"Gordon" <gordonbparker******.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>"ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:eTlTj8iCKHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Hi:
>>
>> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever seen. It
>> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.[/color]
>
>If there's no progression status how do you KNOW "it takes forever"?[/color]

Might it have occurred to you that he's using it manually? Hmmm?

this works pretty good:

[url]http://www.winvistaclub.com/d27.html[/url]


--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- Microsoft Partner
- ********.com
~~~~~~~~~~"share the nirvana" - dbZen
[color=blue]
>
>[/color]

"ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message news:eTlTj8iCKHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi:
>
> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever seen. It
> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>
> Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or suggestion?
>
> Thanks,
>
> ColTom2
>
>[/color]

In message <B1DE01A6-1E9E-48E9-B358-8193549F3529@microsoft.com> "Gordon"
<gordonbparker******.com> was claimed to have wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>"ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:eTlTj8iCKHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Hi:
>>
>> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever seen. It
>> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.[/color]
>
>If there's no progression status how do you KNOW "it takes forever"?
>In fact the Vista defragmenter is set by default to work when the computer
>is idle so you don't actually need to launch it at all.[/color]

He's right, it does take longer then most defrag tools, if only because
it does a better job of deferring to actual user activity.

If the computer is turned off before Vista's native defrag
complete its task, what happens?

Ο "Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> Î*γÏ�αψε στο μήνυμα
news:uZ0d7HlCKHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> If you want to sit and watch blocks move, there are several third party
> programs that reportedly work well. Among them are Diskeeper, Auslogics,
> and PerfectDisk, all of which are perfectly suitable alternatives.
> Defragging, however, is highly overrated from a performance enhancing
> perspective. Few will see actual improvements in response time.
>
> Vista's native defrag is designed to not interfere with the user actually
> using of the machine. It runs as a low level service that does not require
> the user to stop using the machine in order to complete the task at hand.
> You may find it takes longer because it halts as necessary to allow
> user-initiated tasks to take priority. It works fine when allowed to do
> the job the way it was designed. It does lack the ability to manipulate
> the mft and paging file, something you can find in one of the above third
> party products, but the majority of users will find little benefit in
> doing so.
>
> --
> Best of Luck,
>
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> [url]http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/[/url]
> Windows help - [url]www.rickrogers.org[/url]
> Vote for my shoe: [url]http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com[/url]
>
> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:eTlTj8iCKHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Hi:
>>
>> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever seen. It
>> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>>
>> Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or suggestion?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> ColTom2
>>
>>[/color]
>[/color]

"EndUser" <my@add.res> wrote in message
news:u34HMjpCKHA.3732@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> If the computer is turned off before Vista's native defrag
> complete its task, what happens?
>[/color]

Nothing AFAIK - it just resumes then next time the machine is switched on
and is idle....

Precisely.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
[url]http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/[/url]
Windows help - [url]www.rickrogers.org[/url]
Vote for my shoe: [url]http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com[/url]

"Gordon" <gordonbparker******.com> wrote in message
news:8AB4085E-4534-47B0-8467-991B8C75A431@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
>
> "EndUser" <my@add.res> wrote in message
> news:u34HMjpCKHA.3732@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> If the computer is turned off before Vista's native defrag
>> complete its task, what happens?
>>[/color]
>
> Nothing AFAIK - it just resumes then next time the machine is switched on
> and is idle....[/color]

Gordon wrote:[color=blue]
>
> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:eTlTj8iCKHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Hi:
>>
>> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever seen. It
>> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.[/color]
>
> If there's no progression status how do you KNOW "it takes forever"?
> In fact the Vista defragmenter is set by default to work when the
> computer is idle so you don't actually need to launch it at all.
>
> See here for more info:
> [url]http://support.microsoft.com/kb/942092[/url][/color]


Err - It doesn't err take forever. Err. The Vista defrag Err is set by
default. Err.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:48 -0400, "ColTom2"
<noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Hi:
>
> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever seen. It
>does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>
> Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or suggestion?
