Which defrag?

jt

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
253
0
18,780
0
Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Hello all,

New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get a
better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

I like Diskeeper.

--
Just my 2¢ worth,
Jeff
__________In response to__________
"jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
| Hello all,
|
| New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get a
| better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
|
|
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

In news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net,
jt <jt@jt.jt> typed:

> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or
> should
> I get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?


I think Perfect Disk is the best product available, but the
native defragger works too. Whether it's worth spending money for
an improved product, you have to decide for yourself.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

I prefer Diskeeper 9. Try the native defragger and then try a trial version
of any of the third party programs. The 30-day trial for Diskeeper9 is at:
http://consumer.execsoft.com/downloads/downloads.asp?a=l&PId=95


--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Hello all,
>
> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get
> a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:23:30 -0700, "Colin Barnhorst"
<colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote:

>I prefer Diskeeper 9. Try the native defragger and then try a trial version
>of any of the third party programs. The 30-day trial for Diskeeper9 is at:
>http://consumer.execsoft.com/downloads/downloads.asp?a=l&PId=95
I maintain a 9GB fat32 partition, and I've always found DK to be
incredibly slow thrashing around trying to defrag this partition.
DK has a real problem with FAT. On the other hand, it's great for
NTFS.

I'm trialling Perfectdisk at the moment, it can defrag the folders
on Fat32 and can optimize the mft and metadata on NTFS.
I think these are the mian advantages.
I'm a little dubious of it's "smart placement". Perfectdisk works
better that DK (faster) on Fat32.

Dave
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

PerfectDisk

--

Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp


"jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Hello all,
>
> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get
a
> better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Diskeeper 9 Pro does all of the functions you mention. I gave up on FAT32
two years ago. It is just not as self-healing as NTFS and it is too slow on
partitions over 32mb. Take a look at the options for Diskeeper Pro's
boot-time defrag. Also take a look at the Performance Map tab. It is a
mapping of not only fragmentation, but which fragmentation actually makes a
difference to performance and by how much.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"da_test" <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:265f41h9b51dc6avfr4o6j98f0m5gao0te@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:23:30 -0700, "Colin Barnhorst"
> <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>I prefer Diskeeper 9. Try the native defragger and then try a trial
>>version
>>of any of the third party programs. The 30-day trial for Diskeeper9 is
>>at:
>>http://consumer.execsoft.com/downloads/downloads.asp?a=l&PId=95
> I maintain a 9GB fat32 partition, and I've always found DK to be
> incredibly slow thrashing around trying to defrag this partition.
> DK has a real problem with FAT. On the other hand, it's great for
> NTFS.
>
> I'm trialling Perfectdisk at the moment, it can defrag the folders
> on Fat32 and can optimize the mft and metadata on NTFS.
> I think these are the mian advantages.
> I'm a little dubious of it's "smart placement". Perfectdisk works
> better that DK (faster) on Fat32.
>
> Dave
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Personally i prefer Perfectdisk

--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.freelanceit/index.htm
http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org

"jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Hello all,
>
> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get
> a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
>
 

Relic

Distinguished
Apr 30, 2004
75
0
18,630
0
Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

jt wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should
> I get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?

1. VoptXP.
2. Disk Keeper.
:
:
473. PerfectDisk
:
:
943. XP'x Built-in Defragger.
:
:
2,789. O&O.


--
If there is a Tourist Season, how come we can't shoot them?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:54:42 -0500, "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote:

>Hello all,
>
>New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get a
>better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
>

I'll probably get jumped on because I agree with the guy don't defrag unless
you want to. It can put more wear on your drive. And with the size of the new
drives 100's of gigs, the last thing they need is more wear.

Read up on how data is written to a drive. It's also read back in the same
manner. it's like trying to keep up with a jet fighter vs a railroad train if
you defrag.

the data is written in chunks. It starts out fragged. the head will read from
head x sector xx then following the link tables it'll grab the next sector of
data. if the head just passed that sector it needs to make a complete roundtrip
to get back to it. Where if it reads from this sector and the next sector is xx
ms away, it has some breathing room to snag that sector without circling the
drive excessively.

merry go round = disk drive platter, data = brass ring.

Think merry go round and grab the brass ring. Could you grab a 2nd ring if it
were 2 seconds past the 1st, or would you have better luck if you circled the
ring half way and got a 10 second breathing space for the 2nd ring ?

If the rings were all 2 seconds apart would it take you longer to grab them in
order if they were staggered or inches apart ? You can't control the speed of
the horses. If you miss #2 ring you have to go all the way around to get it
again.

If all the links are too close together [defragged] it takes longer to read
than if the data is spaced around the drive the way it's originally written.

