Defrag question please

I have a smoothly running XP computer. For some time now, when I check
the defrag in control panel and analyze for possible defrag, I keep
getting the same notice that says a defrag isn't needed on this drive.
Right now I'm showing 84% free space and defrag not needed. The last
defrag was several months ago, and even that was done with the defrag
message telling me it wasn't needed.
What's unusual is that I used to get a "defrag this drive message every
month or so. There have been no changes made on the system, but the
defrag message calling for a defrag doesn't come up any more.
Is this a known issue in XP, or is there something I can do to check
that the defrag program is actually working properly?
Many thanks
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

Periodically, Windows XP will automatically perform a partial,
behind the scenes defrag, while idle.

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

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...t/default.mspx

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

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

| I have a smoothly running XP computer. For some time now, when I check
| the defrag in control panel and analyze for possible defrag, I keep
| getting the same notice that says a defrag isn't needed on this drive.
| Right now I'm showing 84% free space and defrag not needed. The last
| defrag was several months ago, and even that was done with the defrag
| message telling me it wasn't needed.
| What's unusual is that I used to get a "defrag this drive message every
| month or so. There have been no changes made on the system, but the
| defrag message calling for a defrag doesn't come up any more.
| Is this a known issue in XP, or is there something I can do to check
| that the defrag program is actually working properly?
| Many thanks
| Dudley Henriques
| International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

Thank you.
DH
"Carey Frisch [MVP]" wrote in message
...
Periodically, Windows XP will automatically perform a partial,
behind the scenes defrag, while idle.

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

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...t/default.mspx

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

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

| I have a smoothly running XP computer. For some time now, when I
check
| the defrag in control panel and analyze for possible defrag, I keep
| getting the same notice that says a defrag isn't needed on this
drive.
| Right now I'm showing 84% free space and defrag not needed. The last
| defrag was several months ago, and even that was done with the
defrag
| message telling me it wasn't needed.
| What's unusual is that I used to get a "defrag this drive message
every
| month or so. There have been no changes made on the system, but the
| defrag message calling for a defrag doesn't come up any more.
| Is this a known issue in XP, or is there something I can do to check
| that the defrag program is actually working properly?
| Many thanks
| Dudley Henriques
| International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

Dudley Henriques wrote:

I have a smoothly running XP computer. For some time now, when I check
the defrag in control panel and analyze for possible defrag, I keep
getting the same notice that says a defrag isn't needed on this drive.
Right now I'm showing 84% free space and defrag not needed. The last
defrag was several months ago, and even that was done with the defrag
message telling me it wasn't needed.

I have always found the MS defrag far too likely to say not needed. Do
it at convenience - say maybe once a month


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)

Thanks Alex. I'm hearing that I should get the O&O defrag to replace the
XP cut down version of Diskkeeper. Do you concur with this thinking, or
is the XP supplied defrag sufficient?
Dudley
"Alex Nichol" wrote in message
...
Dudley Henriques wrote:

I have a smoothly running XP computer. For some time now, when I check
the defrag in control panel and analyze for possible defrag, I keep
getting the same notice that says a defrag isn't needed on this drive.
Right now I'm showing 84% free space and defrag not needed. The last
defrag was several months ago, and even that was done with the defrag
message telling me it wasn't needed.

I have always found the MS defrag far too likely to say not needed.
Do
it at convenience - say maybe once a month


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)

Good Morning,
Two things: (1) As has already been stated, I never pay any
attention to the programs statement on the necessity of defragmentation.
I just do it about every week or two. (2) Just what proof is offered to
justify purchase of another defragger? I have seen this subject
discussed many, many times WITHOUT any substantial facts presented to
support another defragger. Just one opinion against another! So long as
your computer has no problems you can relate specifically to the Windows
defragger, I suggest you keep your money.
Gene K

Dudley Henriques wrote:
Thanks Alex. I'm hearing that I should get the O&O defrag to replace the
XP cut down version of Diskkeeper. Do you concur with this thinking, or
is the XP supplied defrag sufficient?
Dudley
"Alex Nichol" wrote in message
...

