Why wont XP Defragger place all data together?

The defragger in Win98 (actually an import from WinME), dont leave any
gaps in the data after it completes. But the one in XP leaves all kinds
of gaps. I've run it 6 times in a row.... Why cant it get all the data
put to the front of the drive?

One other thing, the XP defrag is a lot slower than the one from WinME?
It reminds me of the old one from Win3.1..... Slowwwwwwwww.......

I like the look of the one in Win98 better too, because you can see it
working, but that's not real important....

On 2/27/2014 7:51 PM, wrote:
The defragger in Win98 (actually an import from WinME), dont leave any
gaps in the data after it completes. But the one in XP leaves all kinds
of gaps. I've run it 6 times in a row.... Why cant it get all the data
put to the front of the drive?

One other thing, the XP defrag is a lot slower than the one from WinME?
It reminds me of the old one from Win3.1..... Slowwwwwwwww.......

I like the look of the one in Win98 better too, because you can see it
working, but that's not real important....


IIRC, the disk defragger in Windows 98 was licensed from Executive
Software International, Inc. It spawned Diskeeper, Inc., and marketed
its own version under the name of Diskeeper. For some reason or the
other, Microsoft was compelled to dissociate itself from the makers of
Diskeeper.

Today, Executive Software International, Inc., or Diskeeper, Inc., is
known as Condusive Technologies.

GR

On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 21:07:00 -0800, Ghostrider " 00 wrote:

On 2/27/2014 7:51 PM, wrote:
The defragger in Win98 (actually an import from WinME), dont leave any
gaps in the data after it completes. But the one in XP leaves all kinds
of gaps. I've run it 6 times in a row.... Why cant it get all the data
put to the front of the drive?

One other thing, the XP defrag is a lot slower than the one from WinME?
It reminds me of the old one from Win3.1..... Slowwwwwwwww.......

I like the look of the one in Win98 better too, because you can see it
working, but that's not real important....


IIRC, the disk defragger in Windows 98 was licensed from Executive
Software International, Inc. It spawned Diskeeper, Inc., and marketed
its own version under the name of Diskeeper. For some reason or the
other, Microsoft was compelled to dissociate itself from the makers of
Diskeeper.

Today, Executive Software International, Inc., or Diskeeper, Inc., is
known as Condusive Technologies.


Interesting.....
I seem to recall hearing something about this back in the Win3.x days...

You'd think MS would have just bought the company, they can afford it.
I'm not too pleased with the XP defragger, when compared top the Win98
version, especially the speed of it. (I'm actually referring to the one
from WinME, which anyone who knows anything about Win98, put the ME one
on their computer). It was the fastest and the last time it was used.
Win2k has the same as XP.

I always liked watchin those boxes move around too....
There's nothing to watch in XP or 2K.
I dont know what the newer versions of Wondows use.

On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 23:26:15 -0600, wrote:

On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 21:07:00 -0800, Ghostrider " 00 wrote:

On 2/27/2014 7:51 PM, wrote:
The defragger in Win98 (actually an import from WinME), dont leave any
gaps in the data after it completes. But the one in XP leaves all kinds
of gaps. I've run it 6 times in a row.... Why cant it get all the data
put to the front of the drive?

One other thing, the XP defrag is a lot slower than the one from WinME?
It reminds me of the old one from Win3.1..... Slowwwwwwwww.......

I like the look of the one in Win98 better too, because you can see it
working, but that's not real important....


IIRC, the disk defragger in Windows 98 was licensed from Executive
Software International, Inc. It spawned Diskeeper, Inc., and marketed
its own version under the name of Diskeeper. For some reason or the
other, Microsoft was compelled to dissociate itself from the makers of
Diskeeper.

Today, Executive Software International, Inc., or Diskeeper, Inc., is
known as Condusive Technologies.


Interesting.....
I seem to recall hearing something about this back in the Win3.x days...

You'd think MS would have just bought the company, they can afford it.
I'm not too pleased with the XP defragger, when compared top the Win98
version, especially the speed of it. (I'm actually referring to the one
from WinME, which anyone who knows anything about Win98, put the ME one
on their computer).

You should really just call it the ME defragger then. I had no idea
what you meant in your OP.

It's certainly absurd to say that "anyone who knows anything about
Win98, put the ME one on their computer".

It was the fastest and the last time it was used.
Win2k has the same as XP.

I always liked watchin those boxes move around too....

Yes. Me too. I also had Norton defragger and it would put many of
the files at the other end of the disk, while win98 put them all near
the start. So if one were perverse, he could alternate between 98 and
norton and there was always a lot of defragging-work to do.

