It's slow, it gives no options, it gives no analysis before defrag, it gives
no progress bars, it gives no results, it gives no statistics.
I'M PISSED!
It's slow, it gives no options, it gives no analysis before defrag, it gives
no progress bars, it gives no results, it gives no statistics.
I'M PISSED!
Member
You don't need to know all that! You're just the User.
All you need to know is Diskeeper 2007 for Vista
Spaz wrote:
> It's slow, it gives no options, it gives no analysis before defrag, it
> gives no progress bars, it gives no results, it gives no statistics.
>
> I'M PISSED!
It was like that in the betas also, and a lot of people disliked it back
then. MS never changed it. Supposedly, the reasoning behind that is
because Vista defragments your HD in the background automatically, so
there's supposedly no need for all that information. Do I honestly
agree with that, no, but that's supposedly it.
"Spaz" wrote:
> It's slow, it gives no options, it gives no analysis before defrag, it
> gives no progress bars, it gives no results, it gives no statistics.
> I'M PISSED!
Vista's new memory management features (ReadyFetch and Ready) have
essentially rendered fragmentation non-existent as a performance issue.
Even so, Vista still automatically defrags your drives for you on whatever
schedule you set. You can still do it manually as well.
If you really want to speed up performance, don't waste your money on a
defragger. Buy more RAM, or even a flash drive that works with ReadyBoost.
And let Vista do what little defragmentation still needs to be done.
Ken
Spaz,
Near the top of Vista's Disk Defragmenter Window there is a question: "How
does Disk Defragmenter help?" After right clicking, have you reviewed the
information in the new pop up Window?
Also, there are six additional Options available 1) Run on a schedule 2)
Modify schedule 3) Defragment now 4) After performing Defragmentation, click
Close 5) Or, Simply Cancel the Defragmentation process
Certainly you are aware, the more defragmented your HDD, the longer Defrag
requires (specifically after first Installing any OS including Vista).
Considering the above, and the below response from Ken Gartner, what more do
you desire? Vista is very technologically advanced, and Vista is not XP.
Ken Gartner's knowledged filled statements:
"Vista's new memory management features (ReadyFetch and Ready) have
essentially rendered fragmentation non-existent as a performance issue.
Even so, Vista still automatically defrags your drives for you on whatever
schedule you set. You can still do it manually as well."
"If you really want to speed up performance, don't waste your money on a
defragger. Buy more RAM, or even a flash drive that works with ReadyBoost.
And let Vista do what little defragmentation still needs to be done."
--
Windows Vista
Become Part of The Legacy!
"Spaz" wrote:
> It's slow, it gives no options, it gives no analysis before defrag, it gives
> no progress bars, it gives no results, it gives no statistics.
>
> I'M PISSED!
>
>
In article <snhs149m50c9jnh3t2sn6oh21oproot952@4ax.com>,
<keepout@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>No I'm not. As long as there's disk space, the drive writes in the same order
>for the last file it writes, as the 1st one. Deleting, just frees up space.ie:
>1 track on a drive might hold parts of several programs or data. And repeat
>that on ALL tracks of the drives.
>
Ummmm, what happens when there's no block of free space large
enough to hold your new file?
>
>Defragging would ONLY be a good idea if the entire file or data could be placed
>on 1 sector.
>
Actually, you dont' care about sectors. What kills you is
crossing a cylinder so you have to move the heads.
Remember writing programs with seek()'s to make the drives walk
across the floor?
>
>Then there's the head banging created by bypassing the drives OS on how it
"The drive's OS" ?
On Mon, 5 May 2008 16:05:55 +0000 (UTC), wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) wrote:
>In article <snhs149m50c9jnh3t2sn6oh21oproot952@4ax.com>,
> <keepout@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>No I'm not. As long as there's disk space, the drive writes in the sameorder
>>for the last file it writes, as the 1st one. Deleting, just frees up space.ie:
>>1 track on a drive might hold parts of several programs or data. And repeat
>>that on ALL tracks of the drives.
>>
>
> Ummmm, what happens when there's no block of free space large
>enough to hold your new file?
You get a larger HD. Is that really that hard to figure out ?
>>Defragging would ONLY be a good idea if the entire file or data could be placed
>>on 1 sector.
>>
>
> Actually, you dont' care about sectors. What kills you is
>crossing a cylinder so you have to move the heads.
Cylinder ? Drives haven't used cylinders for more than 20 years.
Platters!...
>Remember writing programs with seek()'s to make the drives walk
>across the floor?
>
>>
>>Then there's the head banging created by bypassing the drives OS on howit
>
> "The drive's OS" ?
>
You may want to call it a controller. Yes the drives OS. Did you really think
all the stuff to manage a HD was left up to the software's OS ?
--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
On Sun, 04 May 2008 19:24:08 -0400, keepout@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:
>>> As you can see there's absolutely no sector after sector writing
>>> action. 1st sector of a program is written 180 degrees opposite
>>> of the 2nd. You have a program that's sector sequential on a
>>> platter, it should take slightly more than twice as long to
>>> read...
>>
>>Gosh, I wonder if the disk manufacturers know this!
>
> What's that got to do with defrag software ?
The disk manufacturer has a controller between the hard disk and the
OS driver - it takes care of bad sectors and the kind of
optimisation in read/write operations you mention. The idea of
physical sectors that you describe is out of date (by about ten
years).