Dudley Henriques wrote:


I have a smoothly running XP computer. For some time now, when I check
the defrag in control panel and analyze for possible defrag, I keep
getting the same notice that says a defrag isn't needed on this drive.
Right now I'm showing 84% free space and defrag not needed. The last
defrag was several months ago, and even that was done with the defrag
message telling me it wasn't needed.

I have always found the MS defrag far too likely to say not needed.
Do
it at convenience - say maybe once a month


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)

The primary reason I spent $20 on Diskeeper 9 was to have a defragger that
automatically defrags as needed. The best time to defrag is when 'needed'.
Regular scheduling is OK. It gets the defragging done. But I figure, why
do it when it is not needed.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Thanks Alex. I'm hearing that I should get the O&O defrag to replace the
XP cut down version of Diskkeeper. Do you concur with this thinking, or is
the XP supplied defrag sufficient?
Dudley
"Alex Nichol" wrote in message
...
Dudley Henriques wrote:

I have a smoothly running XP computer. For some time now, when I check
the defrag in control panel and analyze for possible defrag, I keep
getting the same notice that says a defrag isn't needed on this drive.
Right now I'm showing 84% free space and defrag not needed. The last
defrag was several months ago, and even that was done with the defrag
message telling me it wasn't needed.

I have always found the MS defrag far too likely to say not needed. Do
it at convenience - say maybe once a month


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)

Many thanks
D
"Not Me" wrote in message
...
Good Morning,
Two things: (1) As has already been stated, I never pay any
attention to the programs statement on the necessity of
defragmentation. I just do it about every week or two. (2) Just what
proof is offered to justify purchase of another defragger? I have seen
this subject discussed many, many times WITHOUT any substantial facts
presented to support another defragger. Just one opinion against
another! So long as your computer has no problems you can relate
specifically to the Windows defragger, I suggest you keep your money.
Gene K

Dudley Henriques wrote:
Thanks Alex. I'm hearing that I should get the O&O defrag to replace
the XP cut down version of Diskkeeper. Do you concur with this
thinking, or is the XP supplied defrag sufficient?
Dudley
"Alex Nichol" wrote in message
...

Dudley Henriques wrote:


I have a smoothly running XP computer. For some time now, when I
check
the defrag in control panel and analyze for possible defrag, I keep
getting the same notice that says a defrag isn't needed on this
drive.
Right now I'm showing 84% free space and defrag not needed. The last
defrag was several months ago, and even that was done with the
defrag
message telling me it wasn't needed.

I have always found the MS defrag far too likely to say not needed.
Do
it at convenience - say maybe once a month


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)

Thank you very much.
DH
"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
...
The primary reason I spent $20 on Diskeeper 9 was to have a defragger
that automatically defrags as needed. The best time to defrag is when
'needed'. Regular scheduling is OK. It gets the defragging done. But
I figure, why do it when it is not needed.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Thanks Alex. I'm hearing that I should get the O&O defrag to replace
the XP cut down version of Diskkeeper. Do you concur with this
thinking, or is the XP supplied defrag sufficient?
Dudley
"Alex Nichol" wrote in message
...
Dudley Henriques wrote:

I have a smoothly running XP computer. For some time now, when I
check
the defrag in control panel and analyze for possible defrag, I keep
getting the same notice that says a defrag isn't needed on this
drive.
Right now I'm showing 84% free space and defrag not needed. The last
defrag was several months ago, and even that was done with the
defrag
message telling me it wasn't needed.

I have always found the MS defrag far too likely to say not needed.
Do
it at convenience - say maybe once a month


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)

Not Me wrote:
Good Morning,
Two things: (1) As has already been stated, I never pay any
attention to the programs statement on the necessity of
defragmentation. I just do it about every week or two. (2) Just what
proof is offered to justify purchase of another defragger? I have
seen this subject discussed many, many times WITHOUT any substantial
facts presented to support another defragger. Just one opinion
against another! So long as your computer has no problems you can
relate specifically to the Windows defragger, I suggest you keep your
money. Gene K

Then you have either done no research at all - or you're an idiot.

I use Raxco PerfectDisk because

- It will defrag with only 1% free (Windows Defrag requires 20%)
- It monitors the drive and will perform a defrag, if required, when the
system is idle
- It can be scheduled
- It defrags boot and system files as well as data (the Windows defrag does
*NOT* defrag system, paging or boot files.
- It can be set to defrag in the background and doesn't hog the CPU.

