Defragmenting Hard Drive

[Peter]

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

 

[smithdoerr]

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.

 

[Gordon]

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.

 

[Roland Schweiger]

"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]

"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?

 

[MJMIII]

"Alias"


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.

 

[LouB]

"Peter"


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.

 

[chrisv]

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.

 

[Allen]

LouB wrote:

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

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

LouB wrote:

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

 

[thanatoid]

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.

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.)

 

[Gordon]

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

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

 

[Ophelia]

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

heh I remember it well

 

[thanatoid]

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.)

 

[Joel]

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.

 

[Gordon]

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

Why?

 

[Joel]

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.

 

[Leythos]

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

Actually, NTFS disks do fragment and the fragmentation can cause a real
performance hit. If you work with servers or databases or large files
and also happen to do more than one thing concurrently you will FEEL the
difference.

 

[Lord Vetinari]

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??

Well, Peter, you'd probably be best off assuming that Ashampoo knows what
they're doing. Just yesterday, a friend brought me his laptop HD, because
it had problems...Fraggler showed it to be 42% fragmented. If you add and
remove files a lot, it doesn't take all that long to get to that point.
Defrag on a regular basis, and it'll be no problem.

 

[Lord Vetinari]

"Peter"


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.

Wear out the heads? My, aren't YOU the brilliant one. The heads do not
contact the disc, dummy. Worse, your "helpful info" is entirely incorrect,
and NOT what people looking for advice need.

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

If only you'd have said that it is especially important in such a case, you
wouldn't have come off as an entirely clueless newb.

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

Again, don't take defrag too important.

Again with the misinformation. What's your problem?

Besides, if you do a defrag, it is better to make a disk cleanup first,
then chkdsk and then defrag.

Finally! This part, at least, is entirely true. Way to go, keep it up.