From: RnR on
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:17:01 -0800 (PST), "William R. Walsh"
<wm_walsh(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hi!
>
>> I just tried MyDefrag and it not only wouldn't complete the process
>> but messed up a program or two. �I uninstalled it.
>
>You very probably have a deeper, more sinister problem lurking --
>either you have high level filesystem corruption in the areas where
>those programs are living, or you have a disk with bad spots that
>haven't been mapped out/can't be mapped out because they can't be
>fully read.
>
>Make a backup before you take corrective action, if that's what you
>plan to do. Perhaps make a backup and test your hard drive anyway.
>
>>�Actually many say now that Defrags aren't necessary due to
>> the inherit speed of the drives today vs. years ago.
>
>Speed of the drives and data density have both improved, and to a
>certain extent, that has improved the amount of time it takes for the
>drive to find and start retrieving data. If you've got a file that's
>broken up in many pieces, however, and the drive has to stop
>transferring data to seek over to the next piece of the file, you lose
>some time there. (Not much time--maybe nanoseconds at most--although
>it can add up.)
>
>Buffering techniques have also improved to the point where if a drive
>has to stop writing, something else can pick up the slack for a while.
>(This is important if you're capturing data in real time and cannot
>stop...as you might be if you were capturing video or multi-track
>audio. People who do those things defragment their drives mainly to
>have gobs of free space stacked up together so the drive won't have to
>pause for seeking purposes once writing starts.)
>
>That used to be a big deal, it was possible to buy so-called "A/V"
>drives that wouldn't do thermal recalibration in the middle of a long
>running write operation, amongst other things.
>
>Microsoft said back in the days of NT4 that NTFS would not need
>defragmentation. So far as I know, Executive Software provided some
>interesting statistics that suggested NTFS actually fragmented quite
>badly. How biased these were I don't know. Executive Software (today
>known as Diskeeper Corporation) has always made a lot of noise that
>suggests fragmentation will end up robbing your house while you sleep.
>
>The developer of JK/MyDefrag says that Microsoft provided a
>defragmentation API (in other words, a set of functions and tools for
>use by defragmentation software) in Windows NT, 2000 and XP. I'm not
>sure the bit about NT is correct; Microsoft was very adamant at the
>time that NTFS did not suffer problems from fragmentation.
>
>I don't know if it's actually a Microsoft designed API or not. When a
>disk defragmenter first showed up in Windows NT family products, it
>was a licensed, stripped down version of Executive's Diskeeper.
>
>It's always possible that the defragmentation APIs are just "move this
>file here, move that file there" commands and the actual strategy is
>left to whatever defragmentation utility you use. I haven't
>investigated it that closely.
>
>For most people, defragmentation probably isn't a big deal. The world
>won't end if you don't, but given the nature of personal computers to
>do a wide variety of things, it wouldn't hurt to do it periodically so
>your computer is performing at its best.
>
>Windows has allegedly shipped with some sort of optiimzation scheme
>for program launch acceleration since the days of Windows 98 and its
>"WinAlign" tool. Office 2000 even got in on the game, with a post-
>installation "file optimizer" that claimed it would run any time
>Office files needed to be optimized. I've never seen it happen more
>than the one time after installation, and some of the O2K
>installations I have are quite old.
>
>If you want to defragment your hard disk, set up a utility to do so on
>a schedule, at a time when you won't be using your computer for
>anything.
>
>William


I admit hd could be going bad but my gut feeling is due to all the
programs and redundancy I have for viri checking. Of course I can
check the drive fast and determine the outcome. After that I'll give
defraggler a try and see how that goes.

Truthfully I doubt I'll notice much difference in defragging my drive
but I'll report back what I find and how my eye observes the
difference. Let me check the drive first.

thanks.
From: David Harper on

"Ben Myers" <ben_myers(a)charter.net> wrote in message
news:hlcil1$1de$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...

