dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
3540

richtig
Music Is Emotion
Premium Member
join:2003-02-19
Australia

richtig to Mele20

Premium Member

to Mele20

Re: [Help] Why not use XP's built in disk defragme

Thanks, mele, for a good portion of Diskeeper's blurb.
Of, course this is all designed to make the product look good.

The simple fact is that if you are running Windows XP and an NTFS file system and you have lots of free space, you will rarely see any performance degradation due to a disk.

As to pagefile defragging, have a look at this
»www.sysinternals.com/ntw ··· ag.shtml

Konaguy
Live From Hawaii
Premium Member
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom

Konaguy to Mats

Premium Member

to Mats
said by Mats:
something is wrong or diskeeper pro is doing things that aren't needed.

Are you implying a immmient hard drive failure is in her future ? This is a new computer mind you.
Konaguy

Konaguy to richtig

Premium Member

to richtig
said by richtig:

The simple fact is that if you are running Windows XP and an NTFS file system and you have lots of free space, you will rarely see any performance degradation due to a disk.

Are you just pulling this out of thin air or do you have
evidence to back this up.

It is my experience with FAT32 that if it isn't defraged
on a timely basis it will get fragmented.

Mats
Here kitty and the chimp. Smash
Premium Member
join:2002-03-16

Mats to Konaguy

Premium Member

to Konaguy
said by Konaguy:

Are you implying a immmient hard drive failure is in her future ? This is a new computer mind you.

not at all. i think her computer is fine. i think diskeeper is full of it. by reading what she typed about diskeeper, and according to them, its surprising a computer even works at all without using their software. its overstating what it does and what has to be done.

but hey, if she likes it and trusts it, then there is no harm done. its just that most XP users dont have to defrag very often. diskeeper defrags her system 3 times a day. i wonder why that is.

richtig
Music Is Emotion
Premium Member
join:2003-02-19
Australia

richtig to Konaguy

Premium Member

to Konaguy
said by Konaguy:
said by richtig:

The simple fact is that if you are running Windows XP and an NTFS file system and you have lots of free space, you will rarely see any performance degradation due to a disk.

Are you just pulling this out of thin air or do you have
evidence to back this up.

It is my experience with FAT32 that if it isn't defraged on a timely basis it will get fragmented.


Can you read, Konaguy. I said NTFS.

Konaguy
Live From Hawaii
Premium Member
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom

Konaguy

Premium Member

said by richtig:


Can you read, Konaguy. I said NTFS.

Can you not be a a$$ what in the flock did I do to you ? on top of it you never answered my first question.

For your courtsey here is that question.
"Are you just pulling this out of thin air or do you have
evidence to back this up."
Konaguy

1 edit

Konaguy to Mats

Premium Member

to Mats
said by Mats:

i wonder why that is.

Well all I know is this. I have used the rinky dink Microsoft defrag utilities in Windows 9x.They take so long to defrag and they get easily interrupted. Recently I found the Disk Keeper Lite on WebAttack. I gave it a shakedown and it runs a lot faster than the traditional Microsoft defrag included in Windows Me. I even tried to run the microsoft defrag after diskeeper.It largely did its job, disk keeper.

This doesn't mean I'd spend the money to buy the full version.But it seems atleast on my computer works better
than the Windows defrag utilities. Considering this I doubt
the XP defrag is any better frankly.

In regards to Mele's problems I really don't know.Maybe she is reading the numbers wrong ?

Mats
Here kitty and the chimp. Smash
Premium Member
join:2002-03-16

1 recommendation

Mats to evilpeppard

Premium Member

to evilpeppard

Re: [Help] Why not use XP's built in disk defragmenter?

i have no clue whether that program defrags better than XP's. it may very well be faster or better. but for how often i defrag or even think about defragging, i am not really worried about it. i anaylyze my drives whenever i think about it(about once every 2 months) and it has never once told me i have had to defrag. i see no point in trying to find a better or faster defragger than what i already have, since XP rarely has to be defragged.

in fact i dont even know why i am participating in a defragging thread lol.

richtig
Music Is Emotion
Premium Member
join:2003-02-19
Australia

richtig to Konaguy

Premium Member

to Konaguy

Re: [Help] Why not use XP's built in disk defragme

Sorry about the jibe:p.

Here is some info about all of the Windows file systems
»www.techtutorials.com/tu ··· ms.shtml

As to your specific question, fragmentation is less likely when there is plenty of free space because when an application needs to get some more clusters allocated the probability of the request being satisfied in one "chunk" is very much greater. This is somewhat application dependent - some apps attempt to pre-allocate enough room so, for example, a CD copier, knowing the space needed, might make such a request.
An attempt might be made to find a large enough piece of disk in the free space. Of course if the free space is already fragmented, then it can only allocate many pieces, resulting in a fragmented file. Many applications don't try too hard, of course, and just allocate as they go - a great pattern of interleaving two or more files can occur, and yes those files are certainly fragmented.

There is some strange history to Executive Software and Microsoft's relationship in the defrag area. As I recall, ES made a defragger for a fairly early version of NT which used ES's home-grown hooks into the OS. This cause some instability in the OS, but the software was popular, because MS didn't have one. So Redmond engineers invited ES engineers over to share some design concepts ( I think it resulted in FileMove and a few other primitives). I am pretty sure that the XP built-in defragger has lots of ES code in it;).

Randy Bell
Premium Member
join:2002-02-24
Santa Clara, CA

Randy Bell

Premium Member


XP Home Edition - Defrag About Box
said by richtig:
I am pretty sure that the XP built-in defragger has lots of ES code in it;).

Hmmmm .. I have no doubt of that!
Mele20
Premium Member
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI

Mele20 to evilpeppard

Premium Member

to evilpeppard
Yep. I can't even access the Windows defragger now. Since it is built by Executive Software when I installed Diskeeper I guess it just subsumed the Windows defragger.

Here's a really good review:
»www.epinions.com/content ··· 64562052
Tuulilapsi
Kenosis
join:2002-07-29
Finland

Tuulilapsi to Konaguy

Member

to Konaguy
said by Konaguy:
Are you just pulling this out of thin air or do you have evidence to back this up.

It is my experience with FAT32 that if it isn't defraged
on a timely basis it will get fragmented.

Well, what evidence do YOU have, aside your experience - coincidentally, I do think SpaceCowboy's statements are similarly based on experience, HIS experience?

Now, a file system will get fragmented over time, there's no question about that. The question is, how fragmented will it get and how much time that will take. I've been fooling around with computers for longer than a decade (which is hardly an achievement), I've had FAT partitions, FAT32 partitions, NTFS partitions, EXT2 partitions, EXT3 partitions and Reiserfs partitions, and fragmentation has never been a problem. And don't think my systems are doing nothing; quite to the contrary, most are on all the time and always under some load. With Windows I've usually defragged once a year, if not even less often than that.

As for the ES guys saying a workstation should be defragged daily, that is neither surprising nor plausible to me. Would an anti-virus vendor tell you that you can actually manage without an AV if you know your system well enough? Would MS tell you that you shouldn't update to XP if you're running Windows 2000? Marketing, my dear Watson. Defragging daily, as I see it, is just putting extra stress on your hard drive for no valid reason. But who am I to say how you should manage your systems? My point is simply that your way is not the only way. Happy holidays, everyone.

Konaguy
Live From Hawaii
Premium Member
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom

3 edits

Konaguy

Premium Member

said by Tuulilapsi:

Well, what evidence do YOU have, aside your experience - coincidentally, I do think SpaceCowboy's statements are similarly based on experience, HIS experience?

Well you say that defragging daily is putting extra stress
on your hard drive. Well if your hard drive is fragmented
your putting stress on your hard drive too. I have noticed
my computer is a lot more stable now since I defrag nearly
daily [Because of the ease of defraging DK makes it compared to the Microsoft equivilant.]

I am not going to waste my time trying to dredge up evidence
on supporting my claims as since your Mr." All World Computer Expert." Your going to say "it is wrong, "it is biased" or " I'm a idiot."

Edit This
Premium Member
join:2001-05-08

Edit This to evilpeppard

Premium Member

to evilpeppard

Re: [Help] Why not use XP's built in disk defragmenter?

I use Diskeeper 8. It's fast and keeps my PC running like it was on day one. Nothing wrong with the XP defrager but in my opinion Diskeeper 8 is better.
bruzzes
Premium Member
join:2001-04-26
Euclid, OH

bruzzes to Mele20

Premium Member

to Mele20

Re: [Help] Why not use XP's built in disk defragme

said by Mele20:
Yep. I can't even access the Windows defragger now. Since it is built by Executive Software when I installed Diskeeper I guess it just subsumed the Windows defragger.

Here's a really good review:
http://www.epinions.com/content_122764562052


First open up a Command Prompt, this can be found at:
Start -> All Programs -> Accessories -> Command Prompt

Change into your windows\system32 directory. Your windows directory will be either windows or winnt. Type:
cd \windows\system32

Register the defrag components, by typing:
regsvr32 dfrgsnap.dll
regsvr32 dfrgui.dll

Make sure you are ONLINE.

Reboot

At this stage, you may find the defragmenter works. If not, there is one more step you can do.

Using Windows Explorer browse to your windows\inf folder.
In there you will find a file called dfrg.inf right click this file, and select Install.
Tuulilapsi
Kenosis
join:2002-07-29
Finland

2 recommendations

Tuulilapsi to Konaguy

Member

to Konaguy
said by Konaguy:
Well you say that defragging daily is putting extra stress on your hard drive. Well if your hard drive is fragmented your putting stress on your hard drive too. I have noticed my computer is a lot more stable now since I defrag nearly daily [Because of the ease of defraging DK makes it compared to the Microsoft equivilant.]