There's nothing to watch in XP or 2K.
I dont know what the newer versions of Wondows use.

On 2014-02-28, wrote:
The defragger in Win98 (actually an import from WinME), dont leave any
gaps in the data after it completes. But the one in XP leaves all kinds
of gaps. I've run it 6 times in a row.... Why cant it get all the data
put to the front of the drive?

One other thing, the XP defrag is a lot slower than the one from WinME?
It reminds me of the old one from Win3.1..... Slowwwwwwwww.......

I like the look of the one in Win98 better too, because you can see it
working, but that's not real important....

There are some third party defraggers that give more control over
defragmenting, and give a visual representation while working.
One I like a lot is the portable version of Defraggler by Piriform,
who also make Ccleaner.
Portable and Slim (no toolbar) versions can be downloaded from
http://www.piriform.com/defraggler/builds

--
http://rr.www.cistron.nl/ -!- http://www.rr.dds.nl/
http://www.dread.demon.nl/

wrote:
The defragger in Win98 (actually an import from WinME), dont leave any
gaps in the data after it completes. But the one in XP leaves all kinds
of gaps. I've run it 6 times in a row.... Why cant it get all the data
put to the front of the drive?

One other thing, the XP defrag is a lot slower than the one from WinME?
It reminds me of the old one from Win3.1..... Slowwwwwwwww.......

I like the look of the one in Win98 better too, because you can see it
working, but that's not real important....

Use Auslogics. Works like old defrager and is faster than the one with
WinXP. Auslogics also has a registry cleaner and both programs are free.
Google it.

On 02/27/2014 11:07 PM, Ghostrider 00 wrote:


IIRC, the disk defragger in Windows 98 was licensed from Executive
Software International, Inc. It spawned Diskeeper, Inc., and marketed
its own version under the name of Diskeeper. For some reason or the
other, Microsoft was compelled to dissociate itself from the makers of
Diskeeper.

Today, Executive Software International, Inc., or Diskeeper, Inc., is
known as Condusive Technologies.

GR






Also, Win98 is installed on a Fat32 partition

and XP is more than likely on NTFS


NTFS will have an MFT (Master file table) that will not get defragged,
but that will have little if any effect on performance.


Bottom line: XP defrag is good enough

Henry formulated the question :
wrote:
The defragger in Win98 (actually an import from WinME), dont leave any
gaps in the data after it completes. But the one in XP leaves all kinds
of gaps. I've run it 6 times in a row.... Why cant it get all the data
put to the front of the drive?

One other thing, the XP defrag is a lot slower than the one from WinME?
It reminds me of the old one from Win3.1..... Slowwwwwwwww.......

I like the look of the one in Win98 better too, because you can see it
working, but that's not real important....

Use Auslogics. Works like old defrager and is faster than the one with
WinXP. Auslogics also has a registry cleaner and both programs are free.
Google it.

+1 on this one. I use the portable version.

--
Zo

"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people
will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it."
-- Terry Pratchett (Diggers)

on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 23:26:15 -0600 typed in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general the following:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 21:07:00 -0800, Ghostrider " 00 wrote:

On 2/27/2014 7:51 PM, wrote:
The defragger in Win98 (actually an import from WinME), dont leave any
gaps in the data after it completes. But the one in XP leaves all kinds
of gaps. I've run it 6 times in a row.... Why cant it get all the data
put to the front of the drive?

One other thing, the XP defrag is a lot slower than the one from WinME?
It reminds me of the old one from Win3.1..... Slowwwwwwwww.......

I like the look of the one in Win98 better too, because you can see it
working, but that's not real important....


IIRC, the disk defragger in Windows 98 was licensed from Executive
Software International, Inc. It spawned Diskeeper, Inc., and marketed
its own version under the name of Diskeeper. For some reason or the
other, Microsoft was compelled to dissociate itself from the makers of
Diskeeper.

Today, Executive Software International, Inc., or Diskeeper, Inc., is
known as Condusive Technologies.


Interesting.....
I seem to recall hearing something about this back in the Win3.x days...

You'd think MS would have just bought the company, they can afford it.
I'm not too pleased with the XP defragger, when compared top the Win98
version, especially the speed of it. (I'm actually referring to the one
from WinME, which anyone who knows anything about Win98, put the ME one
on their computer). It was the fastest and the last time it was used.
Win2k has the same as XP.

I always liked watchin those boxes move around too....
There's nothing to watch in XP or 2K.
I dont know what the newer versions of Wondows use.