If you thought you were saying something new, you were wrong.
--
Chris Game
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?" -- Albert Einstein
In article <rmmu14lar79ogicog9qigi63r8rb4nfoql@4ax.com>,
<keepout@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Ummmm, what happens when there's no block of free space large
>>enough to hold your new file?
>You get a larger HD. Is that really that hard to figure out ?
>
Wouldn't it be easier to write fragments of the file to whatever
blocks were available?
>Cylinder ? Drives haven't used cylinders for more than 20 years.
>Platters!...
>
"Cylinder" refers to the physical blocks within the same radius of
the spindle. All those blocks can be accessed without moving the head.
>You may want to call it a controller. Yes the drives OS. Did you really think
>all the stuff to manage a HD was left up to the software's OS ?
Most is, on a typical IDE system. That's one of the ways SCSI
is (and for the most part continues to be) better for stressful applications.
All the drive's firmware does is startup, calibration, and shutdown. A
drive that maintains a bad block list and goes into low power mode for
lengthy cache reads is a genius as far as these things go.
"the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fvncgp$89u$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <8nsTj.115732$Cj7.82648@pd7urf2no>,
> Canuck57 <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>The real issue with defrag is unsophisticated design and ways exist to
>>eliminate it's need. Write a record, write a block mentality. Very
>>simple,
>>but very fragmented. Linux/UNIX isn't this way. It always posts writes
>>and
>>marks blocks as "dirty" which means it needs a write. So if say 5
>>processes
>>are writing, 4 with 1 block and one writes 30 blocks of data, the writes
>>will be 1:1:30 in 3 steps when the OS decides to write. In MS-Windows it
>>might be 10:1:10:1:10 fragmenting the crap out of things in 5 slower
>>steps.
>>
>
> I don't understand this.
Don't worry, most people don't. Including MS file system developers. Takes
some hard core no BS development experience that not many have.
But it is also why I wonder what the hell makes Vista so slow on disk
writes.
I've been running defrag on my system for 24 hours straight and it is
still going. When i go into the defragment option for my drive it
indicates it is still defragging. Is that normal?
I have 1 TB drive with 500 gigs free, a lot of large files.
I upgraded to vista 2 days ago, and before i upgraded I defragged the
drive in XP.
Honestly I think it is more convenient for a user like myself to defrag
once in a while and just let it go overnight. However the vista defrag
is so much slower and with no indication it seems that I will never have
a defragmented drive.... pretty disappointing.
Why is it taking so long to defrag now? the fact that it doesn't give
me an idea of how long it will take is unnerving.
It is funny the MVPs on this site downplay the importance of
defragmentation. "just buy more ram" -- yeah for the bloatware that is
called vista.
I like my computer to boot fast and defragging helps that. The first
time programs run they aren't cached so a defragmented hard drive is
very important. I play a lot of games which load large files off the
hard drive and when changing maps and levels these files are read from
disk the first time. It does make a difference. As they say time is
money and I don't like wasting time with slow disk access.
I would rather dedicate all my system resources to the apps I'm running
and not do a defrag in the background. I would rather leave my computer
on overnight to run a defrag like I did with XP instead of wasting cpu
cycles on it during the day when I need those cycles for my apps.
Not to mention again that under xp in 10 hrs my system would be
defragged. With vista it seems to be neverending.
> I would rather dedicate all my system resources to the apps I'm running
> and not do a defrag in the background.
It doesn't do that. It pauses while you are using your computer, running
only during idle time.
You are worrying about nothing. The low-level background defragging in
Vista is as designed, and it works perfectly well. The whole idea is that
nobody needs to care or even think about fragmentation any more. It just
sorts itself out.
I guarantee that if you just lighten up, leave it alone and get on with
actually using your computer, it will all be perfectly fine.
If you really do want to mess about fixing an imaginary problem, then there
are plenty of free and paid-for defrag apps on the market.
Bearing that in mind, this is a complete non-issue.
SteveT
"Drew Tognola" <kinggungi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OUSG6ZwUJHA.5860@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> whenwillmydefragend,
>
> I use 'Smart Defrag'. It's fast and I set a weekly schedule.
Why? NTFS is a FAR better file manager than FAT. Unless you are literally
accessing THOUSANDS of files a day, there is no need to defrag NTFS more
than about once a month - just a waste of system resources..
In article <ORPqRfzUJHA.1360@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,
gordonbparker@yahoo.com.invalid says...>
>
> Why? NTFS is a FAR better file manager than FAT. .........
it depends.
I repeatedly seen one frequently modified 3 MB datafile
divided in dozens of fragments few hours after being defragmented.
Black Vista version wrote:
>> You are worrying about nothing. The low-level background defragging
>> in Vista is as designed, and it works perfectly well.
>
> that’s it... you are retarded! a frikin retarded ms fanboy!
>
>> I guarantee that if you just lighten up, leave it alone and get on
>> with actually using your computer, it will all be perfectly fine.
>
> hey bozo... this depends on how you use the pc.... on mine the stupid
> automated defrag cant handle my file traffic
hehehe...you mean all of that google jockeying you do at the help desk?
Don't you use a db?
You keep on proving just how stupid and incompetent you are!...LOL!
Loser!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks