1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Defragmenting Hard Drive

Discussion in 'Windows 7' started by Peter, Jan 16, 2010.

  1. Peter

    Peter Flightless Bird

    I was pleased to see that Win 7 had a built in schedulable disc
    defragmenter.
    Today I installed Ashampoo WinOptimiser 2010 and looked at it's defrga
    option.
    Windows says my C: drive is 4% fragmented but Ashampoo says it's 36%
    fragmented which sounds very high on a 2 month old PC.

    Who do I believe??

    Peter
     
  2. smithdoerr

    smithdoerr Flightless Bird

    "Peter" <xx@yy.com> wrote in message
    news:Ask4n.27123$Ym4.26776@text.news.virginmedia.com...
    >I was pleased to see that Win 7 had a built in schedulable disc
    >defragmenter.
    > Today I installed Ashampoo WinOptimiser 2010 and looked at it's defrga
    > option.
    > Windows says my C: drive is 4% fragmented but Ashampoo says it's 36%
    > fragmented which sounds very high on a 2 month old PC.


    Mostly depends on how often you install/uninstall programs but 36% seems
    high.


    --

    -smithdoerr
     
  3. Gordon

    Gordon Flightless Bird

    "Peter" <xx@yy.com> wrote in message
    news:Ask4n.27123$Ym4.26776@text.news.virginmedia.com...
    > I was pleased to see that Win 7 had a built in schedulable disc
    > defragmenter.


    You don't need to schedule anything. Like Vista, the defrag utility will
    just work when the computer is idle.
     
  4. Roland Schweiger

    Roland Schweiger Flightless Bird

    "Peter"

    > Who do I believe??


    If i remember correctly,. Windows will disgard fragments > 64 MB (which
    makes sense) and maybe your Ashampoo well also treat larger truncks als
    fragments ant therefore yealds to a different percentage.

    However, in my opinion defragmentation is nowadays not so important than it
    used to be in the past.
    Defragmenting often will only wear out the heads of your HDD (same applies
    to frequent virus scans) and will not have much effect on the machine.

    Only if you copy, move around, install/uninstall tonnes of software, then
    occasional defrag is useful.

    You also don't have to schedule, defrag will work in idle time.

    Again, don't take defrag too important.
    Besides, if you do a defrag, it is better to make a disk cleanup first, then
    chkdsk and then defrag.

    greetings

    Roland Schweiger
     
  5. Alias

    Alias Flightless Bird

    Roland Schweiger wrote:
    > "Peter"
    >
    >> Who do I believe??

    >
    > If i remember correctly,. Windows will disgard fragments > 64 MB (which
    > makes sense) and maybe your Ashampoo well also treat larger truncks als
    > fragments ant therefore yealds to a different percentage.
    >
    > However, in my opinion defragmentation is nowadays not so important than
    > it used to be in the past.
    > Defragmenting often will only wear out the heads of your HDD (same
    > applies to frequent virus scans) and will not have much effect on the
    > machine.
    >
    > Only if you copy, move around, install/uninstall tonnes of software,
    > then occasional defrag is useful.
    >
    > You also don't have to schedule, defrag will work in idle time.
    >
    > Again, don't take defrag too important.
    > Besides, if you do a defrag, it is better to make a disk cleanup first,
    > then chkdsk and then defrag.
    >
    > greetings
    >
    > Roland Schweiger
    >


    Is English your second language?

    --
    Alias
     
  6. Roland Schweiger

    Roland Schweiger Flightless Bird

    "Alias"

    > Is English your second language?


    Yes it is. And had you looked correctly, you might have noticed that it is.

    And I bet you are too stupid to learn any other language than your native
    one,
    n'est-ce-pas?
     
  7. Alias

    Alias Flightless Bird

    Roland Schweiger wrote:
    > "Alias"
    >
    >> Is English your second language?

    >
    > Yes it is. And had you looked correctly, you might have noticed that it is.


    Looked where?

    >
    > And I bet you are too stupid to learn any other language than your
    > native one,
    > n'est-ce-pas?
    >


    Y perderás la apuesta gilipollas.

    --
    Alias
     
  8. Frank

    Frank Flightless Bird

    Alias wrote:
    > Roland Schweiger wrote:
    >> "Alias"
    >>
    >>> Is English your second language?

    >>
    >> Yes it is. And had you looked correctly, you might have noticed that
    >> it is.