Defragging is to move unused stuff into one place so you can have the most
active stuff on the inside tracks. Fastest access.
Trouble is if it sticks all the fast stuff one link after the other, it does
the complete opposite of why you wanted to defrag it in the 1st place cause now
they have to circle more often to get to the data.

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

The native defragmenter is completely adequate unless you are running a
server.

"Don’t Become a Defrag Junkie"
http://www.michna.com/kb/WxDefrag.htm

P.S. Aren't there some newsgroups you forgot to cross-post to?

Modem Ani

"jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Hello all,
>
> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get
a
> better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"jt" wrote:

> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get a
> better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?

That depends on why you think that the third party solutions are better than
the native defrag. In my mind, there are only three serious contenders for
this function: the native defragger, PerfectDisk, or Diskeeper. But which
one of these three is the best solution depends pretty much on what you need.


The native defragger will defrag your drive, but you have to do it manually
and you can only defrag one drive at a time. Also, it won't defrag your
pagefile, although the pagefile rarely should become fragmented anyway and if
it does, there is an easy workaround to get it defragmented again by other
means.

Diskeeper is the full-featured version of the built-in defragger (which
itself is licensed from the same software company that makes Diskeeper).
Diskeeper can defragment the page file, but much more important, it can also
defragment automatically in the background on a schedule, and it can even
determine automatically (without your intervention) how often it should
actually defragment (anywhere from one hour to one week, depending on how
quickly your drive tends to refragment between sessions). It calls this
feature "set it and forget it," which is exactly what it enables you to do.

PerfectDisk uses a totally different defragmentation strategy from the
built-in defragger or Diskeeper. It focuses on placing files so that the
least modified files are placed at the beginning of the disk. It also
focuses much more heavily on free space consolidation. Raxco, the maker of
PerfectDisk, claims that this approach results in faster subsequent
fragmentation runs and less fragmentation of newly created files.
PerfectDisk defrags can be scheduled to run in the background, but unlike
Diskeeper you must set the schedule manually.

I have extensively used all three, and in terms of overall performance I
cannot notice any transparent difference in how quickly they read and write
files on the hard drive (which is the purpose of defragmentation in the first
place). The biggest difference is that I have to run the built-in defragger
manually, while the other two can be scheduled to run automatically. Of the
three, only Diskeeper provides a method for measuring any performance gains
you might get after a defrag, but that's different from saying that the gains
you will get will be any greater than the ones you would get with the other
two programs. It does seem, however, that a drive defragmented with
PerfectDisk refragments at a slightly slower rate than the other two programs
-- but Diskeeper will usually defragment it sooner.

In the end, here is what I would suggest, although I won't get into the
technical reasons. If you have a new computer with lots of RAM and you don't
reboot it every day (e.g. you constantly leave it on, or you merely log out
but without rebooting the computer), you are probably best off using the
built-in defragger. If neither applies to you, you don't want even a little
defragmentation, and you don't want to mess with when or how often you should
defragment, use Diskeeper with "set it and forget it" enabled. If you want
to be slightly more proactive and also if free space consolidation is
especially important to you (e.g. you don't have a huge hard drive, or you
have lots of large files such as images and multimedia, then PerfectDisk may
be your best bet.

Ken
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"da_test" wrote:

> I'm a little dubious of it's "smart placement". Perfectdisk works
> better that DK (faster) on Fat32.

I am, too. In particular, PerfectDisk moves the MFT file to about 1/3
inside the drive. When I asked them about this, they referred me to a
Microsoft Knowledge Base Article that suggested that this placement optimized
performance. I read the actual article, and it actually said 3-5 GB inside
the drive, not 1/3 inside the drive. The difference between 3-5 GB and 1/3
inside the drive is huge, especially if you have a very large HD, as I do
(250 GB).

I also asked them about whether placing least modified files at the
beginning of the drive made sense from a performance standpoint, other than
the point that this setup minimizes refragmentation. I no longer remember
the exact explanation I received, but I do remember it making good sense at
the time. In any event, any performance drop by putting, say, an old but
very large music file closer to the outisde of the disk will probably be too
small to notice anyway. Even so, I like the way the native defragger puts
these behemoth files in a separate part of the drive from smaller files.
[Note: I think Diskeeper will also move these huge files closer to the
outside of the drive, while the native defragger leaves them further away.
In this regard, if I get a choice, I prefer the behavior of the native
defragger.]

Incidentally, I have found that both Raxco (PerfectDisk) and Executive
Software (Diskeeper) have excellent customer service and technical support.
One can learn all sorts of cool stuff about hard drives and fragmentation by
e-mailing them questions.