Look for Defragger - uses the Windows defragging API, and still
has the pretty boxes. And a "Drive Health" report.

--
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.

wrote:

The defragger in Win98 (actually an import from WinME), dont leave any
gaps in the data after it completes. But the one in XP leaves all kinds
of gaps. I've run it 6 times in a row.... Why cant it get all the data
put to the front of the drive?

Don't worry about it. This is normal. It's one of the differences
between how FAT32 and NTFS filesystems work. In NTFS, it actually
reduces file fragmentation. It also reduces overall hard drive ware and
tear by distributing writes over the entire hard drive instead of
concentrating on one particular region as a defragged FAT32 drive are
prone to do.

One other thing, the XP defrag is a lot slower than the one from WinME?
It reminds me of the old one from Win3.1..... Slowwwwwwwww.......

Nature of the beast with NTFS defrags. But with NTFS, you shouldn't
need to defrag all that often. So, it balances out.

I like the look of the one in Win98 better too, because you can see it
working, but that's not real important....

Don't get caught up in the pretty graphics. The important thing is
improving read/write efficiency whether you're using FAT32 or NTFS.
FYI: NTFS is faster and more efficient than FAT32.

Stef

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:15:20 +0000 (UTC), Stef
wrote:

wrote:

The defragger in Win98 (actually an import from WinME), dont leave any
gaps in the data after it completes. But the one in XP leaves all kinds
of gaps. I've run it 6 times in a row.... Why cant it get all the data
put to the front of the drive?

Don't worry about it. This is normal. It's one of the differences
between how FAT32 and NTFS filesystems work. In NTFS, it actually
reduces file fragmentation. It also reduces overall hard drive ware and
tear by distributing writes over the entire hard drive instead of
concentrating on one particular region as a defragged FAT32 drive are
prone to do.

One other thing, the XP defrag is a lot slower than the one from WinME?
It reminds me of the old one from Win3.1..... Slowwwwwwwww.......

Nature of the beast with NTFS defrags. But with NTFS, you shouldn't
need to defrag all that often. So, it balances out.

I like the look of the one in Win98 better too, because you can see it
working, but that's not real important....

Don't get caught up in the pretty graphics. The important thing is
improving read/write efficiency whether you're using FAT32 or NTFS.
FYI: NTFS is faster and more efficient than FAT32.

Stef

The drive in this old Compaq is formatted to Fat32. That's how I got
it. The drive in my laptop, is NTFS. Both defrag the same. Same slow
speed, same appearance. Actually the secondary boot on my Win98
computer is Win2000. That looks and acts just like the one in XP. But
Win2000 is said to be the earliest version of XP anyhow, which makes
sense, just like Win95 was where Win98 began.

While Fat32 is supposed to be more efficient, I personally prefer the
Fat32, simply because if the system was to crash, I can still access the
data from booting to Dos. I wonder if it would make the most sense to
set the C: drive, to NTFS, keep that a small partition, and use it
mostly just for the OS and programs. Then use Fat32 partitions and/or a
second physicla HD for data storage, and have that set to Fat32???

wrote:
The defragger in Win98 (actually an import from WinME), dont leave any
gaps in the data after it completes. But the one in XP leaves all kinds
of gaps. I've run it 6 times in a row.... Why cant it get all the data
put to the front of the drive?

One other thing, the XP defrag is a lot slower than the one from WinME?
It reminds me of the old one from Win3.1..... Slowwwwwwwww.......

I like the look of the one in Win98 better too, because you can see it
working, but that's not real important....


There are two properties, defragmenting and optimizing.

Defragmenting, takes a file and locates all the clusters
so they are contiguous. This helps reduce the time to read
the file later. If the file is fragmented, more head movement
on the disk drive, is required to find all the pieces.

Optimizing, is the moving or sorting of files in a particular way.
"Slam to the left", is a popular optimization strategy for
partitions, reducing the average size of head movements as
long as the partition is only partially full.

And example of a "pure defragmenter" is Sysinternals "contig.exe".
It attempts to place all the pieces of a file next to one
another, but it doesn't care what part of the partition
gets the file. The file could end up over on the right.
The contig.exe does no optimization at all, and that's why it
is the purest defragmenter. Most other tools you've used,
will include optimization (even if it's relatively pitiful).

The WinXP defragmenter, has two kinds of optimization. It may rearrange
things like ".pf" prefetch files, when the system defragmenter is used.
And, it also throws the files to the left. For files which are
"movable".

