What is the best defragmenter?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I used Diskeeper 8 and it seemed to do a better job than the original defragmenter in Win2k. I read
someone using Perfect Disk. Any other recommendations?

And what are some other utilities to keep your hard drives working well? Does error checking in Windows
make any difference? Does it really fix anything? Is it better to use a DOS type utility to circumvent
the operating system entirely?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Frank W. wrote:

> I used Diskeeper 8 and it seemed to do a better job than the original defragmenter in Win2k. I read
> someone using Perfect Disk. Any other recommendations?
>
> And what are some other utilities to keep your hard drives working well? Does error checking in Windows
> make any difference? Does it really fix anything? Is it better to use a DOS type utility to circumvent
> the operating system entirely?
>
>

For most PC users, I recommend any defragger that is free -- which means the
one built into WinWhatever.

The most useful HD utility for any WinWhatever PC is backup IMHO.
--
Cheers, Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Frank W <reply_to_newsgroup@please.ccom> wrote
in message news:375g4iF57esstU1@individual.net...

> I used Diskeeper 8 and it seemed to do a better job
> than the original defragmenter in Win2k. I read someone
> using Perfect Disk. Any other recommendations?

Dont bother defragging unless you are in some very unusual situation.

> And what are some other utilities to keep your hard drives working well?

I just enable SMART. Thats not so much to keep it
working well as to get an early warning if its dying.

Tho I spose you could claim that monitoring the
drive temp with an alarm for that using SMART
is a ute to keep the hard drives working well.

You dont see too many hard drives go overtemp on a
fan failure tho, its usually seen with the cpu much earlier.

> Does error checking in Windows make any difference?

Depends on how often your system sees a mains failure.

> Does it really fix anything?

Yes, in that situation it does.

> Is it better to use a DOS type utility to
> circumvent the operating system entirely?

Nope, they're useless now.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> shared:

>Dont bother defragging unless you are in some very unusual situation.

Hmm
Why?

I understand defrag helps the system performance...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Ann Onimus <Ann@Onimus.net> wrote in message
news:vkas01ppglclrlv69rsjsihpj4cs10vavt@news.Onimus.net...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

>> Dont bother defragging unless you are in some very unusual situation.

> Hmm
> Why?

Because its pointless with most modern systems.

> I understand defrag helps the system performance...

You 'understand' wrong.

I bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a proper
randomised double blind trial without being allowed
to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.

And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> shared:

>Because its pointless with most modern systems.

>You 'understand' wrong.
>
>I bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a proper
>randomised double blind trial without being allowed
>to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.
>
>And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.

Yeah, well, good point...or is it?

So, you are saying that defrag applications are built just to smoke
our understanding of modern systems?
That the only point in using them is to run them just for the hack of
it?

hmmmm.

 

[cjt]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Rod Speed wrote:
> Ann Onimus <Ann@Onimus.net> wrote in message
> news:vkas01ppglclrlv69rsjsihpj4cs10vavt@news.Onimus.net...
>
>>Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>>>Dont bother defragging unless you are in some very unusual situation.
>
>
>>Hmm
>>Why?
>
>
> Because its pointless with most modern systems.

Define "modern."

>
>
>>I understand defrag helps the system performance...
>
>
> You 'understand' wrong.
>
> I bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a proper
> randomised double blind trial without being allowed
> to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.
>
> And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.
>
>


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

What exactly is degraggin supposed to do? Make it faster for the drive to access data? Make it faster
at moving data once accessed? Enquiring minds need to know.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> > I understand defrag helps the system performance...
>
> You 'understand' wrong.

Ah, no she understands perfectly. Maybe _you_ don't have a need to defrag
with the apps _you_ use, and that's fine... for _you_. However, you quite
obviously don't use the apps _I_ do because the difference is readily
discernible.

> I bet you wouldn't be able to pick it in a proper
> randomised double blind trial without being allowed
> to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.

Try rendering a conformed 50 gig avi fle with Premier Pro with a fragmented
drive and see how long it takes versus a disk that's just been defragged. No
display of fragmentation needed to see the difference.

> And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.

Anyone with even the most basic of observation skills would easily recognize
the difference when doing the above mentioned task. Just because _you_ don't
need to defrag doesn't mean _everyone_ doesn't need to defrag.

 

[Shawn]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Ann Onimus <Ann@Onimus.net> wrote in message
>news:vkas01ppglclrlv69rsjsihpj4cs10vavt@news.Onimus.net...
>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>> Dont bother defragging unless you are in some very unusual situation.
>
>> Hmm
>> Why?
>
>Because its pointless with most modern systems.
>
>> I understand defrag helps the system performance...

It can depending upon the system and how it is used.


Sorry, but it can and does make a difference in some situations. I
have a partition that I use for downloads so it becomes highly
fragmented after a while. When trying to watch a video on that
partition there can often be problems due to delays in getting data
off the disk. Taking the time to defragment the drive (or copying the
file to another non-fragmented partition) will resolve the issues.

Now for normal use by someone that doesn't download binary files from
the internet, I agree that defragmenting is something that will
probably won't be needed. It might be helpful to defragment a normal
users system on occasion , but probably no more than every few months
and the process shouldn't take long since their system probably won't
be that fragmented.
>I bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a proper
>randomised double blind trial without being allowed
>to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.
>
>And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.
>

 

[cjt]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Frank W. wrote:
> What exactly is degraggin supposed to do? Make it faster for the drive to access data? Make it faster
> at moving data once accessed? Enquiring minds need to know.
>
>
I've seen Windows machines crash when their drives became too
fragmented.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

 

[kenneth]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:18:05 -0600, "Frank W."
<reply_to_newsgroup@please.ccom> wrote:

>What exactly is degraggin supposed to do? Make it faster for the drive to access data? Make it faster
>at moving data once accessed? Enquiring minds need to know.
>

Howdy,

No expert I, but...

Yes, and yes.

Essentially, a fragmented drive is analogous to an office
that stores its multi-page documents by putting each page in
a different file.

When the document needs to be accessed, it takes a while to
find, then assemble, all the parts.

It is just the same for data that needs to be assembled for
use (or transfer) on your system, but is stored in many bits
and pieces in a variety of locations on your drive.

The defragging process just locates those pieces, and puts
'em together.

HTH,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Chuck U. Farley" wrote:
>> > I understand defrag helps the system performance...
>>
>> You 'understand' wrong.
>
> Ah, no she understands perfectly. Maybe _you_ don't have a need to defrag
> with the apps _you_ use, and that's fine... for _you_. However, you quite
> obviously don't use the apps _I_ do because the difference is readily
> discernible.
>
>> I bet you wouldn't be able to pick it in a proper
>> randomised double blind trial without being allowed
>> to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.
>
> Try rendering a conformed 50 gig avi fle with Premier Pro with a fragmented
> drive and see how long it takes versus a disk that's just been defragged. No
> display of fragmentation needed to see the difference.
>
>> And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.
>
> Anyone with even the most basic of observation skills would easily recognize
> the difference when doing the above mentioned task. Just because _you_ don't
> need to defrag doesn't mean _everyone_ doesn't need to defrag.


You may be correct about the dependence on specific apps, but
one of the 2 big PC mags published an article on defragging
utilities 12 to 14 months ago, and their conclusion regarding
Windows XP was that they could see no speed difference between
the fragged and de-fragged OS. Their conclusion was that for
WinXP, defragging isn't needed. Of course, they didn't test *your*
system, and it could be that WinXP defrags in the background.
I notice that after about 10 or 15 minutes of inactivity, my hard drive
starts chattering quietly. Maybe it's defragging?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Ann Onimus <Ann@Onimus.net> wrote in message
news:hp6t011931m4n4fiptgmriiuedqd37gv5g@news.Onimus.net...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

>> Because its pointless with most modern systems.

>> You 'understand' wrong.

>> I bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a proper
>> randomised double blind trial without being allowed
>> to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.

>> And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.

> Yeah, well, good point...or is it?

> So, you are saying that defrag applications are built
> just to smoke our understanding of modern systems?

Nope, fragmentation did have a noticeable effect with older
slower hard drives which took more time to move the heads
from fragment to fragment and they were generally run with
much less free space and with cruder space allocation
algorithms so fragmented rather more quickly.

Many got into the habit of obsessively defragging and just
keep mindlessly defragging with modern systems that dont
see any benefit they could pick in a proper double blind trial.

> That the only point in using them is to run them just for the hack of it?

> hmmmm.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:420E9EA6.5010404@prodigy.net...
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Ann Onimus <Ann@Onimus.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

>>>> Dont bother defragging unless you are in some very unusual situation.

>>> Hmm
>>> Why?

>> Because its pointless with most modern systems.

> Define "modern."

Bought or assembled in the last few years.

>>> I understand defrag helps the system performance...

>> You 'understand' wrong.

>> I bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a proper
>> randomised double blind trial without being allowed
>> to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.

>> And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Frank W <reply_to_newsgroup@please.ccom> wrote
in message news:377o75F59nd4qU1@individual.net...

> What exactly is degraggin supposed to do?

Ensure that all files are contiguous, all the sectors used for
a particular file have no bits of other files between them.

> Make it faster for the drive to access data?