> The performance gain from using a defragmenter varies widely with each
> system and each user. I have to disagree that a defragger does not
> improve performance.

I think the important question is: Does a defragger improve performance over
the one that comes with Windows? I would guess not. Anyone have any evidence
that proves otherwise?

- David Harper

From: RnR on
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:48:14 -0600, "RnR" <rnrtexas(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:17:01 -0800 (PST), "William R. Walsh"
><wm_walsh(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi!
>>
>>> I just tried MyDefrag and it not only wouldn't complete the process
>>> but messed up a program or two. �I uninstalled it.
>>
>>You very probably have a deeper, more sinister problem lurking --
>>either you have high level filesystem corruption in the areas where
>>those programs are living, or you have a disk with bad spots that
>>haven't been mapped out/can't be mapped out because they can't be
>>fully read.
>>
>>Make a backup before you take corrective action, if that's what you
>>plan to do. Perhaps make a backup and test your hard drive anyway.
>>
>>>�Actually many say now that Defrags aren't necessary due to
>>> the inherit speed of the drives today vs. years ago.
>>
>>Speed of the drives and data density have both improved, and to a
>>certain extent, that has improved the amount of time it takes for the
>>drive to find and start retrieving data. If you've got a file that's
>>broken up in many pieces, however, and the drive has to stop
>>transferring data to seek over to the next piece of the file, you lose
>>some time there. (Not much time--maybe nanoseconds at most--although
>>it can add up.)
>>
>>Buffering techniques have also improved to the point where if a drive
>>has to stop writing, something else can pick up the slack for a while.
>>(This is important if you're capturing data in real time and cannot
>>stop...as you might be if you were capturing video or multi-track
>>audio. People who do those things defragment their drives mainly to
>>have gobs of free space stacked up together so the drive won't have to
>>pause for seeking purposes once writing starts.)
>>
>>That used to be a big deal, it was possible to buy so-called "A/V"
>>drives that wouldn't do thermal recalibration in the middle of a long
>>running write operation, amongst other things.
>>
>>Microsoft said back in the days of NT4 that NTFS would not need
>>defragmentation. So far as I know, Executive Software provided some
>>interesting statistics that suggested NTFS actually fragmented quite
>>badly. How biased these were I don't know. Executive Software (today
>>known as Diskeeper Corporation) has always made a lot of noise that
>>suggests fragmentation will end up robbing your house while you sleep.
>>
>>The developer of JK/MyDefrag says that Microsoft provided a
>>defragmentation API (in other words, a set of functions and tools for
>>use by defragmentation software) in Windows NT, 2000 and XP. I'm not
>>sure the bit about NT is correct; Microsoft was very adamant at the
>>time that NTFS did not suffer problems from fragmentation.
>>
>>I don't know if it's actually a Microsoft designed API or not. When a
>>disk defragmenter first showed up in Windows NT family products, it
>>was a licensed, stripped down version of Executive's Diskeeper.
>>
>>It's always possible that the defragmentation APIs are just "move this
>>file here, move that file there" commands and the actual strategy is
>>left to whatever defragmentation utility you use. I haven't
>>investigated it that closely.
>>
>>For most people, defragmentation probably isn't a big deal. The world
>>won't end if you don't, but given the nature of personal computers to
>>do a wide variety of things, it wouldn't hurt to do it periodically so
>>your computer is performing at its best.
>>
>>Windows has allegedly shipped with some sort of optiimzation scheme
>>for program launch acceleration since the days of Windows 98 and its
>>"WinAlign" tool. Office 2000 even got in on the game, with a post-
>>installation "file optimizer" that claimed it would run any time
>>Office files needed to be optimized. I've never seen it happen more
>>than the one time after installation, and some of the O2K
>>installations I have are quite old.
>>
>>If you want to defragment your hard disk, set up a utility to do so on
>>a schedule, at a time when you won't be using your computer for
>>anything.
>>
>>William
>
>
>I admit hd could be going bad but my gut feeling is due to all the
>programs and redundancy I have for viri checking. Of course I can
>check the drive fast and determine the outcome. After that I'll give
>defraggler a try and see how that goes.
>
>Truthfully I doubt I'll notice much difference in defragging my drive
>but I'll report back what I find and how my eye observes the
>difference. Let me check the drive first.
>
>thanks.


