A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » Windows XP Help and Support
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro. SP2with limited free disk spaces?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old March 10th 09, 07:58 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Lem[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,218
Default What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro.SP2 with limited free disk spaces?

Phillip Pi wrote:
On 3/10/2009 10:29 AM PT, Terry R. wrote:

I doubt you will see any benefits by changing your cluster sizes by
the info you've provided.


OK. Then, I won't bother doing that then.


If you are able to install and uninstall programs, you could go
through and uninstall any programs that aren't needed any longer.
There are most likely a lot of Windows patch folders that could be
moved from c:\windows to D: or E: (in the unlikely event they would
ever need to be uninstalled, they could be copied back to
c:\windows). You could free up hundreds of megs on C: by doing that.
Learn more about that by reading he
http://windowsxp.mvps.org/Hotfix_backup.htm


Yeah, I have tossed a lot of stuff out already especially SP2, hot
fixes, etc.


Your pagefile on C: is already at a minimum size.


Yes.


My bigger concern would be your "backup and archive" drive E:. It
appears there is only one hard drive in this workstation. So if your
IT dept. isn't backing up your local data to a server, or if your main
data isn't stored on a server and backed up, I would ask the IT people
about that. Because if you are backing up to E: thinking it's safe,
it's a false sense of security. If the hard drive fails you will lose
C: D: and E:, so you lose everything.


I do make weekly backups manually to a server as an offline and shared
backup. I use E: drive as my local storage.


This thread has gone on far too long.

There seems to be an extremely simple solution to your defragmenting
problem: pick some of the largest files/folders and *temporarily* move
them someplace else. You could move them to the server that you use as
"offline and shared backup," you could burn them to a CD or DVD, or you
could buy an inexpensive USB drive (or even a USB flash drive, given
that you're only going to be using it temporarily; you can get an 8GB
flash drive for less than $15
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...SrchInDesc=8gb
or 16GB for less than $30
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...=16gb&bop=And).

Move enough files so that the Windows defragger has enough free space to
work, then move your files back.

--
Lem -- MS-MVP

To the moon and back with 2K words of RAM and 36K words of ROM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm
Ads
  #32  
Old March 10th 09, 09:27 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Gerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,437
Default What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro. SP2 with limited free disk spaces?

Lem

What rule says you cannot have long conversations.. It can go on for as long
people wish to contribute. At least it a sensible conversation and not a
flame war.


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



"Lem" [email protected] wrote in message
...
Phillip Pi wrote:
On 3/10/2009 10:29 AM PT, Terry R. wrote:

I doubt you will see any benefits by changing your cluster sizes by the
info you've provided.


OK. Then, I won't bother doing that then.


If you are able to install and uninstall programs, you could go through
and uninstall any programs that aren't needed any longer. There are
most likely a lot of Windows patch folders that could be moved from
c:\windows to D: or E: (in the unlikely event they would ever need to be
uninstalled, they could be copied back to c:\windows). You could free
up hundreds of megs on C: by doing that. Learn more about that by
reading he
http://windowsxp.mvps.org/Hotfix_backup.htm


Yeah, I have tossed a lot of stuff out already especially SP2, hot fixes,
etc.


Your pagefile on C: is already at a minimum size.


Yes.


My bigger concern would be your "backup and archive" drive E:. It
appears there is only one hard drive in this workstation. So if your IT
dept. isn't backing up your local data to a server, or if your main data
isn't stored on a server and backed up, I would ask the IT people about
that. Because if you are backing up to E: thinking it's safe, it's a
false sense of security. If the hard drive fails you will lose C: D:
and E:, so you lose everything.


I do make weekly backups manually to a server as an offline and shared
backup. I use E: drive as my local storage.


This thread has gone on far too long.

There seems to be an extremely simple solution to your defragmenting
problem: pick some of the largest files/folders and *temporarily* move
them someplace else. You could move them to the server that you use as
"offline and shared backup," you could burn them to a CD or DVD, or you
could buy an inexpensive USB drive (or even a USB flash drive, given that
you're only going to be using it temporarily; you can get an 8GB flash
drive for less than $15
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...SrchInDesc=8gb
or 16GB for less than $30
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...=16gb&bop=And).

Move enough files so that the Windows defragger has enough free space to
work, then move your files back.

--
Lem -- MS-MVP

To the moon and back with 2K words of RAM and 36K words of ROM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm



  #33  
Old March 10th 09, 09:59 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Lem[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,218
Default What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro.SP2 with limited free disk spaces?

