Defrag Win764bit

On 01/12/2010 19:01, Alias wrote:
On 12/01/2010 07:19 PM, Jack wrote:

"Turtle" wrote in message
m...
Hi everyone,

I am using Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit.
Am I better off using the Windows 7 Defragmention proram or can anyone
recomend a better program for this 64 bit Version?

The reason I ask is because when I used Windows Vista I used the O&O
Defragmention proram and had bad expierences.

Unless you're using FAT32, don't worry about it. NTFS disks run years
without defragging.

You're ill informed and there was no reason why you should have posted
this misinformation three times.


Quite agree! My 650MB NTFS C drive needs defragging quite regularly. I
constantly copy 4 or 5 DVDs at a time to it, and then erase them after
burning.

Ed

On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:36:03 +0000, Ed Cryer
wrote:

On 01/12/2010 19:01, Alias wrote:
On 12/01/2010 07:19 PM, Jack wrote:

"Turtle" wrote in message
m...
Hi everyone,

I am using Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit.
Am I better off using the Windows 7 Defragmention proram or can anyone
recomend a better program for this 64 bit Version?

The reason I ask is because when I used Windows Vista I used the O&O
Defragmention proram and had bad expierences.

Unless you're using FAT32, don't worry about it. NTFS disks run years
without defragging.

You're ill informed and there was no reason why you should have posted
this misinformation three times.


Quite agree! My 650MB NTFS C drive needs defragging quite regularly. I
constantly copy 4 or 5 DVDs at a time to it, and then erase them after
burning.

First, before anyone asks, you obviously meant 650GB.

What criteria are you using to determine that your drive "needs"
defragging? What symptoms are you seeing before, and what happens
after?

I have a system here that gets used heavily, was built about 3.5 years
ago, is running XP Pro SP3, has never been defragged in its life, and
Perfect Disk shows the system drive to be less than 1% fragmented. I
have another system, built about 2.5 years ago, also running XP Pro
SP3, last defragged about 1.5 years ago (with no performance
improvement noted), and now Perfect Disk reports that the system drive
is 1% fragmented. In both cases, Perfect Disk says no defrag is
needed.

My Win 7 system has only been running about 4 months now and is
primarily a media center, so usage is light and defrag will never be
needed.

I'm just curious what all of this defragging being discussed is
actually accomplishing. Windows already does a decent job of
optimizing its primary hard drive, and its well known that the NTFS
filesystem doesn't suffer much from file fragmentation (relative to
FAT, anyway), so I'm not sure what the benefits are. For the record, I
don't think defragging does any harm, (meaning I think it's safe and
doesn't hurt performance except during the actual defrag process), but
I'm also not convinced it does measurable good on current systems.
It's certainly nothing a person would notice without fairly
sophisticated measuring tools.

--

Char Jackson

On 12/01/2010 11:13 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:36:03 +0000, Ed
wrote:

On 01/12/2010 19:01, Alias wrote:
On 12/01/2010 07:19 PM, Jack wrote:

wrote in message
m...
Hi everyone,

I am using Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit.
Am I better off using the Windows 7 Defragmention proram or can anyone
recomend a better program for this 64 bit Version?

The reason I ask is because when I used Windows Vista I used the O&O
Defragmention proram and had bad expierences.

Unless you're using FAT32, don't worry about it. NTFS disks run years
without defragging.

You're ill informed and there was no reason why you should have posted
this misinformation three times.


Quite agree! My 650MB NTFS C drive needs defragging quite regularly. I
constantly copy 4 or 5 DVDs at a time to it, and then erase them after
burning.

First, before anyone asks, you obviously meant 650GB.

What criteria are you using to determine that your drive "needs"
defragging? What symptoms are you seeing before, and what happens
after?

I have a system here that gets used heavily, was built about 3.5 years
ago, is running XP Pro SP3, has never been defragged in its life, and
Perfect Disk shows the system drive to be less than 1% fragmented. I
have another system, built about 2.5 years ago, also running XP Pro
SP3, last defragged about 1.5 years ago (with no performance
improvement noted), and now Perfect Disk reports that the system drive
is 1% fragmented. In both cases, Perfect Disk says no defrag is
needed.

My Win 7 system has only been running about 4 months now and is
primarily a media center, so usage is light and defrag will never be
needed.

