Prev: defragmentation
Next: Dell running XP Pro SP3 will not recognize previously recognized printer
From: thanatoid on 24 Dec 2009 00:27
"Peter Foldes" <okf22(a)hotmail.com> wrote in
news:e1dlGBFhKHA.2164(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:

> You are one friggin sick person Andrew. Continually posting
> bad advice

I appreciate the comment/warning, but do YOU have any
comments/suggestions?

;-)

t.

From: Twayne on 24 Dec 2009 14:53
In news:Xns9CEAE94D1C502thanexit(a)188.40.43.245,
thanatoid <waiting(a)the.exit.invalid> typed:
> Steve Hayes <hayesstw(a)telkomsa.net> wrote in
> news:uat4j5hl3bfcsuumk07tjln3ds4l17nttk(a)4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:15:36 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
>> <waiting(a)the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> A 1.5GB file will take a while to defrag, plus I am
>>> hesitant to defrag an Acronis image. I am not crazy about
>>> XP Defrag - is leaves spaces where it shouldn't after it
>>> tells you it's done, and when you run it again it shows
>>> completely different results, and ALSO tells you it is done
>>> - with spaces still on the drive.
>>
>> The defragger doesn't necessarily make all theils
>> contiguous with each other, just all the bits of one file
>> contiguous. If the file is likely to gwo, the extra space
>> will prevent it from becoming fragmented again too quickly.
>
> OK, that makes sense except it doesn't explain why 2 identically
> made, with NO compression, 1.5 GB Acronis image files show as
> one 100% OK and other 100% fragmented - to begin with, I
> seriously even DOUBT it is /possible/ to have a file 100%
> fragmented.
>
> OTOH, and this is why I mentioned the ME defragger - yes, I know
> Me sucked, but EVERYONE tells you to use the Me scandisk and
> defrag instead of the 9x, and I have been for about 8 years -
> what I LIKE about it is that it shows you every sector (I may be
> using the incorrect term). AND when it is done, unless the LAST
> file on the drive was something huge and one of the "this data
> will not be moved" ones, it fills up ALL the space leaving NO
> gaps AT ALL. So I found the fact the XP defragger DOES leave
> spaces al over the place a little perplexing.
>
> Thanks for the reply.

Each defragger often has its own methodology. If A wants everything
perfectly contiguous, and B wants a space after each file, then A will say B
is 100% fragmented and B will say A is 100% fragmented, and so on. That's
not exactly your situation, but I would worry about it IFF the defraggers
you use are reliable and accurate, which they may not be since I've never
heard of them. The XP defragger works fine and is perfectly acceptable. I'd
question those other ones though and it's likely they have their own
methodologies different from XPs. Trust XP's defragger, but understand none
of them are likely reporting anything "bad" near as your description goes.

Twayne

--
We've already reached
tomorrow's yesterday
but we're still far away from
yesterday's tomorrow.

From: Twayne on 24 Dec 2009 14:56
In news:3A1689AF-03DE-4DAE-B153-819A834B53EC(a)microsoft.com,
Andrew E. <eckrichco(a)msn.com> typed:
> If xp shows all red in defrag then you have alot of other
> problems...Try cmd,in cmd type: CHKDSK C: View the results,then
> type: CHKDSK C: /F Back in xp,open cmd,type: CLEANMGR After,type:
> Defrag C:
> Run ME defrag with xp,ME was the worst of worst windows OS...
>
> "thanatoid" wrote:

Woof! was that supposed to be a sensible post? Have another of whatever
you're ingesting.

Twayne


From: thanatoid on 24 Dec 2009 16:56
"Twayne" <nobody(a)spamcop.net> wrote in
news:#oeUULNhKHA.5604(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:

<SNIP>

> Each defragger often has its own methodology. If A wants
> everything perfectly contiguous, and B wants a space after
> each file, then A will say B is 100% fragmented and B will
> say A is 100% fragmented, and so on. That's not exactly
> your situation, but I would worry about it IFF the
> defraggers you use are reliable and accurate, which they
> may not be since I've never heard of them. The XP
> defragger works fine and is perfectly acceptable. I'd
> question those other ones though and it's likely they have
> their own methodologies different from XPs. Trust XP's
> defragger, but understand none of them are likely reporting
> anything "bad" near as your description goes.

Thanks for the further explanation. I will carefully experiment
with the Me defragger - it has always worked great in 9x, and
with the Auslogic one which someone said this about:

"WinXP defrag = A bicycle going through one foot of sticky mud.
Auslogics Disk Defrag = The Starship Enterprise at warp speed."

And it has excellent reviews, AND it has a window with all the
sectors showing like the 9x/Me MS defraggers do and which I feel
I need to see to feel secure.

Cheers and Season's Greetings.
t.
From: Twayne on 25 Dec 2009 22:59
In news:Xns9CEBA25DF2E26thanexit(a)188.40.43.245,
thanatoid <waiting(a)the.exit.invalid> typed:
> "Twayne" <nobody(a)spamcop.net> wrote in
> news:#oeUULNhKHA.5604(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> Each defragger often has its own methodology. If A wants
>> everything perfectly contiguous, and B wants a space after
>> each file, then A will say B is 100% fragmented and B will
>> say A is 100% fragmented, and so on. That's not exactly
>> your situation, but I would worry about it IFF the
>> defraggers you use are reliable and accurate, which they
>> may not be since I've never heard of them. The XP
>> defragger works fine and is perfectly acceptable. I'd
>> question those other ones though and it's likely they have
>> their own methodologies different from XPs. Trust XP's
>> defragger, but understand none of them are likely reporting
>> anything "bad" near as your description goes.
>
> Thanks for the further explanation. I will carefully experiment
> with the Me defragger - it has always worked great in 9x, and
> with the Auslogic one which someone said this about:

Uhh, worked OK in 9x? Then you have formatted your XP disks as FAT? I
don't think a win9x program would work right on XP's normal NTFS system,
because it very likely didn't exist at that time and most likely couldn't
account for it. I'd be careful running a FAT took on an NTFS disk; if
that's what's going on.

>
> "WinXP defrag = A bicycle going through one foot of sticky mud.
> Auslogics Disk Defrag = The Starship Enterprise at warp speed."

LOL! Not sure I agree with that, but ... it is a minimal product without
any bells & whistles. Except for the newer defraggers around, I usually
found XPs defragger to be faster than other 3rd party tools. The newer
stuff though has jumped ahead of it.
>
> And it has excellent reviews, AND it has a window with all the
> sectors showing like the 9x/Me MS defraggers do and which I feel
> I need to see to feel secure.

Well, like I said about FAT vs NTFS file systems<g>.
>
> Cheers and Season's Greetings.
> t.

Happiness to all the world,

Twayne


--
--
We've already reached
tomorrow's yesterday
but we're still far away from
yesterday's tomorrow.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: defragmentation
Next: Dell running XP Pro SP3 will not recognize previously recognized printer