The WinXP one has a display. The top bar shows the "before", and the bottom
bar shows the "after". And one of the colors identifies "unmovable"
content. The unmovable things might be metafiles, or things
the OS is currently using (pagefile.sys).

http://i59.tinypic.com/2rqyr1s.gif

Windows has an API for data movement, used by the defragmenters.
It was initially added to the OS, after Microsoft worked with one
of the defragmenter companies. The data movement is noteworthy,
in that only tiny movements are supported, like reading and writing
of 4KB and 64KB chunks. This is one of the reasons defragmentation
can be slow, because inefficient commands are given to the hard drive.
The result is data transfer rates in the 1 MB/sec to 3 MB/sec range.
The purpose of doing the small movements, is to make defragmentation
"power safe". If the power goes off, the idea is, the partition survives.
Even though data is in transit. If really large data movements were
attempted, that property might no longer be true.

*******

Tools:

JKDefrag, is a free defragmenter, with various optimization policies.
It uses an exotic policy, of keeping "large" files in a group
on the right hand side of the partition. It also has command line
options, to "slam to the left", where it doesn't worry about
file fragmentation while doing so. This is convenient if you're
in a hurry to do a partition shrink, and don't care what the
resulting (small) partition looks like. That's useful for
data partitions you don't plan on growing, where the files will
be left to stagnate on the partition.

Raxco PerfectDisk is a commercial application. A trial is available.
Raxco can move more metadata files, than the Windows defragmenters
would agree to. And it does that stuff, without a reboot or anything.
It's pretty amazing.

Partition Manager applications, they "slam to the left" as well, but
I doubt they spend any time "making the data pretty". So a Partition
Manager can move stuff, but the level of fragmentation could
actually increase while it is doing it. That's because when you
buy a Partition Manager, its sole job is just to resize partitions
as quickly as possible. No display is offered, to show the level
of fragmentation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ntfs

"Resizing

Starting with Windows Vista, Microsoft added the built-in ability
to shrink or expand a partition, but this capability is limited
because it will not relocate page file fragments or files that
have been marked as unmovable. So shrinking will often require
relocating or disabling any page file, the index of Windows Search,
and any Shadow Copy used by System Restore. Various third-party
tools are capable of resizing NTFS partitions."

*******

If you're a "neat freak", you can spend time moving the Windows
Search index, flushing all the System Restore points, disable VSS,
disable the pagefile.sys, and prepare the partition for defragmentation.
But doing all of that, you may still run into a few tiny things
that won't move. Which of course, would drive you crazy :-)

Some of the patterns you see on the disk, exist because the file
system is reserving space for the $MFT to grow. And then the
defragmentation you attempted, may not successfully slam everything
to the left.

*******

Before showing this section, I have to make the usual disclaimers:

1) Always back up, before doing intensive data movements.
CHKDSK, defragmentation, partition management, may move lots
of data around. And the programs can severely mess up your
disk, once in a while.

2) When using a new and untested program, the risks are much
higher on the first run. You don't really know what's going to
happen. Only after a lot of usage, will you begin to trust
the new tool you're testing.

So before trying these things, you'd want a backup in hand. Just in case.

http://www.kessels.com/JkDefrag/ --- Jerome Kessels free defrag, with source
Good for experiments

http://www.mydefrag.com/Manual-DownloadAndInstall.html --- New version by JK, no src

Example of a command line invocation (using the first package)

JkDefrag.exe -a 5 -d 2 -q c:

-a = optimize mode
-d = debug level --- places details in a .log file
-q = quit_on_finish

-a N
1 = Analyze, do not defragment and do not optimize.
2 = Defragment only, do not optimize.
3 = Defragment and fast optimize [recommended]. --- default
5 = Force together.
6 = Move to end of disk.
7 = Optimize by sorting all files by name (folder + filename).
8 = Optimize by sorting all files by size (smallest first).
9 = Optimize by sorting all files by last access (newest first).
10 = Optimize by sorting all files by last change (oldest first).
11 = Optimize by sorting all files by creation time (oldest first).

-d N
0 = Fatal errors.
1 = Warning messages [default].
2 = General progress messages.
3 = Detailed progress messages.
4 = Detailed file information.
5 = Detailed gap-filling messages.
6 = Detailed gap-finding messages.

I would make a backup first, then play with the program,
to see what it can do for you.

I just tried the "-a 5" option on C: in a WinXP test VM,
and it does "slam to the left". It cannot move the "green bar"
of pagefile.sys, and didn't appear to try in this case.
The version of JKDefrag I used was 3.36.

