Vista defrag, why so slow.

[JB]

Does the more robust NTFS file system have something to
with the fact that it takes 90 minutes plus with an
Intel core2duo to defrag a drive with 23 gigs of files
which Vista advises, "this drive does not need
defragmentation".?

The XP defrag took as long but at least we had some
idea of how much the files were fragmented and what it
was doing, dare I suggest that MS may have been
"troubled" about the numerous complaints with the time
that XP takes to defrag and decided to hide what Vista
defrag is doing.!

jess

 

[Saucy]

Does the more robust NTFS file system have something to
with the fact that it takes 90 minutes plus with an
Intel core2duo to defrag a drive with 23 gigs of files
which Vista advises, "this drive does not need
defragmentation".?

The XP defrag took as long but at least we had some
idea of how much the files were fragmented and what it
was doing, dare I suggest that MS may have been
"troubled" about the numerous complaints with the time
that XP takes to defrag and decided to hide what Vista
defrag is doing.!

jess

The defragmentation utilty is a general purpose defragmenter that will keep
your hardisks healthy and performing well. In Vista, it is implemented as a
type of "set it and forget it" utility to be run in the background or at
night. One off "defrags" tend to be sensed as a bit slow - especially as
there is no entertaining visual feedback - but this is entirely
inconsequential as its primary directive is background and off-hours
defragmentation.

If a user/business has need for a specialty defragmentation utility they
should consider the benefits of a third party program such as from Roxio.

Saucy

 

[John Barnes]

Maybe Raxco?

The defragmentation utilty is a general purpose defragmenter that will
keep your hardisks healthy and performing well. In Vista, it is
implemented as a type of "set it and forget it" utility to be run in the
background or at night. One off "defrags" tend to be sensed as a bit
slow - especially as there is no entertaining visual feedback - but this
is entirely inconsequential as its primary directive is background and
off-hours defragmentation.

If a user/business has need for a specialty defragmentation utility they
should consider the benefits of a third party program such as from Roxio.

Saucy

 

[Bigguy]

Diskeeper 2007 Pro works very well, is much faster and will defrag many
drives at same time...

http://www.diskeeper.com/diskeeper/solutions.asp

 

[BChat]

I have been very happy with Diskeeper - both in XP and Vista

Diskeeper 2007 Pro works very well, is much faster and will defrag many
drives at same time...

http://www.diskeeper.com/diskeeper/solutions.asp

 

[ray]

Does the more robust NTFS file system have something to
with the fact that it takes 90 minutes plus with an
Intel core2duo to defrag a drive with 23 gigs of files
which Vista advises, "this drive does not need
defragmentation".?

The XP defrag took as long but at least we had some
idea of how much the files were fragmented and what it
was doing, dare I suggest that MS may have been
"troubled" about the numerous complaints with the time
that XP takes to defrag and decided to hide what Vista
defrag is doing.!

jess

As a counter, I would offer that this is the 21st century. A modern OS
with up-to-date file system should not need regular defragmentation.

 

[dennis@home]

As a counter, I would offer that this is the 21st century. A modern OS
with up-to-date file system should not need regular defragmentation.

As a counter counter you should note that all the common file systems for
windows, linux and Mac fragment.
Windows Vista and Mac do background defrags of at least some of the files.
If you only use ~75% of your disk at any time you probably won't need to
defrag between new computers.. if you keep filling the disk you will need to
defrag often.
You probably don't need a better defragger than the one in Vista as it
defrags free space which is probably the most important thing.

 

[Saucy]

As a counter, I would offer that this is the 21st century. A modern OS
with up-to-date file system should not need regular defragmentation.

Good one! Yes, in the modern world we shouldn't need vehicles, we should be
tele-transporting through fusion powered portals.

Saucy

 

[Bill Yanaire]

Good one! Yes, in the modern world we shouldn't need vehicles, we should
be tele-transporting through fusion powered portals.

