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

Bill

I am sure your sentiments on System Restore are right. However, in the
early days of Windows ME / XP, the mechanics of using it were not well
explained by Microsoft. Today, thanks to the efforts of one MVP Bill Kinney,
the way through the maze of potential problems is well documented so that
most issues that arise can be resolved if the user puts in the time and
effort.

The main problem today is the problems arising with third party security
software. In another post I have provided a link to further information on
this topic.


--


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

"BillW50" wrote in message
...
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

The date and time was Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:45:59 AM, and on a
whim, Gerry pounded out on the keyboard:

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.



(all of thread removed due to delimiter inserted by MS client when top
posting)

Hi Gerry,

I was the one who said to Phillip it was useless.

You state the problems arise from users not understanding the mechanics
or 3rd party software. And what a time for a user to find these things
out...when they need to use SR. Users shouldn't have to "understand the
mechanics". It should just work. That's why it's useless. It
literally failed for me 2 or 3 times, so I stopped using it and thinking
it had my back. I have countless failed attempts from clients, so it's
experience that I state SR is useless.

Are we supposed to "understand the mechanics" of Windows? Or our virus
program? Or our malware program? No, for the most part, it just works.
And if it doesn't, get rid of it.



Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

The date and time was Wednesday, March 11, 2009 5:49:45 AM, and on a
whim, BillW50 pounded out on the keyboard:

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.


You can speak for yourself. "Millions of others" I seriously doubt.
And I wouldn't be making false claims of it's usefulness without
experience.

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.


Did I say software only? No. What's your point? On my workstation I
have 3 internal hard drives with partition copies of my OS's, data and
programs between the three, data drive backed up to another drive each
day. I have 3 external drives that I also back up too. On networks I
admin, our servers always use RAID 5 and weekly rotating tape backups,
along with Shadowing. Who are you preaching to?

You rely on SR and I'll stick to what I know works, okay?



Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

Bill

A 512kb cluster is not the default size for NTFS. It's the result you get
sometimes if you convert FAT32 to NTFS. A 4 kb cluster size is the default

Earlier I found this comment by the late Alex Nichol. "In a virtual memory
system like Windows XP, the ideal size of disk clusters matches the internal
"page size" used by the Intel processors - 4 kilobytes." Unfortunately Alex
did not elaborate on what he meant by "ideal".

Having a 512kb can be advantageous if there are lots of small files as it
reduces the waste of disk space when data does not occupy the whole space
within a cluster. However, if the average size of files is large then you
end up with more fragments than you would with a 4 kb cluster size. These
points are part of the debate but they may be only of academic interest as
there are other factors which can have a much more significant impact on
system performance than cluster size.


--


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

"BillW50" wrote in message
...
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

Bill

Upgrading to SP2 and to SP3 caused no problems here. Reading these
newsgroups one would think both were disaster because the large number of
problems reported but this is the nature of news today. You here about
everything that goes wrong and less often about the successes.


--


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


"BillW50" wrote in message
...
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

Terry

I do read all posts in a thread I participate in so I knew who said what.

I would agree that Microsoft should have explained how to use System Restore
better. In the majority of cases before the changes to the third party
security software I suspect it worked in the majority of cases. However the
changes Norton made to their software created problems for the millions of
users using Norton software. Blame Norton not Microsoft.

Do you recommend Norton software to your clients?


--


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

"Terry R." wrote in message
...
The date and time was Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:45:59 AM, and on a whim,
Gerry pounded out on the keyboard:

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.



(all of thread removed due to delimiter inserted by MS client when top
posting)

Hi Gerry,

I was the one who said to Phillip it was useless.

You state the problems arise from users not understanding the mechanics or
3rd party software. And what a time for a user to find these things
out...when they need to use SR. Users shouldn't have to "understand the
mechanics". It should just work. That's why it's useless. It literally
failed for me 2 or 3 times, so I stopped using it and thinking it had my
back. I have countless failed attempts from clients, so it's experience
that I state SR is useless.

Are we supposed to "understand the mechanics" of Windows? Or our virus
program? Or our malware program? No, for the most part, it just works.
And if it doesn't, get rid of it.



Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

In ,
Gerry typed on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:26:23 -0000:
Bill

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

Thanks for the info about when System Restore fails.

--
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

In ,
Daave typed on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:03:05 -0400:
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.

It has saved many people's bacon. Which is a good thing IMHO.

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?"