That's five convincing arguments - how many can you counter?



--
Facon - the artificial bacon bits you get in Pizza Hut for sprinkling
on salads.

Dudley Henriques wrote:

Thanks Alex. I'm hearing that I should get the O&O defrag to replace the
XP cut down version of Diskkeeper. Do you concur with this thinking, or
is the XP supplied defrag sufficient?

Have not tried O&O myself, my preference is Perfect Disk, which is an
excellent one. I do have a strong preference for one, that like PD will
consolidate free space. And in that one, unlike the inbuilt or (I think
still) Diskeeper, does *not* require 15 % free space to work at all


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)

Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
I use Raxco PerfectDisk because

- It will defrag with only 1% free (Windows Defrag requires 20%)

That's funny. On my system Disk Defragmenter recommends 15% free space. But
it will happily defrag with a lot less free space. I have no idea where you
have 20% from, my guess is you're mixing up with a general concensus about
recommended free space.

- It can be scheduled

That may be true, but I don't see the relevance since the same is also true
for the Windows Disk Defragmenter.

I just downloaded Perfect Disk and am trying it now. It looks good.
They suggested I do an initial offline with all selected, then
immediately do a smart placement; thereafter doing the smart placement
with off line once a month.
Dudley
"Alex Nichol" wrote in message
...
Dudley Henriques wrote:

Thanks Alex. I'm hearing that I should get the O&O defrag to replace
the
XP cut down version of Diskkeeper. Do you concur with this thinking,
or
is the XP supplied defrag sufficient?

Have not tried O&O myself, my preference is Perfect Disk, which is an
excellent one. I do have a strong preference for one, that like PD
will
consolidate free space. And in that one, unlike the inbuilt or (I
think
still) Diskeeper, does *not* require 15 % free space to work at all


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)

The lady is right. I just tested the windows lite version and got
minimal defragging. The O&O did a credible job and is a fine program,
but my choice after testing was PerfectDisk. It was the only defrag I
tested that allowed me an offline pass for the page file and boot files,
then in Smart mode, it completely organized my entire system for optimum
condition based on my individual file access.
In my opinion, and I'm not an expert by any means, is that PerfectDisk
is the best defrag program out there for XP specifically. The defrag
went perfectly and I'm showing a perfect 0 with everything else in order
as well. The system is running like a scared rabbit. It's so fast, it
wants to send my email before I'm finished writing it :-)))))
And just as a side note, before I even installed PerfectDisk, I called
their support on their 800 number to ask a question. Their tech was
extremely well versed, uncommonly polite and patient, and I ended up
spending the better part of a pleasant hour with him on the phone; far
and above any tech support I have seen yet for third party software.
Just my opinion on this of course.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for private email; make necessary changes between ( )
dhenriques(at)(delete all this)earthlink(dot)net

"André Gulliksen" wrote in message
...
Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
I use Raxco PerfectDisk because

- It will defrag with only 1% free (Windows Defrag requires 20%)

That's funny. On my system Disk Defragmenter recommends 15% free
space. But it will happily defrag with a lot less free space. I have
no idea where you have 20% from, my guess is you're mixing up with a
general concensus about recommended free space.

- It can be scheduled

That may be true, but I don't see the relevance since the same is also
true for the Windows Disk Defragmenter.

André Gulliksen wrote:
Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
I use Raxco PerfectDisk because

- It will defrag with only 1% free (Windows Defrag requires 20%)

That's funny. On my system Disk Defragmenter recommends 15% free
space. But it will happily defrag with a lot less free space. I have
no idea where you have 20% from, my guess is you're mixing up with a
general concensus about recommended free space.


15, 20 - it really makes no odds. I am not making anything up - I know what
I'm talking about, I've had it for five years.


- It can be scheduled

That may be true, but I don't see the relevance since the same is
also true for the Windows Disk Defragmenter.

No it's not. Prove to me how the native defrag can be scheduled without use
of a third-party applet.

You've not countered any of my other points, I see...


--
Facon - the artificial bacon bits you get in Pizza Hut for sprinkling
on salads.