Weird XP defragger behavior.

[thanatoid]

Hello,

I made an Acronis image of my Windows SE install (let's call it
#2). It was done on a clean defragged drive with only one other
file (except for the recycle bin desktop.ini), another image
(let's call it #1).

The drive shows as 100% unfragmented using CrackUp.

In XP, using the XP defragger, #2 shows all red, totally
fragmented. Image #1 is blue and OK.

A 1.5GB file will take a while to defrag, plus I am hesitant to
defrag an Acronis image. I am not crazy about XP Defrag - is
leaves spaces where it shouldn't after it tells you it's done,
and when you run it again it shows completely different results,
and ALSO tells you it is done - with spaces still on the drive.

I tried another defragger - which I just happen to have laying
around, I have never used it before, FWIW, it's called Rapid
File Defragmenter - and it shows Acronis #2 file as fine.

What's going on?

Has anyone tried using the Me defrag on XP?

I am using FAT-32 BTW.

Any comments will be appreciated.

 

[Steve Hayes]

A 1.5GB file will take a while to defrag, plus I am hesitant to
defrag an Acronis image. I am not crazy about XP Defrag - is
leaves spaces where it shouldn't after it tells you it's done,
and when you run it again it shows completely different results,
and ALSO tells you it is done - with spaces still on the drive.

The defragger doesn't necessarily make all theils contiguous with each other,
just all the bits of one file contiguous. If the file is likely to gwo, the
extra space will prevent it from becoming fragmented again too quickly.

 

[Andrew E.]

If xp shows all red in defrag then you have alot of other problems...Try
cmd,in cmd type: CHKDSK C: View the results,then type: CHKDSK C: /F
Back in xp,open cmd,type: CLEANMGR After,type: Defrag C:
Run ME defrag with xp,ME was the worst of worst windows OS...

 

[Peter Foldes]

You are one friggin sick person Andrew. Continually posting bad advice

 

[thanatoid]

The defragger doesn't necessarily make all theils
contiguous with each other, just all the bits of one file
contiguous. If the file is likely to gwo, the extra space
will prevent it from becoming fragmented again too quickly.

OK, that makes sense except it doesn't explain why 2 identically
made, with NO compression, 1.5 GB Acronis image files show as
one 100% OK and other 100% fragmented - to begin with, I
seriously even DOUBT it is /possible/ to have a file 100%
fragmented.

OTOH, and this is why I mentioned the ME defragger - yes, I know
Me sucked, but EVERYONE tells you to use the Me scandisk and
defrag instead of the 9x, and I have been for about 8 years -
what I LIKE about it is that it shows you every sector (I may be
using the incorrect term). AND when it is done, unless the LAST
file on the drive was something huge and one of the "this data
will not be moved" ones, it fills up ALL the space leaving NO
gaps AT ALL. So I found the fact the XP defragger DOES leave
spaces al over the place a little perplexing.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[thanatoid]

If xp shows all red in defrag then you have alot of other
problems...Try
cmd,in cmd type: CHKDSK C: View the results,then type:
CHKDSK C: /F
Back in xp,open cmd,type: CLEANMGR After,type: Defrag C:
Run ME defrag with xp,ME was the worst of worst windows
OS...

Considering the follow-up to your post ;-) I will be hesitant to
try your suggestions, but I will see which ones are non-
destructive just to see if you may be right... I an new to these
groups /and/ XP and one person's opinion Vs. another's at this
point is not something I can make a judgment on...

I do /not/ have a "lot of other problems", I can tell you that
for sure. I just have a problem with the XP defragger acting
unreasonably (yes, I know it's a MS product, actually I think it
was developed in conjunction with makers of Diskeeper, one of
THE most oversold piece of software ever - with VARYING
reviews...)

I guess I can find another defragger and see what IT says...

Maybe the one THIS comment was made about ;-) - free, too...

"WinXP defrag = A bicycle going through one foot of sticky mud.
Auslogics Disk Defrag = The Starship Enterprise at warp speed."
Andavari

Thanks for the reply.