I'm just curious what all of this defragging being discussed is
actually accomplishing. Windows already does a decent job of
optimizing its primary hard drive, and its well known that the NTFS
filesystem doesn't suffer much from file fragmentation (relative to
FAT, anyway), so I'm not sure what the benefits are. For the record, I
don't think defragging does any harm, (meaning I think it's safe and
doesn't hurt performance except during the actual defrag process), but
I'm also not convinced it does measurable good on current systems.
It's certainly nothing a person would notice without fairly
sophisticated measuring tools.


You've never seen a severely fragmented drive, then. I have seen
machines running XP with over 70% fragmented. Trust me, they booted up
much quicker and had *much* better performance after a defrag and you
didn't need any measuring tools other than your brain and eyes.

--
Alias

On 12/01/2010 08:38 PM, Dave "Crash" Dummy wrote:
R. C. White wrote:
?Hi, Andrew.

safe way: copy data to new location first, then adjust directory info
to point to it, then free up old space. Given NTFS's robustness and
ability

Yes. I'm a non-techie, but I think that's what they mean when they say
that NTFS is a "journaling" file system - unlike FATx.

So it SHOULD be safe from unexpected power loss: Even if the write is
interrupted, the original is still accessible; even if the
interruption happens before or during deletion of the old file , the
new copy has already been written and is safe in its new location. ;)

I suppose it's still possible to lose a file - or the pointer to it,
but NTFS has reduced the risk to NEAR zero. But I still use a UPS for
that and many other reasons.

A UPS isn't needed so much to protect the stuff on disk as to protect
the stuff in memory that hasn't been written to disk, yet.

It's handy during a thunderstorm with lightning. I lost a motherboard
that way and it didn't take much to convince me a UPS was in order.

--
Alias

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 23:12:47 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:34:12 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:05:27 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:12:12 -0600, Andrew Rossmann
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Whatever you use make sure you invest in an uninterruptible power supply.
Power out during a defragmentation operation equals data loss.

It shouldn't be much different than regular data access during a power
outage. They use a standard Windows API. I assume it probably uses the
safe way: copy data to new location first, then adjust directory info to
point to it, then free up old space. Given NTFS's robustness and ability
to keep track of incopmlete changes, it will probably fix itself.

Andrew's description has been my experience. Using Perfect Disk a few
years ago, the power blinked off for a second, but it was long enough
that the computer rebooted. I ran chkdsk and it found no issues, so I
restarted Perfect Disk and it continued where it left off.

And what did you say during that second? Something as strong as "Oh my
goodness"?

That must have been a very scary moment...

It's a bit of an 'oh, crap' moment, but I'm very level headed and
don't get excited about things like that. It's not as bad as that
sinking feeling you get when you intend to clone one disk to another
and you end up cloning the empty disk onto the full one, resulting in
two empty disks. ;-)

This is obviously an instantiation of the Char Jackson Theory of
Relativity :-)

Yes, that one is worse. But I might not be as calm as you in the first
case either...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Hi everyone,

It does it when the computer is idle.


But only if you have the defrag scheduler set to yes.


Thanks for the answers.

My Scheduler is set weekly for 1 o`'clock in the morning.
I never have the computer on at that time.

John

On 12/02/2010 10:20 AM, Turtle wrote:
Hi everyone,

It does it when the computer is idle.


But only if you have the defrag scheduler set to yes.


Thanks for the answers.

My Scheduler is set weekly for 1 o`'clock in the morning.
I never have the computer on at that time.

John


It will take up the job after you turn on the computer the next day when
it's idle.

--
Alias

Hi,

It will take up the job after you turn on the computer the next day when
it's idle.

OK, I was not sure if it works that way or not.


Thanx
John

On 02/12/2010 00:21, Alias wrote:
On 12/01/2010 11:13 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:36:03 +0000, Ed
wrote:

On 01/12/2010 19:01, Alias wrote:
On 12/01/2010 07:19 PM, Jack wrote:

wrote in message
m...
Hi everyone,

I am using Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit.
Am I better off using the Windows 7 Defragmention proram or can
anyone
recomend a better program for this 64 bit Version?

The reason I ask is because when I used Windows Vista I used the O&O
Defragmention proram and had bad expierences.

Unless you're using FAT32, don't worry about it. NTFS disks run years
without defragging.

You're ill informed and there was no reason why you should have posted
this misinformation three times.


Quite agree! My 650MB NTFS C drive needs defragging quite regularly. I
constantly copy 4 or 5 DVDs at a time to it, and then erase them after
burning.

