[Andrew]

is there a better Defrag for XP Home..?

I like the old one, which you could see it moving the clusters around.. and
thus
be able to guess how long it would take.

Is it possible to just Defrag certain files or folders...?
bet that's a silly Q. do you just move file from one drive to the other and
back..?
--------
Andrew

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

PerfectDisk Version 7.0
http://www.raxco.com/products/perfectdisk2k/

Try out PerfectDisk free, for 30-days
http://www.raxco.com/products/downloadit/perfectdisk2000_download.cfm

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

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

"Andrew" wrote:

| is there a better Defrag for XP Home..?
|
| I like the old one, which you could see it moving the clusters around.. and
| thus
| be able to guess how long it would take.
|
| Is it possible to just Defrag certain files or folders...?
| bet that's a silly Q. do you just move file from one drive to the other and
| back..?
| --------
| Andrew

[Bert Kinney]

Hi Andrew,

PerfectDisk
http://www.raxco.com/

--
Regards,
Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
http://dts-l.org/

Andrew wrote:
> is there a better Defrag for XP Home..?
>
> I like the old one, which you could see it moving the
> clusters around.. and thus
> be able to guess how long it would take.
>
> Is it possible to just Defrag certain files or folders...?
> bet that's a silly Q. do you just move file from one
> drive to the other and back..?
> --------
> Andrew

[bumtracks]

http://www.sysinternals.com/
PageDefrag v2.3
Defragment your paging files and Registry hives!

Contig v1.52
Optimize individual files, or to create new files that are contiguous.

http://www.excessive-software.eu.tt/
PowerDefrag - GUI for Contig.


"Andrew" <NoToSPAM@home> wrote in message
news:egUWobhaFHA.1040@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> is there a better Defrag for XP Home..?
>
> I like the old one, which you could see it moving the clusters around..
> and
> thus
> be able to guess how long it would take.
>
> Is it possible to just Defrag certain files or folders...?
> bet that's a silly Q. do you just move file from one drive to the other
> and
> back..?
> --------
> Andrew
>
>

[Plato]

Andrew wrote:
>
> is there a better Defrag for XP Home..?
>
> I like the old one, which you could see it moving the clusters around.. and
> thus
> be able to guess how long it would take.

In other words, you'd be willing to pay for bells and whistles.

[Kelly]

Hi Andrew,

Nothing more is needed. Fact is, you don't need to run it at all in XP.

--

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com



"Andrew" <NoToSPAM@home> wrote in message
news:egUWobhaFHA.1040@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> is there a better Defrag for XP Home..?
>
> I like the old one, which you could see it moving the clusters around..
> and
> thus
> be able to guess how long it would take.
>
> Is it possible to just Defrag certain files or folders...?
> bet that's a silly Q. do you just move file from one drive to the other
> and
> back..?
> --------
> Andrew
>
>

[Edward W. Thompson]

"Andrew" <NoToSPAM@home> wrote in message
news:egUWobhaFHA.1040@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> is there a better Defrag for XP Home..?
>
> I like the old one, which you could see it moving the clusters around..
> and
> thus
> be able to guess how long it would take.
>
> Is it possible to just Defrag certain files or folders...?
> bet that's a silly Q. do you just move file from one drive to the other
> and
> back..?
> --------
> Andrew
>
As a direct answer to your question the defrag utility included with WINXP
will defrag your system efficiently but more slowly than third party
software. If speed is of the essence then purchase 'perfect disk' or
'diskeeper' but they don't 'defrag' any better only more quickly and have a
pretty interface, all at a cost.

[Dutch]

"Kelly" <kelly@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:eAiDCXlaFHA.2076@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Nothing more is needed. Fact is, you don't need to run it at all in XP.

Is that a fact? So I'm smart, and I thought I was just lazy.. :>)


>
> --
>
> All the Best,
> Kelly (MS-MVP)
>
> Troubleshooting Windows XP
> http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com
>
>
>
> "Andrew" <NoToSPAM@home> wrote in message
> news:egUWobhaFHA.1040@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> is there a better Defrag for XP Home..?
>>
>> I like the old one, which you could see it moving the clusters around..
>> and
>> thus
>> be able to guess how long it would take.
>>
>> Is it possible to just Defrag certain files or folders...?
>> bet that's a silly Q. do you just move file from one drive to the other
>> and
>> back..?
>> --------
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>
>

[Kelly]

<LOL>

--

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com



"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:11a7oimbniv9ec4@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Kelly" <kelly@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:eAiDCXlaFHA.2076@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Nothing more is needed. Fact is, you don't need to run it at all in XP.
>
> Is that a fact? So I'm smart, and I thought I was just lazy.. :>)
>
>
>>
>> --
>>
>> All the Best,
>> Kelly (MS-MVP)
>>
>> Troubleshooting Windows XP
>> http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com
>>
>>
>>
>> "Andrew" <NoToSPAM@home> wrote in message
>> news:egUWobhaFHA.1040@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>> is there a better Defrag for XP Home..?
>>>
>>> I like the old one, which you could see it moving the clusters around..
>>> and
>>> thus
>>> be able to guess how long it would take.
>>>
>>> Is it possible to just Defrag certain files or folders...?
>>> bet that's a silly Q. do you just move file from one drive to the other
>>> and
>>> back..?
>>> --------
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[1badtech]

Edward W. Thompson Wrote:
> "Andrew"
>
> As a direct answer to your question the defrag utility included with
> WINXP
> will defrag your system efficiently but more slowly than third party
> software. If speed is of the essence then purchase 'perfect disk' or
> 'diskeeper' but they don't 'defrag' any better only more quickly and
> have a
> pretty interface, all at a cost.