Ken
 

jt

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
253
0
18,780
0
Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Modem Ani" <notquinoas@notmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:ui0FQe6MFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> The native defragmenter is completely adequate unless you are running a
> server.
>
> "Don't Become a Defrag Junkie"
> http://www.michna.com/kb/WxDefrag.htm
>
> P.S. Aren't there some newsgroups you forgot to cross-post to?
>
Perhaps. Since I was looking for opinions, I figured several xp groups
would procure more than simply one or two. Would you like to suggest other
helpful groups?

>
> "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
> news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> Hello all,
>>
>> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I
>> get
> a
>> better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
>>
 

jt

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
253
0
18,780
0
Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"relic" <abuse@relic211.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:aTI1e.193$e06.28@twister.socal.rr.com...
> jt wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should
>> I get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
>
> 1. VoptXP.
> 2. Disk Keeper.
> :
> :
> 473. PerfectDisk
> :
> :
> 943. XP'x Built-in Defragger.
> :
> :
> 2,789. O&O.
>
Is there a reason you rank O&O so low? A friend recommended it to me, and
as I know next to nothing about commercial defraggers, I am simply curious.
 

enkidu

Distinguished
Feb 28, 2002
251
0
18,780
0
Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

jt wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag
> adequate or should I get a better one? Which is
> better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
>
I never defrag. If you have a reasonably large hard disk,
there is little real advantage in defragging a disk. In
addition it exercises the disk which theoretically reduces
its life.

If you have a small disk, degragging is not an efficient
process anyway.

I certainly wouldn't pay money for a defragger.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

You should look at some studies on the effects of fragmentation:
http://www1.execsoft.com/pdf/Diskeeper_Evaluation.pdf

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"Enkidu" <enkidu.com@com.cliffp.com> wrote in message
news:42476701@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
> jt wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag
> > adequate or should I get a better one? Which is
> > better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
>>
> I never defrag. If you have a reasonably large hard disk, there is little
> real advantage in defragging a disk. In addition it exercises the disk
> which theoretically reduces its life.
>
> If you have a small disk, degragging is not an efficient process anyway.
>
> I certainly wouldn't pay money for a defragger.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff
>
> --
>
> Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

>>
> I never defrag. If you have a reasonably large hard disk,
> there is little real advantage in defragging a disk. In
> addition it exercises the disk which theoretically reduces
> its life.
>
> If you have a small disk, degragging is not an efficient
> process anyway.
>
> I certainly wouldn't pay money for a defragger.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff
>

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!, where do you people come from?? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Champagne Comedy!

--
You know, I rather like this God fellow. Very theatrical, you know.
Pestilence here, a plague there. Omnipotence ... gotta get me some of that.
 

Unknown

Distinguished
Aug 8, 2002
341
0
18,780
0
Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

You're kidding??? Why don't you try it and you'll change your mind.
"Enkidu" <enkidu.com@com.cliffp.com> wrote in message
news:42476701@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
> jt wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag
> > adequate or should I get a better one? Which is
> > better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
>>
> I never defrag. If you have a reasonably large hard disk, there is little
> real advantage in defragging a disk. In addition it exercises the disk which
> theoretically reduces its life.
>
> If you have a small disk, degragging is not an efficient process anyway.
>
> I certainly wouldn't pay money for a defragger.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff
>
> --
>
> Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
 

Unknown

Distinguished
Aug 8, 2002
341
0
18,780
0
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

What you don't quite understand is that the disk experiences MORE wear if you
don't defrag. Suppose for example you have ten items each one in a separate
track. The disk has to do ten seeks. If defragged, it only does one.
"Husky" <cbminfo@toast.net> wrote in message
news:eguf41lhaaf766v0nhcct155429ki25cij@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:54:42 -0500, "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote:
>
>>Hello all,
>>
>>New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get a
>>better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
>>
>
> I'll probably get jumped on because I agree with the guy don't defrag unless
> you want to. It can put more wear on your drive. And with the size of the
> new
> drives 100's of gigs, the last thing they need is more wear.
>
> Read up on how data is written to a drive. It's also read back in the same
> manner. it's like trying to keep up with a jet fighter vs a railroad train
> if
> you defrag.
>
> the data is written in chunks. It starts out fragged. the head will read
> from
> head x sector xx then following the link tables it'll grab the next sector
> of
> data. if the head just passed that sector it needs to make a complete
> roundtrip
> to get back to it. Where if it reads from this sector and the next sector is
> xx
> ms away, it has some breathing room to snag that sector without circling the
> drive excessively.
>
> merry go round = disk drive platter, data = brass ring.
>
> Think merry go round and grab the brass ring. Could you grab a 2nd ring if
> it
> were 2 seconds past the 1st, or would you have better luck if you circled
> the
> ring half way and got a 10 second breathing space for the 2nd ring ?
>
> If the rings were all 2 seconds apart would it take you longer to grab them
> in
> order if they were staggered or inches apart ? You can't control the speed
> of
> the horses. If you miss #2 ring you have to go all the way around to get it
> again.
>
> If all the links are too close together [defragged] it takes longer to read
> than if the data is spaced around the drive the way it's originally written.
>
> Defragging is to move unused stuff into one place so you can have the most
> active stuff on the inside tracks. Fastest access.
> Trouble is if it sticks all the fast stuff one link after the other, it does
> the complete opposite of why you wanted to defrag it in the 1st place cause
> now
> they have to circle more often to get to the data.
>
> --
> more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