First, before anyone asks, you obviously meant 650GB.

What criteria are you using to determine that your drive "needs"
defragging? What symptoms are you seeing before, and what happens
after?

I have a system here that gets used heavily, was built about 3.5 years
ago, is running XP Pro SP3, has never been defragged in its life, and
Perfect Disk shows the system drive to be less than 1% fragmented. I
have another system, built about 2.5 years ago, also running XP Pro
SP3, last defragged about 1.5 years ago (with no performance
improvement noted), and now Perfect Disk reports that the system drive
is 1% fragmented. In both cases, Perfect Disk says no defrag is
needed.

My Win 7 system has only been running about 4 months now and is
primarily a media center, so usage is light and defrag will never be
needed.

I'm just curious what all of this defragging being discussed is
actually accomplishing. Windows already does a decent job of
optimizing its primary hard drive, and its well known that the NTFS
filesystem doesn't suffer much from file fragmentation (relative to
FAT, anyway), so I'm not sure what the benefits are. For the record, I
don't think defragging does any harm, (meaning I think it's safe and
doesn't hurt performance except during the actual defrag process), but
I'm also not convinced it does measurable good on current systems.
It's certainly nothing a person would notice without fairly
sophisticated measuring tools.


You've never seen a severely fragmented drive, then. I have seen
machines running XP with over 70% fragmented. Trust me, they booted up
much quicker and had *much* better performance after a defrag and you
didn't need any measuring tools other than your brain and eyes.


I thank you for your reply, Alias. It showed me Char Jackson's post as
well. For some reason I didn't get that, so I looked at recent posts and
found that I hadn't got any of the ones from him.
Then I tried in Google groups, but couldn't find this group in there.

I'll have to contact my news-server and ask him why his posts are
missing. Please give me the message ID plus date & time of this one
you've replied to.

Ed

On 12/02/2010 01:38 PM, Ed Cryer wrote:
On 02/12/2010 00:21, Alias wrote:
On 12/01/2010 11:13 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:36:03 +0000, Ed
wrote:

On 01/12/2010 19:01, Alias wrote:
On 12/01/2010 07:19 PM, Jack wrote:

wrote in message
m...
Hi everyone,

I am using Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit.
Am I better off using the Windows 7 Defragmention proram or can
anyone
recomend a better program for this 64 bit Version?

The reason I ask is because when I used Windows Vista I used the O&O
Defragmention proram and had bad expierences.

Unless you're using FAT32, don't worry about it. NTFS disks run years
without defragging.

You're ill informed and there was no reason why you should have posted
this misinformation three times.


Quite agree! My 650MB NTFS C drive needs defragging quite regularly. I
constantly copy 4 or 5 DVDs at a time to it, and then erase them after
burning.

First, before anyone asks, you obviously meant 650GB.

What criteria are you using to determine that your drive "needs"
defragging? What symptoms are you seeing before, and what happens
after?

I have a system here that gets used heavily, was built about 3.5 years
ago, is running XP Pro SP3, has never been defragged in its life, and
Perfect Disk shows the system drive to be less than 1% fragmented. I
have another system, built about 2.5 years ago, also running XP Pro
SP3, last defragged about 1.5 years ago (with no performance
improvement noted), and now Perfect Disk reports that the system drive
is 1% fragmented. In both cases, Perfect Disk says no defrag is
needed.

My Win 7 system has only been running about 4 months now and is
primarily a media center, so usage is light and defrag will never be
needed.

I'm just curious what all of this defragging being discussed is
actually accomplishing. Windows already does a decent job of
optimizing its primary hard drive, and its well known that the NTFS
filesystem doesn't suffer much from file fragmentation (relative to
FAT, anyway), so I'm not sure what the benefits are. For the record, I
don't think defragging does any harm, (meaning I think it's safe and
doesn't hurt performance except during the actual defrag process), but
I'm also not convinced it does measurable good on current systems.
It's certainly nothing a person would notice without fairly
sophisticated measuring tools.


You've never seen a severely fragmented drive, then. I have seen
machines running XP with over 70% fragmented. Trust me, they booted up
much quicker and had *much* better performance after a defrag and you
didn't need any measuring tools other than your brain and eyes.


I thank you for your reply, Alias. It showed me Char Jackson's post as
well. For some reason I didn't get that, so I looked at recent posts and
found that I hadn't got any of the ones from him.
Then I tried in Google groups, but couldn't find this group in there.