One reason why a third party software will defrag quicker is because
they allow you to schedule defrag. The more you run it the faster it
will run each time. Another reason is they have smart scheduling which
checks to see if you disk needs defragging or not. If it doesn't it
won't do it. People that have a third party defrag will schedule it to
run daily but it doesn't mean that it will actually defrag daily. Nice
thing about it is everything runs in the background.


--
1badtech
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1badtech's Profile: http://forum.osnn.net/member.php?userid=9450
View this thread: http://forum.osnn.net/showthread.php?t=76234

[Leythos]

In article <eAiDCXlaFHA.2076@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, kelly@mvps.org
says...
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Nothing more is needed. Fact is, you don't need to run it at all in XP.

Kelly, you are wrong. While many people that don't run it never know
they needed to run it, it is something that can increase drive related
performance on a cluttered drive system. Defragmentation of files means
that the RW heads don't have to seek to another sector to finish loading
the file, which means there is less dead-time during a file read.

If you don't believe it, consider what FILE fragmentation really is, and
now a drive reads files.

While many people no have large drives that are only 30% used, there are
a great many people that have small drives that are more than 80% used,
and the same with people that have large drives with limited free space.

In either case, the number of fragments a file is broken into directly
impacts the file read performance.

The stripped down XP defrag program will defragment files, but it's not
that good at "packing" the drive. Many programs like O&O or Diskeeper
are specifically designed to move files to the beginning of the drive,
to defragment files, to defragment white-space, and have scheduling
ability in addition to the ability to not fragment files when possible.

I personally have seen many machines that were crawling (performance)
restored to a much higher performance state by using a quality defrag
tool (the XP one was never tried since DK or O&O was purchased).

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[Alan Smith]

It depends. If you have ntfs partitions I'd possibly agree, but FAT is
different.


"Kelly" <kelly@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:eAiDCXlaFHA.2076@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Nothing more is needed. Fact is, you don't need to run it at all in XP.
>
> --
>
> All the Best,
> Kelly (MS-MVP)
>
> Troubleshooting Windows XP
> http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com
>
>
>
> "Andrew" <NoToSPAM@home> wrote in message
> news:egUWobhaFHA.1040@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> is there a better Defrag for XP Home..?
>>
>> I like the old one, which you could see it moving the clusters around..
>> and
>> thus
>> be able to guess how long it would take.
>>
>> Is it possible to just Defrag certain files or folders...?
>> bet that's a silly Q. do you just move file from one drive to the other
>> and
>> back..?
>> --------
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>
>

[Plato]

Kelly wrote:
>
> Nothing more is needed. Fact is, you don't need to run it at all in XP.

Well, one doesn't _need_ another defragger. But, it's stil good to run
the built in one every now and then. Assuming you delete
temp/tmp/internet cache files in advance.









--
http://www.bootdisk.com/

[Kelly]

Am not going to argue with you. However, will stand by my previous
statement.

--

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com



"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d0e1b1cdd96ce259898a0@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <eAiDCXlaFHA.2076@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, kelly@mvps.org
> says...
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Nothing more is needed. Fact is, you don't need to run it at all in XP.
>
> Kelly, you are wrong. While many people that don't run it never know
> they needed to run it, it is something that can increase drive related
> performance on a cluttered drive system. Defragmentation of files means
> that the RW heads don't have to seek to another sector to finish loading
> the file, which means there is less dead-time during a file read.
>
> If you don't believe it, consider what FILE fragmentation really is, and
> now a drive reads files.
>
> While many people no have large drives that are only 30% used, there are
> a great many people that have small drives that are more than 80% used,
> and the same with people that have large drives with limited free space.
>
> In either case, the number of fragments a file is broken into directly
> impacts the file read performance.
>
> The stripped down XP defrag program will defragment files, but it's not
> that good at "packing" the drive. Many programs like O&O or Diskeeper
> are specifically designed to move files to the beginning of the drive,
> to defragment files, to defragment white-space, and have scheduling
> ability in addition to the ability to not fragment files when possible.
>
> I personally have seen many machines that were crawling (performance)
> restored to a much higher performance state by using a quality defrag
> tool (the XP one was never tried since DK or O&O was purchased).
>
> --
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

[Leythos]

In article <#qrmnHyaFHA.3864@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, kelly@mvps.org
says...
> Am not going to argue with you. However, will stand by my previous
> statement.

I was just hoping you would understand the technical aspects of what
file fragmentation means to read performance and how that a head moving
but not reading is wasted time/performance.

Maybe I can explain it better with a simple file copy/sort:

If you have one hard drive, you have one raw text file, say 500MB in
size, you want to sort it and then write it out to another file, the
operation (to the drive) is something like this:

1) Position heads for next read segment of data
2) Read some data
3) Sort routine acts on it
4) Position heads for next write segment of data
5) Write output file data
6) repeat 1-5 until complete

In this example, the heads have to move to reach file output file area
each time there is a write, this slows down the operation.