I am not going to waste my time trying to dredge up evidence
on supporting my claims as since your Mr." All World Computer Expert." Your going to say "it is wrong, "it is biased" or " I'm a idiot."

True, fragmentation is not desireable, and it does decrease system performance and it does stress the hardware - obviously. My hard drives are usually 1% fragmented when I go about defragging them (and as I've been saying, this is about once a year if not even less often) - the largest number I've seen is 3%. Just how much stress and performance decrease that kind of fragmentation would cause I'm not entirely sure of, at least I myself cannot see any performance hit, but I am crazy enough to bet the impact is less severe than the stress and resource hit caused by running a defrag every single day. I'm not saying either would blow up your hard drive, of course.

Now, I might be seriously misinformed here, maybe I'm just blind, or perhaps you simply have a system that's under an immensely larger load compared to mine, but my system is entirely stable without constant defragging. This leads me to believe there's a lot of baseless hype and snakeoil related to this issue coming from certain marketing departments. I'm by no means an IT pro (or an All World Computer Expert), but I do know a few who've long worked in the field, and certainly none have ever preached to me of the benefits of daily defragging. I only have my experience, nothing scientific, to support my views on the necessity or lack thereof of constant defragging, so I am extremely curious to see if you can produce any evidence to the contrary. Do not take this personally; the fact I disagree with you does not mean I consider you a fool of any kind - and I don't even understand why you should care about what I think - nor does it mean that I would resort to using weak rebuttals such as those you mentioned. Peace.

Konaguy
Live From Hawaii
Premium Member
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom

Konaguy

Premium Member

I never liked defraging my hard drive.So I would usually let it slide frankly.Bad move because using the Windows defrag
took ages to defrag due to the fragmentation of the drive.
I wouldn't spend the money to but the pro version of DK
as I don't need it.But DK Lite make it sure easy to defrag.
notmentat
join:2003-11-10
21334

notmentat to bruzzes

Member

to bruzzes
said by bruzzes:

First open up a Command Prompt, this can be found at:
Start -> All Programs -> Accessories -> Command Prompt

Change into your windows\system32 directory. Your windows directory will be either windows or winnt. Type:
cd \windows\system32

Register the defrag components, by typing:
regsvr32 dfrgsnap.dll
regsvr32 dfrgui.dll


Warning: if you do this, you will probably disable Diskeeper Pro. Each time you try to start up Diskeeper, the built-in XP defragmenter will start.

Randy Bell
Premium Member
join:2002-02-24
Santa Clara, CA

Randy Bell to evilpeppard

Premium Member

to evilpeppard

Re: [Help] Why not use XP's built in disk defragmenter?

All this talk about Disk Keeper! I gotta throw in a good word for my Norton Speed Disk! Eat my dust, DK! {{~grinz~}} .. j/k :o:o

mod bait
Premium Member
join:2001-06-11
Rochester, NY

1 recommendation

mod bait to Tuulilapsi

Premium Member

to Tuulilapsi

Re: [Help] Why not use XP's built in disk defragme

Excellent post, and I agree. It depends to an extent how you use your system (how often you add and remove software, what kinds and sizes of files you save, where you save them, and so on), but the value of defragging is very much overrated.

Defragging several times a day is totally unnecessary, and does cause more wear and tear than defragging less frequently. I'm sure Executive Software sets it up that way to give the user the "Oh boy, it's doing something!" feeling.

And by the way, all modern defraggers for Win2K/XP use the built-in Windows NT defrag APIs. So all that sales talk from Executive Software about how wonderful and safe their process is applies just as much to their competition (for online defrags, anyway).

Telly Boot
Premium Member
join:2002-05-15
Vancouver, BC

2 edits

Telly Boot to evilpeppard

Premium Member

to evilpeppard

Re: [Help] Why not use XP's built in disk defragmenter?

Let me try and sprinkle a few facts in here:
The Windows 98 defragger was problematic, and if you look back in the archive you will find many helpful tips for getting it to run under 18 hours ( it would restart whenever anything ran, e.g. ..anything, and I never could get it to finish).
However, Microsoft must have noticed this (*cough*!) and they licenced a modified version of Diskeeper Lite for NT, which then went on the be the defragger for Win2K and XP. We know this because at the time the West German government was very jumpy about anything to do with Executive Software, and were concerned that it (NT/Win2K)might possibly contain Scientology spyware (apparently Executive Software is owned by a Scientologist, employs mainly Scientologists, and that's where all their profits go...I'm not making this up- try googling the story} so they complained to Microsoft and asked to have the diskeeper component removed from Win2K. [They were reassured that spyware was not included]
As Randy Bell notes, Norton Speed Disk also does a good job as a 'freestanding' defragger and optimizer, and I actually alternate between the built-in Win2K defragger and Norton. I don't like to have a background defragger running, because if there is a power outage you will lose whatever data is being written to the disk. If it's the current report I am writing, I can probably remember my work; but if it's something from two years ago that the defragger is shifting, oops, it's lost. For that reason I defrag once a month, and never during windstorms. (yes, I have a surge suppressor).
The wear on a hard drive from defragging probably equals he amount of wear that the hard drive is subjected to if files are fragmented, [unless you are a defrag fanatic]. However I have never seen system slowdowns due to fragmentation in a few days: this would indicate another problem. ?