Yes.

> Make it faster at moving data once accessed?

Nope.

> Enquiring minds need to know.

Well they cant. That would be spilling the beans.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:420EAB3B.9090404@prodigy.net...
> Frank W. wrote:

>> What exactly is degraggin supposed to do? Make it faster for the drive to
>> access data? Make it faster at moving data once accessed? Enquiring minds
>> need to know.

> I've seen Windows machines crash when their drives became too fragmented.

Oh bullshit. You were hallucinating.

Have fun explaining why none of mine have ever crashed
due to fragmentation when I never defrag at all.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

In article <3783s8F57orv3U1@individual.net>, rod_speed@yahoo.com says...
>
> CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:420EAB3B.9090404@prodigy.net...
> > Frank W. wrote:
>
> >> What exactly is degraggin supposed to do? Make it faster for the drive to
> >> access data? Make it faster at moving data once accessed? Enquiring minds
> >> need to know.
>
> > I've seen Windows machines crash when their drives became too fragmented.
>
> Oh bullshit. You were hallucinating.
>
> Have fun explaining why none of mine have ever crashed
> due to fragmentation when I never defrag at all.

There is a bug in NT where Windows could crash on bootup if the MFT
became too fragmented.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;228734

--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.att.net/~andyross

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Andrew Rossmann" <andysnewsreply@no_junk.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c791a1fe43e080498979a@news.comcast.giganews.com...
> In article <3783s8F57orv3U1@individual.net>, rod_speed@yahoo.com says...
> >
> > CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:420EAB3B.9090404@prodigy.net...
> >
> > > I've seen Windows machines crash when their drives became too fragmented.
> >
More likely volume corruption.

> > Oh bullshit. You were hallucinating.
> >
> > Have fun explaining why none of mine have ever crashed
> > due to fragmentation when I never defrag at all.
>
> There is a bug in NT where Windows could crash on bootup if the MFT
> became too fragmented.
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;228734
>
Ntldr is crashing, the OS hasn't even started.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Kenneth" <usenet@SPAMLESSsoleassociates.com> wrote in message
news:b1dt01lomp0hra7f0sm6d4nejr6iu4ljkp@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:18:05 -0600, "Frank W."
> <reply_to_newsgroup@please.ccom> wrote:
>
>>What exactly is degraggin supposed to do? Make it faster for the drive to
>>access data? Make it faster
>>at moving data once accessed? Enquiring minds need to know.
>>
>
> Howdy,
>
> No expert I, but...
>
> Yes, and yes.
>
> Essentially, a fragmented drive is analogous to an office
> that stores its multi-page documents by putting each page in
> a different file.
>
> When the document needs to be accessed, it takes a while to
> find, then assemble, all the parts.
>
> It is just the same for data that needs to be assembled for
> use (or transfer) on your system, but is stored in many bits
> and pieces in a variety of locations on your drive.
>
> The defragging process just locates those pieces, and puts
> 'em together.

And the modern reality is that it takes very little time for the
heads to move from one fragment to another, and the heads
are moving around all over the drive for various reasons like
the internet temporary cache etc etc etc and very few apps
read much continuously anymore, and those that do can still
get access to the data plenty fast enough with fragments
when say playing a DVD file or music anyway.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Chuck U. Farley <chuckufarley@dyslexia.com> wrote
in message news:377qadF5bkhbfU1@individual.net...

>>> I understand defrag helps the system performance...

>> You 'understand' wrong.

> Ah, no she understands perfectly.

Nope.

> Maybe _you_ don't have a need to defrag with
> the apps _you_ use, and that's fine... for _you_.
> However, you quite obviously don't use the apps
> _I_ do because the difference is readily discernible.

I said MOST modern systems for a reason.

>> I bet you wouldn't be able to pick it in a proper
>> randomised double blind trial without being allowed
>> to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.

> Try rendering a conformed 50 gig avi fle with Premier Pro
> with a fragmented drive and see how long it takes versus
> a disk that's just been defragged. No display of fragmentation
> needed to see the difference.

The difference is trivial in the total time it takes.

And most dont do that sort of thing much anyway.

>> And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.

> Anyone with even the most basic of observation skills would easily recognize
> the difference when doing the above mentioned task. Just because _you_ don't
> need to defrag doesn't mean _everyone_ doesn't need to defrag.

I said MOST modern systems for a reason.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> I said MOST modern systems for a reason.

Yeah, vague and inspecific insinuations are always best when you make
incorrect generalizations based only on your own anecdotal experience.