In a two drive example of the above:

1) Position D1 heads for initial read of data
2) Position D2 heads for initial write of data
3) D1 Read some data
4) Sort routine acts on it
5) D2 Write some data
6) Repeat 3-5 until complete

The key here is that the heads don't have to reposition on either drive,
they just keep moving in a sequential manner to the next sector, saving
LOTS of time.

This is overly simplified and doesn't account for multiple processes,
but you get the idea - it's about head movement where no data is being
read due to a file gap.

Once you understand how the "gap" impacts drive performance there is
nothing to argue about, it's simply a matter of read/can't read and the
time wasted to get to the next part of the fragmented file.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[David Candy]

See you are wrong, again.

Files are cached. Caching makes fragmentation irrelevent. So that leaves files read for the first time. Your OS files will be probably unfragmented after install. That leaves data files. How many data files does one read at a time. I only load one word doc at a time. Even if it's in a thousand pieces it will still load faster than I can react.

Now a file copy of lots of fragmented files will take a while longer. Big deal, how often does one do that. The first application startup and system startup will take longer, but prefetch reduces the effect of this. It may not be measurable.

Defragging a floppy only system pays good dividends, especially if smartdrv isn't being used. But as computers get faster and faster it doesn't matter.

I use perfect disk. I do it from habit and because I like tidy computers.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/_comment/001075.html
=================================================
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message news:MPG.1d0f541597071afc9898bd@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <#qrmnHyaFHA.3864@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, kelly@mvps.org
> says...
> > Am not going to argue with you. However, will stand by my previous
> > statement.
>
> I was just hoping you would understand the technical aspects of what
> file fragmentation means to read performance and how that a head moving
> but not reading is wasted time/performance.
>
> Maybe I can explain it better with a simple file copy/sort:
>
> If you have one hard drive, you have one raw text file, say 500MB in
> size, you want to sort it and then write it out to another file, the
> operation (to the drive) is something like this:
>
> 1) Position heads for next read segment of data
> 2) Read some data
> 3) Sort routine acts on it
> 4) Position heads for next write segment of data
> 5) Write output file data
> 6) repeat 1-5 until complete
>
> In this example, the heads have to move to reach file output file area
> each time there is a write, this slows down the operation.
>
> In a two drive example of the above:
>
> 1) Position D1 heads for initial read of data
> 2) Position D2 heads for initial write of data
> 3) D1 Read some data
> 4) Sort routine acts on it
> 5) D2 Write some data
> 6) Repeat 3-5 until complete
>
> The key here is that the heads don't have to reposition on either drive,
> they just keep moving in a sequential manner to the next sector, saving
> LOTS of time.
>
> This is overly simplified and doesn't account for multiple processes,
> but you get the idea - it's about head movement where no data is being
> read due to a file gap.
>
> Once you understand how the "gap" impacts drive performance there is
> nothing to argue about, it's simply a matter of read/can't read and the
> time wasted to get to the next part of the fragmented file.
>
> --
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

[Andrew]

Thanks Kelly,
p.s. your corner's a great source for all sorts of stuff..! inspiring.

"Kelly" <kelly@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:OmjipwlaFHA.724@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| <LOL>
|
| --
|
| All the Best,
| Kelly (MS-MVP)
|
| Troubleshooting Windows XP
| http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com
|
|
|
| "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
| news:11a7oimbniv9ec4@news.supernews.com...
| >
| > "Kelly" <kelly@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > news:eAiDCXlaFHA.2076@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| >> Hi Andrew,
| >>
| >> Nothing more is needed. Fact is, you don't need to run it at all in
XP.
| >
| > Is that a fact? So I'm smart, and I thought I was just lazy.. :>)
| >
| >
| >>
| >> --
| >>
| >> All the Best,
| >> Kelly (MS-MVP)
| >>
| >> Troubleshooting Windows XP
| >> http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >> "Andrew" <NoToSPAM@home> wrote in message
| >> news:egUWobhaFHA.1040@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| >>> is there a better Defrag for XP Home..?
| >>>
| >>> I like the old one, which you could see it moving the clusters
around..
| >>> and
| >>> thus
| >>> be able to guess how long it would take.
| >>>
| >>> Is it possible to just Defrag certain files or folders...?
| >>> bet that's a silly Q. do you just move file from one drive to the
other
| >>> and
| >>> back..?
| >>> --------
| >>> Andrew
| >>>
| >>>
| >>
| >>
| >
| >
|
|

[Kelly]

Thanks for the added info.

--

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com



"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d0f541597071afc9898bd@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <#qrmnHyaFHA.3864@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, kelly@mvps.org
> says...
>> Am not going to argue with you. However, will stand by my previous
>> statement.
>
> I was just hoping you would understand the technical aspects of what
> file fragmentation means to read performance and how that a head moving
> but not reading is wasted time/performance.
>
> Maybe I can explain it better with a simple file copy/sort:
>
> If you have one hard drive, you have one raw text file, say 500MB in
> size, you want to sort it and then write it out to another file, the
> operation (to the drive) is something like this:
>
> 1) Position heads for next read segment of data
> 2) Read some data
> 3) Sort routine acts on it
> 4) Position heads for next write segment of data
> 5) Write output file data
> 6) repeat 1-5 until complete
>
> In this example, the heads have to move to reach file output file area
> each time there is a write, this slows down the operation.
>
> In a two drive example of the above:
>
> 1) Position D1 heads for initial read of data
> 2) Position D2 heads for initial write of data
> 3) D1 Read some data
> 4) Sort routine acts on it
> 5) D2 Write some data
> 6) Repeat 3-5 until complete
>
> The key here is that the heads don't have to reposition on either drive,
> they just keep moving in a sequential manner to the next sector, saving
> LOTS of time.
>
> This is overly simplified and doesn't account for multiple processes,
> but you get the idea - it's about head movement where no data is being
> read due to a file gap.
>
> Once you understand how the "gap" impacts drive performance there is
> nothing to argue about, it's simply a matter of read/can't read and the
> time wasted to get to the next part of the fragmented file.
>
> --
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

[Kelly]

Thank you, David.

