriques wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I have a smoothly running XP computer. For some time now, when I check
    >>>the defrag in control panel and analyze for possible defrag, I keep
    >>>getting the same notice that says a defrag isn't needed on this drive.
    >>>Right now I'm showing 84% free space and defrag not needed. The last
    >>>defrag was several months ago, and even that was done with the defrag
    >>>message telling me it wasn't needed.
    >>
    >>I have always found the MS defrag far too likely to say not needed.
    >>Do
    >>it at convenience - say maybe once a month
    >>
    >>
    >>--
    >>Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
    >>Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)
    >
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    The primary reason I spent $20 on Diskeeper 9 was to have a defragger that
    automatically defrags as needed. The best time to defrag is when 'needed'.
    Regular scheduling is OK. It gets the defragging done. But I figure, why
    do it when it is not needed.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@trashearthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:eaxHbtDFFHA.1348@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    > Thanks Alex. I'm hearing that I should get the O&O defrag to replace the
    > XP cut down version of Diskkeeper. Do you concur with this thinking, or is
    > the XP supplied defrag sufficient?
    > Dudley
    > "Alex Nichol" <alexn.mvpdts@ntlworld.delete.com> wrote in message
    > news:vvo611t3c63u59o5rqgfvum4v0ua8ml0di@4ax.com...
    >> Dudley Henriques wrote:
    >>
    >>>I have a smoothly running XP computer. For some time now, when I check
    >>>the defrag in control panel and analyze for possible defrag, I keep
    >>>getting the same notice that says a defrag isn't needed on this drive.
    >>>Right now I'm showing 84% free space and defrag not needed. The last
    >>>defrag was several months ago, and even that was done with the defrag
    >>>message telling me it wasn't needed.
    >>
    >> I have always found the MS defrag far too likely to say not needed. Do
    >> it at convenience - say maybe once a month
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
    >> Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Many thanks
    D
    "Not Me" <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote in message
    news:emCNA6DFFHA.3312@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    > Good Morning,
    > Two things: (1) As has already been stated, I never pay any
    > attention to the programs statement on the necessity of
    > defragmentation. I just do it about every week or two. (2) Just what
    > proof is offered to justify purchase of another defragger? I have seen
    > this subject discussed many, many times WITHOUT any substantial facts
    > presented to support another defragger. Just one opinion against
    > another! So long as your computer has no problems you can relate
    > specifically to the Windows defragger, I suggest you keep your money.
    > Gene K
    >
    > Dudley Henriques wrote:
    >> Thanks Alex. I'm hearing that I should get the O&O defrag to replace
    >> the XP cut down version of Diskkeeper. Do you concur with this
    >> thinking, or is the XP supplied defrag sufficient?
    >> Dudley
    >> "Alex Nichol" <alexn.mvpdts@ntlworld.delete.com> wrote in message
    >> news:vvo611t3c63u59o5rqgfvum4v0ua8ml0di@4ax.com...
    >>
    >>>Dudley Henriques wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>I have a smoothly running XP computer. For some time now, when I
    >>>>check
    >>>>the defrag in control panel and analyze for possible defrag, I keep
    >>>>getting the same notice that says a defrag isn't needed on this
    >>>>drive.
    >>>>Right now I'm showing 84% free space and defrag not needed. The last
    >>>>defrag was several months ago, and even that was done with the
    >>>>defrag
    >>>>message telling me it wasn't needed.
    >>>
    >>>I have always found the MS defrag far too likely to say not needed.
    >>>Do
    >>>it at convenience - say maybe once a month
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>--
    >>>Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
    >>>Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)
    >>
    >>
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Thank you very much.
    DH
    "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:uOnruHEFFHA.2176@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    > The primary reason I spent $20 on Diskeeper 9 was to have a defragger
    > that automatically defrags as needed. The best time to defrag is when
    > 'needed'. Regular scheduling is OK. It gets the defragging done. But
    > I figure, why do it when it is not needed.
    >
    > --
    > Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    > (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    > "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@trashearthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:eaxHbtDFFHA.1348@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >> Thanks Alex. I'm hearing that I should get the O&O defrag to replace
    >> the XP cut down version of Diskkeeper. Do you concur with this
    >> thinking, or is the XP supplied defrag sufficient?
    >> Dudley
    >> "Alex Nichol" <alexn.mvpdts@ntlworld.delete.com> wrote in message
    >> news:vvo611t3c63u59o5rqgfvum4v0ua8ml0di@4ax.com...
    >>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>I have a smoothly running XP computer. For some time now, when I
    >>>>check
    >>>>the defrag in control panel and analyze for possible defrag, I keep
    >>>>getting the same notice that says a defrag isn't needed on this
    >>>>drive.
    >>>>Right now I'm showing 84% free space and defrag not needed. The last
    >>>>defrag was several months ago, and even that was done with the
    >>>>defrag
    >>>>message telling me it wasn't needed.
    >>>
    >>> I have always found the MS defrag far too likely to say not needed.
    >>> Do
    >>> it at convenience - say maybe once a month
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
    >>> Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Not Me wrote:
    > Good Morning,
    > Two things: (1) As has already been stated, I never pay any
    > attention to the programs statement on the necessity of
    > defragmentation. I just do it about every week or two. (2) Just what
    > proof is offered to justify purchase of another defragger? I have
    > seen this subject discussed many, many times WITHOUT any substantial
    > facts presented to support another defragger. Just one opinion
    > against another! So long as your computer has no problems you can
    > relate specifically to the Windows defragger, I suggest you keep your
    > money. Gene K

