Which defrag?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Hello all,

New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get a
better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
67 answers Last reply
More about which defrag
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    I like Diskeeper.

    --
    Just my 2¢ worth,
    Jeff
    __________In response to__________
    "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    | Hello all,
    |
    | New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get a
    | better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
    |
    |
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    In news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net,
    jt <jt@jt.jt> typed:

    > New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or
    > should
    > I get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?


    I think Perfect Disk is the best product available, but the
    native defragger works too. Whether it's worth spending money for
    an improved product, you have to decide for yourself.

    --
    Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    Please reply to the newsgroup
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    I prefer Diskeeper 9. Try the native defragger and then try a trial version
    of any of the third party programs. The 30-day trial for Diskeeper9 is at:
    http://consumer.execsoft.com/downloads/downloads.asp?a=l&PId=95


    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
    news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    > Hello all,
    >
    > New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get
    > a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
    >
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:23:30 -0700, "Colin Barnhorst"
    <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote:

    >I prefer Diskeeper 9. Try the native defragger and then try a trial version
    >of any of the third party programs. The 30-day trial for Diskeeper9 is at:
    >http://consumer.execsoft.com/downloads/downloads.asp?a=l&PId=95
    I maintain a 9GB fat32 partition, and I've always found DK to be
    incredibly slow thrashing around trying to defrag this partition.
    DK has a real problem with FAT. On the other hand, it's great for
    NTFS.

    I'm trialling Perfectdisk at the moment, it can defrag the folders
    on Fat32 and can optimize the mft and metadata on NTFS.
    I think these are the mian advantages.
    I'm a little dubious of it's "smart placement". Perfectdisk works
    better that DK (faster) on Fat32.

    Dave
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    PerfectDisk

    --

    Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
    www.webtree.ca/windowsxp


    "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
    news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    > Hello all,
    >
    > New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get
    a
    > better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    Diskeeper 9 Pro does all of the functions you mention. I gave up on FAT32
    two years ago. It is just not as self-healing as NTFS and it is too slow on
    partitions over 32mb. Take a look at the options for Diskeeper Pro's
    boot-time defrag. Also take a look at the Performance Map tab. It is a
    mapping of not only fragmentation, but which fragmentation actually makes a
    difference to performance and by how much.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "da_test" <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:265f41h9b51dc6avfr4o6j98f0m5gao0te@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:23:30 -0700, "Colin Barnhorst"
    > <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote:
    >
    >>I prefer Diskeeper 9. Try the native defragger and then try a trial
    >>version
    >>of any of the third party programs. The 30-day trial for Diskeeper9 is
    >>at:
    >>http://consumer.execsoft.com/downloads/downloads.asp?a=l&PId=95
    > I maintain a 9GB fat32 partition, and I've always found DK to be
    > incredibly slow thrashing around trying to defrag this partition.
    > DK has a real problem with FAT. On the other hand, it's great for
    > NTFS.
    >
    > I'm trialling Perfectdisk at the moment, it can defrag the folders
    > on Fat32 and can optimize the mft and metadata on NTFS.
    > I think these are the mian advantages.
    > I'm a little dubious of it's "smart placement". Perfectdisk works
    > better that DK (faster) on Fat32.
    >
    > Dave
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    Personally i prefer Perfectdisk

    --
    John Barnett MVP
    Associate Expert
    http://freespace.virgin.net/john.freelanceit/index.htm
    http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org

    "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
    news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    > Hello all,
    >
    > New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get
    > a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
    >
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    jt wrote:
    > Hello all,
    >
    > New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should
    > I get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?

    1. VoptXP.
    2. Disk Keeper.
    :
    :
    473. PerfectDisk
    :
    :
    943. XP'x Built-in Defragger.
    :
    :
    2,789. O&O.


    --
    If there is a Tourist Season, how come we can't shoot them?
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:54:42 -0500, "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote:

    >Hello all,
    >
    >New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get a
    >better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
    >

    I'll probably get jumped on because I agree with the guy don't defrag unless
    you want to. It can put more wear on your drive. And with the size of the new
    drives 100's of gigs, the last thing they need is more wear.

    Read up on how data is written to a drive. It's also read back in the same
    manner. it's like trying to keep up with a jet fighter vs a railroad train if
    you defrag.

    the data is written in chunks. It starts out fragged. the head will read from
    head x sector xx then following the link tables it'll grab the next sector of
    data. if the head just passed that sector it needs to make a complete roundtrip
    to get back to it. Where if it reads from this sector and the next sector is xx
    ms away, it has some breathing room to snag that sector without circling the
    drive excessively.

    merry go round = disk drive platter, data = brass ring.

    Think merry go round and grab the brass ring. Could you grab a 2nd ring if it
    were 2 seconds past the 1st, or would you have better luck if you circled the
    ring half way and got a 10 second breathing space for the 2nd ring ?

    If the rings were all 2 seconds apart would it take you longer to grab them in
    order if they were staggered or inches apart ? You can't control the speed of
    the horses. If you miss #2 ring you have to go all the way around to get it
    again.

    If all the links are too close together [defragged] it takes longer to read
    than if the data is spaced around the drive the way it's originally written.

    Defragging is to move unused stuff into one place so you can have the most
    active stuff on the inside tracks. Fastest access.
    Trouble is if it sticks all the fast stuff one link after the other, it does
    the complete opposite of why you wanted to defrag it in the 1st place cause now
    they have to circle more often to get to the data.

    --
    more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    The native defragmenter is completely adequate unless you are running a
    server.

    "Don’t Become a Defrag Junkie"
    http://www.michna.com/kb/WxDefrag.htm

    P.S. Aren't there some newsgroups you forgot to cross-post to?

    Modem Ani

    "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
    news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    > Hello all,
    >
    > New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get
    a
    > better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    "jt" wrote:

    > New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get a
    > better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?

    That depends on why you think that the third party solutions are better than
    the native defrag. In my mind, there are only three serious contenders for
    this function: the native defragger, PerfectDisk, or Diskeeper. But which
    one of these three is the best solution depends pretty much on what you need.


    The native defragger will defrag your drive, but you have to do it manually
    and you can only defrag one drive at a time. Also, it won't defrag your
    pagefile, although the pagefile rarely should become fragmented anyway and if
    it does, there is an easy workaround to get it defragmented again by other
    means.

    Diskeeper is the full-featured version of the built-in defragger (which
    itself is licensed from the same software company that makes Diskeeper).
    Diskeeper can defragment the page file, but much more important, it can also
    defragment automatically in the background on a schedule, and it can even
    determine automatically (without your intervention) how often it should
    actually defragment (anywhere from one hour to one week, depending on how
    quickly your drive tends to refragment between sessions). It calls this
    feature "set it and forget it," which is exactly what it enables you to do.

    PerfectDisk uses a totally different defragmentation strategy from the
    built-in defragger or Diskeeper. It focuses on placing files so that the
    least modified files are placed at the beginning of the disk. It also
    focuses much more heavily on free space consolidation. Raxco, the maker of
    PerfectDisk, claims that this approach results in faster subsequent
    fragmentation runs and less fragmentation of newly created files.
    PerfectDisk defrags can be scheduled to run in the background, but unlike
    Diskeeper you must set the schedule manually.