--

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com



"David Candy" <.> wrote in message
news:uOA8gj1aFHA.3048@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
See you are wrong, again.

Files are cached. Caching makes fragmentation irrelevent. So that leaves
files read for the first time. Your OS files will be probably unfragmented
after install. That leaves data files. How many data files does one read at
a time. I only load one word doc at a time. Even if it's in a thousand
pieces it will still load faster than I can react.

Now a file copy of lots of fragmented files will take a while longer. Big
deal, how often does one do that. The first application startup and system
startup will take longer, but prefetch reduces the effect of this. It may
not be measurable.

Defragging a floppy only system pays good dividends, especially if smartdrv
isn't being used. But as computers get faster and faster it doesn't matter.

I use perfect disk. I do it from habit and because I like tidy computers.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/_comment/001075.html
=================================================
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d0f541597071afc9898bd@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <#qrmnHyaFHA.3864@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, kelly@mvps.org
> says...
> > Am not going to argue with you. However, will stand by my previous
> > statement.
>
> I was just hoping you would understand the technical aspects of what
> file fragmentation means to read performance and how that a head moving
> but not reading is wasted time/performance.
>
> Maybe I can explain it better with a simple file copy/sort:
>
> If you have one hard drive, you have one raw text file, say 500MB in
> size, you want to sort it and then write it out to another file, the
> operation (to the drive) is something like this:
>
> 1) Position heads for next read segment of data
> 2) Read some data
> 3) Sort routine acts on it
> 4) Position heads for next write segment of data
> 5) Write output file data
> 6) repeat 1-5 until complete
>
> In this example, the heads have to move to reach file output file area
> each time there is a write, this slows down the operation.
>
> In a two drive example of the above:
>
> 1) Position D1 heads for initial read of data
> 2) Position D2 heads for initial write of data
> 3) D1 Read some data
> 4) Sort routine acts on it
> 5) D2 Write some data
> 6) Repeat 3-5 until complete
>
> The key here is that the heads don't have to reposition on either drive,
> they just keep moving in a sequential manner to the next sector, saving
> LOTS of time.
>
> This is overly simplified and doesn't account for multiple processes,
> but you get the idea - it's about head movement where no data is being
> read due to a file gap.
>
> Once you understand how the "gap" impacts drive performance there is
> nothing to argue about, it's simply a matter of read/can't read and the
> time wasted to get to the next part of the fragmented file.
>
> --
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

[Kelly]

You are most welcome, Andrew and thanks for the kind words. :o)

--

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com



"Andrew" <NoToSPAM@home> wrote in message
news:OU4xRv4aFHA.3016@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Kelly,
> p.s. your corner's a great source for all sorts of stuff..! inspiring.
>
> "Kelly" <kelly@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:OmjipwlaFHA.724@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> | <LOL>
> |
> | --
> |
> | All the Best,
> | Kelly (MS-MVP)
> |
> | Troubleshooting Windows XP
> | http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com
> |
> |
> |
> | "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> | news:11a7oimbniv9ec4@news.supernews.com...
> | >
> | > "Kelly" <kelly@mvps.org> wrote in message
> | > news:eAiDCXlaFHA.2076@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> | >> Hi Andrew,
> | >>
> | >> Nothing more is needed. Fact is, you don't need to run it at all in
> XP.
> | >
> | > Is that a fact? So I'm smart, and I thought I was just lazy.. :>)
> | >
> | >
> | >>
> | >> --
> | >>
> | >> All the Best,
> | >> Kelly (MS-MVP)
> | >>
> | >> Troubleshooting Windows XP
> | >> http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com
> | >>
> | >>
> | >>
> | >> "Andrew" <NoToSPAM@home> wrote in message
> | >> news:egUWobhaFHA.1040@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> | >>> is there a better Defrag for XP Home..?
> | >>>
> | >>> I like the old one, which you could see it moving the clusters
> around..
> | >>> and
> | >>> thus
> | >>> be able to guess how long it would take.
> | >>>
> | >>> Is it possible to just Defrag certain files or folders...?
> | >>> bet that's a silly Q. do you just move file from one drive to the
> other
> | >>> and
> | >>> back..?
> | >>> --------
> | >>> Andrew
> | >>>
> | >>>
> | >>
> | >>
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>

[Gerhard Fiedler]

On 6/7/05 09:03:02, David Candy wrote:

> See you are wrong, again.

It is my experience that there isn't much of "wrong" or "right" outside of
the realm of religion, and especially not in engineering. It's more a
matter of "more or less" or finding out the appropriate qualifier,
mostly... :)

> Files are cached. Caching makes fragmentation irrelevent.