I buy hardware in lots of two. I have two Toshiba 2595XDVD, two Gateway
MX6124, two EeePC 701, two EeePC 702, etc. So I can be up 24/7 if I want
too. I don't understand why big companies have to take their systems
down for maintenance or system failures. Because my method these
problems are gone. And you don't have to be a genius to think of this,
as it is just common sense.

--
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

In ,
Gerry typed on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:30:52 -0000:
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.

I saw an improvement back in the old MFM drive days, but never with IDE
drives. Boot times are the same, applications open the same, webpages
opens the same, videos plays the same, etc. So those that are seeing
improvements from defragging, I like to know what they are doing with
their computers.

--
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

In ,
Gerry typed on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:43:58 -0000:
Bill

I am sure your sentiments on System Restore are right. However, in
the early days of Windows ME / XP, the mechanics of using it were not
well explained by Microsoft. Today, thanks to the efforts of one MVP
Bill Kinney, the way through the maze of potential problems is well
documented so that most issues that arise can be resolved if the user
puts in the time and effort.

The main problem today is the problems arising with third party
security software. In another post I have provided a link to further
information on this topic.

Well Norton always was notorious for having problems with hardware due
to their cute programming tricks. And their reputation continues after
their program fails to completely uninstall correctly. Some other third
party developers also try to get cute as well. But Norton I believe is
the clear winner.

I personally feel if you are going to get cute with your programming,
you must also suffer the consequences of your actions. And Norton
programmers (and a few others) are not that much different than virus
programmers 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

In ,
Terry R. typed on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:54:29 -0700:
The date and time was Wednesday, March 11, 2009 5:49:45 AM, and on a
whim, BillW50 pounded out on the keyboard:

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.

You can speak for yourself. "Millions of others" I seriously doubt.
And I wouldn't be making false claims of it's usefulness without
experience.

I help people all of the time, and 99% of the time it fixes the problem.
Couple my experience times millions, it has to be in the millions.

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.

Did I say software only? No. What's your point? On my workstation I
have 3 internal hard drives with partition copies of my OS's, data and
programs between the three, data drive backed up to another drive each
day. I have 3 external drives that I also back up too. On networks I
admin, our servers always use RAID 5 and weekly rotating tape backups,
along with Shadowing. Who are you preaching to?

You rely on SR and I'll stick to what I know works, okay?

Useless if your monitor, CPU, RAM, motherboard, power supply, etc.
fails. Then your backups won't do you any good, now will they? I don't
care what kind of warrantee or service contract you have, they can never
beat my system. As I am always back up and running in seconds or two
minutes tops.

--
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

Bill

MFM drive days are before the time I first took an active interest in the
workings of computer. There was a noticeable improvement in performance when
drives went from 5,400 to 7,200 rpm.

Downloading and reading newsgroups offline with Outlook Express causes
significant fragmentation. It was Outlook Express that led me to take an
interest in system performance. I cleanup and defragment every weekend to
keep my computer up to speed. I also monitor Event Viewer reports for the
same reason.

The remarks which follow are an off the cuff response to your last
paragraph. In terms of fragmentation boot times do not significantly change
unless you add over many applications or get an error during the boot up
process. Applications once defragmented will not significantly fragment as
they are not usually constantly being changed. Accessing web pages is more
susceptible to external factors than the extent to which files are
fragmented. I do not know about videos. Defragmentation is more likely to
help with accessing data files, which are constantly being changed. Perhaps
you have never had a large collection of data files?


--


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


"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
Gerry typed on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:30:52 -0000:
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.

I saw an improvement back in the old MFM drive days, but never with IDE
drives. Boot times are the same, applications open the same, webpages
opens the same, videos plays the same, etc. So those that are seeing
improvements from defragging, I like to know what they are doing with
their computers.

--
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

Bill

Norton gets bad press here because of the affect on system performance and
the difficulty users have removing their software. I have read that they
have attempted to address the performance issues in their latest offerings
but whether disillusioned customers will return is questionable. They are
now competing in the home computer market with freeware. They no longer
represent value for money.


--


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

"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
Gerry typed on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:43:58 -0000:
Bill

I am sure your sentiments on System Restore are right. However, in
the early days of Windows ME / XP, the mechanics of using it were not
well explained by Microsoft. Today, thanks to the efforts of one MVP
Bill Kinney, the way through the maze of potential problems is well
documented so that most issues that arise can be resolved if the user
puts in the time and effort.

The main problem today is the problems arising with third party
security software. In another post I have provided a link to further
information on this topic.