Gerry wrote:
Lem

What rule says you cannot have long conversations.. It can go on for as long
people wish to contribute. At least it a sensible conversation and not a
flame war.



No rule, just an observation.

--
Lem -- MS-MVP

To the moon and back with 2K words of RAM and 36K words of ROM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm
  #34  
Old March 10th 09, 10:38 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Terry R.[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,746
Default What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro.SP2 with limited free disk spaces?

The date and time was Tuesday, March 10, 2009 12:15:32 PM, and on a
whim, Phillip Pi pounded out on the keyboard:

On 3/10/2009 10:29 AM PT, Terry R. wrote:

I doubt you will see any benefits by changing your cluster sizes by the
info you've provided.


OK. Then, I won't bother doing that then.


If you are able to install and uninstall programs, you could go through
and uninstall any programs that aren't needed any longer. There are
most likely a lot of Windows patch folders that could be moved from
c:\windows to D: or E: (in the unlikely event they would ever need to be
uninstalled, they could be copied back to c:\windows). You could free
up hundreds of megs on C: by doing that. Learn more about that by
reading he
http://windowsxp.mvps.org/Hotfix_backup.htm


Yeah, I have tossed a lot of stuff out already especially SP2, hot
fixes, etc.


Your pagefile on C: is already at a minimum size.


Yes.


My bigger concern would be your "backup and archive" drive E:. It
appears there is only one hard drive in this workstation. So if your IT
dept. isn't backing up your local data to a server, or if your main data
isn't stored on a server and backed up, I would ask the IT people about
that. Because if you are backing up to E: thinking it's safe, it's a
false sense of security. If the hard drive fails you will lose C: D:
and E:, so you lose everything.


I do make weekly backups manually to a server as an offline and shared
backup. I use E: drive as my local storage.


Hi Phillip,

Since you have limited hard disk space available, I don't see a lot of
solutions left. You could turn off System Restore and empty the Recycle
Bin, then optimize C: with either of the defraggers I suggested
yesterday. Also, when/if you turn SR back on, make sure you're only
monitoring drive C:, as monitoring D: and E: will eat up more disk
space. Since I keep regular backups, and like to keep my 5 OS
partitions small (7 gig at the most), I keep SR turned off all the time.
The main reason is SR has failed me and too many clients when it was
really needed, so it's a false sense of security IMO, so why depend on
it at all. A good backup schedule is by far the best protection.


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
  #35  
Old March 11th 09, 12:36 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Phillip Pi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 129
Default What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro.SP2 with limited free disk spaces?

On 3/10/2009 12:57 PM PT, Gerry wrote:

Earlier you queried whether there might be speed improvements from changing
the cluster size. This is not an easy one to answer as any performance gains
are difficult to measure and often subjective. The performance benefits
coming from a larger cluster size arise from a reduced rate of file
fragmentation where the average file size is large. You are of course trying
to resolve a situation where file fragmentation has become a serious problem
so ideally you would not want something that speeds up fragmentation. You
will see a noticeable improvement if you can eliminate fragmentation but
this will only last for a while until you need to cleanup and defragment
again. I suspect that the preliminary disk cleanup helps as much as
defragmentation. Apart from resolving severe fragmentation defragmenting is
only one measure contributing to better system performance. Other factors
are often more important. The CPU capacity and the amount of RAM are the
more important normal bottlenecks holding back system performance but there
are a number of other factors which can apply. I do not think changing the
cluster size is worthwhile given the likely benefits.


Yeah, it's a tedious process to complete too. Also, risky if something
goes wrong.


You would see an improved system performance if you could increase the
available free disk space to 25 to 35% but this is not easily measurable.


OK.


You have a pagefile on volume E, which is part of a single drive. Most
people, who have diverse views on best practice regarding the pagefile,
would not consider this helps system performance. You should either have a
single pagefile on volume C or have a dedicated pagefile partition as the
first partition on a second hard drive leaving a small pagefile in volume C.
Which is best causes many heated debates between the two opposing
viewpoints but no one would advocate what you have to achieve best
performance.


OK.


The logic underlying the partition structure is unclear to me. What is meant
to be the purpose of each partition? I cannot see the benefit to be gained
from moving files from C to D as both have limited free space. I cannot see
any system restore points. Has system restore been turned off. With regard
to C you might look at the points detailed below, which may marginally help.


IT disabled system restore feature (enabling it gets denied). I guess it
is the same reason why you think it is useless.