I'll have to contact my news-server and ask him why his posts are
missing. Please give me the message ID plus date & time of this one
you've replied to.

Ed


For some reason Eternal September has Char blocked. I know not why.
Perhaps they are blocking Easy News which is the ISP Char uses. I see
Char's posts using aioe.org but I always reply with Eternal September.
Easy News seems to hide the message ID.

--
Alias

On 02/12/2010 12:57, Alias wrote:
On 12/02/2010 01:38 PM, Ed Cryer wrote:
On 02/12/2010 00:21, Alias wrote:
On 12/01/2010 11:13 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:36:03 +0000, Ed
wrote:

On 01/12/2010 19:01, Alias wrote:
On 12/01/2010 07:19 PM, Jack wrote:

wrote in message
m...
Hi everyone,

I am using Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit.
Am I better off using the Windows 7 Defragmention proram or can
anyone
recomend a better program for this 64 bit Version?

The reason I ask is because when I used Windows Vista I used the
O&O
Defragmention proram and had bad expierences.

Unless you're using FAT32, don't worry about it. NTFS disks run
years
without defragging.

You're ill informed and there was no reason why you should have
posted
this misinformation three times.


Quite agree! My 650MB NTFS C drive needs defragging quite regularly. I
constantly copy 4 or 5 DVDs at a time to it, and then erase them after
burning.

First, before anyone asks, you obviously meant 650GB.

What criteria are you using to determine that your drive "needs"
defragging? What symptoms are you seeing before, and what happens
after?

I have a system here that gets used heavily, was built about 3.5 years
ago, is running XP Pro SP3, has never been defragged in its life, and
Perfect Disk shows the system drive to be less than 1% fragmented. I
have another system, built about 2.5 years ago, also running XP Pro
SP3, last defragged about 1.5 years ago (with no performance
improvement noted), and now Perfect Disk reports that the system drive
is 1% fragmented. In both cases, Perfect Disk says no defrag is
needed.

My Win 7 system has only been running about 4 months now and is
primarily a media center, so usage is light and defrag will never be
needed.

I'm just curious what all of this defragging being discussed is
actually accomplishing. Windows already does a decent job of
optimizing its primary hard drive, and its well known that the NTFS
filesystem doesn't suffer much from file fragmentation (relative to
FAT, anyway), so I'm not sure what the benefits are. For the record, I
don't think defragging does any harm, (meaning I think it's safe and
doesn't hurt performance except during the actual defrag process), but
I'm also not convinced it does measurable good on current systems.
It's certainly nothing a person would notice without fairly
sophisticated measuring tools.


You've never seen a severely fragmented drive, then. I have seen
machines running XP with over 70% fragmented. Trust me, they booted up
much quicker and had *much* better performance after a defrag and you
didn't need any measuring tools other than your brain and eyes.


I thank you for your reply, Alias. It showed me Char Jackson's post as
well. For some reason I didn't get that, so I looked at recent posts and
found that I hadn't got any of the ones from him.
Then I tried in Google groups, but couldn't find this group in there.

I'll have to contact my news-server and ask him why his posts are
missing. Please give me the message ID plus date & time of this one
you've replied to.

Ed


For some reason Eternal September has Char blocked. I know not why.
Perhaps they are blocking Easy News which is the ISP Char uses. I see
Char's posts using aioe.org but I always reply with Eternal September.
Easy News seems to hide the message ID.


Right, thanks. I've found him on aioe.org. I'll question Ray Banana
about it in e-s-support.

Ed

On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 10:54:35 +0100, Turtle wrote:

Hi,

It will take up the job after you turn on the computer the next day when
it's idle.

OK, I was not sure if it works that way or not.

That is a setting inside each schedule entry, so each entry can have its
own behavior.

That said, ISTRC that the defrag entry is set by default to work that
way.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Turtle wrote on 11/30/2010 09:18 ET :
Hi everyone,

I am using Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit.
Am I better off using the Windows 7 Defragmention proram or can anyone
recomend a better program for this 64 bit Version?

The reason I ask is because when I used Windows Vista I used the O&O
Defragmention proram and had bad expierences.

Thanks in advance.
John

O&O may not be a good option. Was the version you tried certified for W7?
Were your hard drives okay prior to the defrag?

A good quality third party automatic defragmenter is still better than the
Windows defragmenter because it would be faster, truly automatic, easier to
customize for each drive and defrag all the files without trouble.