 

[thanatoid]

You are one friggin sick person Andrew. Continually posting
bad advice

I appreciate the comment/warning, but do YOU have any
comments/suggestions?

;-)

t.

 

[Twayne]

In

OK, that makes sense except it doesn't explain why 2 identically
made, with NO compression, 1.5 GB Acronis image files show as
one 100% OK and other 100% fragmented - to begin with, I
seriously even DOUBT it is /possible/ to have a file 100%
fragmented.

OTOH, and this is why I mentioned the ME defragger - yes, I know
Me sucked, but EVERYONE tells you to use the Me scandisk and
defrag instead of the 9x, and I have been for about 8 years -
what I LIKE about it is that it shows you every sector (I may be
using the incorrect term). AND when it is done, unless the LAST
file on the drive was something huge and one of the "this data
will not be moved" ones, it fills up ALL the space leaving NO
gaps AT ALL. So I found the fact the XP defragger DOES leave
spaces al over the place a little perplexing.

Thanks for the reply.

Each defragger often has its own methodology. If A wants everything
perfectly contiguous, and B wants a space after each file, then A will say B
is 100% fragmented and B will say A is 100% fragmented, and so on. That's
not exactly your situation, but I would worry about it IFF the defraggers
you use are reliable and accurate, which they may not be since I've never
heard of them. The XP defragger works fine and is perfectly acceptable. I'd
question those other ones though and it's likely they have their own
methodologies different from XPs. Trust XP's defragger, but understand none
of them are likely reporting anything "bad" near as your description goes.

Twayne

 

[Twayne]

In

If xp shows all red in defrag then you have alot of other
problems...Try cmd,in cmd type: CHKDSK C: View the results,then
type: CHKDSK C: /F Back in xp,open cmd,type: CLEANMGR After,type:
Defrag C:
Run ME defrag with xp,ME was the worst of worst windows OS...

"thanatoid" wrote:

Woof! was that supposed to be a sensible post? Have another of whatever
you're ingesting.

Twayne

 

[thanatoid]

Each defragger often has its own methodology. If A wants
everything perfectly contiguous, and B wants a space after
each file, then A will say B is 100% fragmented and B will
say A is 100% fragmented, and so on. That's not exactly
your situation, but I would worry about it IFF the
defraggers you use are reliable and accurate, which they
may not be since I've never heard of them. The XP
defragger works fine and is perfectly acceptable. I'd
question those other ones though and it's likely they have
their own methodologies different from XPs. Trust XP's
defragger, but understand none of them are likely reporting
anything "bad" near as your description goes.

Thanks for the further explanation. I will carefully experiment
with the Me defragger - it has always worked great in 9x, and
with the Auslogic one which someone said this about:

"WinXP defrag = A bicycle going through one foot of sticky mud.
Auslogics Disk Defrag = The Starship Enterprise at warp speed."

And it has excellent reviews, AND it has a window with all the
sectors showing like the 9x/Me MS defraggers do and which I feel
I need to see to feel secure.

Cheers and Season's Greetings.
t.

 

[Twayne]

In

Thanks for the further explanation. I will carefully experiment
with the Me defragger - it has always worked great in 9x, and
with the Auslogic one which someone said this about:

Uhh, worked OK in 9x? Then you have formatted your XP disks as FAT? I
don't think a win9x program would work right on XP's normal NTFS system,
because it very likely didn't exist at that time and most likely couldn't
account for it. I'd be careful running a FAT took on an NTFS disk; if
that's what's going on.

"WinXP defrag = A bicycle going through one foot of sticky mud.
Auslogics Disk Defrag = The Starship Enterprise at warp speed."

LOL! Not sure I agree with that, but ... it is a minimal product without
any bells & whistles. Except for the newer defraggers around, I usually
found XPs defragger to be faster than other 3rd party tools. The newer
stuff though has jumped ahead of it.

And it has excellent reviews, AND it has a window with all the
sectors showing like the 9x/Me MS defraggers do and which I feel
I need to see to feel secure.

Cheers and Season's Greetings.
t.

Happiness to all the world,

Twayne


--

 

[thanatoid]

Uhh, worked OK in 9x?