    I have extensively used all three, and in terms of overall performance I
    cannot notice any transparent difference in how quickly they read and write
    files on the hard drive (which is the purpose of defragmentation in the first
    place). The biggest difference is that I have to run the built-in defragger
    manually, while the other two can be scheduled to run automatically. Of the
    three, only Diskeeper provides a method for measuring any performance gains
    you might get after a defrag, but that's different from saying that the gains
    you will get will be any greater than the ones you would get with the other
    two programs. It does seem, however, that a drive defragmented with
    PerfectDisk refragments at a slightly slower rate than the other two programs
    -- but Diskeeper will usually defragment it sooner.

    In the end, here is what I would suggest, although I won't get into the
    technical reasons. If you have a new computer with lots of RAM and you don't
    reboot it every day (e.g. you constantly leave it on, or you merely log out
    but without rebooting the computer), you are probably best off using the
    built-in defragger. If neither applies to you, you don't want even a little
    defragmentation, and you don't want to mess with when or how often you should
    defragment, use Diskeeper with "set it and forget it" enabled. If you want
    to be slightly more proactive and also if free space consolidation is
    especially important to you (e.g. you don't have a huge hard drive, or you
    have lots of large files such as images and multimedia, then PerfectDisk may
    be your best bet.

    Ken
  12. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    "da_test" wrote:

    > I'm a little dubious of it's "smart placement". Perfectdisk works
    > better that DK (faster) on Fat32.

    I am, too. In particular, PerfectDisk moves the MFT file to about 1/3
    inside the drive. When I asked them about this, they referred me to a
    Microsoft Knowledge Base Article that suggested that this placement optimized
    performance. I read the actual article, and it actually said 3-5 GB inside
    the drive, not 1/3 inside the drive. The difference between 3-5 GB and 1/3
    inside the drive is huge, especially if you have a very large HD, as I do
    (250 GB).

    I also asked them about whether placing least modified files at the
    beginning of the drive made sense from a performance standpoint, other than
    the point that this setup minimizes refragmentation. I no longer remember
    the exact explanation I received, but I do remember it making good sense at
    the time. In any event, any performance drop by putting, say, an old but
    very large music file closer to the outisde of the disk will probably be too
    small to notice anyway. Even so, I like the way the native defragger puts
    these behemoth files in a separate part of the drive from smaller files.
    [Note: I think Diskeeper will also move these huge files closer to the
    outside of the drive, while the native defragger leaves them further away.
    In this regard, if I get a choice, I prefer the behavior of the native
    defragger.]

    Incidentally, I have found that both Raxco (PerfectDisk) and Executive
    Software (Diskeeper) have excellent customer service and technical support.
    One can learn all sorts of cool stuff about hard drives and fragmentation by
    e-mailing them questions.

    Ken
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    "Modem Ani" <notquinoas@notmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
    news:ui0FQe6MFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > The native defragmenter is completely adequate unless you are running a
    > server.
    >
    > "Don't Become a Defrag Junkie"
    > http://www.michna.com/kb/WxDefrag.htm
    >
    > P.S. Aren't there some newsgroups you forgot to cross-post to?
    >
    Perhaps. Since I was looking for opinions, I figured several xp groups
    would procure more than simply one or two. Would you like to suggest other
    helpful groups?

    >
    > "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
    > news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    >> Hello all,
    >>
    >> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I
    >> get
    > a
    >> better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
    >>
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    "relic" <abuse@relic211.cjb.net> wrote in message
    news:aTI1e.193$e06.28@twister.socal.rr.com...
    > jt wrote:
    >> Hello all,
    >>
    >> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should
    >> I get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
    >
    > 1. VoptXP.
    > 2. Disk Keeper.
    > :
    > :
    > 473. PerfectDisk
    > :
    > :
    > 943. XP'x Built-in Defragger.
    > :
    > :
    > 2,789. O&O.
    >
    Is there a reason you rank O&O so low? A friend recommended it to me, and
    as I know next to nothing about commercial defraggers, I am simply curious.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    jt wrote:
    > Hello all,
    >
    > New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag
    > adequate or should I get a better one? Which is
    > better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
    >
    I never defrag. If you have a reasonably large hard disk,
    there is little real advantage in defragging a disk. In
    addition it exercises the disk which theoretically reduces
    its life.

    If you have a small disk, degragging is not an efficient
    process anyway.

    I certainly wouldn't pay money for a defragger.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    You should look at some studies on the effects of fragmentation:
    http://www1.execsoft.com/pdf/Diskeeper_Evaluation.pdf

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Enkidu" <enkidu.com@com.cliffp.com> wrote in message
    news:42476701@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
    > jt wrote:
    >> Hello all,
    >>
    >> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag
    > > adequate or should I get a better one? Which is
    > > better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
    >>
    > I never defrag. If you have a reasonably large hard disk, there is little
    > real advantage in defragging a disk. In addition it exercises the disk
    > which theoretically reduces its life.
    >
    > If you have a small disk, degragging is not an efficient process anyway.
    >
    > I certainly wouldn't pay money for a defragger.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Cliff
    >
    > --
    >
    > Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    >>
    > I never defrag. If you have a reasonably large hard disk,
    > there is little real advantage in defragging a disk. In
    > addition it exercises the disk which theoretically reduces
    > its life.
    >
    > If you have a small disk, degragging is not an efficient
    > process anyway.
    >
    > I certainly wouldn't pay money for a defragger.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Cliff
    >

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!, where do you people come from?? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
    Champagne Comedy!

    --
    You know, I rather like this God fellow. Very theatrical, you know.
    Pestilence here, a plague there. Omnipotence ... gotta get me some of that.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    You're kidding??? Why don't you try it and you'll change your mind.
    "Enkidu" <enkidu.com@com.cliffp.com> wrote in message
    news:42476701@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
    > jt wrote:
    >> Hello all,
    >>
    >> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag
    > > adequate or should I get a better one? Which is
    > > better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
    >>
    > I never defrag. If you have a reasonably large hard disk, there is little
    > real advantage in defragging a disk. In addition it exercises the disk which
    > theoretically reduces its life.
    >
    > If you have a small disk, degragging is not an efficient process anyway.
    >
    > I certainly wouldn't pay money for a defragger.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Cliff
    >
    > --
    >
    > Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
  19. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    What you don't quite understand is that the disk experiences MORE wear if you
    don't defrag. Suppose for example you have ten items each one in a separate
    track. The disk has to do ten seeks. If defragged, it only does one.
    "Husky" <cbminfo@toast.net> wrote in message
    news:eguf41lhaaf766v0nhcct155429ki25cij@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:54:42 -0500, "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote:
    >
    >>Hello all,
    >>
    >>New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get a
    >>better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
    >>
    >
    > I'll probably get jumped on because I agree with the guy don't defrag unless
    > you want to. It can put more wear on your drive. And with the size of the
    > new
    > drives 100's of gigs, the last thing they need is more wear.
    >
    > Read up on how data is written to a drive. It's also read back in the same
    > manner. it's like trying to keep up with a jet fighter vs a railroad train
    > if
    > you defrag.
    >
    > the data is written in chunks. It starts out fragged. the head will read
    > from
    > head x sector xx then following the link tables it'll grab the next sector
    > of
    > data. if the head just passed that sector it needs to make a complete
    > roundtrip
    > to get back to it. Where if it reads from this sector and the next sector is
    > xx
    > ms away, it has some breathing room to snag that sector without circling the
    > drive excessively.
    >
    > merry go round = disk drive platter, data = brass ring.
    >
    > Think merry go round and grab the brass ring. Could you grab a 2nd ring if
    > it
    > were 2 seconds past the 1st, or would you have better luck if you circled
    > the
    > ring half way and got a 10 second breathing space for the 2nd ring ?
    >
    > If the rings were all 2 seconds apart would it take you longer to grab them
    > in
    > order if they were staggered or inches apart ? You can't control the speed
    > of
    > the horses. If you miss #2 ring you have to go all the way around to get it
    > again.
    >
    > If all the links are too close together [defragged] it takes longer to read
    > than if the data is spaced around the drive the way it's originally written.
    >
    > Defragging is to move unused stuff into one place so you can have the most
    > active stuff on the inside tracks. Fastest access.
    > Trouble is if it sticks all the fast stuff one link after the other, it does
    > the complete opposite of why you wanted to defrag it in the 1st place cause
    > now
    > they have to circle more often to get to the data.
    >
    > --
    > more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
  20. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    In news:AhV1e.12054$ZB6.2404@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com,
    Unknown <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> typed:

    > What you don't quite understand is that the disk experiences
    > MORE
    > wear if you don't defrag. Suppose for example you have ten
    > items each
    > one in a separate track. The disk has to do ten seeks. If
    > defragged,


    Yes, that's correct.

    But it really doesn't matter much. Disk drives hardly ever wear
    out, whether they are defragged or not. Modern drives are
    well-made and rarely fail through wear. They may occasionally
    crash, they may be replaced with faster ones, or bigger ones, but
    wear is seldom a factor in determining their useful life.

    Not defragging is foolish. It can almost always be done
    overnight, so from a practical standpoint, it takes no real time
    at all, and there's no penalty for doing it. It doesn't have to
    be done anywhere near daily, but if you do it once a month or so,
    it can provide a small, but perceptible improvement in
    performance.

    --
    Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    Please reply to the newsgroup


    > it only does one. "Husky" <cbminfo@toast.net> wrote in message
    > news:eguf41lhaaf766v0nhcct155429ki25cij@4ax.com...
    >> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:54:42 -0500, "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Hello all,
    >>>
    >>> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or
    >>> should I get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or
    >>> PerfectDisk?
    >>>
    >>
    >> I'll probably get jumped on because I agree with the guy don't
    >> defrag unless you want to. It can put more wear on your drive.
    >> And
    >> with the size of the new
    >> drives 100's of gigs, the last thing they need is more wear.
    >>
    >> Read up on how data is written to a drive. It's also read back
    >> in
    >> the same manner. it's like trying to keep up with a jet
    >> fighter vs a
    >> railroad train if
    >> you defrag.
    >>
    >> the data is written in chunks. It starts out fragged. the head
    >> will
    >> read from
    >> head x sector xx then following the link tables it'll grab the
    >> next
    >> sector of
    >> data. if the head just passed that sector it needs to make a
    >> complete
    >> roundtrip
    >> to get back to it. Where if it reads from this sector and the
    >> next
    >> sector is xx
    >> ms away, it has some breathing room to snag that sector
    >> without
    >> circling the drive excessively.
    >>
    >> merry go round = disk drive platter, data = brass ring.
    >>
    >> Think merry go round and grab the brass ring. Could you grab a
    >> 2nd
    >> ring if it
    >> were 2 seconds past the 1st, or would you have better luck if
    >> you
    >> circled the
    >> ring half way and got a 10 second breathing space for the 2nd
    >> ring ?
    >>
    >> If the rings were all 2 seconds apart would it take you longer
    >> to
    >> grab them in
    >> order if they were staggered or inches apart ? You can't
    >> control the
    >> speed of
    >> the horses. If you miss #2 ring you have to go all the way
    >> around to
    >> get it again.
    >>
    >> If all the links are too close together [defragged] it takes
    >> longer
    >> to read than if the data is spaced around the drive the way
    >> it's
    >> originally written. Defragging is to move unused stuff into
    >> one place so you can have
    >> the most active stuff on the inside tracks. Fastest access.
    >> Trouble is if it sticks all the fast stuff one link after the
    >> other,
    >> it does the complete opposite of why you wanted to defrag it
    >> in the
    >> 1st place cause now
    >> they have to circle more often to get to the data.
    >>
    >> --
    >> more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
  21. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    To each his own, I guess. In the almost three years that I have used XP,
    Disk Defragmenter has never recommended that I manually defrag and I can't
    honestly say that my computer runs any slower. I have manually defragged XP
    three times: The first time was about a year and a half ago, just to see if
    it made any noticeable difference in performance - it didn't - and the other
    times were before upgrading to SP 1 and SP 2.

    Based on my own experience, the experience of an un-scientific sampling of
    friends, and from what I've read on the subject, it's taken me far longer to
    write this post than the amount of time I would have saved by running a
    third party defragmenter. I understand that the companies that sell this
    software may have a different point of view ;-)

    Modem Ani

    "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
    news:Oj1Wcw6MFHA.432@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    > In news:AhV1e.12054$ZB6.2404@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com,
    > Unknown <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> typed:
    >
    > > What you don't quite understand is that the disk experiences
    > > MORE
    > > wear if you don't defrag. Suppose for example you have ten
    > > items each
    > > one in a separate track. The disk has to do ten seeks. If
    > > defragged,
    >
    >
    > Yes, that's correct.
    >
    > But it really doesn't matter much. Disk drives hardly ever wear
    > out, whether they are defragged or not. Modern drives are
    > well-made and rarely fail through wear. They may occasionally
    > crash, they may be replaced with faster ones, or bigger ones, but
    > wear is seldom a factor in determining their useful life.
    >
    > Not defragging is foolish. It can almost always be done
    > overnight, so from a practical standpoint, it takes no real time
    > at all, and there's no penalty for doing it. It doesn't have to
    > be done anywhere near daily, but if you do it once a month or so,
    > it can provide a small, but perceptible improvement in
    > performance.
    >
    > --
    > Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    > Please reply to the newsgroup
    >
    >
    > > it only does one. "Husky" <cbminfo@toast.net> wrote in message
    > > news:eguf41lhaaf766v0nhcct155429ki25cij@4ax.com...
    > >> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:54:42 -0500, "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> Hello all,
    > >>>
    > >>> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or
    > >>> should I get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or
    > >>> PerfectDisk?
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >> I'll probably get jumped on because I agree with the guy don't
    > >> defrag unless you want to. It can put more wear on your drive.
    > >> And
    > >> with the size of the new
    > >> drives 100's of gigs, the last thing they need is more wear.
    > >>
    > >> Read up on how data is written to a drive. It's also read back
    > >> in
    > >> the same manner. it's like trying to keep up with a jet
    > >> fighter vs a
    > >> railroad train if
    > >> you defrag.
    > >>
    > >> the data is written in chunks. It starts out fragged. the head
    > >> will
    > >> read from
    > >> head x sector xx then following the link tables it'll grab the
    > >> next
    > >> sector of
    > >> data. if the head just passed that sector it needs to make a
    > >> complete
    > >> roundtrip
    > >> to get back to it. Where if it reads from this sector and the
    > >> next
    > >> sector is xx
    > >> ms away, it has some breathing room to snag that sector
    > >> without
    > >> circling the drive excessively.
    > >>
    > >> merry go round = disk drive platter, data = brass ring.
    > >>
    > >> Think merry go round and grab the brass ring. Could you grab a
    > >> 2nd
    > >> ring if it
    > >> were 2 seconds past the 1st, or would you have better luck if
    > >> you
    > >> circled the
    > >> ring half way and got a 10 second breathing space for the 2nd
    > >> ring ?
    > >>
    > >> If the rings were all 2 seconds apart would it take you longer
    > >> to
    > >> grab them in
    > >> order if they were staggered or inches apart ? You can't
    > >> control the
    > >> speed of
    > >> the horses. If you miss #2 ring you have to go all the way
    > >> around to
    > >> get it again.
    > >>
    > >> If all the links are too close together [defragged] it takes
    > >> longer
    > >> to read than if the data is spaced around the drive the way
    > >> it's
    > >> originally written. Defragging is to move unused stuff into
    > >> one place so you can have
    > >> the most active stuff on the inside tracks. Fastest access.
    > >> Trouble is if it sticks all the fast stuff one link after the
    > >> other,
    > >> it does the complete opposite of why you wanted to defrag it
    > >> in the
    > >> 1st place cause now
    > >> they have to circle more often to get to the data.
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
    >
    >
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    The native defrag program is more than adequate. What more do you want/need?
    "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
    news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    > Hello all,
    >
    > New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get a
    > better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
    >
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    "Unknown" <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> wrote in message
    news:3nV1e.12057$ZB6.9840@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
    > The native defrag program is more than adequate. What more do you
    > want/need?