HTH,
Paul

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 07:50:01 -0500, Zo wrote:

Henry formulated the question :
wrote:
The defragger in Win98 (actually an import from WinME), dont leave any
gaps in the data after it completes. But the one in XP leaves all kinds
of gaps. I've run it 6 times in a row.... Why cant it get all the data
put to the front of the drive?

One other thing, the XP defrag is a lot slower than the one from WinME?
It reminds me of the old one from Win3.1..... Slowwwwwwwww.......

I like the look of the one in Win98 better too, because you can see it
working, but that's not real important....

Use Auslogics. Works like old defrager and is faster than the one with
WinXP. Auslogics also has a registry cleaner and both programs are free.
Google it.

+1 on this one. I use the portable version.

This thread reminded me that I wanted to defrag, but when it was 94%
done with the built-in XP defrag analysiing, it found some file that
had some problem with it. I clicked OK on the message box, thinking
the program woudl skip this file and keep going. Instead it stopped and
I have to start from the beginning. I don't even need the file.

Do you think Auslogics or some other defrag will handle a bad file
without stopping the program?

micky formulated the question :
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 07:50:01 -0500, Zo wrote:

Henry formulated the question :
wrote:
The defragger in Win98 (actually an import from WinME), dont leave any
gaps in the data after it completes. But the one in XP leaves all kinds
of gaps. I've run it 6 times in a row.... Why cant it get all the data
put to the front of the drive?

One other thing, the XP defrag is a lot slower than the one from WinME?
It reminds me of the old one from Win3.1..... Slowwwwwwwww.......

I like the look of the one in Win98 better too, because you can see it
working, but that's not real important....

Use Auslogics. Works like old defrager and is faster than the one with
WinXP. Auslogics also has a registry cleaner and both programs are free.
Google it.

+1 on this one. I use the portable version.

This thread reminded me that I wanted to defrag, but when it was 94%
done with the built-in XP defrag analysiing, it found some file that
had some problem with it. I clicked OK on the message box, thinking
the program woudl skip this file and keep going. Instead it stopped and
I have to start from the beginning. I don't even need the file.

Do you think Auslogics or some other defrag will handle a bad file
without stopping the program?

The only person who will know the answer to that is you. Give it a try
and let us know how it turns out.

Here's the link http://www.auslogics.com/en/software/disk-defrag/

Portable version is near the bottom of the page on the right.

--
Zo

"Christmas tag sale. Handmade gifts for the hard-to-find person."

micky wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 07:50:01 -0500, Zo wrote:

Henry formulated the question :
wrote:
The defragger in Win98 (actually an import from WinME), dont leave any
gaps in the data after it completes. But the one in XP leaves all kinds
of gaps. I've run it 6 times in a row.... Why cant it get all the data
put to the front of the drive?

One other thing, the XP defrag is a lot slower than the one from WinME?
It reminds me of the old one from Win3.1..... Slowwwwwwwww.......

I like the look of the one in Win98 better too, because you can see it
working, but that's not real important....

Use Auslogics. Works like old defrager and is faster than the one with
WinXP. Auslogics also has a registry cleaner and both programs are free.
Google it.
+1 on this one. I use the portable version.

This thread reminded me that I wanted to defrag, but when it was 94%
done with the built-in XP defrag analysiing, it found some file that
had some problem with it. I clicked OK on the message box, thinking
the program woudl skip this file and keep going. Instead it stopped and
I have to start from the beginning. I don't even need the file.

Do you think Auslogics or some other defrag will handle a bad file
without stopping the program?


Um, don't do that!

Any time data-intensive things are run, even the tools
themselves will use CHKDSK to determine whether it's "safe"
or not. For example, Partition Managers which are about to
resize things, check whether the file system is intact
first, before doing anything dangerous.

The same logic should apply to defragmenters. You shouldn't
run a defragmenter, unless the file system is solid.

I would say you have a much more serious problem than
making the partition pretty, and should attend to that error first.
If you think deleting the file is going to fix it, go right
ahead. My guess is, it'll still be broken when you're done.
Run CHKDSK again and see.

While you're at it, you might check your SMART statistics,
and see if the hardware is good. It could be, that the
error detected, is related to actual bad hardware. And
you don't want to use either CHKDSK or defragmenters
on flaky hardware. Install a new disk, before letting
those kinds of tools loose.

(The ones in red boxes, should be zero.)

http://oi62.tinypic.com/2wghquh.jpg

Since this has *never* happened to me here, I'd be at least
a bit curious as to the root cause. You might actually
be in serious trouble (a day away from losing a hard drive).

Paul