>
>Thanks,
>
>ColTom2
>[/color]

Defraggler .

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:48 -0400, ColTom2 wrote:
[color=blue]
> Hi:
>
> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever seen.
> It
> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>
> Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or suggestion?
>
> Thanks,
>
> ColTom2[/color]

One option - convert to Linux and forget defragmenting. A properly
designed, modern file system should not require constant defragmentaion.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:43:32 -0700, Frank wrote:
[color=blue]
> ray wrote:[color=green]
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:48 -0400, ColTom2 wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever seen.
>>> It
>>> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or suggestion?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> ColTom2[/color]
>>
>> One option - convert to Linux and forget defragmenting. A properly
>> designed, modern file system should not require constant
>> defragmentaion.[/color]
>
> Of course that explains why there are dozens of defragmenters for
> linux!...LOL![/color]

There are a couple. I've never known anyone to use them.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:50:23 -0700, Montague Nathanal Hollingsworth wrote:
[color=blue]
> ray wrote:[color=green]
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:48 -0400, ColTom2 wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever seen.
>>> It
>>> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or suggestion?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> ColTom2[/color]
>>
>> One option - convert to Linux and forget defragmenting. A properly
>> designed, modern file system should not require constant
>> defragmentaion.[/color]
>
> Of course you don't need to defrag your Linux system. Since you can't
> do any real work, there is no need to defrag.[/color]

What an absurd comment. Of course you can do "real work" on Linux.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:42:14 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth wrote:
[color=blue]
> ray wrote:[color=green]
>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:50:23 -0700, Montague Nathanal Hollingsworth
>> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:48 -0400, ColTom2 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi:
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever
>>>>> seen. It
>>>>> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or suggestion?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> ColTom2
>>>> One option - convert to Linux and forget defragmenting. A properly
>>>> designed, modern file system should not require constant
>>>> defragmentaion.
>>> Of course you don't need to defrag your Linux system. Since you can't
>>> do any real work, there is no need to defrag.[/color]
>>
>> What an absurd comment. Of course you can do "real work" on Linux.[/color]
>
> I've never known anyone to do real work on Linux.[/color]

Well, meet one. I did scientific software support and development for 30
years for Dept. of Army. Started with IBM/DCS system, moved to Univac,
moved to DEC RSX-11; moved to DEC Ultrix thence to Tru64 Unix on DEC
Alpha and finally RedHat Linux on a DELL dual Xeon. The entire realtime
system at White Sands Missile Range is based on Unix and Linux. The post
flight processing we did (I primarily worked with digital signal
processing of coherant radar signals) was done on Linux. If that ain't
"real work", I don't know what is. The bulk of the internet runs on
Apache on Linux platforms. I happen to know several small businesses
running on Linux. Several major international auto companies do their
development on Linux.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:07:12 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth wrote:
[color=blue]
> ray wrote:[color=green]
>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:42:14 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth
>> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:50:23 -0700, Montague Nathanal Hollingsworth
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:48 -0400, ColTom2 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever
>>>>>>> seen. It
>>>>>>> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or
>>>>>>> suggestion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ColTom2
>>>>>> One option - convert to Linux and forget defragmenting. A properly
>>>>>> designed, modern file system should not require constant
>>>>>> defragmentaion.
>>>>> Of course you don't need to defrag your Linux system. Since you
>>>>> can't do any real work, there is no need to defrag.
>>>> What an absurd comment. Of course you can do "real work" on Linux.
>>> I've never known anyone to do real work on Linux.[/color]
>>
>> Well, meet one. I did scientific software support and development for
>> 30 years for Dept. of Army. Started with IBM/DCS system, moved to
>> Univac, moved to DEC RSX-11; moved to DEC Ultrix thence to Tru64 Unix
>> on DEC Alpha and finally RedHat Linux on a DELL dual Xeon. The entire
>> realtime system at White Sands Missile Range is based on Unix and
>> Linux. The post flight processing we did (I primarily worked with
>> digital signal processing of coherant radar signals) was done on Linux.