    I dunno, because as I indicated I am a new user and know next to nothing
    about xp or NTFS systems. Therefore, I asked. Thanks for your input.

    > "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
    > news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    >> Hello all,
    >>
    >> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I
    >> get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
    >>
    >
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    Probably because it does not have the amount of published research about it
    that commercial defraggers like Diskeeper and PerfectDisk do.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
    news:ye%1e.69461$c72.49781@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    >
    > "relic" <abuse@relic211.cjb.net> wrote in message
    > news:aTI1e.193$e06.28@twister.socal.rr.com...
    >> jt wrote:
    >>> Hello all,
    >>>
    >>> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should
    >>> I get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
    >>
    >> 1. VoptXP.
    >> 2. Disk Keeper.
    >> :
    >> :
    >> 473. PerfectDisk
    >> :
    >> :
    >> 943. XP'x Built-in Defragger.
    >> :
    >> :
    >> 2,789. O&O.
    >>
    > Is there a reason you rank O&O so low? A friend recommended it to me, and
    > as I know next to nothing about commercial defraggers, I am simply
    > curious.
    >
  25. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:21:04 GMT, "Unknown" <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> wrote:

    I understand it quite fine. I read up on this back when Commodore 64's were
    new. Nothing's changed in drive design as to how they read/write the data since
    then.

    look at a disk drive, it's round like a clock. spinning at 7200 rpm or more
    example.
    it writes 1st sector of data at 12, 2nd around 4, third, 8, 4th 11, 5th 3 etc..
    staggering the writes at evenly spaced intervals allowed by the speed of
    rotation. BREATHING ROOM for speed. how many cycles would it have to make if it
    attempted to write 1st at 12,2nd 1, 3rd 2, 4th 4 etc ?? The platter is moving
    too fast to smoothly write data one sector after another. It has to stagger the
    writes or spend all day attempting to make a pretty picture with every byte of
    data lined up one sector physically placed one after the other on the platter.

    Take and frag with any thing that will show the placement. Someone mentioned
    one I used ages ago. It allowed semi placement. Think it just handled the swap
    file for user defined placement. Then take and run for a day and you'll see the
    swap file is once again fragmented because that's the way a drive works.

    Defragging has little to zero improvement. Something lots of defraggers [but
    not with XP's] used to have was the ability to CLEAR unused space using
    different types of encryption. Another worthless addition.

    I defrag every once in awhile but that's the same reason that I have time
    wasters on the desktop. Or can sit and watch paint dry. Something to do out of
    boredom.
    It's not a priority. If it's taking too long, I've aborted. Other times when I
    have time I'll do it.

    It doesn't make any difference that you can measure without expensive test
    equipment attached.

    What it does do that is noticeable is to round up those unused programs, and
    move them out of the way of those programs you use. Is that good or bad ? 6 of
    one, half dozen of another opinion.
    Is it moving them out of the way or in the way ?
    Again where talking microseconds of improvement.

    The reading and writing is all done in the background, so it's pretty much an
    invisible improvement..

    If your performance is dropping, you should look into what's dragging it down
    ie: Spyware and Trojans etc..


    >What you don't quite understand is that the disk experiences MORE wear if you
    >don't defrag. Suppose for example you have ten items each one in a separate
    >track. The disk has to do ten seeks. If defragged, it only does one.
    >"Husky" <cbminfo@toast.net> wrote in message
    >news:eguf41lhaaf766v0nhcct155429ki25cij@4ax.com...
    >> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:54:42 -0500, "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Hello all,
    >>>
    >>>New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get a
    >>>better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
    >>>
    >>
    >> I'll probably get jumped on because I agree with the guy don't defrag unless
    >> you want to. It can put more wear on your drive. And with the size of the
    >> new
    >> drives 100's of gigs, the last thing they need is more wear.
    >>
    >> Read up on how data is written to a drive. It's also read back in the same
    >> manner. it's like trying to keep up with a jet fighter vs a railroad train
    >> if
    >> you defrag.
    >>
    >> the data is written in chunks. It starts out fragged. the head will read
    >> from
    >> head x sector xx then following the link tables it'll grab the next sector
    >> of
    >> data. if the head just passed that sector it needs to make a complete
    >> roundtrip
    >> to get back to it. Where if it reads from this sector and the next sector is
    >> xx
    >> ms away, it has some breathing room to snag that sector without circling the
    >> drive excessively.
    >>
    >> merry go round = disk drive platter, data = brass ring.
    >>
    >> Think merry go round and grab the brass ring. Could you grab a 2nd ring if
    >> it
    >> were 2 seconds past the 1st, or would you have better luck if you circled
    >> the
    >> ring half way and got a 10 second breathing space for the 2nd ring ?
    >>
    >> If the rings were all 2 seconds apart would it take you longer to grab them
    >> in
    >> order if they were staggered or inches apart ? You can't control the speed
    >> of
    >> the horses. If you miss #2 ring you have to go all the way around to get it
    >> again.
    >>
    >> If all the links are too close together [defragged] it takes longer to read
    >> than if the data is spaced around the drive the way it's originally written.
    >>
    >> Defragging is to move unused stuff into one place so you can have the most
    >> active stuff on the inside tracks. Fastest access.
    >> Trouble is if it sticks all the fast stuff one link after the other, it does
    >> the complete opposite of why you wanted to defrag it in the 1st place cause
    >> now
    >> they have to circle more often to get to the data.
    >>
    >> --
    >> more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

    --
    more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    "If you have a reasonably large hard disk, there is little real advantage
    in defragging a disk. In addition it exercises the disk which theoretically
    reduces its life."

