On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:02:42 +0200, JimF wrote:
[color=blue]
> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:7cp4npF25h7a5U67@mid.individual.net...[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, 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[/color]

Since I'm not 'into' 3D modelling, no I won't. That is outside my area of
expertise. If you're really interested though, you could pose that
question on some of the Linux newsgroups - I would not be surprised to
find roughly equivalent Open Source Linux programs to do that work.

Defrag diagnostics tells me I don't need to defrag but it takes over 2 hours
to complete the task
when I tell it to defrag anyway??!

"Dave Warren" <dave-usenet@djwcomputers.com> wrote in message
news:fqgc65lfm9osilr9qqdlbhbt6ipqk61k0m@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> In message <B1DE01A6-1E9E-48E9-B358-8193549F3529@microsoft.com> "Gordon"
> <gordonbparker******.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>>"ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>news:eTlTj8iCKHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[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.[/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.[/color]

"JamesJ" <jjy@darwin_roadrunner.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Defrag diagnostics tells me I don't need to defrag but it takes over 2 hours
>to complete the task when I tell it to defrag anyway??![/color]

Leave well enough alone and let Vista's defrag do its thing on its own
in the background. It does all that's needed.

Defragging used to be important "back in the day" but with today's
fast processors and disks, it's not worth worrying about.

Gordon wrote:[color=blue]
>
> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:#891hfkCKHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Hi:
>>
>> This would appear to me to be one of the systemic problems that causes
>> Vista to run so slow. However, I by no means am a Vista expert or one
>> that
>> has used Vista extensively.
>>
>> I have been trying to help a friend with a Vista laptop that originally
>> ran extremely slow. I feel that I have made a great deal of head way, but
>> certainly am not yet to where I want to be with it. One might say that
>> I am
>> still searching....
>>[/color]
>
> A fragmented HDD is one of the least likely causes of a slow machine....[/color]

True enough, but if defrag will slow down the machine while it's
running. Since defrag seems to work in the background it's not always
easy to tell that it is running.

I like jkdefrag, whatever the name has been changed to.

Bill

there are benefits gained
by defragging the disk.

however the larger the disk
and the more free space
it has,

fragmentation is minimal
and virtually not necessary.

but as the disk space shrinks,
then defragging can improve
system performance.

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

the "real" benefit from
defragging is simply derived
by having less fragments.

you see if one itty bitty
fragment of the many
that comprises a file,
becomes corrupted.

then that entire file
becomes corrupted.

so by reducing the amount
of fragments, you are reducing
the chance of loosing files.

also, if fragments are becoming
corrupted, then it is a sign that
the master file table and the
file system are becoming
corrupted as well.

so running check disk and
defrag regularly is simply added
insurance for your peace of
mind and data.

the same logic above also
applies to the registry hive.

the dirtier it is because it
contains many obsolete and
orphaned keys,

the larger the registry hive is
and the more fragments it will
have.

so removing unnecessary keys
shrinks the registry file and
reduces the number of fragments
that comprises the registry.

again, if one itty bitty fragment
of the registry file becomes
corrupted and that particular
fragment contained data to
an obsolete key,

then the entire registry will
become corrupted.

and we all know what kind
of a headache that can be.

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

interestingly, the microsoft's
one care on-line scanner
is a quick way to fix all of
the above.

--

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]

"JamesJ" <jjy@darwin_roadrunner.com> wrote in message news:Oa0zrhxCKHA.1540@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Defrag diagnostics tells me I don't need to defrag but it takes over 2 hours to complete the task
> when I tell it to defrag anyway??!
>
> "Dave Warren" <dave-usenet@djwcomputers.com> wrote in message news:fqgc65lfm9osilr9qqdlbhbt6ipqk61k0m@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> In message <B1DE01A6-1E9E-48E9-B358-8193549F3529@microsoft.com> "Gordon"
>> <gordonbparker******.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>"ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:eTlTj8iCKHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>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.[/color]
>[/color]

Bill Sharpe <wfsnopam@adelphia.net> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> A fragmented HDD is one of the least likely causes of a slow machine....[/color]
>
>True enough, but if defrag will slow down the machine while it's
>running. Since defrag seems to work in the background it's not always
>easy to tell that it is running.[/color]

Why worry about it? Defragging is over-rated anyway.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:07:07 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth wrote:
[color=blue]
> ray wrote:[color=green]
>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:37:20 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth
>> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:07:12 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 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?
>>> 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]
>
> Ubuntu/Linux - Same thing.[/color]

Not at all. Ubuntu is a Linux distribution - not every Linux distribution
is Ubuntu. Every diamond is a gem - not every gem is a diamond.
[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
>>[color=darkred]
>>> 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.[/color]
>
> Not what I was talking about. Re-read my statement.[/color]