Saucy

Just think if the software designed to run the tele-transporting equipment
was developed by Microsoft. In the middle of your transport, a Blue Screen
would appear and you would be screwed!

 

[Vista User]

Just think if the software designed to run the tele-transporting equipment
was developed by Microsoft. In the middle of your transport, a Blue
Screen would appear and you would be screwed!

Can you say backup?

 

[dennis@home]

Good one! Yes, in the modern world we shouldn't need vehicles, we should
be tele-transporting through fusion powered portals.

If transporters worked they would be the second best weapon around..
They don't fail because of bandwidth or scanners as they are just technical
problems that will be solved..
they fail because of E=mc2.
Just imagine being able to move that much energy to a location in a second
or two and imagine the damage it would do.. who would need phasers?

 

[Saucy]

If transporters worked they would be the second best weapon around..
They don't fail because of bandwidth or scanners as they are just
technical problems that will be solved..
they fail because of E=mc2.
Just imagine being able to move that much energy to a location in a second
or two and imagine the damage it would do.. who would need phasers?

So we will still need scanning software .. only instead of computer viruses
for E=mc2 devices? Avast!, NOD32, Norton and Grisoft AVG have a future?

 

[ray]

Good one! Yes, in the modern world we shouldn't need vehicles, we should be
tele-transporting through fusion powered portals.

Saucy

Ah - but there are modern operating systems which do not require regular
defragmentation - end of analogy.

 

[Frank]

As a counter, I would offer that this is the 21st century. A modern OS
with up-to-date file system should not need regular defragmentation.

Then why does one come stock with every os?
Frank

 

[Frank]

Ah - but there are modern operating systems which do not require regular
defragmentation - end of analogy.

Well...then why do they all come with one?
Frank

 

[Saucy]

Ah - but there are modern operating systems which do not require regular
defragmentation - end of analogy.

You are probably referring to some UNIX/Linux OS based on 60's code and ways
[so it's not "modern"] using some obscure file system that can narry be
found on a desktop.

Saucy

Saucy

 

[Adam Albright]

Just think if the software designed to run the tele-transporting equipment
was developed by Microsoft. In the middle of your transport, a Blue Screen
would appear and you would be screwed!

Would have made some interesting Star Trek episodes.

Kirk to Spock: Quick! The transporter had another BSOD and Bones and
Scotty are stuck in never never land.

But Captain, I already rebooted and just as the transporter started to
kick in, the screen on the control station went dark then said, sorry,
Transporter needs to shut down, Star Fleet Command has failed to
activate this version of Windows for Starship Enterprise. Two humans
lost due to suspect counterfeit copy of Windows being installed at
star base 27.

Spock with raised eyebrow says: Captain Kirk, I told you many times we
should have got a Mac Transporter, Windows Star Date 2404 Ultimate
version with real time star field screen saver is too new and buggy as
hell even after SP4.

 

[norm]

Then why does one come stock with every os?
Frank

Ubuntu does not come "stock" with a defrag utility. I see one available
for installation from the repository. The need to install and use it is
questionable.

 

[norm]

Ah - but there are modern operating systems which do not require regular
defragmentation - end of analogy.

You are probably referring to some UNIX/Linux OS based on 60's code and
ways [so it's not "modern"] using some obscure file system that can
narry be found on a desktop.

Saucy

Saucy

And you need to do a bit more research before making such statements.

 

[Saucy]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:04:51 -0400, Saucy wrote:

< chop >


As a counter, I would offer that this is the 21st century. A modern OS
with up-to-date file system should not need regular defragmentation.



Good one! Yes, in the modern world we shouldn't need vehicles, we
should be
tele-transporting through fusion powered portals.

Saucy

Ah - but there are modern operating systems which do not require regular
defragmentation - end of analogy.

You are probably referring to some UNIX/Linux OS based on 60's code and
ways [so it's not "modern"] using some obscure file system that can narry
be found on a desktop.

Saucy

Saucy

And you need to do a bit more research before making such statements.

In other words I hit the nail on the head! Have a nice evening.

Saucy