Weird XP defragger behavior.

"Twayne" wrote in
:

SNIP

Each defragger often has its own methodology. If A wants
everything perfectly contiguous, and B wants a space after
each file, then A will say B is 100% fragmented and B will
say A is 100% fragmented, and so on. That's not exactly
your situation, but I would worry about it IFF the
defraggers you use are reliable and accurate, which they
may not be since I've never heard of them. The XP
defragger works fine and is perfectly acceptable. I'd
question those other ones though and it's likely they have
their own methodologies different from XPs. Trust XP's
defragger, but understand none of them are likely reporting
anything "bad" near as your description goes.

Thanks for the further explanation. I will carefully experiment
with the Me defragger - it has always worked great in 9x, and
with the Auslogic one which someone said this about:

"WinXP defrag = A bicycle going through one foot of sticky mud.
Auslogics Disk Defrag = The Starship Enterprise at warp speed."

And it has excellent reviews, AND it has a window with all the
sectors showing like the 9x/Me MS defraggers do and which I feel
I need to see to feel secure.

Cheers and Season's Greetings.
t.

"Twayne" wrote in
:

SNIP

Each defragger often has its own methodology. If A wants
everything perfectly contiguous, and B wants a space after
each file, then A will say B is 100% fragmented and B will
say A is 100% fragmented, and so on. That's not exactly
your situation, but I would worry about it IFF the
defraggers you use are reliable and accurate, which they
may not be since I've never heard of them. The XP
defragger works fine and is perfectly acceptable. I'd
question those other ones though and it's likely they have
their own methodologies different from XPs. Trust XP's
defragger, but understand none of them are likely reporting
anything "bad" near as your description goes.

Thanks for the further explanation. I will carefully experiment
with the Me defragger - it has always worked great in 9x, and
with the Auslogic one which someone said this about:

"WinXP defrag = A bicycle going through one foot of sticky mud.
Auslogics Disk Defrag = The Starship Enterprise at warp speed."

And it has excellent reviews, AND it has a window with all the
sectors showing like the 9x/Me MS defraggers do and which I feel
I need to see to feel secure.

Cheers and Season's Greetings.
t.

In ,
thanatoid typed:
"Twayne" wrote in
:

SNIP

Each defragger often has its own methodology. If A wants
everything perfectly contiguous, and B wants a space after
each file, then A will say B is 100% fragmented and B will
say A is 100% fragmented, and so on. That's not exactly
your situation, but I would worry about it IFF the
defraggers you use are reliable and accurate, which they
may not be since I've never heard of them. The XP
defragger works fine and is perfectly acceptable. I'd
question those other ones though and it's likely they have
their own methodologies different from XPs. Trust XP's
defragger, but understand none of them are likely reporting
anything "bad" near as your description goes.

Thanks for the further explanation. I will carefully experiment
with the Me defragger - it has always worked great in 9x, and
with the Auslogic one which someone said this about:

Uhh, worked OK in 9x? Then you have formatted your XP disks as FAT? I
don't think a win9x program would work right on XP's normal NTFS system,
because it very likely didn't exist at that time and most likely couldn't
account for it. I'd be careful running a FAT took on an NTFS disk; if
that's what's going on.


"WinXP defrag = A bicycle going through one foot of sticky mud.
Auslogics Disk Defrag = The Starship Enterprise at warp speed."

LOL! Not sure I agree with that, but ... it is a minimal product without
any bells & whistles. Except for the newer defraggers around, I usually
found XPs defragger to be faster than other 3rd party tools. The newer
stuff though has jumped ahead of it.

And it has excellent reviews, AND it has a window with all the
sectors showing like the 9x/Me MS defraggers do and which I feel
I need to see to feel secure.

Well, like I said about FAT vs NTFS file systemsg.

Cheers and Season's Greetings.
t.

Happiness to all the world,

Twayne


--
--
We've already reached
tomorrow's yesterday
but we're still far away from
yesterday's tomorrow.

In ,
thanatoid typed:
"Twayne" wrote in
:

SNIP

Each defragger often has its own methodology. If A wants
everything perfectly contiguous, and B wants a space after
each file, then A will say B is 100% fragmented and B will
say A is 100% fragmented, and so on. That's not exactly
your situation, but I would worry about it IFF the
defraggers you use are reliable and accurate, which they
may not be since I've never heard of them. The XP
defragger works fine and is perfectly acceptable. I'd
question those other ones though and it's likely they have
their own methodologies different from XPs. Trust XP's
defragger, but understand none of them are likely reporting
anything "bad" near as your description goes.

Thanks for the further explanation. I will carefully experiment
with the Me defragger - it has always worked great in 9x, and
with the Auslogic one which someone said this about:

Uhh, worked OK in 9x? Then you have formatted your XP disks as FAT? I
don't think a win9x program would work right on XP's normal NTFS system,
because it very likely didn't exist at that time and most likely couldn't
account for it. I'd be careful running a FAT took on an NTFS disk; if
that's what's going on.