Correct, but restricted to files that fit into the cache. A single
compilation and debugging run may touch many hundreds of MB of files, and
not all of this will fit into a typical cache. Same goes for audio and
video -- and other than compilation runs these are pretty mainstream.

> So that leaves files read for the first time. Your OS files will be
> probably unfragmented after install.

Correct, but probably not a real-world scenario. How many updates has a
typical user installed since the OS installation? Probably at least SP2,
and hopefully all of the critical updates as they are released. A
(significant?) portion of the system files therefore will be fragmented on
a typical system where temp and data files reside on the same partition as
the system files.

Same goes for applications installed after some time of running the system.
Not everybody installs everything before doing anything with the system. So
the application executables will be fragmented, too, which probably has an
effect on application load times.

> That leaves data files. How many data files does one read at a time. I
> only load one word doc at a time. Even if it's in a thousand pieces it
> will still load faster than I can react.

Correct, if you're talking about a single Word file. But while that's
probably a quite typical scenario, there are others. Uncompressed databases
can reach substantial sizes, the debug files compilers generate (and the
debug versions of the libraries) are quite big, media files can have sizes
that make disk performance beyond caching significant. In all these cases,
seek times can take up a significant portion of the access time if the
files are highly fragmented. And file access time can take up a significant
portion of the overall processing time.

And then there's of course the page file, which you didn't mention at all.
I don't know whether, or if so, how, page file access is cached by the
system's disk access cache, but it doesn't really matter. If it is, the
size of the cache available for other files is (possibly substantially)
reduced, and all the problems with limited cache size mentioned above just
become worse. If it isn't (and also if it is, but to a lesser degree,
because usually the page file will be bigger than the cache), the
fragmentation of the page file obviously influences access times to its
content.


So it seems to me that while caching is a very good thing to help lessen
the impact of disk performance on overall system performance, it is not a
technique that makes disk and file access performance completely irrelevant
in all scenarios. The impact of fragmentation of course depends on the
relevant use cases, the amount of memory available for the cache and the
disk seek times, among other factors.


Think about it also from a different angle... Saying that defragging
doesn't matter is at least very close to, if not the same as saying that
disk seek times don't matter. Yet disk manufacturers still strive to
minimize seek times. Why would they do that? Victims of a general
misunderstanding of the real priorities? Or just technically insignificant
marketing? Not impossible, of course.

Gerhard

[Leythos]

In article <uOA8gj1aFHA.3048@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, "David Candy" <.>
says...
> See you are wrong, again.
>
> Files are cached. Caching makes fragmentation irrelevent. So that leaves files read for the first time. Your OS files will be probably unfragmented after install. That leaves data files. How many data files does one read at a time. I only load one word doc at a time. Even if it's in a thousand pieces it will still load faster than I can react.

Fragmentation causes a delay in filling the cache with the file
information. It's really a simple thing - if the head has to move to a
non sequential sector to get the next part of the file, there is a delay
in filling the cache. Where you see this impact users is in large files
or a heavily file fragmented drive.

> Now a file copy of lots of fragmented files will take a while longer. Big deal, how often does one do that. The first application startup and system startup will take longer, but prefetch reduces the effect of this. It may not be measurable.

If file copy takes longer, so does the read of a fragmented file. You
should consider that there are two types of fragmentation:

1) File fragmentation
2) Free Space fragmentation

Both impact performance, File impacts reads, Free Space impacts
writes/growth.

Many drives only have a 2MB cache, some have 8MB, others are up to 16MB,
but most of the home users computers are using 2 or 8MB caches. Many
files are much larger than 2MB or 8MB and a delay in filling the cache
will impact performance.

> Defragging a floppy only system pays good dividends, especially if smartdrv isn't being used. But as computers get faster and faster it doesn't matter.

If you defrag a floppy and see benefit, it's only because the head
movement takes longer on a fragmented floppy than it does on a hard
drive - so, while you may not measure it on a typical users computer,
the same applies - if the heads move to non-sequential sectors without
reading, in order to fetch data, there is a read-delay.

> I use perfect disk. I do it from habit and because I like tidy computers.

Tidy, when talking about fragmentation, means performance, even if you
personally can't measure it.

The real issue is this:

1) Does defragmentation File/Space improve performance of a file system?

Ans: Yes, no question, it will improve performance without question.

2) What considerations are there for seeing the benefit to home users?

Ans: Many typical home users with large drives that remain mostly empty
will not notice any significant difference. Users with heavily used
drives with masses of data should be able to measure the difference
without guessing.

In this day, when many home users are editing photos, video, downloading
full DVD movies, etc... the amount of fragmentation is increasing, and
that means that drive performance suffers.

While defragging is free with all the versions of Windows, there are
significant differences in what Windows Defrag offers and what 3rd-party
defraggers offer.


--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[1badtech]

Andrew Wrote:
> is there a better Defrag for XP Home..?
>
> I like the old one, which you could see it moving the clusters around..
> and
> thus
> be able to guess how long it would take.
>
> Is it possible to just Defrag certain files or folders...?
> bet that's a silly Q. do you just move file from one drive to the other
> and
> back..?
> --------
> Andrew

Any third party defrag program is better than the built-in defrag.
They run a lot faster and will only defrag when needed. You can also
schedule them to run in the background while you're doing other things.


