I am not able to improve defrag of my laptop hard drive with 27%
defragmentation per analysis using Windows or Norton 360 software. Do I need
to reformat the hard drive and perform reinstallation? Any suggestions?

 

either use a smarter program like SmartDefrag or find the settings in the
program that you use to achieve better positioning.

--
The Top Inno Setup Script Generator - http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html

 

Roy S wrote:
> I am not able to improve defrag of my laptop hard drive with 27%
> defragmentation per analysis using Windows or Norton 360 software. Do
> I need to reformat the hard drive and perform reinstallation? Any
> suggestions?

1. Get rid of Norton.
2. Defragging a consumer computer, such as a laptop, is never needed and
can, as you have demonstrated, result in lost time and much confusion.

 

On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 23:24:04 -0700, Roy S
<RoyS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I am not able to improve defrag of my laptop hard drive with 27%
>defragmentation per analysis using Windows or Norton 360 software. Do I need
>to reformat the hard drive and perform reinstallation? Any suggestions?

D/l and try
http://www.piriform.com/defraggler ( free)

 

Roy S wrote:
> I am not able to improve defrag of my laptop hard drive with 27%
> defragmentation per analysis using Windows or Norton 360 software. Do
> I need to reformat the hard drive and perform reinstallation? Any
> suggestions?

With older operating systems (like Windows 9, defragging made sense.
But it is nowhere near as important with systems like Windows XP. So,
you might not notice much improvement (if any) after a defrag.

Does your PC perform poorly? If so, we can address that and correct it.

For starters. Norton 360 tends to slow down many computers. You should
consider uninstalling it (yes, I know you paid for it) and substituting
superior programs which are easier on the PC's resources. If you decide
you'd like to do that, post back and you'll get recommendations as well
as the proper method to remove Norton.

Other things about your PC you should mention:

1. Make and model

2. Amount of RAM

3. Size of hard drive and amount of free space

4. Other security programs that you run

 

On 02 Jul 2010, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

> 2. Defragging a consumer computer, such as a laptop, is never
> needed and can, as you have demonstrated, result in lost time and
> much confusion.

I wouldn't say that. It can help improve performance if the files are
very fragmented and/or if the drive is getting full. An occasional
defrag is a good thing.

27% defragmented sounds high, but if there is lots of space left on the
drive, it really doesn't matter much. If the drive was quite full, I'd
clean up the drive by deleting as many unneeded files as possible, then
try defragging again. It might help to move data files temporarily to
another drive before defragging, then move them back when done.
Window's degragmenter doesn't do a very thorough job when the drive is
full. Some third-party products may do better. I like MyDefrag
(http://www.mydefrag.com/) and I run it once every month or three.

The OP may be confused by the analysis, but he has demonstrated nothing
about the desirability of defragmenting, and neither have you.

 

In working with Norton Tech, I found Norton 360 uses Windows defragger and
there appears to be a problem with it in that a clean defragged disk reads
very high with it. Does anyone know a fix for Windows degrag analyzer?

"Roy S" wrote:

> I am not able to improve defrag of my laptop hard drive with 27%
> defragmentation per analysis using Windows or Norton 360 software. Do I need
> to reformat the hard drive and perform reinstallation? Any suggestions?
>

 

Never needed is completely erroneous. It depends on how fragmented the drive
is. An occasional defrag is beneficial
in more than one way.
"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uk9pEreGLHA.3640@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Roy S wrote:
>> I am not able to improve defrag of my laptop hard drive with 27%
>> defragmentation per analysis using Windows or Norton 360 software. Do
>> I need to reformat the hard drive and perform reinstallation? Any
>> suggestions?
>
> 1. Get rid of Norton.
> 2. Defragging a consumer computer, such as a laptop, is never needed and
> can, as you have demonstrated, result in lost time and much confusion.
>

 

Norton 360 can be hard on resources and make your system slow, however
if defrag says your drive is 27% fragmented, that is high and you should
run defrag.

Defrag may not run properly if you drive is full or nearly full. Check
your drive and see how much disk space you have and see if you can
delete some files or programs.

 

Unknown wrote:
> Never needed is completely erroneous. It depends on how fragmented
> the drive is. An occasional defrag is beneficial
> in more than one way.

You're right. When I said "defrag is never needed" (on an NTFS drive), I was
exaggerating for the purpose of emphasis. For the average home user, once
every three to five years may help to a modest degree.

Oh, and the number of fragment on an NTFS system is irrelevant to the file
system's efficiency.

 

You had best get informed rather than opinionated.
"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:umZ9RdHHLHA.5920@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Unknown wrote:
>> Never needed is completely erroneous. It depends on how fragmented
>> the drive is. An occasional defrag is beneficial
>> in more than one way.
>
> You're right. When I said "defrag is never needed" (on an NTFS drive), I
> was exaggerating for the purpose of emphasis. For the average home user,
> once every three to five years may help to a modest degree.
>
> Oh, and the number of fragment on an NTFS system is irrelevant to the file
> system's efficiency.
>

 

In article <umZ9RdHHLHA.5920@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, heybub@gmail.com
says...
>
> Unknown wrote:
> > Never needed is completely erroneous. It depends on how fragmented
> > the drive is. An occasional defrag is beneficial
> > in more than one way.
>
> You're right. When I said "defrag is never needed" (on an NTFS drive), I was
> exaggerating for the purpose of emphasis. For the average home user, once
> every three to five years may help to a modest degree.
>
> Oh, and the number of fragment on an NTFS system is irrelevant to the file
> system's efficiency.

You can't possibly make that assumption without a clear set of defining
characteristics for "Average Home User".

