It is interesting to see the replies here saying, of the defragmenter, "It's
not about the graphics..." and so on. I seems to me that the graphics is all
Vista is about!

I made a big mistake. I did not uninstall Diskeeper and other utilities
before running the Vista Business upgrade. As a result, Diskeeper apparently
prevented the Windows defragmenter from installing. I have uninstalled
Diskeeper, but I cannot get to Windows defragmenter. Amazingly, here is the
message I get when I try to defrag:

"The Disk Defragmenter is not installed on your computer. To install it,
double-click the Add or Remove Programs icon in Control Panel, click the
Install/Uninstall tab, and then follow the instructions on your screen."

Of course, those of you using Vista know THERE IS NO ADD/REMOVE PROGRAMS
ICON anymore (Oops! Someone didn't get the word eh?). And Programs and
Features doesn't even list defragmenter as an option to add or remove.
Should I just rerun the Vista setup? Its a little scary since I have other
"activation-required" programs like Adobe Photoshop CS2 ($650!!!) on this
computer.

I learned from others here that I can't run a clean install from the Upgrade
version, so that wasn't an option for me--although it would have been my
first choice otherwise.

Is my XP Pro product key really deactivated? Or can I reformat and install
XP from scratch, and then call Big Bro Microsoft for an activation? Mama
told me to wait for SP1. Why didn't I listen?


"Sphynx" wrote:
[color=blue]
> ...is far below my expectation's. Is there anyway to even see the progress?
> And where'd the analyse option go?
>
> No sir, i don't like this at all >_>[/color]

In message <E7C14765-9A1D-4BAD-B488-F6FC54F0A800@microsoft.com> "Troy
McClure" <g@s.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>just use the command line DEFRAG. and youll get the benefit of control.
>the -a switch does an analysis only
>the -w switch does a "full" defragmentation... by default, windows defrag
>doesnt defrag file fragments smaller then 64MB! thats a big fragment! by
>using -w EVERY fragment if defrag'd[/color]


Smaller, or bigger?

In general files that frequently accessed at the ones you really need to
defrag, a file that is accessed multiple times an hour that is in two
fragments will have a far worse effect on performance then a massive
file you only touch monthly, but happens to be in a thousand fragments.
--
Insert something clever here.

In message <3450FBAB-EF45-48F0-9537-C4EAC34C4086@microsoft.com> Bill
<Bill@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>It is interesting to see the replies here saying, of the defragmenter, "It's
>not about the graphics..." and so on. I seems to me that the graphics is all
>Vista is about![/color]

You have misunderstood. Visually, it's about a clean, intuitive,
relatively simple (vs older versions of Windows) GUI.

Under the hood, Vista performs substantially better then WinXP on at
least two of my computers.
[color=blue]
>"The Disk Defragmenter is not installed on your computer. To install it,
>double-click the Add or Remove Programs icon in Control Panel, click the
>Install/Uninstall tab, and then follow the instructions on your screen."
>
>Of course, those of you using Vista know THERE IS NO ADD/REMOVE PROGRAMS
>ICON anymore (Oops! Someone didn't get the word eh?). And Programs and
>Features doesn't even list defragmenter as an option to add or remove.
>Should I just rerun the Vista setup? Its a little scary since I have other
>"activation-required" programs like Adobe Photoshop CS2 ($650!!!) on this
>computer.[/color]

First off, make a backup of your system as-is. Worst case, you have to
restore from backup.

Next, do a repair install of Vista, or just upgrade it on top of itself.
Again, worst case you do a restore.

If that fails, do a custom install (Which will not leave your apps in a
working state), reinstall, and reactivate. Again, worst case, your
original backup can still be restored.
[color=blue]
>I learned from others here that I can't run a clean install from the Upgrade
>version, so that wasn't an option for me--although it would have been my
>first choice otherwise.[/color]

You can do a "Custom" install, which is roughly the same thing, although
it will leave a "Windows.old" directory on your hard drive.
[color=blue]
>Is my XP Pro product key really deactivated? Or can I reformat and install
>XP from scratch, and then call Big Bro Microsoft for an activation? Mama
>told me to wait for SP1. Why didn't I listen?[/color]

Deactivated, no -- At worst, you have to phone.
--
Insert something clever here.

