Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why does WinXP fragment files?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 2:53:52 AM

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

I have an 80 gig data drive that's still less than 10% full (92% unused) and
already XP has fragmented the files?????????

i'm pretty sure that win98 never fragmented files whilst ever there was
enough contiguous space big enough to save the file - so fragmentation never
really happened until the drive was about 90% full

if this were the case with XP - my 80 gig drive would never need
fragmenting, ever

More about : winxp fragment files

July 26, 2005 2:53:53 AM

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

"JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message
news:44eFe.13568$Fx3.4527@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>I have an 80 gig data drive that's still less than 10% full (92% unused)
>and
> already XP has fragmented the files?????????
>
> i'm pretty sure that win98 never fragmented files whilst ever there was
> enough contiguous space big enough to save the file - so fragmentation
> never
> really happened until the drive was about 90% full
>
> if this were the case with XP - my 80 gig drive would never need
> fragmenting, ever
>
>

both XP and win98 will fragment the file system...
even linux filesystems such as ext3, which are designed not to fragment...
will still do so to some extent
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 2:55:35 AM

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

"JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message
news:44eFe.13568$Fx3.4527@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
> I have an 80 gig data drive that's still less than 10% full (92% unused)
and
> already XP has fragmented the files?????????
>
> i'm pretty sure that win98 never fragmented files whilst ever there was
> enough contiguous space big enough to save the file - so fragmentation
never
> really happened until the drive was about 90% full
>
> if this were the case with XP - my 80 gig drive would never need
> fragmenting, ever
>

that should've read 'my 80 gig drive would never need DE-fragmenting, ever'
Related resources
July 26, 2005 2:55:36 AM

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

It is in the way Windows saves info. If you create a Word doc, or anything in
any software, then save it, your hard drive puts it down in the first empty
space that spins by. All Windows and Mac machines have always done this. Hard
to imagine you never having fragmentation issues with 98. There could have
been a scheduled defragment event. When you manually defragged it had already
been done?

"JethroUK©" wrote:

>
> "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message
> news:44eFe.13568$Fx3.4527@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
> > I have an 80 gig data drive that's still less than 10% full (92% unused)
> and
> > already XP has fragmented the files?????????
> >
> > i'm pretty sure that win98 never fragmented files whilst ever there was
> > enough contiguous space big enough to save the file - so fragmentation
> never
> > really happened until the drive was about 90% full
> >
> > if this were the case with XP - my 80 gig drive would never need
> > fragmenting, ever
> >
>
> that should've read 'my 80 gig drive would never need DE-fragmenting, ever'
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 4:22:26 AM

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

david candy seems to confirm my point - i have always left around 20% of the
drive free as workspace for that very reason


"Mike" <Mike@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D 946BDA8-F4AC-499D-9BA4-A8DED0C608F6@microsoft.com...
> It is in the way Windows saves info. If you create a Word doc, or anything
in
> any software, then save it, your hard drive puts it down in the first
empty
> space that spins by.

well it should first look for a space that's big enough - that's just common
sense - like i said, my data drive would never, ever fragment, ever!


>All Windows and Mac machines have always done this. Hard
> to imagine you never having fragmentation issues with 98. There could have
> been a scheduled defragment event. When you manually defragged it had
already
> been done?
>
> "JethroUK©" wrote:
>
> >
> > "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message
> > news:44eFe.13568$Fx3.4527@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
> > > I have an 80 gig data drive that's still less than 10% full (92%
unused)
> > and
> > > already XP has fragmented the files?????????
> > >
> > > i'm pretty sure that win98 never fragmented files whilst ever there
was
> > > enough contiguous space big enough to save the file - so fragmentation
> > never
> > > really happened until the drive was about 90% full
> > >
> > > if this were the case with XP - my 80 gig drive would never need
> > > fragmenting, ever
> > >
> >
> > that should've read 'my 80 gig drive would never need DE-fragmenting,
ever'
> >
> >
> >
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 12:36:28 PM

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

I use my XP pretty intensively and personally dont know what i would do
without a defragmenter around. Am surprised too that even NTFS systems
warrant regular defrags.
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 1:07:59 PM

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

9x's Fat32 drivers were designed to not fragment. They looked for 500K contigious free space before writing.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/_comment/001075.htm...
=================================================
"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message news:%23wsjE0WkFHA.2484@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
> "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message
> news:44eFe.13568$Fx3.4527@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>>I have an 80 gig data drive that's still less than 10% full (92% unused)
>>and
>> already XP has fragmented the files?????????
>>
>> i'm pretty sure that win98 never fragmented files whilst ever there was
>> enough contiguous space big enough to save the file - so fragmentation
>> never
>> really happened until the drive was about 90% full
>>
>> if this were the case with XP - my 80 gig drive would never need
>> fragmenting, ever
>>
>>
>
> both XP and win98 will fragment the file system...
> even linux filesystems such as ext3, which are designed not to fragment...
> will still do so to some extent
>
>
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 1:08:00 PM