    Conversely, if you don't defragment, then it it causes extra seeks on your
    hard drive which theoretically reduces its life. So-o-o, darned if you do,
    darned if you don't :)

    Seriously, defragmentation doesn't reduce hard life expectancy with modern
    hard drives. This ranks right up there along with other computer myths.
    And, it doesn't matter how large of a hard drive you have, fragmentation
    happens - it is designed to happen - its part of how the file system
    function.

    - Greg/Raxco Software
    Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

    Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
    commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

    Want to email me? Delete ntloader.

    "Enkidu" <enkidu.com@com.cliffp.com> wrote in message
    news:42476701@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
    > jt wrote:
    > > Hello all,
    > >
    > > New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag
    > > adequate or should I get a better one? Which is
    > > better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
    > >
    > I never defrag. If you have a reasonably large hard disk,
    > there is little real advantage in defragging a disk. In
    > addition it exercises the disk which theoretically reduces
    > its life.
    >
    > If you have a small disk, degragging is not an efficient
    > process anyway.
    >
    > I certainly wouldn't pay money for a defragger.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Cliff
    >
    > --
    >
    > Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    Mr Floppy wrote:
    >>>
    >>
    >>I never defrag. If you have a reasonably large hard disk,
    >>there is little real advantage in defragging a disk. In
    >>addition it exercises the disk which theoretically reduces
    >>its life.
    >>
    >>If you have a small disk, degragging is not an efficient
    >>process anyway.
    >>
    >>I certainly wouldn't pay money for a defragger.
    >
    > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!, where do you people come from??
    > HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Champagne Comedy!
    >
    Got some point to make? How many servers do *you* look after?

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    Enkidu, <enkidu.com@com.cliffp.com> wrote:

    > Mr Floppy wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I never defrag. If you have a reasonably large hard disk,
    >>> there is little real advantage in defragging a disk. In
    >>> addition it exercises the disk which theoretically reduces
    >>> its life.
    >>>
    >>> If you have a small disk, degragging is not an efficient
    >>> process anyway.
    >>>
    >>> I certainly wouldn't pay money for a defragger.
    >>
    >> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!, where do you people come from??
    >> HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Champagne Comedy!
    >>
    > Got some point to make?

    He's making the point that you're an idiot.

    > How many servers do *you* look after?

    If that question is intending to imply that you do, then if I were your
    boss, I'd fire you. You are an idiot.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    > You should look at some studies on the effects of fragmentation:
    > http://www1.execsoft.com/pdf/Diskeeper_Evaluation.pdf
    >
    Hmm, do the words "vested interest" mean anything to you? I
    notice that they are very careful to leave out any mention
    of disk caching, paging, running from memory and all the
    other things that are done today to speed up applications.

    If an application does a read, process, write, read,
    process, write cycle all the time there might be benefits
    from defragging. Typical applications don't do that.

    Only if an application is heavily I/O bound is there any
    benefit from careful placement of files on disks. The only
    real-world example I can think of is backup and from my
    tests the benefits were only a few percent.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
  30. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    "Enkidu" wrote:

    > > You should look at some studies on the effects of fragmentation:
    > > http://www1.execsoft.com/pdf/Diskeeper_Evaluation.pdf
    >
    > Hmm, do the words "vested interest" mean anything to you? I
    > notice that they are very careful to leave out any mention
    > of disk caching, paging, running from memory and all the
    > other things that are done today to speed up applications.
    >
    > If an application does a read, process, write, read,
    > process, write cycle all the time there might be benefits
    > from defragging. Typical applications don't do that.
    >
    > Only if an application is heavily I/O bound is there any
    > benefit from careful placement of files on disks. The only
    > real-world example I can think of is backup and from my
    > tests the benefits were only a few percent.

    Although I disagree with you about defragmentation, you are actually closer
    to the truth than many people might think, especially if you have a machine
    with lots of RAM and you either leave your machine on all the time or you
    merely log out without actually rebooting, i.e. a system in which lots of
    program code and data end up in the RAM system cache and stay there for long
    periods of time. The point is that -- other things being equal -- CPU and
    RAM probably account for about 95-97% of system performance, with a
    defragmented and junk-free hard drive accounting for the remaining 3-5
    percent. There is no good justification for putting up with a 3-5 percent
    performance hit by not regularly defragging doing idle periods, but on the
    other hand the benefits of defragmentation are often overhyped, especially by
    the third party defragmentation vendors.

    Ken
  31. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    Everything has a failure rate. Crashes only occur when seeking, (moving the
    head), therefore, the more seeks the more prone to crashes.
    "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
    news:Oj1Wcw6MFHA.432@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    > In news:AhV1e.12054$ZB6.2404@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com,
    > Unknown <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> typed:
    >
    >> What you don't quite understand is that the disk experiences MORE
    >> wear if you don't defrag. Suppose for example you have ten items each
    >> one in a separate track. The disk has to do ten seeks. If defragged,
    >
    >
    > Yes, that's correct.
    >
    > But it really doesn't matter much. Disk drives hardly ever wear out, whether
    > they are defragged or not. Modern drives are well-made and rarely fail
    > through wear. They may occasionally crash, they may be replaced with faster
    > ones, or bigger ones, but wear is seldom a factor in determining their
    > useful life.
    >
    > Not defragging is foolish. It can almost always be done overnight, so from a
    > practical standpoint, it takes no real time at all, and there's no penalty
    > for doing it. It doesn't have to be done anywhere near daily, but if you do
    > it once a month or so, it can provide a small, but perceptible improvement
    > in performance.
    >
    > --
    > Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    > Please reply to the newsgroup
    >
    >
    >> it only does one. "Husky" <cbminfo@toast.net> wrote in message
    >> news:eguf41lhaaf766v0nhcct155429ki25cij@4ax.com...
    >>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:54:42 -0500, "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Hello all,
    >>>>
    >>>> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or
    >>>> should I get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I'll probably get jumped on because I agree with the guy don't
    >>> defrag unless you want to. It can put more wear on your drive. And
    >>> with the size of the new
    >>> drives 100's of gigs, the last thing they need is more wear.
    >>>
    >>> Read up on how data is written to a drive. It's also read back in
    >>> the same manner. it's like trying to keep up with a jet fighter vs a
    >>> railroad train if
    >>> you defrag.
    >>>
    >>> the data is written in chunks. It starts out fragged. the head will
    >>> read from
    >>> head x sector xx then following the link tables it'll grab the next
    >>> sector of
    >>> data. if the head just passed that sector it needs to make a complete
    >>> roundtrip
    >>> to get back to it. Where if it reads from this sector and the next
    >>> sector is xx
    >>> ms away, it has some breathing room to snag that sector without
    >>> circling the drive excessively.
    >>>
    >>> merry go round = disk drive platter, data = brass ring.
    >>>
    >>> Think merry go round and grab the brass ring. Could you grab a 2nd
    >>> ring if it
    >>> were 2 seconds past the 1st, or would you have better luck if you
    >>> circled the
    >>> ring half way and got a 10 second breathing space for the 2nd ring ?
    >>>
    >>> If the rings were all 2 seconds apart would it take you longer to
    >>> grab them in
    >>> order if they were staggered or inches apart ? You can't control the
    >>> speed of
    >>> the horses. If you miss #2 ring you have to go all the way around to
    >>> get it again.
    >>>
    >>> If all the links are too close together [defragged] it takes longer
    >>> to read than if the data is spaced around the drive the way it's
    >>> originally written. Defragging is to move unused stuff into one place so
    >>> you can have
    >>> the most active stuff on the inside tracks. Fastest access.
    >>> Trouble is if it sticks all the fast stuff one link after the other,
    >>> it does the complete opposite of why you wanted to defrag it in the
    >>> 1st place cause now
    >>> they have to circle more often to get to the data.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
    >
    >
  32. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    jt wrote:
    > "relic" <abuse@relic211.cjb.net> wrote in message
    > news:aTI1e.193$e06.28@twister.socal.rr.com...
    >> jt wrote:
    >>> Hello all,
    >>>
    >>> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should
    >>> I get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
    >>
    >> 1. VoptXP.
    >> 2. Disk Keeper.
    >>>
    >>>
    >> 473. PerfectDisk
    >>>
    >>>
    >> 943. XP'x Built-in Defragger.
    >>>
    >>>
    >> 2,789. O&O.
    >>
    > Is there a reason you rank O&O so low? A friend recommended it to
    > me, and as I know next to nothing about commercial defraggers, I am
    > simply curious.

