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

You didn't "need" to, you wanted to. Why, I don't know.
[color=blue]
>I do the maintenance, I believe to be nescessary for my system, on my own
>once a week.[/color]

That's commendable. Manually defragging is a waste of your time.
[color=blue]
>And I can't afford to go out and upgrade my processor and disk everytime my
>system slows down.[/color]

That's a ridiculous statement.
[color=blue]
>And it does slow down after time.
>
>James[/color]

You have a wild imagination, or something else is wrong with your
computer.

My system has been up and running for over two years with Vista on it
without my ever having run a manual defrag. It has never slowed down
that I have noticed.

[color=blue]
>"Bill Daggett" <Daggett@wmunny.invalid> wrote in message
>news:po4f65piatq9qh4nao9q1lljvt96bnnjjd@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> "JamesJ" <jjy@darwin_roadrunner.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>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][/color]

I don't worry about it. I just do those things for myself.
I defrag, maybe once a month. I just feel the more items running
slows my system down. And since I've been tweaking Vista services
I've noticed my system starting faster and not having to wait for 5 minutes
after the desktop shows up before I can do anything.

James


"Gordon" <gordonbparker******.com> wrote in message
news:ObU$Mi4CKHA.1340@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
> "JamesJ" <jjy@darwin_roadrunner.com> wrote in message
> news:OzdDU93CKHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> 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=green]
>> 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=green]
>> 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.
>
>
>
>[/color]

"Bill Daggett" <Daggett@wmunny.invalid> wrote in message
news:voig651q94qbtn132eu2vvfldlqoq3rkjb@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> "JamesJ" <jjy@darwin_roadrunner.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>If it's not importanct to defrag ones drive why did I need to disable
>>automatic defrag?[/color]
>
> You didn't "need" to, you wanted to. Why, I don't know.
>[color=green]
>>I do the maintenance, I believe to be nescessary for my system, on my own
>>once a week.[/color]
>
> That's commendable. Manually defragging is a waste of your time.
>[color=green]
>>And I can't afford to go out and upgrade my processor and disk everytime
>>my
>>system slows down.[/color]
>
> That's a ridiculous statement.
>[color=green]
>>And it does slow down after time.
>>
>>James[/color]
>
> You have a wild imagination, or something else is wrong with your
> computer.
>
> My system has been up and running for over two years with Vista on it
> without my ever having run a manual defrag. It has never slowed down
> that I have noticed.
>
>[color=green]
>>"Bill Daggett" <Daggett@wmunny.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:po4f65piatq9qh4nao9q1lljvt96bnnjjd@4ax.com...[color=darkred]
>>> "JamesJ" <jjy@darwin_roadrunner.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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??!
>>>
>>> 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][/color][/color]

Why is not being able to afford upgrading a ridiculous statement??
I don't have the money do it.
When your car needs an oil change I'll bet you buy a new car.

James

"Bill Daggett" <Daggett@wmunny.invalid> wrote in message
news:voig651q94qbtn132eu2vvfldlqoq3rkjb@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> "JamesJ" <jjy@darwin_roadrunner.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>If it's not importanct to defrag ones drive why did I need to disable
>>automatic defrag?[/color]
>
> You didn't "need" to, you wanted to. Why, I don't know.
>[color=green]
>>I do the maintenance, I believe to be nescessary for my system, on my own
>>once a week.[/color]
>
> That's commendable. Manually defragging is a waste of your time.
>[color=green]
>>And I can't afford to go out and upgrade my processor and disk everytime
>>my
>>system slows down.[/color]
>
> That's a ridiculous statement.
>[color=green]
>>And it does slow down after time.
>>
>>James[/color]
>
> You have a wild imagination, or something else is wrong with your
> computer.
>
> My system has been up and running for over two years with Vista on it
> without my ever having run a manual defrag. It has never slowed down
> that I have noticed.
>
>[color=green]
>>"Bill Daggett" <Daggett@wmunny.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:po4f65piatq9qh4nao9q1lljvt96bnnjjd@4ax.com...[color=darkred]
>>> "JamesJ" <jjy@darwin_roadrunner.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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??!
>>>
>>> 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][/color][/color]

"JamesJ" <jjy@darwin_roadrunner.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Why is not being able to afford upgrading a ridiculous statement??
>I don't have the money do it.[/color]

I'm not contesting that. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to even
bring up that possibility when you start to see your system "slow"
down. It once was fast enough... right? So the hardware is fine.

Got it.

James

"Bill Daggett" <Daggett@wmunny.invalid> wrote in message
news:bbug65509g4f78l753cte9c8kpjrj14o50@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> "JamesJ" <jjy@darwin_roadrunner.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Why is not being able to afford upgrading a ridiculous statement??
>>I don't have the money do it.[/color]
>
> I'm not contesting that. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to even
> bring up that possibility when you start to see your system "slow"
> down. It once was fast enough... right? So the hardware is fine.
>[/color]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:27:14 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth wrote:
[color=blue]
> ray wrote:[color=green]
>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:07:07 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth
>> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:37:20 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Please point out where I mentioned Ubuntu. I did not! Please at least
>>>> attempt to keep your posts accurate.
>>> 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=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!
>>>> As a matter of fact I recently bought a Chevy program car from the
>>>> local Dodge dealer.
>>> 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.[/color]
>
> BINGO - That was my point exactly. If you wouldn't do that, then why
> would you push Ubuntu in the Vista forum? Got it now?[/color]

I most certainly DO have it. And I did not mention Ubuntu until YOU
brought it up. I was merely making the point that in the 21st century a
properly designed file system does not need continual defragging to
maintain responsive performance. Please explain how that is 'pushing'
Ubuntu.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:27:25 +0100, "Gordon" <gordonbparker******.com>
wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> 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.[/color]

Inaccurate. On some systems it makes a tremendous difference. It
depends entirely on how much activity (add/delete) the disk drive
sees.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:42:48 +0100, "Gordon" <gordonbparker******.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>The Vista defrag only kicks in when the system is IDLE......so no loss of
>performance there then, is there?[/color]

Yes there is. It's a noticeable thrashing of the drive. When you start
a foreground program and the disk is being thrashed by the defrag, you
can see a noticeable delay.