Yes, it is common advice in virtually every tweak site I have
seen to use the Me versions of scandisk and defrag, they usually
come as one file.

Then you have formatted your XP
disks as FAT?

FAT32. I don't trust NTFS.

I don't think a win9x program would work
right on XP's normal NTFS system, because it very likely
didn't exist at that time and most likely couldn't account
for it. I'd be careful running a FAT took on an NTFS disk;
if that's what's going on.

As you already know, no, but I tried it, and it wouldn't run,
the usual incomprehensible dependencies message. But I installed
the free Auslogics defragger and it is great - I'm gonna forget
about the XP defragger.

LOL! Not sure I agree with that, but ... it is a minimal
product without any bells & whistles. Except for the newer
defraggers around, I usually found XPs defragger to be
faster than other 3rd party tools. The newer stuff though
has jumped ahead of it.

Try the Auslogics. I haven't actually defragged anything with
it, just analyzed - it WAS fast, and the interface and the
options and the info it gives are VERY promising.

t.

 

[Twayne]

In

Yes, it is common advice in virtually every tweak site I have
seen to use the Me versions of scandisk and defrag, they usually
come as one file.


FAT32. I don't trust NTFS.


As you already know, no, but I tried it, and it wouldn't run,
the usual incomprehensible dependencies message. But I installed
the free Auslogics defragger and it is great - I'm gonna forget
about the XP defragger.


Try the Auslogics. I haven't actually defragged anything with
it, just analyzed - it WAS fast, and the interface and the
options and the info it gives are VERY promising.

t.

Hmm, I just might do that if it'll handle NTFS. I can understand the logic
on abuot everything you said except IMO your distrust of NTFS isn't
necessary. With all the additional features and functions it provides I
consider it a great step forward from the day it came out.
One think I have often wondered about though: If your machine is all FAT,
whichever version of it you use, I wonder if that thwarts viruses and
malware at all? Expecially the ones that want to mess with the OS. Not that
the perpetrators would eve know in most cases; they're irrelevant anyway
once they've sent their spews.

Cheers,

Twayne`




--

 

[thanatoid]

Hmm, I just might do that if it'll handle NTFS.

Of course it can, it is from 2006-2009.

http://www.auslogics.com/go/diskdefrag-3/en/software/disk-defrag

I can
understand the logic on abuot everything you said except
IMO your distrust of NTFS isn't necessary. With all the
additional features and functions it provides I consider it
a great step forward from the day it came out.

Wait until some disaster strikes your HD drive. I understand
recovering NTFS data is a lot more complicated and sometimes
impossible, while recovering FAT32 data is a PITA but doable - I
have done it and survived!

One think I have often wondered about though: If your
machine is all FAT,
whichever version of it you use, I wonder if that thwarts
viruses and malware at all?

If I understand you correctly, you're implying that since most
current malware is written to **** up programs running on the
NTFS file system, I may be largely immune? I do not believe the
file system has anything to do with malware - unless you're
talking a totally different OS like Linux in which case
obviously a Win or Mac virus will do nothing. But within the
Windows environment, regardless of FAT12 (USB sticks IIRC),
FAT16 or FAT32, a badbad.dll is a badbad.dll and /will/ do
something badbad - I /think/!

So, if you actually saying viruses (etc.) are targeted at the
FILE SYSTEM, that's the first time I ever heard of that. And
even if it CAN be part of the virus design, I am sure that even
if people don't bother writing for FAT32 let alone FAT16 any
more, there those viruses are still out there and they /can/ be
picked up.

Still, In about 18 years I have gotten ONE virus which could not
do anything since I had all scripting files removed from win\sys
but it was a bitch to get rid of anyway. And ONE call-home file
from a cracked program (I try a LOT of programs out of
curiosity/boredom and I'm damned if I'm going to pay $50-$300
for a program I use for 5 minutes) and I caught it with an
install tracker and deleted it myself.

I do not have my AV app (ESET NOD32) on at all unless I am doing
an on-demand scan of stuff I've DL'd. Then I turn it off. I also
try not to forget to /think/ when I'm online ;-)