Look up automatic defragmenters that have been certified my Microsoft and you
should be able to get a safe and reliable defrag utility.

On 02/12/2010 13:05, Ed Cryer wrote:
On 02/12/2010 12:57, Alias wrote:
On 12/02/2010 01:38 PM, Ed Cryer wrote:
On 02/12/2010 00:21, Alias wrote:
On 12/01/2010 11:13 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:36:03 +0000, Ed
wrote:

On 01/12/2010 19:01, Alias wrote:
On 12/01/2010 07:19 PM, Jack wrote:

wrote in message
m...
Hi everyone,

I am using Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit.
Am I better off using the Windows 7 Defragmention proram or can
anyone
recomend a better program for this 64 bit Version?

The reason I ask is because when I used Windows Vista I used the
O&O
Defragmention proram and had bad expierences.

Unless you're using FAT32, don't worry about it. NTFS disks run
years
without defragging.

You're ill informed and there was no reason why you should have
posted
this misinformation three times.


Quite agree! My 650MB NTFS C drive needs defragging quite
regularly. I
constantly copy 4 or 5 DVDs at a time to it, and then erase them
after
burning.

First, before anyone asks, you obviously meant 650GB.

What criteria are you using to determine that your drive "needs"
defragging? What symptoms are you seeing before, and what happens
after?

I have a system here that gets used heavily, was built about 3.5 years
ago, is running XP Pro SP3, has never been defragged in its life, and
Perfect Disk shows the system drive to be less than 1% fragmented. I
have another system, built about 2.5 years ago, also running XP Pro
SP3, last defragged about 1.5 years ago (with no performance
improvement noted), and now Perfect Disk reports that the system drive
is 1% fragmented. In both cases, Perfect Disk says no defrag is
needed.

My Win 7 system has only been running about 4 months now and is
primarily a media center, so usage is light and defrag will never be
needed.

I'm just curious what all of this defragging being discussed is
actually accomplishing. Windows already does a decent job of
optimizing its primary hard drive, and its well known that the NTFS
filesystem doesn't suffer much from file fragmentation (relative to
FAT, anyway), so I'm not sure what the benefits are. For the record, I
don't think defragging does any harm, (meaning I think it's safe and
doesn't hurt performance except during the actual defrag process), but
I'm also not convinced it does measurable good on current systems.
It's certainly nothing a person would notice without fairly
sophisticated measuring tools.


You've never seen a severely fragmented drive, then. I have seen
machines running XP with over 70% fragmented. Trust me, they booted up
much quicker and had *much* better performance after a defrag and you
didn't need any measuring tools other than your brain and eyes.


I thank you for your reply, Alias. It showed me Char Jackson's post as
well. For some reason I didn't get that, so I looked at recent posts and
found that I hadn't got any of the ones from him.
Then I tried in Google groups, but couldn't find this group in there.

I'll have to contact my news-server and ask him why his posts are
missing. Please give me the message ID plus date & time of this one
you've replied to.

Ed


For some reason Eternal September has Char blocked. I know not why.
Perhaps they are blocking Easy News which is the ISP Char uses. I see
Char's posts using aioe.org but I always reply with Eternal September.
Easy News seems to hide the message ID.


Right, thanks. I've found him on aioe.org. I'll question Ray Banana
about it in e-s-support.

Ed


Ray's answer;
"Oops. False lamietard positive due to a stray blank in the
regex. Fixed."

Well, that kind of leaves me in the dark! But Char has been promoted,
like a pawn reaching the eighth rank. He will henceforward appear on
another news-server!

First we take Manhattan, and then we take Berlin!

Ed

On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 22:02:50 +0000, Ed Cryer
wrote:

On 02/12/2010 13:05, Ed Cryer wrote:
For some reason Eternal September has Char blocked. I know not why.
Perhaps they are blocking Easy News which is the ISP Char uses. I see
Char's posts using aioe.org but I always reply with Eternal September.
Easy News seems to hide the message ID.


Right, thanks. I've found him on aioe.org. I'll question Ray Banana
about it in e-s-support.

Ed


Ray's answer;
"Oops. False lamietard positive due to a stray blank in the
regex. Fixed."

Well, that kind of leaves me in the dark! But Char has been promoted,
like a pawn reaching the eighth rank. He will henceforward appear on
another news-server!

First we take Manhattan, and then we take Berlin!

Ed

Cool, I guess. Thanks for following up.

--

Char Jackson