    It seem to get good comments from users, but I've never used/tried any piece
    of software that ran as slow. I'm old enough to be retired, and I was
    honestly afraid that I would die before it finished... I finally aborted it.
    The biggest reason I rated VoptXP tops is its speed.

    --
    If there is a Tourist Season, how come we can't shoot them?
  33. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    "relic" <abuse@relic211.cjb.net> wrote in message
    news:6q02e.47097$VD5.404@twister.socal.rr.com...
    > jt wrote:
    >> "relic" <abuse@relic211.cjb.net> wrote in message
    >> news:aTI1e.193$e06.28@twister.socal.rr.com...
    >>> jt wrote:
    >>>> Hello all,
    >>>>
    >>>> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should
    >>>> I get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
    >>>
    >>> 1. VoptXP.
    >>> 2. Disk Keeper.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> 473. PerfectDisk
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> 943. XP'x Built-in Defragger.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> 2,789. O&O.
    >>>
    >> Is there a reason you rank O&O so low? A friend recommended it to
    >> me, and as I know next to nothing about commercial defraggers, I am
    >> simply curious.
    >
    > It seem to get good comments from users, but I've never used/tried any
    > piece of software that ran as slow. I'm old enough to be retired, and I
    > was honestly afraid that I would die before it finished... I finally
    > aborted it. The biggest reason I rated VoptXP tops is its speed.
    >
    Odd. I downloaded and ran the trial version of O&O and it flew on my
    machine. By contrast, the trial of PerfectDisk crawled and after it was
    done, my system was slow as mud. I then ran O&O again and it was much
    slower this time, but after it ran my system was at least fast again. I've
    seen many recommendations for PerfectDisk, but after my experience I
    wouldn't buy it with my neighbor's money.
  34. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message news:Ux02e.69725$c72.23442@bignews3.bellsouth.net...

    > Odd. I downloaded and ran the trial version of O&O and it flew on my
    > machine. By contrast, the trial of PerfectDisk crawled and after it was
    > done, my system was slow as mud. I then ran O&O again and it was much
    > slower this time, but after it ran my system was at least fast again. I've
    > seen many recommendations for PerfectDisk, but after my experience I
    > wouldn't buy it with my neighbor's money.

    I recently played around with PerfectDisk and O&O Defrag. The target
    was a 70% full 4.5 year old 20GB drive that has never been reloaded
    with OS, but that has seen alot of use, particularly when it comes to
    application installs/removes updates. FWIW, the drive has been regularly
    defragged using the built-in. My goal was to see what each defragger
    could do if time were of no issue, so I didn't play around with some of
    the options. I did a boot defrag using PerfectDisk and it took a fairly
    long time. There was little if any improvement in boot time, but the system
    did feel a tiny bit more snappy. Later I did a complete by name type
    defrag using O&O, and IIRC it took considerably longer to do its thing.
    Again, there was little if any change in boot time. However, there was a
    noticeable improvement in application load times, presumably due to
    the restoration of application files proximity.

    I need to spend some more time evaluating the defraggers, but I must
    say that I do like the concept of being able to restore proximity. It
    would be nice if users had even more control over where dirs/files
    get placed (I'd experiment with putting archived and infrequently used
    stuff at the highest LCNs).
  35. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    I have used two, Diskeeper and Norton's Speed Disk which use to come
    with Norton's Utilities. I stayed with Speed Disk because it does
    something that Diskeeper doesn't... during defragging, it fills up
    all the empty spaces left which seems (to me anyway) to cut down on
    how quickly the whole thing gets fragmented again.

    Regards,
    DW
  36. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    That's also part of the philosophy behind PerfectDisk, and PerfectDisk
    otherwise does a much better job than Norton.

    "Dave" wrote:

    > I have used two, Diskeeper and Norton's Speed Disk which use to come
    > with Norton's Utilities. I stayed with Speed Disk because it does
    > something that Diskeeper doesn't... during defragging, it fills up
    > all the empty spaces left which seems (to me anyway) to cut down on
    > how quickly the whole thing gets fragmented again.
    >
    > Regards,
    > DW
    >
    >
  37. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    jt wrote:
    > "relic" <abuse@relic211.cjb.net> wrote in message
    > news:6q02e.47097$VD5.404@twister.socal.rr.com...
    >> jt wrote:
    >>> "relic" <abuse@relic211.cjb.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:aTI1e.193$e06.28@twister.socal.rr.com...
    >>>> jt wrote:
    >>>>> Hello all,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or
    >>>>> should I get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or
    >>>>> PerfectDisk?
    >>>>
    >>>> 1. VoptXP.
    >>>> 2. Disk Keeper.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> 473. PerfectDisk
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> 943. XP'x Built-in Defragger.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> 2,789. O&O.
    >>>>
    >>> Is there a reason you rank O&O so low? A friend recommended it to
    >>> me, and as I know next to nothing about commercial defraggers, I am
    >>> simply curious.
    >>
    >> It seem to get good comments from users, but I've never used/tried
    >> any piece of software that ran as slow. I'm old enough to be
    >> retired, and I was honestly afraid that I would die before it
    >> finished... I finally aborted it. The biggest reason I rated VoptXP
    >> tops is its speed.
    > Odd. I downloaded and ran the trial version of O&O and it flew on my
    > machine. By contrast, the trial of PerfectDisk crawled and after it
    > was done, my system was slow as mud. I then ran O&O again and it was
    > much slower this time, but after it ran my system was at least fast
    > again. I've seen many recommendations for PerfectDisk, but after my
    > experience I wouldn't buy it with my neighbor's money.