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

thanks for confirming that - i can't figure out why such a 'sophiticated'
O/S such as XP can't save to a space that's big enough whilst ever there one


"David Candy" <.> wrote in message
news:o VHx62WkFHA.3288@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
9x's Fat32 drivers were designed to not fragment. They looked for 500K
contigious free space before writing.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/_comment/001075.htm...
=================================================
"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:%23wsjE0WkFHA.2484@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
> "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message
> news:44eFe.13568$Fx3.4527@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>>I have an 80 gig data drive that's still less than 10% full (92% unused)
>>and
>> already XP has fragmented the files?????????
>>
>> i'm pretty sure that win98 never fragmented files whilst ever there was
>> enough contiguous space big enough to save the file - so fragmentation
>> never
>> really happened until the drive was about 90% full
>>
>> if this were the case with XP - my 80 gig drive would never need
>> fragmenting, ever
>>
>>
>
> both XP and win98 will fragment the file system...
> even linux filesystems such as ext3, which are designed not to fragment...
> will still do so to some extent
>
>
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 1:08:01 PM

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

"JethroUK©" wrote:

> thanks for confirming that - i can't figure out why such a 'sophiticated'
> O/S such as XP can't save to a space that's big enough whilst ever there one
>
>
> "David Candy" <.> wrote in message
> news:o VHx62WkFHA.3288@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> 9x's Fat32 drivers were designed to not fragment. They looked for 500K
> contigious free space before writing.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------
> http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/_comment/001075.htm...
> =================================================
> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:%23wsjE0WkFHA.2484@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >
> > "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message
> > news:44eFe.13568$Fx3.4527@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
> >>I have an 80 gig data drive that's still less than 10% full (92% unused)
> >>and
> >> already XP has fragmented the files?????????
> >>
> >> i'm pretty sure that win98 never fragmented files whilst ever there was
> >> enough contiguous space big enough to save the file - so fragmentation
> >> never
> >> really happened until the drive was about 90% full
> >>
> >> if this were the case with XP - my 80 gig drive would never need
> >> fragmenting, ever
> >>
> >>
> >
> > both XP and win98 will fragment the file system...
> > even linux filesystems such as ext3, which are designed not to fragment...
> > will still do so to some extent
> >
> >

On average, I believe you'll find a Windows XP based PC has 4 times the
number of files stored on its' HD. Windows 98 averaged 10,000 files.
WIndows XP averages 40,000 files. My system has over 100,000 files.

Criteria for the number of files programs and web-pages are comprised of has
sky-rocketed. In the early 1990's, people could still backup their PC's HD
onto 1.44MB diskettes. With the advent of CD's, the number of files
increased quite rapidly.

When Windows 95 appeared on the scene, few people had multi-Gig HD's.
Windows 98 can run in less than 4 GIG HD storage capacity with ease. With
Windows XP, you need more than 4 GIG to properly install the O/S and your
apps.

You can backup Windows 98 onto a single CD. Windows XP requires at least
one DVD and can easily require more.

With Windows 98, a daily run might place 100 files on your HD. With todays
webpages, the number of files per page has increased substantially. Your PC
might write over 1,000 files to the HD per day. How much depends on how you
use your PC. If you do a lot of browsing / research via the Internet, the
number of files written to your PC skyrockets.

--
Cordially,
Wayne H. Wilhelm
Personal Web: http://www.quadracalc.com
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 8:04:39 PM

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

JethroUK© wrote:

> i'm pretty sure that win98 never fragmented files whilst ever there was
> enough contiguous space big enough to save the file - so fragmentation never
> really happened until the drive was about 90% full

You're too freakin' dumb to operate a computer. Give it to a
charitable organization.
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 11:43:26 PM

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

It's a lesson in computer science and engineering on the way files are
stored on a disk and why it happens that way. It's not just a Windows thing.

- Winux P

"JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message
news:44eFe.13568$Fx3.4527@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>I have an 80 gig data drive that's still less than 10% full (92% unused)
>and
> already XP has fragmented the files?????????
>
> i'm pretty sure that win98 never fragmented files whilst ever there was
> enough contiguous space big enough to save the file - so fragmentation
> never
> really happened until the drive was about 90% full
>
> if this were the case with XP - my 80 gig drive would never need
> fragmenting, ever
>
>
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 11:43:27 PM

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

Not so complicated, if you never deleted a file you would not have fragments.
It's when you delete a file and then reuse that area that the disk gets
fragmented.