"WinXP defrag = A bicycle going through one foot of sticky mud.
Auslogics Disk Defrag = The Starship Enterprise at warp speed."

LOL! Not sure I agree with that, but ... it is a minimal product without
any bells & whistles. Except for the newer defraggers around, I usually
found XPs defragger to be faster than other 3rd party tools. The newer
stuff though has jumped ahead of it.

And it has excellent reviews, AND it has a window with all the
sectors showing like the 9x/Me MS defraggers do and which I feel
I need to see to feel secure.

Well, like I said about FAT vs NTFS file systemsg.

Cheers and Season's Greetings.
t.

Happiness to all the world,

Twayne


--
--
We've already reached
tomorrow's yesterday
but we're still far away from
yesterday's tomorrow.

"Twayne" wrote in
:

SNIP

Thanks for the further explanation. I will carefully
experiment with the Me defragger - it has always worked
great in 9x, and with the Auslogic one which someone said
this about:

Uhh, worked OK in 9x?

Yes, it is common advice in virtually every tweak site I have
seen to use the Me versions of scandisk and defrag, they usually
come as one file.

Then you have formatted your XP
disks as FAT?

FAT32. I don't trust NTFS.

I don't think a win9x program would work
right on XP's normal NTFS system, because it very likely
didn't exist at that time and most likely couldn't account
for it. I'd be careful running a FAT took on an NTFS disk;
if that's what's going on.

As you already know, no, but I tried it, and it wouldn't run,
the usual incomprehensible dependencies message. But I installed
the free Auslogics defragger and it is great - I'm gonna forget
about the XP defragger.

"WinXP defrag = A bicycle going through one foot of sticky
mud. Auslogics Disk Defrag = The Starship Enterprise at
warp speed."

LOL! Not sure I agree with that, but ... it is a minimal
product without any bells & whistles. Except for the newer
defraggers around, I usually found XPs defragger to be
faster than other 3rd party tools. The newer stuff though
has jumped ahead of it.

Try the Auslogics. I haven't actually defragged anything with
it, just analyzed - it WAS fast, and the interface and the
options and the info it gives are VERY promising.

t.

"Twayne" wrote in
:

SNIP

Thanks for the further explanation. I will carefully
experiment with the Me defragger - it has always worked
great in 9x, and with the Auslogic one which someone said
this about:

Uhh, worked OK in 9x?

Yes, it is common advice in virtually every tweak site I have
seen to use the Me versions of scandisk and defrag, they usually
come as one file.

Then you have formatted your XP
disks as FAT?

FAT32. I don't trust NTFS.

I don't think a win9x program would work
right on XP's normal NTFS system, because it very likely
didn't exist at that time and most likely couldn't account
for it. I'd be careful running a FAT took on an NTFS disk;
if that's what's going on.

As you already know, no, but I tried it, and it wouldn't run,
the usual incomprehensible dependencies message. But I installed
the free Auslogics defragger and it is great - I'm gonna forget
about the XP defragger.

"WinXP defrag = A bicycle going through one foot of sticky
mud. Auslogics Disk Defrag = The Starship Enterprise at
warp speed."

LOL! Not sure I agree with that, but ... it is a minimal
product without any bells & whistles. Except for the newer
defraggers around, I usually found XPs defragger to be
faster than other 3rd party tools. The newer stuff though
has jumped ahead of it.

Try the Auslogics. I haven't actually defragged anything with
it, just analyzed - it WAS fast, and the interface and the
options and the info it gives are VERY promising.

t.

In ,
thanatoid typed:
"Twayne" wrote in
:

SNIP

Thanks for the further explanation. I will carefully
experiment with the Me defragger - it has always worked
great in 9x, and with the Auslogic one which someone said
this about:

Uhh, worked OK in 9x?

Yes, it is common advice in virtually every tweak site I have
seen to use the Me versions of scandisk and defrag, they usually
come as one file.

Then you have formatted your XP
disks as FAT?

FAT32. I don't trust NTFS.

I don't think a win9x program would work
right on XP's normal NTFS system, because it very likely
didn't exist at that time and most likely couldn't account
for it. I'd be careful running a FAT took on an NTFS disk;
if that's what's going on.

As you already know, no, but I tried it, and it wouldn't run,
the usual incomprehensible dependencies message. But I installed
the free Auslogics defragger and it is great - I'm gonna forget
about the XP defragger.

"WinXP defrag = A bicycle going through one foot of sticky
mud. Auslogics Disk Defrag = The Starship Enterprise at
warp speed."

LOL! Not sure I agree with that, but ... it is a minimal
product without any bells & whistles. Except for the newer
defraggers around, I usually found XPs defragger to be
faster than other 3rd party tools. The newer stuff though
has jumped ahead of it.