    >
    > Looked where?
    >
    >>
    >> And I bet you are too stupid to learn any other language than your
    >> native one,
    >> n'est-ce-pas?
    >>

    >
    > Y perderás la apuesta gilipollas.
    >

    You gotta be the biggest POS lying asshole loser to ever post in any ng.
     
  9. MJMIII

    MJMIII Flightless Bird

    "Roland Schweiger" <roland_schweiger@web.de> wrote in message
    news:hisqc6$j5m$1@news.eternal-september.org...
    > "Alias"
    >
    >> Is English your second language?

    >
    > Yes it is. And had you looked correctly, you might have noticed that it
    > is.
    >
    > And I bet you are too stupid to learn any other language than your native
    > one,
    > n'est-ce-pas?


    I don't know about that. I've heard Alias' oral skillz are way above
    average.
    Now please stop replying to this momma's boy so I'm spared seeing his posts.
    --


    "Don't pick a fight with an old man.
    If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you."
     
  10. LouB

    LouB Flightless Bird

    Roland Schweiger wrote:
    > "Peter"
    >
    >> Who do I believe??

    >
    > If i remember correctly,. Windows will disgard fragments > 64 MB (which
    > makes sense) and maybe your Ashampoo well also treat larger truncks als
    > fragments ant therefore yealds to a different percentage.
    >
    > However, in my opinion defragmentation is nowadays not so important than
    > it used to be in the past.
    > Defragmenting often will only wear out the heads of your HDD (same
    > applies to frequent virus scans) and will not have much effect on the
    > machine.
    >
    > Only if you copy, move around, install/uninstall tonnes of software,
    > then occasional defrag is useful.
    >
    > You also don't have to schedule, defrag will work in idle time.
    >
    > Again, don't take defrag too important.
    > Besides, if you do a defrag, it is better to make a disk cleanup first,
    > then chkdsk and then defrag.
    >
    > greetings
    >
    > Roland Schweiger
    >

    Defragging will NOT wear out the heads. They do NOT touch anything.
     
  11. chrisv

    chrisv Flightless Bird

    "Peter" <xx@yy.com> wrote in message
    news:Ask4n.27123$Ym4.26776@text.news.virginmedia.com...
    > I was pleased to see that Win 7 had a built in schedulable disc
    > defragmenter.
    > Today I installed Ashampoo WinOptimiser 2010 and looked at it's defrga
    > option.
    > Windows says my C: drive is 4% fragmented but Ashampoo says it's 36%
    > fragmented which sounds very high on a 2 month old PC.
    >
    > Who do I believe??


    If you're using NTFS, ignore both. You're still living in Windows 98 and FAT
    32 days.
     
  12. Allen

    Allen Flightless Bird

    LouB wrote:
    <snip>
    > Defragging will NOT wear out the heads. They do NOT touch anything.


    Based on experiences with IBM 2300 series drives in the 1960s, you'll
    sure know it if a head does touch the disc. Goodbye head, goodbye disc.
    Those drives had removable disc packs and the greatest fear was that
    some dust might settle on a disc surface while changing packs. And with
    2311 packs holding 7.5 megabytes on 10 surfaces and 2314s holding 15
    megabytes on 20 surfaces, changing them was a constant activity. To make
    it worse. it took 90 seconds for a drive to come to a stop and another
    90 seconds to come back up to speed, plus one to two minutes to actually
    change the pack, every pack change resulted in four to five minutes lost
    time. And yes, I did mean MEGAbytes.
    Allen
     
  13. Gene E. Bloch

    Gene E. Bloch Flightless Bird

    On 1/16/10, Allen posted:
    > LouB wrote:
    > <snip>
    >> Defragging will NOT wear out the heads. They do NOT touch anything.