Not to mention, it's notoriously inefficient. Go to any system running
the background defrag. Run a defrag on it. Notice how long it has to
run, even though it's supposedly defragged.

On 23 Jul 2009 15:22:26 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>I most certainly DO have it. And I did not mention Ubuntu until YOU
>brought it up. I was merely making the point that in the 21st century a
>properly designed file system does not need continual defragging to
>maintain responsive performance. Please explain how that is 'pushing'
>Ubuntu.[/color]

MS started claiming when NT came out that NTFS did not need to be
defragged. Actual performance measurement proved them incorrect :-)

In my case you're right.
I find myself trying alot of shareware which 5% of I might end up using
extensively. Although this probably isn't a very gpood idea (with spyware
and
the like) I do a lot of uninstalling of the shareware I don't want. So, I'm
pobably responable
for some of the system slow downs.

James

"+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
news:vi2h65p6de5piekrlmv8n0hqmrhuvq7t6e@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:27:25 +0100, "Gordon" <gordonbparker******.com>
> wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> 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.[/color]
>
> Inaccurate. On some systems it makes a tremendous difference. It
> depends entirely on how much activity (add/delete) the disk drive
> sees.
>
>[/color]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:36:22 -0700, Frank wrote:
[color=blue]
> +Bob+ wrote:[color=green]
>> On 23 Jul 2009 15:22:26 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> I most certainly DO have it. And I did not mention Ubuntu until YOU
>>> brought it up. I was merely making the point that in the 21st century
>>> a properly designed file system does not need continual defragging to
>>> maintain responsive performance. Please explain how that is 'pushing'
>>> Ubuntu.[/color]
>>
>> MS started claiming when NT came out that NTFS did not need to be
>> defragged. Actual performance measurement proved them incorrect :-)[/color]
>
>
> Yeah, just like linux claims it never needs to be defragged...that's why
> there are dozens of linux defragmenting software utilities
> available!...LOL![/color]

There are not dozens. There are a few. I've never known anyone to use
them.

In message <6nof65ti1jnm5iddj8oeaqm3h6otitfq6g@4ax.com> +Bob+
<nomailplease@example.com> was claimed to have wrote:
[color=blue]
>Background defrag is a waste of performance you could be using in the
>foreground.[/color]

Vista's defragmentation tool only works while the system is idle, both
by way of a backoff algorithm, and also the disk queuing system.
[color=blue]
>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.[/color]

There is virtually no risk at all with a modern defragmentation tool
using Windows' NTFS defragmation APIs. When a cluster is moved, there
are several steps, each of which is journaled so at no point will a
failure or interruption cause corruption or data loss.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:46:25 -0700, Dave Warren
<dave-usenet@djwcomputers.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>In message <6nof65ti1jnm5iddj8oeaqm3h6otitfq6g@4ax.com> +Bob+
><nomailplease@example.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Background defrag is a waste of performance you could be using in the
>>foreground.[/color]
>
>Vista's defragmentation tool only works while the system is idle, both
>by way of a backoff algorithm, and also the disk queuing system.
>[color=green]
>>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.[/color]
>
>There is virtually no risk at all with a modern defragmentation tool
>using Windows' NTFS defragmation APIs. When a cluster is moved, there
>are several steps, each of which is journaled so at no point will a
>failure or interruption cause corruption or data loss.[/color]

If there's a power failure or crash, you can easily end up with
errors. Not to mention, Vista already has all sorts of verified issues
with the file system (performance; refusing to acknowledge changes
without a reboot, etc). Adding another level of risk to it seems like
a very poor idea.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:14:31 -0700, Frank wrote:
[color=blue]
> ray wrote:[color=green]
>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:36:22 -0700, Frank wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> +Bob+ wrote:
>>>> On 23 Jul 2009 15:22:26 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I most certainly DO have it. And I did not mention Ubuntu until YOU
>>>>> brought it up. I was merely making the point that in the 21st
>>>>> century a properly designed file system does not need continual
>>>>> defragging to maintain responsive performance. Please explain how
>>>>> that is 'pushing' Ubuntu.
>>>> MS started claiming when NT came out that NTFS did not need to be
>>>> defragged. Actual performance measurement proved them incorrect :-)
>>>
>>> Yeah, just like linux claims it never needs to be defragged...that's
>>> why there are dozens of linux defragmenting software utilities
>>> available!...LOL![/color]
>>
>> There are not dozens. There are a few. I've never known anyone to use
>> them.[/color]
>
> There are more than "a few" and their very existence belies your
> assertion that they are not need.
> The FUD you spread is noted.[/color]

Yes frankie they exist. If you do a web search you might actually be able
to find some. The ones of which I am aware defragment ext2 file systems.
I've never heard of one for a more modern fs such as reiser. You will
also find that NO SIGNIFICANT Linux distribution includes a
defragmentation tool in it's base installation. It must not be very
necessary.

Just for grins, do a web search for 'defragmentation Linux' - most of
what you will find are explnations of why Linux does not need it.