"Winux P" wrote:

>
> It's a lesson in computer science and engineering on the way files are
> stored on a disk and why it happens that way. It's not just a Windows thing.
>
> - Winux P
>
> "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message
> news:44eFe.13568$Fx3.4527@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
> >I have an 80 gig data drive that's still less than 10% full (92% unused)
> >and
> > already XP has fragmented the files?????????
> >
> > i'm pretty sure that win98 never fragmented files whilst ever there was
> > enough contiguous space big enough to save the file - so fragmentation
> > never
> > really happened until the drive was about 90% full
> >
> > if this were the case with XP - my 80 gig drive would never need
> > fragmenting, ever
> >
> >
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 2:03:42 AM

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

"JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote:

>I have an 80 gig data drive that's still less than 10% full (92% unused) and
>already XP has fragmented the files?????????
>
>i'm pretty sure that win98 never fragmented files whilst ever there was
>enough contiguous space big enough to save the file - so fragmentation never
>really happened until the drive was about 90% full
>
>if this were the case with XP - my 80 gig drive would never need
>fragmenting, ever
>

The biggest single cause of file fragmentation is adding additional
data to an existing file.

Assume that your hard drive is totally unfragmented. You use your
word processor, create a draft for a new document, and save it.

That new file will be added at the end of the existing files and will
be unfragmented.

Next you check your email. There are a dozen new emails which you
download. Those emails are added to your inbox (inbox.dbx if you are
using Outlook Express). This will increase the size of the inbox file
and therefore more disk space will be needed. The only place new
space can be found is at the end of the existing files, right after
the new word processing document you just created. So now your inbox
is fragmented, as the new portion of the file is not contiguous with
the rest of the inbox.

Then you reopen the draft word processing document and add a few more
paragraphs to it and save it again. There is no space to add the
addtiional material so it is contiguous with the original portion, so
it has to be located in the unused space, immediately following the
new portion of your email inbox. Now that document file is also
fragmented.

The same scenario applies to a vast array of different files on your
computer. That is how fragmentation occurs. The ony way to keep on
top of it is to defragment often.

Hope this explains the situation.

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm
July 27, 2005 7:19:23 PM

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:03:42 GMT, Ron Martell <ron.martell@gmail.com>
wrote:

>The ony way to keep on
>top of it is to defragment often.

You should tell this to a guy named Rod Speed in the "strorage"
newgroup. He insists that a modern HDD on a modern PC doesn't need
defragmenting because it is fast enough to find the data needed that
defragmenting does little good.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 7:19:24 PM

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

Nope - No logic found in that statement. If a drive has an
average access time of 11.0 mS. A file that is defragmented
requires a single access. If the file is in two pieces then it's
22.0 mS, 3 fragments takes it to 33.0 mS. You can make
all sorts of arguments, but physically a drive platter spins
and the heads pivot, no matter what rotational speed the
disk runs at fragmentation is going to happen.

Raxco offers a Drive Access tool that shows you the difference
with a fragmented drive verses a de-fragmented one. There
is also a tool to create fragmentation to help with testing.

Download here, under the Raxco Tools heading:
http://www.raxco.com/support/windows/SupportOptions.cfm



"Fisher" <fisher@no_email.here> wrote in message
news:4d9fe19p7t7uk6073ea9mg2b3e49t717bn@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:03:42 GMT, Ron Martell <ron.martell@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The ony way to keep on
>>top of it is to defragment often.
>
> You should tell this to a guy named Rod Speed in the "strorage"
> newgroup. He insists that a modern HDD on a modern PC doesn't need
> defragmenting because it is fast enough to find the data needed that
> defragmenting does little good.
July 27, 2005 10:50:19 PM

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:52:14 -0400, "R. McCarty"
<PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Nope - No logic found in that statement. If a drive has an
>average access time of 11.0 mS. A file that is defragmented
>requires a single access. If the file is in two pieces then it's
>22.0 mS, 3 fragments takes it to 33.0 mS. You can make
>all sorts of arguments, but physically a drive platter spins
>and the heads pivot, no matter what rotational speed the
>disk runs at fragmentation is going to happen.
>
>Raxco offers a Drive Access tool that shows you the difference
>with a fragmented drive verses a de-fragmented one. There
>is also a tool to create fragmentation to help with testing.
>
>Download here, under the Raxco Tools heading:
>http://www.raxco.com/support/windows/SupportOptions.cfm

Yes, I already use Raxco's Perfectdisk. Just saying what this guy
says, not saying I subscribe to his method. Go to the ..."storage"
hardware group for more info on his view on defrag. It's the only
group I see him post in so I think he knows a fair bit about HDD's.
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 12:02:53 AM

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

i forgot more about anything than you'll ever know - and my suspicions about
win98 fragmentation has been confirmed



"The Cuddly Curmudgeon" <krmujn@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:1122419079.037190.271480@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
JethroUK© wrote:

> i'm pretty sure that win98 never fragmented files whilst ever there was
> enough contiguous space big enough to save the file - so fragmentation
never
> really happened until the drive was about 90% full

You're too freakin' dumb to operate a computer. Give it to a
charitable organization.
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 1:57:56 AM

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

"The Cuddly Curmudgeon" only contributions to the group this year:

Jul 27, 12:00 am

"I doubt that a moron such as yourself would benefit at all from such an
installation."

Jul 27, 12:09 am

"WTF has your question got to do with the intent of this group, which is
to discuss Windows XP problems and solutions!?? "

Jul 25, 4:04 am

"Everyone is out doing special research JUST for you."
!