PC= 2.8MHz Celeron + 1GB ram + loads disc space
I have pemanently fragmented files. The defragmentation tool says the
relevant file names are in the report but nothing is listed. Files
defragmented properly prior to SP3 (which was SP2). Coincidence?

The PC is fairly clean. Very little runs at start-up and nothing new
operates compared with the setup with SP2.

--
Regards
Stephen Ford

Stephen Ford wrote:
> PC= 2.8MHz Celeron + 1GB ram + loads disc space
> I have pemanently fragmented files. The defragmentation tool says the
> relevant file names are in the report but nothing is listed. Files
> defragmented properly prior to SP3 (which was SP2). Coincidence?
>
> The PC is fairly clean. Very little runs at start-up and nothing new
> operates compared with the setup with SP2.
>

Do you have Windows Live Messenger installed?

Alias

"Stephen Ford" <stephen_ford_NO_@_SPAM_uwclub.net> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> PC= 2.8MHz Celeron + 1GB ram + loads disc space
> I have pemanently fragmented files. The defragmentation tool says the
> relevant file names are in the report but nothing is listed. Files
> defragmented properly prior to SP3 (which was SP2). Coincidence?
>
> The PC is fairly clean. Very little runs at start-up and nothing new
> operates compared with the setup with SP2.
>
> --
> Regards
> Stephen Ford

While having all files completely continguous might give you
a warm feeling of satisfaction, having a few fragmentend files
makes no measurable difference on the performance of your
PC - so why worry?

Stephen

Are you using the Microsoft Disk Defragmenter or a third party
defragmenter.

Can you provide a copy of the Report. Not all fragmented files appear in
the Most Fragmented Files lists!

Open Disk Defragmenter and click on Analyse. Select View Report and
click on Save As and Save. Now find VolumeC.txt in your My Documents
Folder and post a copy. Do this before running Disk Defragmenter as it
is more informative.

--



Hope this helps.

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

Stephen Ford wrote:
> PC= 2.8MHz Celeron + 1GB ram + loads disc space
> I have pemanently fragmented files. The defragmentation tool says the
> relevant file names are in the report but nothing is listed. Files
> defragmented properly prior to SP3 (which was SP2). Coincidence?
>
> The PC is fairly clean. Very little runs at start-up and nothing new
> operates compared with the setup with SP2.

Stephen Ford wrote:
> PC= 2.8MHz Celeron + 1GB ram + loads disc space
> I have pemanently fragmented files. The defragmentation tool says the
> relevant file names are in the report but nothing is listed. Files
> defragmented properly prior to SP3 (which was SP2). Coincidence?
>
> The PC is fairly clean. Very little runs at start-up and nothing new
> operates compared with the setup with SP2.

If you're not actually having a problem with the way the computer is
operating then I'd suggest not worrying too much about the defragger
muttering over a couple of files.

Robert Moir wrote:
> Stephen Ford wrote:
>> PC= 2.8MHz Celeron + 1GB ram + loads disc space
>> I have pemanently fragmented files. The defragmentation tool says the
>> relevant file names are in the report but nothing is listed. Files
>> defragmented properly prior to SP3 (which was SP2). Coincidence?
>>
>> The PC is fairly clean. Very little runs at start-up and nothing new
>> operates compared with the setup with SP2.
>
> If you're not actually having a problem with the way the computer is
> operating then I'd suggest not worrying too much about the defragger
> muttering over a couple of files.

To some people, a fragmented file is like having a set of encyclopedia with
a paperback copy of "Bawdy Tales of King Arthur's Knights" stuck between the
volumes "PQ" and "R".

It's just not seemly.

HeyBub wrote:
> Robert Moir wrote:
>> Stephen Ford wrote:
>>> PC= 2.8MHz Celeron + 1GB ram + loads disc space
>>> I have pemanently fragmented files. The defragmentation tool says
>>> the relevant file names are in the report but nothing is listed.
>>> Files defragmented properly prior to SP3 (which was SP2).
>>> Coincidence? The PC is fairly clean. Very little runs at start-up and
>>> nothing new
>>> operates compared with the setup with SP2.
>>
>> If you're not actually having a problem with the way the computer is
>> operating then I'd suggest not worrying too much about the defragger
>> muttering over a couple of files.
>
> To some people, a fragmented file is like having a set of
> encyclopedia with a paperback copy of "Bawdy Tales of King Arthur's
> Knights" stuck between the volumes "PQ" and "R".
>
> It's just not seemly.

I understand that some people dislike it, I just don't see why they do!
Life's too short to worry about theoretical problems that don't matter!

"HeyBub" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Robert Moir wrote:
>> Stephen Ford wrote:
>>> PC= 2.8MHz Celeron + 1GB ram + loads disc space
>>> I have pemanently fragmented files. The defragmentation tool says the
>>> relevant file names are in the report but nothing is listed. Files
>>> defragmented properly prior to SP3 (which was SP2). Coincidence?
>>>
>>> The PC is fairly clean. Very little runs at start-up and nothing new
>>> operates compared with the setup with SP2.
>>
>> If you're not actually having a problem with the way the computer is
>> operating then I'd suggest not worrying too much about the defragger
>> muttering over a couple of files.
>
> To some people, a fragmented file is like having a set of encyclopedia
> with a paperback copy of "Bawdy Tales of King Arthur's Knights" stuck
> between the volumes "PQ" and "R".
>
> It's just not seemly.

If you introduced a tool that could display the physical location
of each file on the the disk then some people would go to extreme
lengths to ensure that all files belonging to a specific folder were
stored on adjacent disk clusters. It would make no difference to
the PC's performance but it would satisfy their sense of tidiness.
As Robert suggested, life is too short to worry about such
irrelevant matters.

Pegasus (MVP) wrote:
>>
>> To some people, a fragmented file is like having a set of
>> encyclopedia with a paperback copy of "Bawdy Tales of King Arthur's
>> Knights" stuck between the volumes "PQ" and "R".
>>
>> It's just not seemly.
>
> If you introduced a tool that could display the physical location
> of each file on the the disk then some people would go to extreme
> lengths to ensure that all files belonging to a specific folder were
> stored on adjacent disk clusters. It would make no difference to
> the PC's performance but it would satisfy their sense of tidiness.
> As Robert suggested, life is too short to worry about such
> irrelevant matters.

Sounds like an opportunity for a software developer to fill a need...

Imagine: A utility to arrange file locations alphabetically!

>> If you introduced a tool that could display the physical location
>> of each file on the the disk then some people would go to extreme
>> lengths to ensure that all files belonging to a specific folder were
>> stored on adjacent disk clusters. It would make no difference to
>> the PC's performance but it would satisfy their sense of tidiness.
>> As Robert suggested, life is too short to worry about such
>> irrelevant matters.
>
> Sounds like an opportunity for a software developer to fill a need...
>
> Imagine: A utility to arrange file locations alphabetically!

ROFL!