--
1badtech
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1badtech's Profile: http://forum.osnn.net/member.php?userid=9450
View this thread: http://forum.osnn.net/showthread.php?t=76234

[Edward W. Thompson]

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 21:51:16 -0500, 1badtech
<1badtech.1qe42e@no-mx.forum.osnn.net> wrote:

>
>Andrew Wrote:
>> is there a better Defrag for XP Home..?
>>
>> I like the old one, which you could see it moving the clusters around..
>> and
>> thus
>> be able to guess how long it would take.
>>
>> Is it possible to just Defrag certain files or folders...?
>> bet that's a silly Q. do you just move file from one drive to the other
>> and
>> back..?
>> --------
>> Andrew
>
>Any third party defrag program is better than the built-in defrag.
>They run a lot faster and will only defrag when needed. You can also
>schedule them to run in the background while you're doing other things.

Third party defraggers are not better than the WINXP native defragger
unless running faster and having a pretty interface makes them better.
From a functional point of view the WINXP native defragger is equal to
all third party defraggers and unlike third party defraggers, is free.

[Gerhard Fiedler]

On 6/10/05 03:08:18, Edward W. Thompson wrote:

> Third party defraggers are not better than the WINXP native defragger
> unless running faster and having a pretty interface makes them better.
> From a functional point of view the WINXP native defragger is equal to
> all third party defraggers

Do you have some good facts to back this up? Or is it just a belief?

Gerhard

[Bert Kinney]

Hi Gerhard,

Here are some facts to contradict it.
An interesting study by one of the original developers of NTFS on free
space
consolidation and how NOT doing it can actually result in wasted disk
seeks
and actually make drive performance worse -
http://www.raxco.com/products/perfectdisk2k/whitepapers/FreeSpace_WhitePaper.pdf


Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>> Third party defraggers are not better than the WINXP
>> native defragger unless running faster and having a
>> pretty interface makes them better. From a functional
>> point of view the WINXP native defragger is equal to all
>> third party defraggers
>
> Do you have some good facts to back this up? Or is it
> just a belief?
>
> Gerhard

[Leythos]

In article <gdbia15jfoq9a5aol03p9brebv9j3upbjn@4ax.com>, thomeduk1
@btopenworld.com says...
> Third party defraggers are not better than the WINXP native defragger
> unless running faster and having a pretty interface makes them better.
> From a functional point of view the WINXP native defragger is equal to
> all third party defraggers and unlike third party defraggers, is free.

Forgive me, but what an utter crock of BS. Only one that doesn't
understand fragmentation of files and free-space would make such a post.
The XP Defragger doesn't not fully defragment and move files as almost
every other (third party) defragger does.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[David Candy]

So what?

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/_comment/001075.html
=================================================
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message news:MPG.1d13d2bbba75da1b9898f4@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <gdbia15jfoq9a5aol03p9brebv9j3upbjn@4ax.com>, thomeduk1
> @btopenworld.com says...
> > Third party defraggers are not better than the WINXP native defragger
> > unless running faster and having a pretty interface makes them better.
> > From a functional point of view the WINXP native defragger is equal to
> > all third party defraggers and unlike third party defraggers, is free.
>
> Forgive me, but what an utter crock of BS. Only one that doesn't
> understand fragmentation of files and free-space would make such a post.
> The XP Defragger doesn't not fully defragment and move files as almost
> every other (third party) defragger does.
>
> --
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:35:00 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler
>On 6/10/05 03:08:18, Edward W. Thompson wrote:

>> Third party defraggers are not better than the WINXP native defragger
>> unless running faster and having a pretty interface makes them better.
>> From a functional point of view the WINXP native defragger is equal to
>> all third party defraggers

>Do you have some good facts to back this up? Or is it just a belief?

I think the assertion is based on the OS's defrag API, which is called
by most defraggers. If the native defragger and add-on defraggers are
all using the same API, they'd be unlikely to differ in terms of
result; only convenience (e.g. defrag all volumes sequentially).

However, some defraggers may work in ways other than the API (Norton
Speed Disk is said to) or may parametize the API differently, and that
might make them more versitile, if not uniformly better.

More effective still, might be to partition intelligently. For
example, if NTFS insists on putting core file system structures plumb
in the middle of the volume so speed is much the same when it fills
up, but the volume never fills up, then you have all that head travel
for nothing - better to size the volume smaller, so no matter how
useless the defrag or file system logic, the total head travel is
constrained by the size of the volume.





>------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
Forget http://cquirke.blogspot.com and check out a
better one at http://topicdrift.blogspot.com instead!
>------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -

[Gerhard Fiedler]

On 6/10/05 19:55:44, cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:35:00 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler
>>> Third party defraggers are not better than the WINXP native defragger
>>Do you have some good facts to back this up? Or is it just a belief?
>
> I think the assertion is based on the OS's defrag API, which is called
> by most defraggers. If the native defragger and add-on defraggers are
> all using the same API, they'd be unlikely to differ in terms of
> result; only convenience (e.g. defrag all volumes sequentially).

I know about the common API that many use. But it is my understanding that
you can use that API in many ways.

Like compacting empty space (which I seem to recall that the XP native
defragger doesn't do, which then may cause quicker and more thorough
fragmentation of new files), or like more efficient ordering of files.