    Then you have either done no research at all - or you're an idiot.

    I use Raxco PerfectDisk because

    - It will defrag with only 1% free (Windows Defrag requires 20%)
    - It monitors the drive and will perform a defrag, if required, when the
    system is idle
    - It can be scheduled
    - It defrags boot and system files as well as data (the Windows defrag does
    *NOT* defrag system, paging or boot files.
    - It can be set to defrag in the background and doesn't hog the CPU.

    That's five convincing arguments - how many can you counter?


    --
    Facon - the artificial bacon bits you get in Pizza Hut for sprinkling
    on salads.
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Dudley Henriques wrote:

    >Thanks Alex. I'm hearing that I should get the O&O defrag to replace the
    >XP cut down version of Diskkeeper. Do you concur with this thinking, or
    >is the XP supplied defrag sufficient?

    Have not tried O&O myself, my preference is Perfect Disk, which is an
    excellent one. I do have a strong preference for one, that like PD will
    consolidate free space. And in that one, unlike the inbuilt or (I think
    still) Diskeeper, does *not* require 15 % free space to work at all


    --
    Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
    Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    I just downloaded Perfect Disk and am trying it now. It looks good.
    They suggested I do an initial offline with all selected, then
    immediately do a smart placement; thereafter doing the smart placement
    with off line once a month.
    Dudley
    "Alex Nichol" <alexn.mvpdts@ntlworld.delete.com> wrote in message
    news:e7b911p2rk7vrfv3hjnu03iom41msbccc1@4ax.com...
    > Dudley Henriques wrote:
    >
    >>Thanks Alex. I'm hearing that I should get the O&O defrag to replace
    >>the
    >>XP cut down version of Diskkeeper. Do you concur with this thinking,
    >>or
    >>is the XP supplied defrag sufficient?
    >
    > Have not tried O&O myself, my preference is Perfect Disk, which is an
    > excellent one. I do have a strong preference for one, that like PD
    > will
    > consolidate free space. And in that one, unlike the inbuilt or (I
    > think
    > still) Diskeeper, does *not* require 15 % free space to work at all
    >
    >
    > --
    > Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
    > Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)
  12. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
    > I use Raxco PerfectDisk because
    >
    > - It will defrag with only 1% free (Windows Defrag requires 20%)

    That's funny. On my system Disk Defragmenter recommends 15% free space. But
    it will happily defrag with a lot less free space. I have no idea where you
    have 20% from, my guess is you're mixing up with a general concensus about
    recommended free space.