Another default setting which could be wasteful is that for temporary
internet files, especially if you do not store offline copies on disk.
The default allocation is 3% of drive. Depending on your attitude to
offline copies you could reduce this to 1% or 2%. In Internet Explorer
select Tools, Internet Options, General, Temporary Internet Files,
Settings to make the change. At the same time look at the number of days
history is held.


I don't use offline feature. TIF is at 1%.


The default allocation for the Recycle Bin is 10 % of drive. Change to
5%, which should be sufficient. In Windows Explorer place the cursor
on your Recycle Bin, right click and select Properties, Global and
move the slider from 10% to 5%. However, try to avoid letting it get
too full as if it is full and you delete a file by mistake it will
bypass the Recycle Bin and be gone for ever.


I lowered from 30% to 5% to see how that goes. I usually keep my recycle
bin almost empty.


Select Start, All Programs, Accessories, System Tools, System
Information, Tools, Dr Watson and verify that the box before "Append to
existing log" is NOT checked. This means the next time the log is
written it will overwrite rather than add to the existing file.


Already unchecked.


If your drive is formatted as NTFS another potential gain arises with
your operating system on your C drive. In the Windows Directory of
your C partition you will have some Uninstall folders in your Windows
folder typically: $NtServicePackUninstall$ and $NtUninstallKB282010$
etc. These files may be compressed or not compressed. If compressed
the text of the folder name appears in blue characters. If not
compressed you can compress them. Right click on each folder and
select Properties, General, Advanced and check the box before Compress
contents to save Disk Space. On the General Tab you can see the amount
gained by deducting the size on disk from the size. Folder
compression is only an option on a NTFS formatted drive / partition.


Yes, it is in NTFS and has compress feature. I do delete old hotfixes,
SP2 upgrade, etc.

I find it strange for IT to make my D: drive the local Windows account
directories/folders. It seems like they made C: for system stuff, D: for
data stuff, etc.
--
Phillip Pi
Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
ISP/Symantec Online Services, Consumer Business Unit
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Email: YMC (remove SYMC to reply by e-mail)
-----------------------------------------------------
Please do NOT e-mail me for technical support. DISCLAIMER: The views
expressed in this posting are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the
views of my employer. Thank you.
  #36  
Old March 11th 09, 12:37 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Phillip Pi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 129
Default What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro.SP2 with limited free disk spaces?

On 3/10/2009 3:38 PM PT, Terry R. wrote:

Since you have limited hard disk space available, I don't see a lot of
solutions left. You could turn off System Restore and empty the Recycle
Bin, then optimize C: with either of the defraggers I suggested
yesterday. Also, when/if you turn SR back on, make sure you're only
monitoring drive C:, as monitoring D: and E: will eat up more disk
space. Since I keep regular backups, and like to keep my 5 OS
partitions small (7 gig at the most), I keep SR turned off all the time.
The main reason is SR has failed me and too many clients when it was
really needed, so it's a false sense of security IMO, so why depend on
it at all. A good backup schedule is by far the best protection.


Thanks for the tips. Yes, I do all those. IT disabled SR. I am not sure
why. Maybe they also think SR is useless.
--
Phillip Pi
Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
ISP/Symantec Online Services, Consumer Business Unit
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Email: YMC (remove SYMC to reply by e-mail)
-----------------------------------------------------
Please do NOT e-mail me for technical support. DISCLAIMER: The views
expressed in this posting are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the
views of my employer. Thank you.
  #37  
Old March 11th 09, 09:45 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Gerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,437
Default What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro. SP2 with limited free disk spaces?

Phillip

System Restore -"I guess it is the same reason why you think it is useless."

I have not expressed any views on the functionality of System Restore. I do
not subscribe to that view. Most of the problems from using System Restore
arise from users not understanding the mechanics of System Restore and from
third party security software ( Norton is a major offender ) who have
written software which does not deal with it's relationship with System
Restore in a responsible manner.


--


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Phillip Pi" wrote in message
...
On 3/10/2009 12:57 PM PT, Gerry wrote:

Earlier you queried whether there might be speed improvements from
changing the cluster size. This is not an easy one to answer as any
performance gains are difficult to measure and often subjective. The
performance benefits coming from a larger cluster size arise from a
reduced rate of file fragmentation where the average file size is large.
You are of course trying to resolve a situation where file fragmentation
has become a serious problem so ideally you would not want something that
speeds up fragmentation. You will see a noticeable improvement if you
can eliminate fragmentation but this will only last for a while until you
need to cleanup and defragment again. I suspect that the preliminary disk
cleanup helps as much as defragmentation. Apart from resolving severe
fragmentation defragmenting is only one measure contributing to better
system performance. Other factors are often more important. The CPU
capacity and the amount of RAM are the more important normal bottlenecks
holding back system performance but there are a number of other factors
which can apply. I do not think changing the cluster size is worthwhile
given the likely benefits.


