OT-- should I defrag???

I have an Inspiron 2200-- 33 gb hard drive--about 14 gb free.

I use Windows defrag every so often (about every 2-3 months I use the
analyze function and if it recommends defrag I'll do it).

My question: should I?? It's a pain in the butt-- it seems to take a couple
of hours (it seems to stall at 10% but then eventually finishes).

I haven't noticed a great deterioration in performance.

So should I bother to defrag.

Is there a particular file fragmentation factor I should use in determining
whether or not to defrag?? (I think anything over 10% and the program
recommends defragging)

Mel

I used to defrag, but with the newer drives it takes forever and I see
no difference in performance. So I no longer do it.


MZB wrote:
> I have an Inspiron 2200-- 33 gb hard drive--about 14 gb free.
>
> I use Windows defrag every so often (about every 2-3 months I use the
> analyze function and if it recommends defrag I'll do it).
>
> My question: should I?? It's a pain in the butt-- it seems to take a couple
> of hours (it seems to stall at 10% but then eventually finishes).
>
> I haven't noticed a great deterioration in performance.
>
> So should I bother to defrag.
>
> Is there a particular file fragmentation factor I should use in determining
> whether or not to defrag?? (I think anything over 10% and the program
> recommends defragging)
>
> Mel
>
>

"MZB" <> wrote in message
news:nwu%h.102$...
>I have an Inspiron 2200-- 33 gb hard drive--about 14 gb free.
>
> I use Windows defrag every so often (about every 2-3 months I use the
> analyze function and if it recommends defrag I'll do it).
>
> My question: should I?? It's a pain in the butt-- it seems to take a
> couple of hours (it seems to stall at 10% but then eventually finishes).
>
> I haven't noticed a great deterioration in performance.
>
> So should I bother to defrag.
>
> Is there a particular file fragmentation factor I should use in
> determining whether or not to defrag?? (I think anything over 10% and the
> program recommends defragging)
>
> Mel


Mel -

You'll probably defrag when you notice a performance hit or sluggishness. I
think 12% is the MS "magic" number.

Point is, when performance struggles, you'll notice. You might even want to
go here and run the "clean up" and "tune up" scans periodically:
http://onecare.live.com/site/en-us/d...sah/?s_cid=sah

Use the left column for the freebies.

*The "Protection scan" functions as an AV and spyware scan. It takes way too
long. I never use it.

-Stew

On Sun, 6 May 2007 20:05:32 -0400, "MZB" <>
wrote:

>I have an Inspiron 2200-- 33 gb hard drive--about 14 gb free.
>
>I use Windows defrag every so often (about every 2-3 months I use the
>analyze function and if it recommends defrag I'll do it).
>
>My question: should I?? It's a pain in the butt-- it seems to take a couple
>of hours (it seems to stall at 10% but then eventually finishes).
>
>I haven't noticed a great deterioration in performance.
>
>So should I bother to defrag.
>
>Is there a particular file fragmentation factor I should use in determining
>whether or not to defrag?? (I think anything over 10% and the program
>recommends defragging)
>
>Mel

I recommend defraging when you do any significant installations or
uninstalls. I also recommend defraging about once a week. It's a
pain but you can run it before you go to bed, although I have to admit
-- I have gotten mesmerized by the graphical display of the process,
especially back to the Windows 3.1 days :-)

If you have a cat, it also might find it interesting.

Hi!

> I use Windows defrag every so often (about every 2-3 months I use the
> analyze function and if it recommends defrag I'll do it).
>
> My question: should I??

Generally--yes. If you don't see a performance deterioration, do it for the
sake of your file system and its integrity. A file table that has to keep
track of many fragmented files is going to be larger, may be fragmented
itself and may make data recovery more difficult than if items had been
defragmented and put in nice contiguous blocks that are easier to keep track
of.

If the defragmentation process seems to take a long time (and it certainly
can), run it overnight.

If that's not going to work, look at the Diskeeper product from (who else?)
Diskeeper Corporation. This is the "grown up" version of the Windows
defragmenter. It does a more thorough job and can run in the background
while you do other things. Then you don't have to remember to run it. I've
found that it doesn't cause any noticeable degradation in performance while
it is running in the background.