mod bait
Premium Member
join:2001-06-11
Rochester, NY

1 recommendation

mod bait

Premium Member

said by Telly Boot:
I don't like to have a background defragger running, because if there is a power outage you will lose whatever data is being written to the disk. If it's the current report I am writing, I can probably remember my work; but if it's something from two years ago that the defragger is shifting, oops, it's lost. For that reason I defrag once a month, and never during windstorms. (yes, I have a surge suppressor).
Actually, and fortunately, this is not true. The APIs developed and provided by Microsoft are widely used by defrag utility vendors, and they prevent data loss from occurring as a direct result of a defragmenting process taking place.

You are much more likely to lose data due to a system crash or power outage that occurs without you having saved a document, through user error, or due to hard drive failure, than you are to lose data specifically due to having been defragmenting a disk when something went wrong.

Telly Boot
Premium Member
join:2002-05-15
Vancouver, BC

Telly Boot

Premium Member

Well, I'm glad to hear that.
Mele20
Premium Member
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI

2 recommendations

Mele20 to Telly Boot

Premium Member

to Telly Boot

Re: [Help] Why not use XP's built in disk defragme

I did not know that Craig Jensen is a Scientologist! Nor did I know anything about Germany forcing Microsoft to give them a way to uninstall the W2000 defragger because of the Scientology connection. Thank you for posting this information. DisKeeper 8 is coming off my box immediately. I won't go near Earthlink because their owner is a Scientologist and I would never have even used Diskeeper Lite (even with all the problems that the W98 defragger has) had I known about this connection between Executive Software and the cult of Scientology.

mod bait
Premium Member
join:2001-06-11
Rochester, NY

mod bait

Premium Member

Yeah, it's true; I read that a long time ago about Executive Software. I always despised the product itself anyway. Here are some interesting reads:

»www.skeptictank.org/ritdisk.htm
»home.scientologist.org/c ··· self.htm
»www.executive.com/aboutu ··· /bio.asp
»www.heise.de/ct/english/ ··· /25/058/
Mele20
Premium Member
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI

1 edit

Mele20

Premium Member

I did a Google after I read Telly Boot's post. I found Craig Jensen's page frightening. I will read the others you listed. When I went to uninstall Diskeeper Pro it said that during the uninstall that the underlying Diskeeper that is part of XP would be restored. I suppose Microsoft gave Germany a way to remove the innate Diskeeper from XP as they did for W2000?

I cannot BELIEVE this from the skeptic tank link:

"Ciba-Geigy was refused technical support for its disk defragmenter after the supplier, Executive Software Inc., learned that the Swiss chemical company made Ritalin, a drug sometimes prescribed for hyperactive children. ...
The Glendale, Calif. software firm has a longstanding policy against selling its products to psychiatrists and psychiatric institutions. On Jan. 9 the firm's board of directors voted to expand that policy to include psychiatric drug manufacturers, after a company employee brought it to President Craig Jensen's attention that the makers of Ritalin had purchased a copy of Diskeeper.

"Ciba-Geigy ranks with the scum of the earth in my opinion," said Jensen. "The primary effect of Ritalin is suicide. When some of our employees heard we sold our software to them, I agreed to cancel that license, if necessary, and refuse to do business with drug manufacturers in the future." ..... In an October 1989 letter to his employees, Jensen detailed the company's policy in refusing to license software to psychiatrists or psychiatric institutions, stating that the policy reflected his own personal views. That policy states in part that to do business with psychiatrists "would condone political mental treatment such as electric shocks, lobotomy and convulsive drugs. We condemn utterly this fascist approach to 'mental health' by extermination of the insane, and we will not agree to brutality and murder in the guise of mental healing or to the easy and lawless seizure of persons in the name of 'mental health' for political reasons."

Gee, I was diagnosed with ADHD as an adult and a Ritalin type drug helped me immensely.

mod bait
Premium Member
join:2001-06-11
Rochester, NY

mod bait

Premium Member

said by Mele20:
Gee, I was diagnosed with ADHD as an adult and a Ritalin type drug helped me immensely.
No support for you!