    > Based on experiences with IBM 2300 series drives in the 1960s, you'll sure
    > know it if a head does touch the disc. Goodbye head, goodbye disc. Those
    > drives had removable disc packs and the greatest fear was that some dust
    > might settle on a disc surface while changing packs. And with 2311 packs
    > holding 7.5 megabytes on 10 surfaces and 2314s holding 15 megabytes on 20
    > surfaces, changing them was a constant activity. To make it worse. it took 90
    > seconds for a drive to come to a stop and another 90 seconds to come back up
    > to speed, plus one to two minutes to actually change the pack, every pack
    > change resulted in four to five minutes lost time. And yes, I did mean
    > MEGAbytes.
    > Allen


    You can imagine how sorry I was to see that technology fading out of
    :)

    --
    Gene Bloch 650.366.4267 lettersatblochg.com
     
  14. thanatoid

    thanatoid Flightless Bird

    "Roland Schweiger" <roland_schweiger@web.de> wrote in
    news:hiso7a$67v$1@news.eternal-september.org:

    <SNIP>
    > Defragmenting often will only wear out the heads of your
    > HDD (same applies to frequent virus scans) and will not
    > have much effect on the machine.


    <SNIP>

    > You also don't have to schedule, defrag will work in idle
    > time.


    OK, make up your mind - are you telling him to defrag "manually
    and rarely" or set "auto defrag in background whenever possible"
    as a default?

    --
    There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
    and those that will break later.
    - Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
    not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
    the quote. But it's true.)
     
  15. Gordon

    Gordon Flightless Bird

    "thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns9D02EE3E05B86thanexit@188.40.43.245...

    > set "auto defrag in background whenever possible"
    > as a default?


    AFAIK that IS the default - it certainly was in Vista...
     
  16. Ophelia

    Ophelia Flightless Bird

    "Gene E. Bloch" <letters@someplace.invalid> wrote in message
    news:hitl59$7o8$1@news.albasani.net...
    > On 1/16/10, Allen posted:
    >> LouB wrote:
    >> <snip>
    >>> Defragging will NOT wear out the heads. They do NOT touch anything.

    >
    >> Based on experiences with IBM 2300 series drives in the 1960s, you'll
    >> sure know it if a head does touch the disc. Goodbye head, goodbye disc.
    >> Those drives had removable disc packs and the greatest fear was that some
    >> dust might settle on a disc surface while changing packs. And with 2311
    >> packs holding 7.5 megabytes on 10 surfaces and 2314s holding 15 megabytes
    >> on 20 surfaces, changing them was a constant activity. To make it worse.
    >> it took 90 seconds for a drive to come to a stop and another 90 seconds
    >> to come back up to speed, plus one to two minutes to actually change the
    >> pack, every pack change resulted in four to five minutes lost time. And
    >> yes, I did mean MEGAbytes.
    >> Allen

    >
    > You can imagine how sorry I was to see that technology fading out of :)


    heh I remember it well:)

    --
    --
    https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
     
  17. thanatoid

    thanatoid Flightless Bird

    "Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com> wrote in
    news:7rg0glF2anU1@mid.individual.net:

    >
    > "thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9D02EE3E05B86thanexit@188.40.43.245...
    >
    >> set "auto defrag in background whenever possible"
    >> as a default?

    >
    > AFAIK that IS the default - it certainly was in Vista...


    And we ALL know how good for the user ALL Microsoft defaults
    are... But YOU can make a change, and then IT becomes the
    default.

    --
    There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
    and those that will break later.
    - Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
    not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
    the quote. But it's true.)
     
  18. Joel

    Joel Flightless Bird

    thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
    >"Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com> wrote in
    >news:7rg0glF2anU1@mid.individual.net:
    >> "thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
    >> news:Xns9D02EE3E05B86thanexit@188.40.43.245...
    >>
    >>> set "auto defrag in background whenever possible"
    >>> as a default?

    >>
    >> AFAIK that IS the default - it certainly was in Vista...

    >
    >And we ALL know how good for the user ALL Microsoft defaults
    >are... But YOU can make a change, and then IT becomes the
    >default.



    I concur with those who recommend not leaving that enabled in Task
    Scheduler.

    --
    Joel Crump
     
  19. Gordon

    Gordon Flightless Bird

    "Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:qi68l5pvvtc5j9103bhmmt540jpm57bfh3@4ax.com...
    >
    > I concur with those who recommend not leaving that enabled in Task
    > Scheduler.
    >


    Why?
     
  20. Joel

    Joel Flightless Bird

    "Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >> I concur with those who recommend not leaving that enabled in Task
    >> Scheduler.

    >
    >Why?



    Well, frankly, I would never defrag an NTFS drive unless I had a
    specific problem that would indicate doing so. Having it churn my
    drive when I walk away for a few minutes, for the purpose of
    defragging, is downright absurd.

    --
    Joel Crump
     

Share This Page