    > - It can be scheduled

    That may be true, but I don't see the relevance since the same is also true
    for the Windows Disk Defragmenter.
  13. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    The lady is right. I just tested the windows lite version and got
    minimal defragging. The O&O did a credible job and is a fine program,
    but my choice after testing was PerfectDisk. It was the only defrag I
    tested that allowed me an offline pass for the page file and boot files,
    then in Smart mode, it completely organized my entire system for optimum
    condition based on my individual file access.
    In my opinion, and I'm not an expert by any means, is that PerfectDisk
    is the best defrag program out there for XP specifically. The defrag
    went perfectly and I'm showing a perfect 0 with everything else in order
    as well. The system is running like a scared rabbit. It's so fast, it
    wants to send my email before I'm finished writing it :-)))))
    And just as a side note, before I even installed PerfectDisk, I called
    their support on their 800 number to ask a question. Their tech was
    extremely well versed, uncommonly polite and patient, and I ended up
    spending the better part of a pleasant hour with him on the phone; far
    and above any tech support I have seen yet for third party software.
    Just my opinion on this of course.
    Dudley Henriques
    International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
    Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
    for private email; make necessary changes between ( )
    dhenriques(at)(delete all this)earthlink(dot)net

    "André Gulliksen" <andre.gulliksen@start.no> wrote in message
    news:4214d130@news.broadpark.no...
    > Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
    >> I use Raxco PerfectDisk because
    >>
    >> - It will defrag with only 1% free (Windows Defrag requires 20%)
    >
    > That's funny. On my system Disk Defragmenter recommends 15% free
    > space. But it will happily defrag with a lot less free space. I have
    > no idea where you have 20% from, my guess is you're mixing up with a
    > general concensus about recommended free space.
    >
    >> - It can be scheduled
    >
    > That may be true, but I don't see the relevance since the same is also
    > true for the Windows Disk Defragmenter.
    >
  14. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    André Gulliksen wrote:
    > Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
    >> I use Raxco PerfectDisk because
    >>
    >> - It will defrag with only 1% free (Windows Defrag requires 20%)
    >
    > That's funny. On my system Disk Defragmenter recommends 15% free
    > space. But it will happily defrag with a lot less free space. I have
    > no idea where you have 20% from, my guess is you're mixing up with a
    > general concensus about recommended free space.
    >

    15, 20 - it really makes no odds. I am not making anything up - I know what
    I'm talking about, I've had it for five years.


    >> - It can be scheduled
    >
    > That may be true, but I don't see the relevance since the same is
    > also true for the Windows Disk Defragmenter.

    No it's not. Prove to me how the native defrag can be scheduled without use
    of a third-party applet.

    You've not countered any of my other points, I see...


    --
    Facon - the artificial bacon bits you get in Pizza Hut for sprinkling
    on salads.
  15. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
    > 15, 20 - it really makes no odds. I am not making anything up - I
    > know what I'm talking about, I've had it for five years.

    ???

    >>> - It can be scheduled

    >> That may be true, but I don't see the relevance since the same is
    >> also true for the Windows Disk Defragmenter.

    > No it's not. Prove to me how the native defrag can be scheduled
    > without use of a third-party applet.

    Press Start -> (All) Programs -> Accessories -> System Tools -> Scheduled
    Tasks -> Add Scheduled Task -> Next -> Browse -> Enter
    '%SystemRoot%\System32\dfrg.msc' and press 'Open'. Select when you want to
    run it, and Bob is your uncle.

    > You've not countered any of my other points, I see...

    It was not my intention to 'counter' your points, only to correct the points
    I considered to be wrong. If I wanted to give you a bunch of reasons why a
    commercial third party defrag application would not be worth the money to me
    personally, I could.
  16. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    André Gulliksen wrote:
    > Press Start -> (All) Programs -> Accessories -> System Tools ->
    > Scheduled Tasks -> Add Scheduled Task -> Next -> Browse -> Enter
    > '%SystemRoot%\System32\dfrg.msc' and press 'Open'. Select when you
    > want to run it, and Bob is your uncle.

    Sorry, I have to correct myself here. Instead of
    '%SystemRoot%\System32\dfrg.msc' you will have to use
    '%SystemRoot%\System32\defrag.exe c:' for the C: drive, and also use
    additional entires for other drives. Sorry for any inconvenience.
  17. I would recommend Diskeeper. It is a completely automated solution taking care of fragmentation when needed. It will also help to consolidate your free space.

    Best of all, you wont have to worry about having to run it and weather or not you need to run it.

    You can check out a free 30 day trial at their site. It is fully fictional so you can put it through its paces and know what you are getting. I have been using it for years and it has helped me keep my machine running smoothly.
Ask a new question

Read More

Control Panel Windows XP Defragment Microsoft