William

On Sun, 6 May 2007 20:05:32 -0400, "MZB" <>
wrote:

>I have an Inspiron 2200-- 33 gb hard drive--about 14 gb free.
>
>I use Windows defrag every so often (about every 2-3 months I use the
>analyze function and if it recommends defrag I'll do it).
>
>My question: should I?? It's a pain in the butt-- it seems to take a couple
>of hours (it seems to stall at 10% but then eventually finishes).
>
>I haven't noticed a great deterioration in performance.
>
>So should I bother to defrag.
>
>Is there a particular file fragmentation factor I should use in determining
>whether or not to defrag?? (I think anything over 10% and the program
>recommends defragging)
>
>Mel
>


The answer is probably yes but how often is debatable. You might want
to buy a defrag software like diskeeper or perfect disk and just
schedule it for night time. Usually the more often you defrag, the
less time it takes after the first defrag.

You are being too kind to Microsoft. The Windows defragger is a crippled
version of the Diskeeper product... Ben Myers

On Mon, 07 May 2007 06:46:32 GMT, "William R. Walsh"
< m> wrote:

>Hi!
>
>> I use Windows defrag every so often (about every 2-3 months I use the
>> analyze function and if it recommends defrag I'll do it).
>>
>> My question: should I??
>
>Generally--yes. If you don't see a performance deterioration, do it for the
>sake of your file system and its integrity. A file table that has to keep
>track of many fragmented files is going to be larger, may be fragmented
>itself and may make data recovery more difficult than if items had been
>defragmented and put in nice contiguous blocks that are easier to keep track
>of.
>
>If the defragmentation process seems to take a long time (and it certainly
>can), run it overnight.
>
>If that's not going to work, look at the Diskeeper product from (who else?)
>Diskeeper Corporation. This is the "grown up" version of the Windows
>defragmenter. It does a more thorough job and can run in the background
>while you do other things. Then you don't have to remember to run it. I've
>found that it doesn't cause any noticeable degradation in performance while
>it is running in the background.
>
>William
>

I find that doing periodic file cleanups often has more of an effect on
performance (the computer's, not mine) than defragging. Windows Disk Cleanup
scratches the surface of all the junk files that build up in a system because
the programmers of Windows application software are too damned lazy to clean up
after themselves, especially Microsoft's own IE and Office.

CCleaner, which is a politically correct name for Crap Cleaner, does a far more
thorough job, removing useless files and getting rid of the obsolete entries in
the Windows registry. Then, Microsoft's own PageFileDefrag defragments the
registry files, but you better get this one before it disappears from the
Microsoft web site, fully assimilated by the MicroBorg. Microsoft bought Mark
Russinovich and SysInternals, the original developers of PageFileDefrag and a
host of other useful little Windows tools.

A bloated and fragmented registry can really kill system performance. So can a
%temp% folder with hundreds or even thousands of files in it... Ben Myers

On Sun, 6 May 2007 20:05:32 -0400, "MZB" <> wrote:

>I have an Inspiron 2200-- 33 gb hard drive--about 14 gb free.
>
>I use Windows defrag every so often (about every 2-3 months I use the
>analyze function and if it recommends defrag I'll do it).
>
>My question: should I?? It's a pain in the butt-- it seems to take a couple
>of hours (it seems to stall at 10% but then eventually finishes).
>
>I haven't noticed a great deterioration in performance.
>
>So should I bother to defrag.
>
>Is there a particular file fragmentation factor I should use in determining
>whether or not to defrag?? (I think anything over 10% and the program
>recommends defragging)
>
>Mel
>

On Mon, 07 May 2007 08:13:48 -0400, Ben Myers
<> wrote:

>You are being too kind to Microsoft. The Windows defragger is a crippled
>version of the Diskeeper product... Ben Myers

What about the Windows Vista defragger -- it even takes away all
visual representations of the disk's fragmentation, something that I
didn't appreciate.

I have a licenced copy of Diskkeeper 10. I have a feeling though I
would have to upgrade to Diskkeeper 2007 for Vista (I haven't verified
this yet though, when I do I will post in response to this).

On Mon, 07 May 2007 08:19:58 -0400, Ben Myers
<> wrote:

>Microsoft bought Mark
>Russinovich and SysInternals, the original developers of PageFileDefrag and a
>host of other useful little Windows tools.

Yes -- I find the SysInternals tools to be very useful. Definitely
worth checking out for the semi "power user".