Well Norton always was notorious for having problems with hardware due to
their cute programming tricks. And their reputation continues after their
program fails to completely uninstall correctly. Some other third party
developers also try to get cute as well. But Norton I believe is the clear
winner.

I personally feel if you are going to get cute with your programming, you
must also suffer the consequences of your actions. And Norton programmers
(and a few others) are not that much different than virus programmers
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

FYI from its log (C: and E: look nice, but not D:

19:32:04 JkDefrag v3.36
19:32:04 Date: 2009/03/10
19:32:04 Windows version: v5.1 build 2600 Service Pack 2
19:32:04 NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate is inactive, using LastAccessTime
for SpaceHogs.
....
20:06:04 Analyzing volume 'D:\'
20:06:04 Processing 'D:\*'
20:06:04 Opening volume
'\\?\Volume{1493078b-c0f3-11d9-b4e2-806d6172696f}' at mountpoint 'D:'
20:06:04 Input mask: D:\*
20:06:07 Phase 1: Analyze
20:06:07 This is an NTFS disk.
20:06:12 Phase 2: Defragment
21:30:48 Phase 3: Fixup
21:33:13 Zone 1: Fast Optimize
21:33:28 Zone 2: Fast Optimize
21:35:03 Zone 3: Fast Optimize
21:36:19 Phase 3: Fixup
21:36:36 Finished.
21:36:36 - Total disk space: 56384293888 bytes (52.5120 gigabytes),
110125574 clusters
21:36:36 - Bytes per cluster: 512 bytes
21:36:36 - Number of files: 17878
21:36:36 - Number of directories: 3384
21:36:36 - Total size of analyzed items: 47978034176 bytes (44.6830
gigabytes), 93707098 clusters
21:36:36 - Number of fragmented items: 13 (0.0611% of all items)
21:36:36 - Total size of fragmented items: 42000914944 bytes, 82033037
clusters, 87.5420% of all items, 74.4905% of disk
21:36:36 - Free disk space: 8388899840 bytes, 16384570 clusters,
14.8781% of disk
21:36:36 - Number of gaps: 769
21:36:36 - Number of small gaps: 173 (22.4967% of all gaps)
21:36:36 - Size of small gaps: 394752 bytes, 771 clusters, 0.0047% of
free disk space
21:36:36 - Number of big gaps: 596 (77.5033% of all gaps)
21:36:36 - Size of big gaps: 8388505088 bytes, 16383799 clusters,
99.9953% of free disk space
21:36:36 - Average gap size: 21306.3329 clusters
21:36:36 - Biggest gap: 209554944 bytes, 409287 clusters, 2.4980% of
free disk space
21:36:36 - Average end-begin distance: 2208846 clusters, 2.0058% of
volume size
21:36:36 These items could not be moved:
21:36:36 Fragments Bytes Clusters Name
21:36:36 1 4096 8 D:\$MFTMirr
21:36:36 1 67108864 131072 D:\$LogFile
21:36:36 13 0 1280 D:\Documents and Settings\All
Users\Application Data\Symantec\SRTSP\SrtETmp\7465EB96.TMP
21:36:36 1 8192 16 D:\.
21:36:36 143 0 17872 D:\Documents and Settings\All
Users\Application Data\Symantec\SRTSP\SrtETmp\0EA02891.TMP
21:36:36 1 13765704 26887 D:\$Bitmap
21:36:36 2 5616 16 D:\$MFT::$BITMAP
21:36:36 --------- ----------- --------- -----
21:36:36 162 80892472 177151 Total
21:36:36 These items are still fragmented:
21:36:36 Fragments Bytes Clusters Name
21:36:36 13 0 1280 D:\Documents and Settings\All
Users\Application Data\Symantec\SRTSP\SrtETmp\7465EB96.TMP
21:36:36 143 0 17872 D:\Documents and Settings\All
Users\Application Data\Symantec\SRTSP\SrtETmp\0EA02891.TMP
21:36:36 2 5616 16 D:\$MFT::$BITMAP
21:36:36 103 3908435968 7633664
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\English\Windows XP Pro. SP2 (Slipstreamed CD;
all updates)\Windows XP Professional-000003.vmdk
21:36:36 3 361645056 706338 D:\Documents and
Settings\ppi\Local Settings\Application Data\Microsoft\Outlook\outlook.ost
21:36:36 6 268435456 524288
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\English\Windows XP Pro. SP2 (Slipstreamed CD;
all updates)\Windows XP Professional.vmem
21:36:36 307 12826968064 25052672
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\Foreign\XP Home SP2 (Simplified Chinese) &
Linux\Windows XP Home Edition.vmdk
21:36:36 11 3546349568 6926464
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\Foreign\German XP Pro. SP2\Windows XP
