I just found out that we dun really need to defrag Vista as it will defrag itself on idle mood.
[QUOTE]irascian wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are saying "Don't take a copy as a base - wait until some magic time when you're not at your PC so it can defrag". No! I want to start work NOW not wait for some mythical time when Vista MIGHT have got round to doing its defrag.
even if vista was telling you the time left (the XP defragger wasn`t doing that) it wouldn`t never be accurate. it could show you 1% remaining, but then it could get stuck on some big file for hours.
irascian wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I went through this last night. I could either wait until a scheduled run on Wednesday or get on and do some work NOW. I chose now! No indication as to how long it might take, or how far it had got four hours later when I decided I might as well go to bed.
you don`t have to wait for the scheduled run, all the times you`re away from your PC, even a few minutes, defrag starts and ends in the exact moment you move your mouse or press a key on your keyboard (breaking the idle time).
irascian wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The previous version of Defrag would have given me a fairly realistic estimate, AND showed me visually how bad the situation was before I started. The new version shows me NOTHING.
[/quote]
how bad? I think you have a vague idea of what kind of fragmentation causes performance loss.
a fragmented file is created when: you write multiple files at the same time, when you run out of disk space forcing windows to create fragments because it can`t save a single stream, when you reopen an existing file and add content to it (only on XP, vista doesn`t save the files all stacked one next to each other).
you get a real performance loss only when your system and applications files become fragmented (causing applications taking longer to load), and this doesn`t happen unless you use buggy installers that save multiple files at the same time and you also get a real performance loss only when the number of fragments on the partition becomes extremely high (causing too much overhead in the filesystem).
I`ve preinstalled system for entire years, and all this "OMG my computer is so fragmented that I`m getting fragged at Q3!" are just users obsessions: defragmentation, unless you run always fill your HD, unless you have a data center or unless you are a man-machine that creates and delete files 24/7 is a task that doesn`t require all the extreme attention you give to it.
most defragmenters (including vista`s) most of the time waste a lot of time just to stack files together and that surely doesn`t help much the performance (system and applications files aren`t loaded alphabetically): they call it "consolidating free space" but it`s pretty useless and this is what give the users the impression of the partition being fragmented (because it takes a lot of time for the defragger to complete its task) while it`s not (there`s no performance loss in having a "fragmented free space").
irascian wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How ANYBODY can think this doesn't matter at all is totally beyond me!
how can ANYBODY be so worried about fragmentation even just after installing windows is too totally beyond me. on XP clean installs I install office, I install NETFX (1,2,3), I install hotfixes, I install the antivirus, I install adobe reader and, can you believe it, reversi... whoops... WinRAR all without defragmenting. And without even the slighliest performance slowdown (yes, I ran benchmarks with sandra, winbench and others), weird isn`t it?[/QUOTE]
More info at
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=284308This post has been edited by adriankhoo153: Apr 4 2007, 03:08 PM