Try the Auslogics. I haven't actually defragged anything with
it, just analyzed - it WAS fast, and the interface and the
options and the info it gives are VERY promising.

t.

Hmm, I just might do that if it'll handle NTFS. I can understand the logic
on abuot everything you said except IMO your distrust of NTFS isn't
necessary. With all the additional features and functions it provides I
consider it a great step forward from the day it came out.
One think I have often wondered about though: If your machine is all FAT,
whichever version of it you use, I wonder if that thwarts viruses and
malware at all? Expecially the ones that want to mess with the OS. Not that
the perpetrators would eve know in most cases; they're irrelevant anyway
once they've sent their spews.

Cheers,

Twayne`




--
--
We've already reached
tomorrow's yesterday
but we're still far away from
yesterday's tomorrow.

In ,
thanatoid typed:
"Twayne" wrote in
:

SNIP

Thanks for the further explanation. I will carefully
experiment with the Me defragger - it has always worked
great in 9x, and with the Auslogic one which someone said
this about:

Uhh, worked OK in 9x?

Yes, it is common advice in virtually every tweak site I have
seen to use the Me versions of scandisk and defrag, they usually
come as one file.

Then you have formatted your XP
disks as FAT?

FAT32. I don't trust NTFS.

I don't think a win9x program would work
right on XP's normal NTFS system, because it very likely
didn't exist at that time and most likely couldn't account
for it. I'd be careful running a FAT took on an NTFS disk;
if that's what's going on.

As you already know, no, but I tried it, and it wouldn't run,
the usual incomprehensible dependencies message. But I installed
the free Auslogics defragger and it is great - I'm gonna forget
about the XP defragger.

"WinXP defrag = A bicycle going through one foot of sticky
mud. Auslogics Disk Defrag = The Starship Enterprise at
warp speed."

LOL! Not sure I agree with that, but ... it is a minimal
product without any bells & whistles. Except for the newer
defraggers around, I usually found XPs defragger to be
faster than other 3rd party tools. The newer stuff though
has jumped ahead of it.

Try the Auslogics. I haven't actually defragged anything with
it, just analyzed - it WAS fast, and the interface and the
options and the info it gives are VERY promising.

t.

Hmm, I just might do that if it'll handle NTFS. I can understand the logic
on abuot everything you said except IMO your distrust of NTFS isn't
necessary. With all the additional features and functions it provides I
consider it a great step forward from the day it came out.
One think I have often wondered about though: If your machine is all FAT,
whichever version of it you use, I wonder if that thwarts viruses and
malware at all? Expecially the ones that want to mess with the OS. Not that
the perpetrators would eve know in most cases; they're irrelevant anyway
once they've sent their spews.

Cheers,

Twayne`




--
--
We've already reached
tomorrow's yesterday
but we're still far away from
yesterday's tomorrow.

"Twayne" wrote in
:

Hmm, I just might do that if it'll handle NTFS.

Of course it can, it is from 2006-2009.

http://www.auslogics.com/go/diskdefr...re/disk-defrag

I can
understand the logic on abuot everything you said except
IMO your distrust of NTFS isn't necessary. With all the
additional features and functions it provides I consider it
a great step forward from the day it came out.

Wait until some disaster strikes your HD drive. I understand
recovering NTFS data is a lot more complicated and sometimes
impossible, while recovering FAT32 data is a PITA but doable - I
have done it and survived!

One think I have often wondered about though: If your
machine is all FAT,
whichever version of it you use, I wonder if that thwarts
viruses and malware at all?

If I understand you correctly, you're implying that since most
current malware is written to **** up programs running on the
NTFS file system, I may be largely immune? I do not believe the
file system has anything to do with malware - unless you're
talking a totally different OS like Linux in which case
obviously a Win or Mac virus will do nothing. But within the
Windows environment, regardless of FAT12 (USB sticks IIRC),
FAT16 or FAT32, a badbad.dll is a badbad.dll and /will/ do
something badbad - I /think/!

So, if you actually saying viruses (etc.) are targeted at the
FILE SYSTEM, that's the first time I ever heard of that. And
even if it CAN be part of the virus design, I am sure that even
if people don't bother writing for FAT32 let alone FAT16 any
more, there those viruses are still out there and they /can/ be
picked up.

Still, In about 18 years I have gotten ONE virus which could not
do anything since I had all scripting files removed from win\sys
but it was a bitch to get rid of anyway. And ONE call-home file
from a cracked program (I try a LOT of programs out of
curiosity/boredom and I'm damned if I'm going to pay $50-$300
for a program I use for 5 minutes) and I caught it with an
install tracker and deleted it myself.

I do not have my AV app (ESET NOD32) on at all unless I am doing
an on-demand scan of stuff I've DL'd. Then I turn it off. I also
try not to forget to /think/ when I'm online ;-)