    "Try it for free" link at the bottom:
    http://www.vopt.com/VoptXP.htm

    --
    If there is a Tourist Season, how come we can't shoot them?
  38. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    jt wrote:
    > Would you like to
    > suggest other helpful groups?
    >

    :-D
    --
    If there is a Tourist Season, how come we can't shoot them?
  39. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    Greg Hayes/Raxco Software, <ghayes@raxco.com>, the near-blind, odourless gas
    bomb, and person who makes a living selling tannery remnants, squawked:


    > Delete ntloader.

    If you insist.

    ghayes@raxco.com
    ghayes@raxco.com
    ghayes@raxco.com
    ghayes@raxco.com
    ghayes@raxco.com
    ghayes@raxco.com
    ghayes@raxco.com
    ghayes@raxco.com
    ghayes@raxco.com
    ghayes@raxco.com
    ghayes@raxco.com
    ghayes@raxco.com
    ghayes@raxco.com
    ghayes@raxco.com

    --
    http://www.nice-tits.org/pics.html
  40. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

    > [Sorry. This message is no longer available.]

    Why?
  41. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:13:03 -0800, "Ken Gardner"
    <KenGardner@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

    >That's also part of the philosophy behind PerfectDisk, and PerfectDisk
    >otherwise does a much better job than Norton.

    Well, I took the plunge and downloaded, installed and ran a trial copy
    of PerfectDisk. Must say that I like it. However, I do wish it would
    allow you to configure how you would like to sort your
    files/directories. An included PDF manual would also be nice.
    However, the defrag on boot is nice. I can see that you get a better
    defragging and "hole filling" (some call it compressing) while at the
    system level. I also like the fact that they don't treat you like a
    common criminal by making you prove that you didn't steal their
    software after paying for it by using that activation trash certain
    companies are adopting. Being so, it will be more than a pleasure to
    send them money to register their software. Its nice to be treated
    with respect instead of being treated with suspicion of thievery like
    you are by the activation scheme crowd.

    Regards,
    DW
  42. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    Newsgroups are available to an audience of millions. You should pick one
    group and post there.

    Modem Ani

    "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
    news:ye%1e.69459$c72.55181@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    >
    > "Modem Ani" <notquinoas@notmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
    > news:ui0FQe6MFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > > The native defragmenter is completely adequate unless you are running a
    > > server.
    > >
    > > "Don't Become a Defrag Junkie"
    > > http://www.michna.com/kb/WxDefrag.htm
    > >
    > > P.S. Aren't there some newsgroups you forgot to cross-post to?
    > >
    > Perhaps. Since I was looking for opinions, I figured several xp groups
    > would procure more than simply one or two. Would you like to suggest
    other
    > helpful groups?
    >
    > >
    > > "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
    > > news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    > >> Hello all,
    > >>
    > >> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I
    > >> get
    > > a
    > >> better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
    > >>
    >
    >
  43. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    So, now that you've taken the plunge, how much faster does your system run?
    How much faster does it boot? Got any before and after benchmarks to share?

    Modem Ani

    "Dave" <spamtrap@spamhell.com> wrote in message
    news:d2sh41lrsfrs5ijnerjbgktmed7ujoie4r@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:13:03 -0800, "Ken Gardner"
    > <KenGardner@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
    >
    > >That's also part of the philosophy behind PerfectDisk, and PerfectDisk
    > >otherwise does a much better job than Norton.
    >
    > Well, I took the plunge and downloaded, installed and ran a trial copy
    > of PerfectDisk. Must say that I like it. However, I do wish it would
    > allow you to configure how you would like to sort your
    > files/directories. An included PDF manual would also be nice.
    > However, the defrag on boot is nice. I can see that you get a better
    > defragging and "hole filling" (some call it compressing) while at the
    > system level. I also like the fact that they don't treat you like a
    > common criminal by making you prove that you didn't steal their
    > software after paying for it by using that activation trash certain
    > companies are adopting. Being so, it will be more than a pleasure to
    > send them money to register their software. Its nice to be treated
    > with respect instead of being treated with suspicion of thievery like
    > you are by the activation scheme crowd.
    >
    > Regards,
    > DW
  44. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    "Modem Ani" wrote:

    > So, now that you've taken the plunge, how much faster does your system run?
    > How much faster does it boot? Got any before and after benchmarks to share?

    If only people would answer these types of questions after trying all
    so-called "performance enhancing" software, they would have a much better
    understanding of how well XP actually performs even when you don't mess with
    it beyond what it is already designed to do.

    Ken
  45. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    "Modem Ani" <notquinoas@notmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
    news:%23iUIPvGNFHA.508@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > Newsgroups are available to an audience of millions. You should pick one
    > group and post there.
    >
    The fact that they are "available" does not equate to people "availing"
    themselves of their services. Five groups is not an unreasonable
    cross-post. If you don't like the "alt" hierarchy, you're certainly free to
    post only in moderated groups.
    >
    > "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
    > news:ye%1e.69459$c72.55181@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    >>
    >> "Modem Ani" <notquinoas@notmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
    >> news:ui0FQe6MFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >> > The native defragmenter is completely adequate unless you are running a
    >> > server.
    >> >
    >> > "Don't Become a Defrag Junkie"
    >> > http://www.michna.com/kb/WxDefrag.htm
    >> >
    >> > P.S. Aren't there some newsgroups you forgot to cross-post to?
    >> >
    >> Perhaps. Since I was looking for opinions, I figured several xp groups
    >> would procure more than simply one or two. Would you like to suggest
    > other
    >> helpful groups?
    >>
    >> >
    >> > "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
    >> > news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    >> >> Hello all,
    >> >>
    >> >> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I
    >> >> get
    >> > a
    >> >> better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
    >> >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  46. Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    relic abuse@relic211.cjb.net, wrote in message
    n12e.47103$VD5.30396@twister.socal.rr.com:
    > jt wrote:
    >> "relic" <abuse@relic211.cjb.net> wrote in message
    >> news:6q02e.47097$VD5.404@twister.socal.rr.com...
    >>> jt wrote:
    >>>> "relic" <abuse@relic211.cjb.net> wrote in message
    >>>> news:aTI1e.193$e06.28@twister.socal.rr.com...
    >>>>> jt wrote:
    >>>>>> Hello all,
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or
    >>>>>> should I get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or
    >>>>>> PerfectDisk?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 1. VoptXP.
    >>>>> 2. Disk Keeper.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> 473. PerfectDisk
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> 943. XP'x Built-in Defragger.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> 2,789. O&O.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Is there a reason you rank O&O so low? A friend recommended it to
    >>>> me, and as I know next to nothing about commercial defraggers, I am
    >>>> simply curious.
    >>>
    >>> It seem to get good comments from users, but I've never used/tried
    >>> any piece of software that ran as slow. I'm old enough to be
    >>> retired, and I was honestly afraid that I would die before it
    >>> finished... I finally aborted it. The biggest reason I rated VoptXP
    >>> tops is its speed.
    >> Odd. I downloaded and ran the trial version of O&O and it flew on my
    >> machine. By contrast, the trial of PerfectDisk crawled and after it
    >> was done, my system was slow as mud. I then ran O&O again and it was
    >> much slower this time, but after it ran my system was at least fast
    >> again. I've seen many recommendations for PerfectDisk, but after my
    >> experience I wouldn't buy it with my neighbor's money.
    >
    > "Try it for free" link at the bottom:
    > http://www.vopt.com/VoptXP.htm