Professional-000002.vmdk
21:36:36 153 9777250304 19096192
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\English\Vista Home Basic N
(experimental)\Windows Vista (experimental).vmdk
21:36:36 48 1834156032 3582336
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\Foreign\German XP Pro. SP2\Windows XP
Professional.vmdk
21:36:36 92 7785938944 15206912
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\English\Windows XP Pro. SP2 (Slipstreamed CD;
all updates)\Windows XP Professional.vmdk
21:36:36 2 1681915904 3284992
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\Foreign\French XP Pro. N SP3\Windows XP
Professional.vmdk
21:36:36 --------- ----------- --------- -----
21:36:36 883 41991100912 82033026 Total
21:36:36 The 25 largest items on disk:
21:36:36 Fragments Bytes Clusters Name
21:36:37 307 12826968064 25052672
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\Foreign\XP Home SP2 (Simplified Chinese) &
Linux\Windows XP Home Edition.vmdk
21:36:37 153 9777250304 19096192
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\English\Vista Home Basic N
(experimental)\Windows Vista (experimental).vmdk
21:36:37 92 7785938944 15206912
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\English\Windows XP Pro. SP2 (Slipstreamed CD;
all updates)\Windows XP Professional.vmdk
21:36:37 103 3908435968 7633664
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\English\Windows XP Pro. SP2 (Slipstreamed CD;
all updates)\Windows XP Professional-000003.vmdk
21:36:37 11 3546349568 6926464
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\Foreign\German XP Pro. SP2\Windows XP
Professional-000002.vmdk
21:36:37 48 1834156032 3582336
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\Foreign\German XP Pro. SP2\Windows XP
Professional.vmdk
21:36:37 2 1681915904 3284992
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\Foreign\French XP Pro. N SP3\Windows XP
Professional.vmdk
21:36:37 1 536870912 1048576
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\English\Vista Home Basic N
(experimental)\Windows Vista (experimental).vmem
21:36:37 1 489488384 956032
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\English\Windows XP Pro. SP2 (Slipstreamed CD;
all updates)\Windows XP Professional-000002.vmdk
21:36:37 3 361645056 706338 D:\Documents and
Settings\ppi\Local Settings\Application Data\Microsoft\Outlook\outlook.ost
21:36:37 1 268435456 524288
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\English\Windows XP Pro. SP2 (Slipstreamed CD;
all updates)\Windows XP Professional-Snapshot377.vmem
21:36:37 6 268435456 524288
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\English\Windows XP Pro. SP2 (Slipstreamed CD;
all updates)\Windows XP Professional.vmem
21:36:37 1 268435456 524288
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\Foreign\French XP Pro. N SP3\Windows XP
Professional.vmem
21:36:37 1 268435456 524288
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\Foreign\German XP Pro. SP2\Windows XP
Professional-Snapshot29.vmem
21:36:37 1 268435456 524288
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\Foreign\German XP Pro. SP2\Windows XP
Professional.vmem
21:36:37 1 268435456 524288
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\Foreign\XP Home SP2 (Simplified Chinese) &
Linux\564dd13e-6e47-0535-8f0e-4314c9073873.vmem
21:36:37 1 268435456 524288
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\Foreign\XP Home SP2 (Simplified Chinese) &
Linux\Windows XP Home Edition-Snapshot7.vmem
21:36:37 1 268435456 524288
D:\VMware5images\CleanOS\Foreign\XP Home SP2 (Simplified Chinese) &
Linux\Windows XP Home Edition.vmem
21:36:37 1 163053568 318464 D:\lotus\notes\Data\mail\ppi.nsf
21:36:37 1 67605683 132043 D:\work\tools\B134A.exe
21:36:37 1 67108864 131072 D:\$LogFile
21:36:37 1 63138613 123318 D:\work\tools\RM.exe
21:36:37 1 45957120 89760 D:\$MFT
21:36:37 1 43473926 84911 D:\Documents and Settings\All
Users\Application Data\Spybot - Search & Destroy\Backups\regUsers.reg
21:36:37 1 39553196 77253 D:\Temp\Release.tmf

