I can't say for sure how much less in Vista than XP. It is less, but XP was
before my time and I haven't tested/benchmarked this specifically. I regret
that I don't have these stats.

For Server we're making a lot of reliability and performance improvements
even on Vista. Currently I *think* we've got more than a 20% improvement on
a 1 million extent (files+extra extents) drive for Longhorn Server. SP1
will be sharing the defrag codebase with Longhorn Server, so will also have
these improvements.

Rest assured it will be loads better for SP1, and I am honestly sorry I
can't give you a number for XP vs. Vista.

So for now, don't go downgrading your RAM.

-Victoria


"DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:0c4dq29q50sso1ap7nmb9vkoau82hh1nc0@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> In message <Ot64JYaNHHA.4720@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl> "Jill Zoeller [MSFT]"
> <jillz@online.microsoft.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>I've asked someone from the defrag team to answer this...stay tuned![/color]
>
> Thanks!
>
> In XP and 2003 when I defrag I typically see DfrgNtfs.exe using a fairly
> large amount of RAM (just under 700MB last time I attempted to defrag my
> file server's 1TB array) -- Is this still happening on Vista?
>
> --
> It's like the time that your cat snowball got run over.
> Remember honey? So what I'm saying is, all we have to
> do is go down to the pound and get a new jazz man.
> -- Homer Simpsons[/color]