    That's the best one.
  47. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    Ken Gardner wrote:
    > "Enkidu" wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>You should look at some studies on the effects of fragmentation:
    >>>http://www1.execsoft.com/pdf/Diskeeper_Evaluation.pdf
    >>
    >>Hmm, do the words "vested interest" mean anything to you? I
    >>notice that they are very careful to leave out any mention
    >>of disk caching, paging, running from memory and all the
    >>other things that are done today to speed up applications.
    >>
    >>If an application does a read, process, write, read,
    >>process, write cycle all the time there might be benefits
    >>from defragging. Typical applications don't do that.
    >>
    >>Only if an application is heavily I/O bound is there any
    >>benefit from careful placement of files on disks. The only
    >>real-world example I can think of is backup and from my
    >>tests the benefits were only a few percent.
    >
    >
    > Although I disagree with you about defragmentation, you are
    > actually closer to the truth than many people might think,
    > especially if you have a machine with lots of RAM and you
    > either leave your machine on all the time or you merely log
    > out without actually rebooting, i.e. a system in which
    lots of
    > program code and data end up in the RAM system cache and stay
    > there for long periods of time.
    >
    Yes, all the testing that I've done was on servers, which
    typically have the characteristics you mention.
    >
    > The point is that -- other things being equal -- CPU and
    > RAM probably account for about 95-97% of system performance,
    > with a defragmented and junk-free hard drive accounting for
    > the remaining 3-5 percent.
    >
    If you mean that you could improve performance by those
    %ages, I'd agree with you. Disk is so slow relatively,
    though, that the 3-5% improvement *should* make a huge
    difference. In a server situation though, I've not seen it
    make a noticeable difference.

    One test I'd like to make, if I were doing this today would
    be to run a script-based testing tool rather than use simple
    batch files.
    >
    > There is no good justification for putting up with a 3-5
    > percent performance hit by not regularly defragging doing
    > idle periods, but on the other hand the benefits of
    > defragmentation are often overhyped, especially by
    > the third party defragmentation vendors.
    >
    There very few independant studies. Search for
    defragmentation on the web and you there is almost no hard
    evidence. There's plenty of references to Microsoft
    documents which talk about defragmentation and how it works,
    but little evidence that quantifies the possible
    improvements. Which are likely to be different for database
    servers or web servers or workstations or home machines.

    There was a need for defragmentation back in the early days
    of Windows with small, slow disks on FAT16 filesystems. I'm
    not convinced there's a need when we have large, fast disks
    and NTFS filesystems. Not to mention large amounts of RAM.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
  48. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    "Enkidu" wrote:

    > There very few independant studies. Search for
    > defragmentation on the web and you there is almost no hard
    > evidence. There's plenty of references to Microsoft
    > documents which talk about defragmentation and how it works,
    > but little evidence that quantifies the possible
    > improvements. Which are likely to be different for database
    > servers or web servers or workstations or home machines.

    These points are sources of constant frustration that I have with most
    so-called performance enhancing software, including but not limited to
    defraggers. Intellectually I am perfectly capable of understanding that
    other things being equal, a defragmented hard drive will out-perform a
    fragmented hard drive. But are we talking here about seconds, tenths of
    seconds, or milliseconds?

    My own personal experience, which is as a workstation user, is that a
    regularly defragmented hard drive can save you seconds rather than
    milliseconds in disk drive operations, i.e. you can actually notice the
    difference. However, I cannot notice any transparent difference between
    defragging a hard drive using the XP built-in defragger and defragging using
    a third party program such as Diskeeper or PerfectDisk. Of these programs,
    only Diskeeper even attempts to measure the performance improvement you might
    gain, but it does so in terms of percentages rather than actual time. If it
    takes ten milliseconds to load a file when it used to take five milliseconds,
    that may be a 50% improvement but no human being will ever notice it. If,
    instead, we are taking about tenths of seconds, then the improvement will be
    noticable.

    Ken


    >
    > There was a need for defragmentation back in the early days
    > of Windows with small, slow disks on FAT16 filesystems. I'm
    > not convinced there's a need when we have large, fast disks
    > and NTFS filesystems. Not to mention large amounts of RAM.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Cliff
    >
    > --
    >
    > Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
    >
  49. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    "My own personal experience, which is as a workstation user, is that a
    regularly defragmented hard drive can save you seconds rather than
    milliseconds in disk drive operations, i.e. you can actually notice the
    difference."

    I think most people would agree with you.

    Many users do not seem to realize that XP performs partial defrags in the
    background, and that the design of these defrags - as I understand it - was
    well thought-out to get the best bang for the buck. A third party defragger
    is 'improving' on regular partial defrags, not on a system that has not been
    defragged at all for months.

    I have no problem if someone wants to use a third party defragger. If it
    makes them feel better about their system and does no harm, why not go for
    it. For me, the unmeasurable improvement in performance is not worth the
    extra lines of code in RAM or the extra CPU. In my experience, a leaner
    configuration runs best.

    Modem Ani


    "Ken Gardner" <KenGardner@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:375172DB-AE5A-430C-A287-6FD6895E1086@microsoft.com...
    > "Enkidu" wrote:
    >
    > > There very few independant studies. Search for
    > > defragmentation on the web and you there is almost no hard
    > > evidence. There's plenty of references to Microsoft
    > > documents which talk about defragmentation and how it works,
    > > but little evidence that quantifies the possible
    > > improvements. Which are likely to be different for database
    > > servers or web servers or workstations or home machines.
    >
    > These points are sources of constant frustration that I have with most
    > so-called performance enhancing software, including but not limited to
    > defraggers. Intellectually I am perfectly capable of understanding that
    > other things being equal, a defragmented hard drive will out-perform a
    > fragmented hard drive. But are we talking here about seconds, tenths of
    > seconds, or milliseconds?
    >
    > My own personal experience, which is as a workstation user, is that a
    > regularly defragmented hard drive can save you seconds rather than
    > milliseconds in disk drive operations, i.e. you can actually notice the
    > difference. However, I cannot notice any transparent difference between
    > defragging a hard drive using the XP built-in defragger and defragging
    using
    > a third party program such as Diskeeper or PerfectDisk. Of these
    programs,
    > only Diskeeper even attempts to measure the performance improvement you
    might
    > gain, but it does so in terms of percentages rather than actual time. If
    it
    > takes ten milliseconds to load a file when it used to take five
    milliseconds,
    > that may be a 50% improvement but no human being will ever notice it. If,
    > instead, we are taking about tenths of seconds, then the improvement will
    be
    > noticable.
    >
    > Ken
    >
    >
    >
    > >
    > > There was a need for defragmentation back in the early days
    > > of Windows with small, slow disks on FAT16 filesystems. I'm
    > > not convinced there's a need when we have large, fast disks
    > > and NTFS filesystems. Not to mention large amounts of RAM.
    > >
    > > Cheers,
    > >
    > > Cliff
    > >
    > > --
    > >
    > > Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
    > >
Ask a new question

Read More

Defragment Microsoft Windows XP Product