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

 

"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

 

"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.

 

"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

 

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

 

"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?

 

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

 

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.

 

"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."

 

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.

 

"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.

 

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

 

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

 

"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.)

 

"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...

 

"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/

 

"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.)

 

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

 

"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?

 

"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