"Bill" <Bill@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
[color=blue]
> It is interesting to see the replies here saying, of the defragmenter,
> "It's
> not about the graphics..." and so on. I seems to me that the graphics is
> all
> Vista is about![/color]

Then you haven't looked very much under the hood and kicked the tires. It's
much more than the eye candy.
[color=blue]
> I made a big mistake. I did not uninstall Diskeeper and other utilities
> before running the Vista Business upgrade. As a result, Diskeeper
> apparently
> prevented the Windows defragmenter from installing. I have uninstalled
> Diskeeper, but I cannot get to Windows defragmenter. Amazingly, here is
> the
> message I get when I try to defrag:
>
> "The Disk Defragmenter is not installed on your computer. To install it,
> double-click the Add or Remove Programs icon in Control Panel, click the
> Install/Uninstall tab, and then follow the instructions on your screen."
>
> Of course, those of you using Vista know THERE IS NO ADD/REMOVE PROGRAMS
> ICON anymore (Oops! Someone didn't get the word eh?). And Programs and
> Features doesn't even list defragmenter as an option to add or remove.
> Should I just rerun the Vista setup? Its a little scary since I have
> other
> "activation-required" programs like Adobe Photoshop CS2 ($650!!!) on this
> computer.[/color]

I would start over again. Hopefully you did a full system backup of the XP
installaton, maybe even imaged it with a drive imaging program so you can go
back to the previous XP installation quickly. And this time remove AV
programs, firewalls, system level utilities like diskeeper, partition magic,
CD/DVD burning software, and any other software that uses drivers.
[color=blue]
> I learned from others here that I can't run a clean install from the
> Upgrade
> version, so that wasn't an option for me--although it would have been my
> first choice otherwise.[/color]

There is a recently documented way to do it, but do it at your own risk.

[url]http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070201[/url]
[color=blue]
> Is my XP Pro product key really deactivated? Or can I reformat and
> install
> XP from scratch, and then call Big Bro Microsoft for an activation? Mama
> told me to wait for SP1. Why didn't I listen?[/color]

The XP license that is used as the qualifying OS for the Vista install
cannot be installed separately when Vista is installed. That's part of the
Vista license agreement. But when Vista is uninstalled, then the XP license
can be reused. It's as simple as that. You might have to call for
activation, yes.

If you have no compelling need or desire to upgrade then don't. It is not
so much SP1 to wait for but more drivers will be forth coming and more
software designed for Vista. Vista at this stage is better than XP was in
it's initial release.

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]

But, that is how people were assured it was working. Now we do not see it
running and the default is to defrag all drives. For you to say users did
not want to see the progress and were "afraid" to do anything else is
balogna. I teach classes on PC and have been a tech for 40 years and never
heard the likes of that story. MS took something away that people were used
to having, and many are disappointed. Get real.

"Rick Rogers" wrote:
[color=blue]
> Hi Mike,
>
> I know there will be those that just want to see the defragger, it's human
> nature. To me, it's also a waste of time to sit there watching it work when
> a machine should be being used for work, gaming, or whatever you bought it
> for, and for a fair percentage of users the defrag function doesn't really
> do much to improve performance. I mean, if people want to watch blocks
> moving there are plenty of screensavers that'll do that. I recall all the
> whining I would hear when I told Win98 users that they had to kill all
> processes and the screensaver, and stop using the system in order for defrag
> to complete. Now it runs as a barely perceptible background process and
> people want to sit there and watch it. Talk about your non-sequitors.
>
> --
> Best of Luck,
>
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> [url]http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/[/url]
> Windows help - [url]www.rickrogers.org[/url]
>
> "Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User" <mikehall@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:%23YCOqueSHHA.3948@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=green]
> > Rick
> >
> > Nobody bought a computer for that, but it is scary when you learn the kind
> > of numbers who were transfixed by Defrag.. as long as the user could see
> > it happen, it must have happened, even though the visual was not exactly
> > accurate.. you may remember the fuss caused by XP defrag not shuffling
> > every space out of the visual.. users were asking why XP defrag wasn't as
> > good as the Win 98 version..
> >
> >
> > "Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
> > news:%23HdYIVeSHHA.4260@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Part of the design change is that users didn't want to just sit there and
> >> watch, afraid to touch the machine for fear of having to restart the
> >> process while the defragger ran. It simply does what it needs to do in
> >> the background while you continue on your use of the system. After all,
> >> you didn't buy it to just sit and watch the hard drive being logically
> >> rearranged. If you want pretty graphics and a reinstallation of that
> >> fealing of awe-inspiring wonder as the blocks are shifted, you can use a
> >> third party program. Frankly, defragging is overrated and is overused by
> >> the majority.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best of Luck,
> >>
> >> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> >> [url]http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/[/url]
> >> Windows help - [url]www.rickrogers.org[/url]
> >>
> >> "Sphynx" <Sphynx@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:E0B54D1B-AD47-4CD4-98A1-BB35DCFEEA08@microsoft.com...
> >>> ...is far below my expectation's. Is there anyway to even see the
> >>> progress?
> >>> And where'd the analyse option go?
> >>>
> >>> No sir, i don't like this at all >_>
> >>[/color]
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]