>> If that ain't "real work", I don't know what is. The bulk of the
>> internet runs on Apache on Linux platforms. I happen to know several
>> small businesses running on Linux. Several major international auto
>> companies do their development on Linux.[/color]
>
> We are not talking specialty applications with the armed forces. Take a
> look around at regular businesses and at home users. Almost
> non-existent.[/color]

That's the way out, isn't it? Redefine 'real work' so that nothing I say
fits. Except that you stopped reading too soon.

BTW - if it's 'almost non-exestent' then why are you sweating it?

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:7cp4npF25h7a5U67@mid.individual.net...[color=blue]
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:50:23 -0700, Montague Nathanal Hollingsworth wrote:
>[color=green]
>> ray wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:48 -0400, ColTom2 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi:
>>>>
>>>> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever seen.
>>>> It
>>>> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or suggestion?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> ColTom2
>>>
>>> One option - convert to Linux and forget defragmenting. A properly
>>> designed, modern file system should not require constant
>>> defragmentaion.[/color]
>>
>> Of course you don't need to defrag your Linux system. Since you can't
>> do any real work, there is no need to defrag.[/color]
>
> What an absurd comment. Of course you can do "real work" on Linux.[/color]

I, like many other ppls, do "real work" on my computer (3D modelling). I
use Daz 3D advanced studio, Carrara 7 pro and Vue xStream 7 pro. Could you
please tell me which Linux programs I could use to replace these.

JimF

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:37:20 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth wrote:
[color=blue]
> ray wrote:[color=green]
>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:07:12 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth
>> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:42:14 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:50:23 -0700, Montague Nathanal Hollingsworth
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:48 -0400, ColTom2 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever
>>>>>>>>> seen. It
>>>>>>>>> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or
>>>>>>>>> suggestion?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ColTom2
>>>>>>>> One option - convert to Linux and forget defragmenting. A
>>>>>>>> properly designed, modern file system should not require constant
>>>>>>>> defragmentaion.
>>>>>>> Of course you don't need to defrag your Linux system. Since you
>>>>>>> can't do any real work, there is no need to defrag.
>>>>>> What an absurd comment. Of course you can do "real work" on Linux.
>>>>> I've never known anyone to do real work on Linux.
>>>> Well, meet one. I did scientific software support and development for
>>>> 30 years for Dept. of Army. Started with IBM/DCS system, moved to
>>>> Univac, moved to DEC RSX-11; moved to DEC Ultrix thence to Tru64 Unix
>>>> on DEC Alpha and finally RedHat Linux on a DELL dual Xeon. The entire
>>>> realtime system at White Sands Missile Range is based on Unix and
>>>> Linux. The post flight processing we did (I primarily worked with
>>>> digital signal processing of coherant radar signals) was done on
>>>> Linux. If that ain't "real work", I don't know what is. The bulk of
>>>> the internet runs on Apache on Linux platforms. I happen to know
>>>> several small businesses running on Linux. Several major
>>>> international auto companies do their development on Linux.
>>> We are not talking specialty applications with the armed forces. Take
>>> a look around at regular businesses and at home users. Almost
>>> non-existent.[/color]
>>
>> That's the way out, isn't it? Redefine 'real work' so that nothing I
>> say fits. Except that you stopped reading too soon.
>>
>> BTW - if it's 'almost non-exestent' then why are you sweating it?[/color]
>
> Who said anything about "sweating it"?
>
> I just think that people posting about Ubuntu in the vista forum is a
> complete waste of time and effort.[/color]

Please point out where I mentioned Ubuntu. I did not! Please at least
attempt to keep your posts accurate.

[color=blue]
>
> You might as well go to a Ford dealer, talk to people waiting to get
> their vehicles serviced and speak to them about discount Chevy parts![/color]

As a matter of fact I recently bought a Chevy program car from the local
Dodge dealer.