In the case of many "Average Home Users" that do music, video, games,
etc... a defrag every 6 months or so is beneficial, YES, for NTFS, since
it becomes highly fragmented after mass changes to files sizes and
additions/deletions.

You might want to get a LOT more experience in home users computers as
well as servers (both on NTFS) to understand the performance impact of
file fragmentation.

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

 

Roy S wrote:
> In working with Norton Tech, I found Norton 360 uses Windows defragger and
> there appears to be a problem with it in that a clean defragged disk reads
> very high with it. Does anyone know a fix for Windows degrag analyzer?
>
> "Roy S" wrote:
>
>> I am not able to improve defrag of my laptop hard drive with 27%
>> defragmentation per analysis using Windows or Norton 360 software. Do I need
>> to reformat the hard drive and perform reinstallation? Any suggestions?
>>

I have a technique for defragging, that doesn't use a defragmentation program.
I use "backup, re-initialize_partition, restore" as a means to fix up the
partition. I just did the procedure, and it took me about 2 hours. One
disadvantage of the method, is it can't be scripted, and requires
error-prone manual intervention. The 2 hour time, includes doing a
backup of C:, sector by sector, to ensure nothing can be lost if there
are problems.

This is my defragmentation report, after having just done the procedure.
This is the third time I've done this, since installing WinXP.

********************************************************************************
Volume WINXP (C
Volume size = 72.56 GB
Cluster size = 32 KB
Used space = 49.31 GB
Free space = 23.25 GB
Percent free space = 32 %

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

File fragmentation
Total files = 176,471
Average file size = 244 KB
Total fragmented files = 1
Total excess fragments = 1
Average fragments per file = 1.00

Pagefile fragmentation
Pagefile size = 2.00 GB
Total fragments = 1

Folder fragmentation
Total folders = 13,379
Fragmented folders = 69
Excess folder fragments = 91

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fragments File Size Most fragmented files
2 2 MB \WINDOWS\WindowsUpdate.log
********************************************************************************

My colored graph consists of a green bar (which could be the pagefile),
a white area of equal size (room for hiberfil.sys?). A large blue bar,
a white gap, and another large blue bar. There are no red bars to be seen,
although there should be one for the WindowsUpdate file, which already
got fragmented when Windows booted.

You can make it easier for the Windows defragmenter to do its job,
by arranging for a larger percentage of free space on the drive.
You can also look at using a third-party defragmentation tool.

There are forums where you can find discussions and comments from users.

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-13...317742&messageID=3167455&tag=leftCol;post-717

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defragmentation_software

Paul

 

When are you going to quit making an ass of yourself? Have you no self
respect?
"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:umZ9RdHHLHA.5920@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Unknown wrote:
>> Never needed is completely erroneous. It depends on how fragmented
>> the drive is. An occasional defrag is beneficial
>> in more than one way.
>
> You're right. When I said "defrag is never needed" (on an NTFS drive), I
> was exaggerating for the purpose of emphasis. For the average home user,
> once every three to five years may help to a modest degree.
>
> Oh, and the number of fragment on an NTFS system is irrelevant to the file
> system's efficiency.
>

 

In news:%23NoLy2bGLHA.1996@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
Randem <newsgroups@randem.com> typed:
> either use a smarter program like SmartDefrag or find the
> settings in the program that you use to achieve better
> positioning.

BS - without knowing WHAT is still fragmented, no accurate guesses can be
made. Both programs indicated as having been used are good and would/should
defrag the disk just fine.

HTH,

Twayne`

 

That is EXACTLY why one should use a smarter program that tells of such
information...

Try doing the work instead of guessing and giving wrong answers expecially
trying to debunk others...

A little work and proof keeps bad answers at bay...

--
The Top Script Generator for Jordan Russell's Inno Setup -
http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
Free Utilities and Code - http://www.randem.com/freesoftutil.html

 

Only HoopleHeads don't leave any remnant of the post they're replying to,
further confusing the issue.

You still don't know how to use a newsgroup, do you? That's a rhetorical
question.

"Randem" <newsgroups@randem.com> wrote in message
news:%23XOr5NhHLHA.4824@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
: That is EXACTLY why one should use a smarter program that tells of such
: information...
:
: Try doing the work instead of guessing and giving wrong answers expecially
: trying to debunk others...
:
: A little work and proof keeps bad answers at bay...

 

If you cannot follow a post you definitely cannot follow line of thought...

--
The Top Script Generator for Jordan Russell's Inno Setup -
http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
Free Utilities and Code - http://www.randem.com/freesoftutil.html

 

In article <u5jaZdhHLHA.1996@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,
newsgroups@randem.com says...
>
> If you cannot follow a post you definitely cannot follow line of thought...

Typical, since the start of Usenet, practice has been to leave something
to see what one is responding to - not all threads are 100% in Usenet.

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

 

In news:i12pbk$cqr$1@news.eternal-september.org,
Gib R. Ish <gib@ish.invalid> typed:
> Only HoopleHeads don't leave any remnant of the post
> they're replying to, further confusing the issue.
>
> You still don't know how to use a newsgroup, do you? That's
> a rhetorical question.
>
> "Randem" <newsgroups@randem.com> wrote in message
> news:%23XOr5NhHLHA.4824@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> That is EXACTLY why one should use a smarter program that
>> tells of such information...
>>
>> Try doing the work instead of guessing and giving wrong
>> answers expecially trying to debunk others...
>>
>> A little work and proof keeps bad answers at bay...

Randem is one for whom the laws of physcs suspend themselves for his
purposes.