Gerhard

[1badtech]

Edward W. Thompson Wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 21:51:16 -0500, 1badtech
> <1badtech.1qe42e@no-mx.forum.osnn.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Any third party defrag program is better than the built-in defrag.
> >They run a lot faster and will only defrag when needed. You can also
> >schedule them to run in the background while you're doing other
> things.
>
> Third party defraggers are not better than the WINXP native defragger
> unless running faster and having a pretty interface makes them better.
> From a functional point of view the WINXP native defragger is equal to
> all third party defraggers and unlike third party defraggers, is free.

I don't know about you but running faster is very important to me. The
built-in defrag takes hours to run. Compare that to a few minutes using
a third party defrag and being able to actually use your computer at the
same time makes a lot of difference.

Here's a couple of links that shows the difference between windows
defrag and a third party defrag program.

http://tinyurl.com/489cp

http://www1.execsoft.com/pdf/DK-WinXP-2000_Comparison.pdf


--
1badtech
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1badtech's Profile: http://forum.osnn.net/member.php?userid=9450
View this thread: http://forum.osnn.net/showthread.php?t=76234

[David Candy]

They wrote the XP defragger. It is their ideas on defragging that the XP defragger represents. They maintained consolidation of free space is unnecessary (if you don't remember that's ok). Executive always believed that defrag should run without impacting the system.

But as their software was designed to just work they lost sales to other companies that believed in pretty defragging.

It's all a rort.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/_comment/001075.html
=================================================
"1badtech" <1badtech.1qgxgm@no-mx.forum.osnn.net> wrote in message news:1badtech.1qgxgm@no-mx.forum.osnn.net...
>
> Edward W. Thompson Wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 21:51:16 -0500, 1badtech
> > <1badtech.1qe42e@no-mx.forum.osnn.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Any third party defrag program is better than the built-in defrag.
> > >They run a lot faster and will only defrag when needed. You can also
> > >schedule them to run in the background while you're doing other
> > things.
> >
> > Third party defraggers are not better than the WINXP native defragger
> > unless running faster and having a pretty interface makes them better.
> > From a functional point of view the WINXP native defragger is equal to
> > all third party defraggers and unlike third party defraggers, is free.
>
> I don't know about you but running faster is very important to me. The
> built-in defrag takes hours to run. Compare that to a few minutes using
> a third party defrag and being able to actually use your computer at the
> same time makes a lot of difference.
>
> Here's a couple of links that shows the difference between windows
> defrag and a third party defrag program.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/489cp
>
> http://www1.execsoft.com/pdf/DK-WinXP-2000_Comparison.pdf
>
>
> --
> 1badtech
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1badtech's Profile: http://forum.osnn.net/member.php?userid=9450
> View this thread: http://forum.osnn.net/showthread.php?t=76234
>

[Leythos]

In article <#Ow4l8pbFHA.4040@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, "David Candy" <.>
says...
> They wrote the XP defragger. It is their ideas on defragging that the XP defragger represents. They maintained consolidation of free space is unnecessary (if you don't remember that's ok). Executive always believed that defrag should run without impacting the system.
>
> But as their software was designed to just work they lost sales to other companies that believed in pretty defragging.
>
> It's all a rort.

Seems to me that Diskeeper does a full free space consolidation on my
systems, has done it since DK7 was around.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[Ricardo Diez]

Yes, the best program I found doing an excellent defrag in XP and NT (in Fat
32 or NTFS) is VOPT http://www.vopt.com/ for XP, NT, WIN xx.
When any other defrag program take hours, VOPT take minutes.
Regards.


"Andrew" wrote:

> is there a better Defrag for XP Home..?
>
> I like the old one, which you could see it moving the clusters around.. and
> thus
> be able to guess how long it would take.
>
> Is it possible to just Defrag certain files or folders...?
> bet that's a silly Q. do you just move file from one drive to the other and
> back..?
> --------
> Andrew
>
>
>

[Ken Blake]

In news:21AD499F-F994-4C57-AC74-B5F9CF98610B@microsoft.com,
Ricardo Diez <RicardoDiez@discussions.microsoft.com> typed:

> Yes, the best program I found doing an excellent defrag in XP
> and NT
> (in Fat 32 or NTFS) is VOPT http://www.vopt.com/ for XP, NT,
> WIN xx.
> When any other defrag program take hours, VOPT take minutes.


I haven't seen VOPT in years, and wasn't even aware that it was
still around.

However, I would be very wary of judging a defrag program solely
on how long it takes to run. Defrag programs aren't all equal in
what they do, and it's always possible to be faster by doing
less.

Mind you, I'm not claiming that VOPT does less than other
defraggers--I don't know that--but just cautioning you that run
time is only one criterion for judging defraggers.

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

[Ricardo Diez]

Any people can try a comparation between many defrag programs and to see by
themselves. I did this and I found that "vopt" is the best and the fastest.
Any can share or not this, is my modest experience comparing close 10
programs and all they take a long time and doing (some of they) less that
vopt and other, the same.
Good luck !