> >> I bet you wouldn't be able to pick it in a proper
> >> randomised double blind trial without being allowed
> >> to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.
>
> > Try rendering a conformed 50 gig avi fle with Premier Pro
> > with a fragmented drive and see how long it takes versus
> > a disk that's just been defragged. No display of fragmentation
> > needed to see the difference.
>
> The difference is trivial in the total time it takes.

It most assuredly is _not_ trivial, you'd know that if you actually used the
app.

> And most dont do that sort of thing much anyway.

Yeah, and _most_ people only use a computer for web browsing and email so by
your logic "most" people don't need a "modern" computer anyway.

> > Anyone with even the most basic of observation skills would easily
recognize
> > the difference when doing the above mentioned task. Just because _you_
don't
> > need to defrag doesn't mean _everyone_ doesn't need to defrag.
>
> I said MOST modern systems for a reason.

See above.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:yIqdnaK_PoASTZPfRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
> "Chuck U. Farley" wrote:
>>> > I understand defrag helps the system performance...
>>>
>>> You 'understand' wrong.
>>
>> Ah, no she understands perfectly. Maybe _you_ don't have a need to defrag
>> with the apps _you_ use, and that's fine... for _you_. However, you quite
>> obviously don't use the apps _I_ do because the difference is readily
>> discernible.
>>
>>> I bet you wouldn't be able to pick it in a proper
>>> randomised double blind trial without being allowed
>>> to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.
>>
>> Try rendering a conformed 50 gig avi fle with Premier Pro with a fragmented
>> drive and see how long it takes versus a disk that's just been defragged. No
>> display of fragmentation needed to see the difference.
>>
>>> And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.
>>
>> Anyone with even the most basic of observation skills would easily recognize
>> the difference when doing the above mentioned task. Just because _you_ don't
>> need to defrag doesn't mean _everyone_ doesn't need to defrag.

> You may be correct about the dependence on specific apps, but
> one of the 2 big PC mags published an article on defragging
> utilities 12 to 14 months ago, and their conclusion regarding
> Windows XP was that they could see no speed difference between
> the fragged and de-fragged OS. Their conclusion was that for
> WinXP, defragging isn't needed.

And they are right with most modern systems.

> Of course, they didn't test *your* system, and it could be that WinXP
> defrags in the background.

Nope, it doesnt.

> I notice that after about 10 or 15 minutes of inactivity, my hard drive
> starts chattering quietly. Maybe it's defragging?

Nope, its keeping track of what has changed to speed access.

It also periodically reorganises the system drive to speed
access, but that isnt defragging and the system files dont
fragment much on most modern systems anyway.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

shawn <nanoflower@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fn0u01t4o6khnv6crr3e4b8tcutek26s9f@4ax.com...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Ann Onimus <Ann@Onimus.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

>>>> Dont bother defragging unless you are in some very unusual situation.

>>> Hmm
>>> Why?

>> Because its pointless with most modern systems.

>>> I understand defrag helps the system performance...

> It can depending upon the system and how it is used.

> Sorry, but it can and does make a difference in some situations.

I used the word MOST for a reason.

> I have a partition that I use for downloads so it becomes highly
> fragmented after a while. When trying to watch a video on that
> partition there can often be problems due to delays in getting data
> off the disk. Taking the time to defragment the drive (or copying the
> file to another non-fragmented partition) will resolve the issues.

I used the word MOST for a reason.

> Now for normal use by someone that doesn't download
> binary files from the internet, I agree that defragmenting
> is something that will probably won't be needed. It might be
> helpful to defragment a normal users system on occasion,

Nope.

> but probably no more than every few months

Complete waste of time.

> and the process shouldn't take long since
> their system probably won't be that fragmented.

If it isnt, there isnt any point in defragging.

>> I bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a proper
>> randomised double blind trial without being allowed
>> to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.

>> And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.

 

[cjt]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Rod Speed wrote:
> CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:420E9EA6.5010404@prodigy.net...
>
>>Rod Speed wrote
>>
>>>Ann Onimus <Ann@Onimus.net> wrote
>>>
>>>>Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>>>>>Dont bother defragging unless you are in some very unusual situation.
>
>
>>>>Hmm
>>>>Why?
>
>
>>>Because its pointless with most modern systems.
>
>
>>Define "modern."
>
>
> Bought or assembled in the last few years.

Then you're wrong, because you didn't specify an OS. Build a
system today, put Windows 98 on it (as I recall, W98 is still
the most commonly run OS on PCs), and it'll still have problems
with fragmentation.

Perhaps XP is more clever.

Unix always was.
>
>
>>>>I understand defrag helps the system performance...
>
>
>>>You 'understand' wrong.
>
>
>>>I bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a proper
>>>randomised double blind trial without being allowed
>>>to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.
>
>
>>>And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.
>
>
>


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.