Ok, just to add to this post, chkdsk reports zero bad sectors and
defraggler now reports 46% fragmentation. I'm using a 40gb size C
partition with much used so the defrag will probably take a while.
I'll report if I can see a difference. As I said, many now say
defragging is a waste of time but this will be an honest test in my
eyes. At least one thing is certain so far, my system does not like
MyDefrag but so far has no problem with Defraggler (tho it isn't done
yet so I better keep fingers crossed). Truthfully regardless I'm not
worried. And yes I do make backups and I've had enough crashed drives
(intentional...I used to crash them on purpose and low level and high
level them after to learn from it... and unintentional) to not worry
too much. And as Ben pointed out not too long ago, drives are not too
costly now. I think I value the data more than the cost of the drive
nowadays. Matter of fact I saw on newegg.com today they have a 1TB
drive (pc) for like $80 shipped free. I haven't looked at their
laptop drives lately so I can't quote them but I don't think its much
more.

All this said, William, your previous advice is worthy !!
From: RnR on
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:42:40 -0500, Ben Myers <ben_myers(a)charter.net>
wrote:

>On 2/15/2010 2:17 PM, Christopher Muto wrote:
>> Monica wrote:
>>> I've always used Window's defrag program. This is adequate or can
>>> I/Should I be using something better?
>>> A newsletter I got today mentioned a program called UltraDefrag. It's
>>> free so maybe it's worth what it costs <g>
>>> What would you guys suggest?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Monica
>>>
>>
>> windows 7 and vista have disk defragmentation built in and schedualed to
>> run weekly by default. you can also perform manual scans or change the
>> schedual under start-allprograms-acessories-systemtools-diskdefragmenter.
>> but disk defragmentation is really a throw back to when disks were both
>> slow and small. not much performance gained is achieved from the process
>> on modern disks in regular workstation setting.
>
>The performance gain from using a defragmenter varies widely with each
>system and each user. I have to disagree that a defragger does not
>improve performance.
>
>The Windows file system always flogs wildly about and creates many, many
>fragmented files. My favorite example is what happens to email inbox,
>sentbox, etc. with any one of Outlook, Outlook Express, Thunderbird or
>Eudora. Whenever one sends or receives mail with these packages, the
>"boxes" get fragmented. if not defragmented, they reach a certain state
>where the system overall runs just fine, but email is a true slug.
>Defrag the mailboxes and suddenly email performance is restored back to
>its original. Another example I have encountered lately is that
>Avid/DigiDesign recommend a two-drive system for music recording, and
>that one should not record onto the system disk. Why? Fragmentation of
>a recorded file affects playback of the music. Fragmentation could even
>have an impact on recording, which is time-sensitive. I could cite
>other examples, but these are the two that come to mind. Suffice it to
>say that if a hard disk becomes highly fragmented, performance of
>something or other can really suck... Ben Myers


Ben, if you read a lot, you'll see a lot disagree with you. I don't
think defragging will help a lot with Outlook but I admit I don't use
it so I might be wrong. I think Outlook itself causes a lot of their
own problems from the little I've read on it. I stay away from
outlook because of it's shortcomings anyway in other areas.
From: Daddy on
Monica wrote:
> I've always used Window's defrag program. This is adequate or can I/Should
> I be using something better?
> A newsletter I got today mentioned a program called UltraDefrag. It's free
> so maybe it's worth what it costs <g>
> What would you guys suggest?
> Thanks,
> Monica
>
>
Unless you're running a server, Windows built-in defragmenter is all you
need.

"Don�t become a defrag junkie"
http://winhlp.com/node/82

Daddy