"Ken Blake" wrote:

> In news:21AD499F-F994-4C57-AC74-B5F9CF98610B@microsoft.com,
> Ricardo Diez <RicardoDiez@discussions.microsoft.com> typed:
>
> > Yes, the best program I found doing an excellent defrag in XP
> > and NT
> > (in Fat 32 or NTFS) is VOPT http://www.vopt.com/ for XP, NT,
> > WIN xx.
> > When any other defrag program take hours, VOPT take minutes.
>
>
> I haven't seen VOPT in years, and wasn't even aware that it was
> still around.
>
> However, I would be very wary of judging a defrag program solely
> on how long it takes to run. Defrag programs aren't all equal in
> what they do, and it's always possible to be faster by doing
> less.
>
> Mind you, I'm not claiming that VOPT does less than other
> defraggers--I don't know that--but just cautioning you that run
> time is only one criterion for judging defraggers.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
>

[John Robertson]

The best program I have found is Deskeeper for both Fat32 and NTFS from
Executive Software Diskeeper www diskeeper.com
john
"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:unM3chpdFHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> In news:21AD499F-F994-4C57-AC74-B5F9CF98610B@microsoft.com,
> Ricardo Diez <RicardoDiez@discussions.microsoft.com> typed:
>
>> Yes, the best program I found doing an excellent defrag in XP and NT
>> (in Fat 32 or NTFS) is VOPT http://www.vopt.com/ for XP, NT, WIN xx.
>> When any other defrag program take hours, VOPT take minutes.
>
>
> I haven't seen VOPT in years, and wasn't even aware that it was still
> around.
>
> However, I would be very wary of judging a defrag program solely on how
> long it takes to run. Defrag programs aren't all equal in what they do,
> and it's always possible to be faster by doing less.
>
> Mind you, I'm not claiming that VOPT does less than other defraggers--I
> don't know that--but just cautioning you that run time is only one
> criterion for judging defraggers.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>

[Edward W. Thompson]

"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:unM3chpdFHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> In news:21AD499F-F994-4C57-AC74-B5F9CF98610B@microsoft.com,
> Ricardo Diez <RicardoDiez@discussions.microsoft.com> typed:
>
>> Yes, the best program I found doing an excellent defrag in XP and NT
>> (in Fat 32 or NTFS) is VOPT http://www.vopt.com/ for XP, NT, WIN xx.
>> When any other defrag program take hours, VOPT take minutes.
>
>
> I haven't seen VOPT in years, and wasn't even aware that it was still
> around.
>
> However, I would be very wary of judging a defrag program solely on how
> long it takes to run. Defrag programs aren't all equal in what they do,
> and it's always possible to be faster by doing less.
>
> Mind you, I'm not claiming that VOPT does less than other defraggers--I
> don't know that--but just cautioning you that run time is only one
> criterion for judging defraggers.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
I venture to suggest that it is most unlikely that the majority of Users
have the necessary tools and 'know how'
to objectively assess and compare the performance of defrag programs.
Speed of execution means very little as you observed.

[_RR]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 02:03:37 +1000, "David Candy" <.> wrote:

> They wrote the XP defragger. It is their ideas on defragging that the
> XP defragger represents. They maintained consolidation of free space
> is unnecessary (if you don't remember that's ok). Executive always
> believed that defrag should run without impacting the system.

I've used a couple of the major 3rd party defraggers. I found that
the defragger running in the background is not quite as unobtrusive as
they'd lead you to believe. So the question for me was: would I
rather have time lost to fragmentation (possibly), or to the defragger
(definitely). I uninstalled the defragger.

> But as their software was designed to just work they lost sales to
> other companies that believed in pretty defragging.

I remember Vopt back in the day. It was cool watching it move blocks
around. I lost approximately 185,334,000 msecs in drive access time
watching Vopt, hoping that it wouldn't trash my drive<g>. (It didn't)

[Matt Silberstein]

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 22:03:02 +1000, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general , "David Candy" <.> in
<uOA8gj1aFHA.3048@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl> wrote:

>See you are wrong, again.
>
>Files are cached. Caching makes fragmentation irrelevent.

I just defrag my drive (which is pretty full). The performance
improvement was dramatic. I suppose it could be a coincident. Or
perhaps most files are only read once (or a few times) so the defrag
helps.

[snip]



--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

[Ken Blake]

In news:7sbnb1ds940ghbupmrd0e5j05mutt0mb06@4ax.com,
_RR <_RR@nomail.org> typed:

> I've used a couple of the major 3rd party defraggers. I found
> that
> the defragger running in the background is not quite as
> unobtrusive as
> they'd lead you to believe. So the question for me was: would
> I
> rather have time lost to fragmentation (possibly), or to the
> defragger
> (definitely). I uninstalled the defragger.


I never defrag in the background, but always do it stand-alone. I
also always do it at night while I'm sleeping, and I don't care
at all how long it takes; it's always done when morning comes.
You might want to consider doing the same.

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

[_RR]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:59:44 -0700, "Ken Blake"
<kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:

>In news:7sbnb1ds940ghbupmrd0e5j05mutt0mb06@4ax.com,
>_RR <_RR@nomail.org> typed:
>
>> I've used a couple of the major 3rd party defraggers. I found
>> that
>> the defragger running in the background is not quite as
>> unobtrusive as
>> they'd lead you to believe. So the question for me was: would
>> I
>> rather have time lost to fragmentation (possibly), or to the
>> defragger
>> (definitely). I uninstalled the defragger.
>
>I never defrag in the background, but always do it stand-alone. I
>also always do it at night while I'm sleeping, and I don't care
>at all how long it takes; it's always done when morning comes.
>You might want to consider doing the same.

I do that, just not that often, and with the standard XP defragger.
I thought that this particular 3rd party's claim to fame was
background defragging, so my point was in regard to this in
particular. There could be other merits to using 3rd party
defraggers, but I didn't see this as one of them.