In news:AhV1e.12054$ZB6.2404@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com,
Unknown <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> typed:

> What you don't quite understand is that the disk experiences
> MORE
> wear if you don't defrag. Suppose for example you have ten
> items each
> one in a separate track. The disk has to do ten seeks. If
> defragged,


Yes, that's correct.

But it really doesn't matter much. Disk drives hardly ever wear
out, whether they are defragged or not. Modern drives are
well-made and rarely fail through wear. They may occasionally
crash, they may be replaced with faster ones, or bigger ones, but
wear is seldom a factor in determining their useful life.

Not defragging is foolish. It can almost always be done
overnight, so from a practical standpoint, it takes no real time
at all, and there's no penalty for doing it. It doesn't have to
be done anywhere near daily, but if you do it once a month or so,
it can provide a small, but perceptible improvement in
performance.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup


> it only does one. "Husky" <cbminfo@toast.net> wrote in message
> news:eguf41lhaaf766v0nhcct155429ki25cij@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:54:42 -0500, "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or
>>> should I get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or
>>> PerfectDisk?
>>>
>>
>> I'll probably get jumped on because I agree with the guy don't
>> defrag unless you want to. It can put more wear on your drive.
>> And
>> with the size of the new
>> drives 100's of gigs, the last thing they need is more wear.
>>
>> Read up on how data is written to a drive. It's also read back
>> in
>> the same manner. it's like trying to keep up with a jet
>> fighter vs a
>> railroad train if
>> you defrag.
>>
>> the data is written in chunks. It starts out fragged. the head
>> will
>> read from
>> head x sector xx then following the link tables it'll grab the
>> next
>> sector of
>> data. if the head just passed that sector it needs to make a
>> complete
>> roundtrip
>> to get back to it. Where if it reads from this sector and the
>> next
>> sector is xx
>> ms away, it has some breathing room to snag that sector
>> without
>> circling the drive excessively.
>>
>> merry go round = disk drive platter, data = brass ring.
>>
>> Think merry go round and grab the brass ring. Could you grab a
>> 2nd
>> ring if it
>> were 2 seconds past the 1st, or would you have better luck if
>> you
>> circled the
>> ring half way and got a 10 second breathing space for the 2nd
>> ring ?
>>
>> If the rings were all 2 seconds apart would it take you longer
>> to
>> grab them in
>> order if they were staggered or inches apart ? You can't
>> control the
>> speed of
>> the horses. If you miss #2 ring you have to go all the way
>> around to
>> get it again.
>>
>> If all the links are too close together [defragged] it takes
>> longer
>> to read than if the data is spaced around the drive the way
>> it's
>> originally written. Defragging is to move unused stuff into
>> one place so you can have
>> the most active stuff on the inside tracks. Fastest access.
>> Trouble is if it sticks all the fast stuff one link after the
>> other,
>> it does the complete opposite of why you wanted to defrag it
>> in the
>> 1st place cause now
>> they have to circle more often to get to the data.
>>
>> --
>> more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

To each his own, I guess. In the almost three years that I have used XP,
Disk Defragmenter has never recommended that I manually defrag and I can't
honestly say that my computer runs any slower. I have manually defragged XP
three times: The first time was about a year and a half ago, just to see if
it made any noticeable difference in performance - it didn't - and the other
times were before upgrading to SP 1 and SP 2.