At least as relevant as what you said - it's not a very good analogy. I
would not walk into the Chevy dealer and state "you can't do real work on
a Chevy - you need a Ford" - I doubt you would either.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:08:50 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth wrote:
[color=blue]
> ray wrote:[color=green]
>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:02:42 +0200, JimF wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7cp4npF25h7a5U67@mid.individual.net...
>>>> 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, 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[/color]
>>
>> Since I'm not 'into' 3D modelling, no I won't. That is outside my area
>> of expertise. If you're really interested though, you could pose that
>> question on some of the Linux newsgroups - I would not be surprised to
>> find roughly equivalent Open Source Linux programs to do that work.
>>
>>[/color]
> So what Linux program/programs can do with ADOBE Photoshop does? I am
> not talking about a stripped down EL_CHEAPO Free version, tell me what
> has the same features? I'll bet you can't.[/color]

For the needs of most folks dealing with photo editing, ufraw and GIMP
are quite sufficient. It's all about what is sufficient - not what has a
bunch of features that most folks never use.

BTW - how, exactly does that relate to the need to defragment or not?

In message <Oa0zrhxCKHA.1540@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl> "JamesJ"
<jjy@darwin_roadrunner.com> was claimed to have wrote:
[color=blue]
>Defrag diagnostics tells me I don't need to defrag but it takes over 2 hours
>to complete the task
>when I tell it to defrag anyway??![/color]

Okay -- What is the question?

Assuming you're asking why the above happens, there is a difference
between not needing to defragment, and being completely defragmented.

The analysis tells you whether or not the defrag tool believes
fragmentation is impacting performance, but when you tell it to defrag,
it optimizes beyond the point of currently impacting performance.

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]

I understand your desire to watch colors change on the screen but the
built in defrager works fine if you use it as defraging is intended to
be used - as an out of sight/out of mind background task. I set it up
that way 18 months ago and I have never even noticed it running since
then.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:04:39 -0700, Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>I understand your desire to watch colors change on the screen but the
>built in defrager works fine if you use it as defraging is intended to
>be used - as an out of sight/out of mind background task. I set it up
>that way 18 months ago and I have never even noticed it running since
>then.[/color]

Background defrag is a waste of performance you could be using in the
foreground. Not to mention, defragging a disk is a moderately risky
operation on the drive. Doing it while foreground tasks are running is
not very smart.

Just get a decent defrag utility and run it periodically when you
won't be doing anything on the system. Shut off Vista's useless dumbed
down defrag. All fixed.

"+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
news:6nof65ti1jnm5iddj8oeaqm3h6otitfq6g@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:04:39 -0700, Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>I understand your desire to watch colors change on the screen but the
>>built in defrager works fine if you use it as defraging is intended to
>>be used - as an out of sight/out of mind background task. I set it up
>>that way 18 months ago and I have never even noticed it running since
>>then.[/color]
>
> Background defrag is a waste of performance you could be using in the
> foreground.[/color]

The Vista defrag only kicks in when the system is IDLE......so no loss of
performance there then, is there?

"Ashton Crusher" <demi@moore.net> wrote in message
news:m5of6596o7j2n1n3dck6tsi3qgt53jnul9@4ax.com...
[color=blue]
> I set it up that way 18 months ago and I have never even noticed it
> running since
> then.[/color]

And there was no need to - that's the default setting of the Vista defrag
utility anyway - in the background, on system idle....

If it's not importanct to defrag ones drive why did I need to disable
automatic defrag?
I do the maintenance, I believe to be nescessary for my system, on my own
once a week.
And I can't afford to go out and upgrade my processor and disk everytime my
system slows down.
And it does slow down after time.

James

"Bill Daggett" <Daggett@wmunny.invalid> wrote in message
news:po4f65piatq9qh4nao9q1lljvt96bnnjjd@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> "JamesJ" <jjy@darwin_roadrunner.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Defrag diagnostics tells me I don't need to defrag but it takes over 2
>>hours
>>to complete the task when I tell it to defrag anyway??![/color]
>
> Leave well enough alone and let Vista's defrag do its thing on its own
> in the background. It does all that's needed.
>
> Defragging used to be important "back in the day" but with today's
> fast processors and disks, it's not worth worrying about.[/color]

"JamesJ" <jjy@darwin_roadrunner.com> wrote in message
news:OzdDU93CKHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> If it's not importanct to defrag ones drive why did I need to disable
> automatic defrag?[/color]

Why DID you "disable automatic defrag"? That's why it IS automatic so you
don't have to think about it.

[color=blue]
> I do the maintenance, I believe to be nescessary for my system, on my own
> once a week.[/color]

And if you leave Vista defrag in the default setting, which is to defrag on
an on-going basis when the machine is idle, that's one less thing you need
to worry about and actually DO.
[color=blue]
> And it does slow down after time.[/color]

But that is NOT, in general, due to a fragmented HDD!
Defragging makes very little difference, in general, to system performance.