Yeah, it's a tedious process to complete too. Also, risky if something
goes wrong.


You would see an improved system performance if you could increase the
available free disk space to 25 to 35% but this is not easily measurable.


OK.


You have a pagefile on volume E, which is part of a single drive. Most
people, who have diverse views on best practice regarding the pagefile,
would not consider this helps system performance. You should either have
a single pagefile on volume C or have a dedicated pagefile partition as
the first partition on a second hard drive leaving a small pagefile in
volume C. Which is best causes many heated debates between the two
opposing viewpoints but no one would advocate what you have to achieve
best performance.


OK.


The logic underlying the partition structure is unclear to me. What is
meant to be the purpose of each partition? I cannot see the benefit to be
gained from moving files from C to D as both have limited free space. I
cannot see any system restore points. Has system restore been turned off.
With regard to C you might look at the points detailed below, which may
marginally help.


IT disabled system restore feature (enabling it gets denied). I guess it
is the same reason why you think it is useless.


Another default setting which could be wasteful is that for temporary
internet files, especially if you do not store offline copies on disk.
The default allocation is 3% of drive. Depending on your attitude to
offline copies you could reduce this to 1% or 2%. In Internet Explorer
select Tools, Internet Options, General, Temporary Internet Files,
Settings to make the change. At the same time look at the number of days
history is held.


I don't use offline feature. TIF is at 1%.


The default allocation for the Recycle Bin is 10 % of drive. Change to
5%, which should be sufficient. In Windows Explorer place the cursor
on your Recycle Bin, right click and select Properties, Global and
move the slider from 10% to 5%. However, try to avoid letting it get
too full as if it is full and you delete a file by mistake it will
bypass the Recycle Bin and be gone for ever.


I lowered from 30% to 5% to see how that goes. I usually keep my recycle
bin almost empty.


Select Start, All Programs, Accessories, System Tools, System
Information, Tools, Dr Watson and verify that the box before "Append to
existing log" is NOT checked. This means the next time the log is
written it will overwrite rather than add to the existing file.


Already unchecked.


If your drive is formatted as NTFS another potential gain arises with
your operating system on your C drive. In the Windows Directory of
your C partition you will have some Uninstall folders in your Windows
folder typically: $NtServicePackUninstall$ and $NtUninstallKB282010$
etc. These files may be compressed or not compressed. If compressed
the text of the folder name appears in blue characters. If not
compressed you can compress them. Right click on each folder and
select Properties, General, Advanced and check the box before Compress
contents to save Disk Space. On the General Tab you can see the amount
gained by deducting the size on disk from the size. Folder
compression is only an option on a NTFS formatted drive / partition.


Yes, it is in NTFS and has compress feature. I do delete old hotfixes, SP2
upgrade, etc.

I find it strange for IT to make my D: drive the local Windows account
directories/folders. It seems like they made C: for system stuff, D: for
data stuff, etc.
--
Phillip Pi
Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
ISP/Symantec Online Services, Consumer Business Unit
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Email: YMC (remove SYMC to reply by e-mail)
-----------------------------------------------------
Please do NOT e-mail me for technical support. DISCLAIMER: The views
expressed in this posting are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the
views of my employer. Thank you.



  #38  
Old March 11th 09, 12:34 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro. SP2 with limited free disk spaces?

In ,
Gerry typed on Sat, 7 Mar 2009 22:24:04 -0000:
Like Patrick I have long been an advocate of using the Microsoft Disk
Defragmenter...


I actually have been using defraggers since the 80's and with the
exception of MFM drives, I *never* have seen an improvement from
defragging. My theory is the bus speed is slower than the reading of a
fragmented IDE drive anyway. Another possibility is that I only buy slow
CPU based machines. As I don't need Lear jet power to play DVDs.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu


  #39  
Old March 11th 09, 12:43 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro. SP2 with limited free disk spaces?

In ,
Ant typed on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:01:22 -0700:
On 3/8/2009 9:07 AM PT, Daave typed:

"Ant" wrote in message
...
On 3/7/2009 11:09 AM PT, Jose typed:


Why are you not running SP3? Why are so many that people that post
problems here not even current on software updates that are free
and highly recommended?
IT doesn't support it yet.


That's a pretty lame IT department! The good news is updates for SP2
are still available. But the end date for that keeps getting
closer...