Based on my own experience, the experience of an un-scientific sampling of
friends, and from what I've read on the subject, it's taken me far longer to
write this post than the amount of time I would have saved by running a
third party defragmenter. I understand that the companies that sell this
software may have a different point of view ;-)

Modem Ani

"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:Oj1Wcw6MFHA.432@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> In news:AhV1e.12054$ZB6.2404@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com,
> Unknown <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> typed:
>
> > What you don't quite understand is that the disk experiences
> > MORE
> > wear if you don't defrag. Suppose for example you have ten
> > items each
> > one in a separate track. The disk has to do ten seeks. If
> > defragged,
>
>
> Yes, that's correct.
>
> But it really doesn't matter much. Disk drives hardly ever wear
> out, whether they are defragged or not. Modern drives are
> well-made and rarely fail through wear. They may occasionally
> crash, they may be replaced with faster ones, or bigger ones, but
> wear is seldom a factor in determining their useful life.
>
> Not defragging is foolish. It can almost always be done
> overnight, so from a practical standpoint, it takes no real time
> at all, and there's no penalty for doing it. It doesn't have to
> be done anywhere near daily, but if you do it once a month or so,
> it can provide a small, but perceptible improvement in
> performance.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
> > it only does one. "Husky" <cbminfo@toast.net> wrote in message
> > news:eguf41lhaaf766v0nhcct155429ki25cij@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:54:42 -0500, "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello all,
> >>>
> >>> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or
> >>> should I get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or
> >>> PerfectDisk?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'll probably get jumped on because I agree with the guy don't
> >> defrag unless you want to. It can put more wear on your drive.
> >> And
> >> with the size of the new
> >> drives 100's of gigs, the last thing they need is more wear.
> >>
> >> Read up on how data is written to a drive. It's also read back
> >> in
> >> the same manner. it's like trying to keep up with a jet
> >> fighter vs a
> >> railroad train if
> >> you defrag.
> >>
> >> the data is written in chunks. It starts out fragged. the head
> >> will
> >> read from
> >> head x sector xx then following the link tables it'll grab the
> >> next
> >> sector of
> >> data. if the head just passed that sector it needs to make a
> >> complete
> >> roundtrip
> >> to get back to it. Where if it reads from this sector and the
> >> next
> >> sector is xx
> >> ms away, it has some breathing room to snag that sector
> >> without
> >> circling the drive excessively.
> >>
> >> merry go round = disk drive platter, data = brass ring.
> >>
> >> Think merry go round and grab the brass ring. Could you grab a
> >> 2nd
> >> ring if it
> >> were 2 seconds past the 1st, or would you have better luck if
> >> you
> >> circled the
> >> ring half way and got a 10 second breathing space for the 2nd
> >> ring ?
> >>
> >> If the rings were all 2 seconds apart would it take you longer
> >> to
> >> grab them in
> >> order if they were staggered or inches apart ? You can't
> >> control the
> >> speed of
> >> the horses. If you miss #2 ring you have to go all the way
> >> around to
> >> get it again.
> >>
> >> If all the links are too close together [defragged] it takes
> >> longer
> >> to read than if the data is spaced around the drive the way
> >> it's
> >> originally written. Defragging is to move unused stuff into
> >> one place so you can have
> >> the most active stuff on the inside tracks. Fastest access.
> >> Trouble is if it sticks all the fast stuff one link after the
> >> other,
> >> it does the complete opposite of why you wanted to defrag it
> >> in the
> >> 1st place cause now
> >> they have to circle more often to get to the data.
> >>
> >> --
> >> more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
>
>
 

Unknown

Distinguished
Aug 8, 2002
341
0
18,780
0
Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

The native defrag program is more than adequate. What more do you want/need?
"jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Hello all,
>
> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I get a
> better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
>
 

jt

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
253
0
18,780
0
Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Unknown" <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> wrote in message
news:3nV1e.12057$ZB6.9840@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> The native defrag program is more than adequate. What more do you
> want/need?

I dunno, because as I indicated I am a new user and know next to nothing
about xp or NTFS systems. Therefore, I asked. Thanks for your input.

> "jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
> news:JFH1e.63840$c72.32870@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> Hello all,
>>
>> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should I
>> get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
>>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Probably because it does not have the amount of published research about it
that commercial defraggers like Diskeeper and PerfectDisk do.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"jt" <jt@jt.jt> wrote in message
news:ye%1e.69461$c72.49781@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "relic" <abuse@relic211.cjb.net> wrote in message
> news:aTI1e.193$e06.28@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> jt wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> New user of XP home w/ sp2. Is the native defrag adequate or should
>>> I get a better one? Which is better, O&O pro or PerfectDisk?
>>
>> 1. VoptXP.
>> 2. Disk Keeper.
>> :
>> :
>> 473. PerfectDisk
>> :
>> :
>> 943. XP'x Built-in Defragger.
>> :
>> :
>> 2,789. O&O.
>>
> Is there a reason you rank O&O so low? A friend recommended it to me, and
> as I know next to nothing about commercial defraggers, I am simply
> curious.
>