--

MS Defrag Analysis:

Volume DATA (D
Volume size = 52.51 GB
Cluster size = 512 bytes
Used space = 44.67 GB
Free space = 7.84 GB
Percent free space = 14 %

Volume fragmentation
Total fragmentation = 43 %
File fragmentation = 87 %
Free space fragmentation = 0 %

File fragmentation
Total files = 17,408
Average file size = 3 MB
Total fragmented files = 20
Total excess fragments = 904
Average fragments per file = 1.05

Pagefile fragmentation
Pagefile size = 0 bytes
Total fragments = 0

Folder fragmentation
Total folders = 3,236
Fragmented folders = 1
Excess folder fragments = 0

Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation
Total MFT size = 44 MB
MFT record count = 21,089
Percent MFT in use = 46 %
Total MFT fragments = 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fragments File Size Most fragmented files
315 11.95 GB \VMware5images\CleanOS\Foreign\XP Home
SP2 (Simplified Chinese) & Linux\Windows XP Home Edition.vmdk
153 9.11 GB \VMware5images\CleanOS\English\Vista
Home Basic N (experimental)\Windows Vista (experimental).vmdk
143 0 bytes \Documents and Settings\All
Users\Application Data\Symantec\SRTSP\SrtETmp\0EA02891.TMP
103 3.64 GB \VMware5images\CleanOS\English\Windows
XP Pro. SP2 (Slipstreamed CD; all updates)\Windows XP
Professional-000003.vmdk
92 7.25 GB \VMware5images\CleanOS\English\Windows
XP Pro. SP2 (Slipstreamed CD; all updates)\Windows XP Professional.vmdk
48 1.71 GB \VMware5images\CleanOS\Foreign\German XP
Pro. SP2\Windows XP Professional.vmdk
13 0 bytes \Documents and Settings\All
Users\Application Data\Symantec\SRTSP\SrtETmp\7465EB96.TMP
11 3.30 GB \VMware5images\CleanOS\Foreign\German XP
Pro. SP2\Windows XP Professional-000002.vmdk
10 17 KB \work\tools\JkDefrag-3.36\JkDefrag.log
6 256 MB \VMware5images\CleanOS\English\Windows
XP Pro. SP2 (Slipstreamed CD; all updates)\Windows XP Professional.vmem
4 64 KB \Documents and Settings\All
Users\Application Data\Spybot - Search & Destroy\Logs\Update downloads.log
4 128 KB \VMware5images\CleanOS\English\Windows
XP Pro. SP2 (Slipstreamed CD; all updates)\2nd Smaller HDD-000004.vmdk
4 1 MB \VMware5images\CleanOS\English\Windows
XP Pro. SP2 (Slipstreamed CD; all updates)\Windows XP
Professional-000004.vmdk
4 8 KB \VMware5images\CleanOS\English\Windows
XP Pro. SP2 (Slipstreamed CD; all updates)\Windows XP Professional.nvram
3 345 MB \Documents and Settings\ppi\Local
Settings\Application Data\Microsoft\Outlook\outlook.ost
3 20 KB
\RECYCLER\S-1-5-21-746137067-308236825-682003330-35013\INFO2
2 1.57 GB \VMware5images\CleanOS\Foreign\French XP
Pro. N SP3\Windows XP Professional.vmdk
2 1 KB \VMware5images\CleanOS\English\Windows
XP Pro. SP2 (Slipstreamed CD; all updates)\Windows XP Professional.vmx
2 32 KB \Documents and Settings\ppi\Local
Settings\History\History.IE5\MSHist012009031120090 312\index.dat
2 2 KB \Documents and Settings\ppi\Application
Data\VMware\favorites.vmls


Does this program or MS' defragger have an offline defragger (reboot,
defrag, and back to Windows)? I recalled PerfectDisk has this feature.

Thank you in advance.
--
Phillip Pi (aka Ant)
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.

On 3/11/2009 8:09 AM PT, Gerry wrote:

Upgrading to SP2 and to SP3 caused no problems here. Reading these
newsgroups one would think both were disaster because the large number of
problems reported but this is the nature of news today. You here about
everything that goes wrong and less often about the successes.

Same here on my most of test PCs and home PCs. I do make backups before
I do them just in case. One time, I had a laptop/notebook's SP1 to SP2
crashed, but it was fine after I resumed. It was a known issue (can't
remember the details since it was back in 2006 or so).
--
Phillip Pi (aka Ant)
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.