Yeah. I know IT will force SP3 when SP2 ends its support. For now,
SP2. --


Everybody have a short memory or what? Nobody remembers the horrors of
upgrading to SP2? That was a *major* disaster for many! I tried to
upgrade three machines here and they all slowed down to a snail's pace.
The only fix to have SP2, was a total reinstall of a slipstream version
with SP2 included. That actually worked for me.

Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu


  #40  
Old March 11th 09, 12:49 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro. SP2 with limited free disk spaces?

In ,
Terry R. typed on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:38:23 -0700:
... I keep SR turned off all the time. The main reason is SR has
failed me and too many clients when it was really needed, so it's a
false sense of security IMO, so why depend on it at all.


Strange! It has saved my and millions of others all of the time.

A good backup schedule is by far the best protection.


Software backups are totally useless if your hardware fails. So that
isn't a good plan in my book. Only software and hardware backups are
the only way to go IMHO.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu


  #41  
Old March 11th 09, 12:52 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro. SP2 with limited free disk spaces?

In ,
Gerry typed on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:45:59 -0000:
Phillip

System Restore -"I guess it is the same reason why you think it is
useless."
I have not expressed any views on the functionality of System
Restore. I do not subscribe to that view. Most of the problems from
using System Restore arise from users not understanding the mechanics
of System Restore and from third party security software ( Norton is
a major offender ) who have written software which does not deal with
it's relationship with System Restore in a responsible manner.


Oh? I have no doubt about Norton, but what does it do or doesn't do?
Just curious.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu


  #42  
Old March 11th 09, 01:03 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Daave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,568
Default What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro. SP2 with limited free disk spaces?

BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Terry R. typed on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:38:23 -0700:
... I keep SR turned off all the time. The main reason is SR has
failed me and too many clients when it was really needed, so it's a
false sense of security IMO, so why depend on it at all.


Strange! It has saved my and millions of others all of the time.


It has helped me, too.

A good backup schedule is by far the best protection.


Software backups are totally useless if your hardware fails. So that
isn't a good plan in my book. Only software and hardware backups are
the only way to go IMHO.


What do you mean by "hardware backup?"


  #43  
Old March 11th 09, 01:07 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro. SP2 with limited free disk spaces?

In ,
Gerry typed on Mon, 9 Mar 2009 23:18:38 -0000:
Phillip

I can see why you are having problems.

The first thing is that volumes C and D do not have the normal 4 kb
cluster size. This can occur in certain situations if they are
converted from FAT32 to NTFS without taking precautions. See the link
which follows: http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/ntfscvt.htm
The Default Cluster Size for the NTFS and FAT File Systems
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314878/en-us

Other than reformatting I do not know how to correct the error. Of
course with your C volume that involves reinstalling Windows XP and
all that entails...


I disagree! I have used NTFS 512kb clusters before and I see nothing
wrong with them. Also Partition Magic can change the cluster sizes on
the fly. Although *not* always successfully I might add.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu


  #44  
Old March 11th 09, 02:26 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Gerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,437
Default What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro. SP2 with limited free disk spaces?

Bill

http://bertk.mvps.org/html/srfail.html


--


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
Gerry typed on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:45:59 -0000:
Phillip

System Restore -"I guess it is the same reason why you think it is
useless."
I have not expressed any views on the functionality of System
Restore. I do not subscribe to that view. Most of the problems from
using System Restore arise from users not understanding the mechanics
of System Restore and from third party security software ( Norton is
a major offender ) who have written software which does not deal with
it's relationship with System Restore in a responsible manner.


Oh? I have no doubt about Norton, but what does it do or doesn't do? Just
curious.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu



  #45  
Old March 11th 09, 02:30 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Gerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,437
Default What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro. SP2 with limited free disk spaces?

Bill

You will see a noticeable improvement if you can eliminate fragmentation but
this will only last for a while until you need to cleanup and defragment
again. I suspect that the preliminary disk cleanup helps as much as
defragmentation. Apart from resolving severe fragmentation defragmenting is
only one measure contributing to better system performance.

--


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
Gerry typed on Sat, 7 Mar 2009 22:24:04 -0000:
Like Patrick I have long been an advocate of using the Microsoft Disk
Defragmenter...


I actually have been using defraggers since the 80's and with the
exception of MFM drives, I *never* have seen an improvement from
defragging. My theory is the bus speed is slower than the reading of a
fragmented IDE drive anyway. Another possibility is that I only buy slow
CPU based machines. As I don't need Lear jet power to play DVDs.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.