Vista defrag, why so slow.

Does the more robust NTFS file system have something to
with the fact that it takes 90 minutes plus with an
Intel core2duo to defrag a drive with 23 gigs of files
which Vista advises, "this drive does not need
defragmentation".?

The XP defrag took as long but at least we had some
idea of how much the files were fragmented and what it
was doing, dare I suggest that MS may have been
"troubled" about the numerous complaints with the time
that XP takes to defrag and decided to hide what Vista
defrag is doing.!

jess

"JB" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Does the more robust NTFS file system have something to
> with the fact that it takes 90 minutes plus with an
> Intel core2duo to defrag a drive with 23 gigs of files
> which Vista advises, "this drive does not need
> defragmentation".?
>
> The XP defrag took as long but at least we had some
> idea of how much the files were fragmented and what it
> was doing, dare I suggest that MS may have been
> "troubled" about the numerous complaints with the time
> that XP takes to defrag and decided to hide what Vista
> defrag is doing.!
>
> jess


The defragmentation utilty is a general purpose defragmenter that will keep
your hardisks healthy and performing well. In Vista, it is implemented as a
type of "set it and forget it" utility to be run in the background or at
night. One off "defrags" tend to be sensed as a bit slow - especially as
there is no entertaining visual feedback - but this is entirely
inconsequential as its primary directive is background and off-hours
defragmentation.

If a user/business has need for a specialty defragmentation utility they
should consider the benefits of a third party program such as from Roxio.

Saucy

Maybe Raxco?

"Saucy" <> wrote in message
news:%23R$...
> "JB" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Does the more robust NTFS file system have something to
>> with the fact that it takes 90 minutes plus with an
>> Intel core2duo to defrag a drive with 23 gigs of files
>> which Vista advises, "this drive does not need
>> defragmentation".?
>>
>> The XP defrag took as long but at least we had some
>> idea of how much the files were fragmented and what it
>> was doing, dare I suggest that MS may have been
>> "troubled" about the numerous complaints with the time
>> that XP takes to defrag and decided to hide what Vista
>> defrag is doing.!
>>
>> jess
>
>
> The defragmentation utilty is a general purpose defragmenter that will
> keep your hardisks healthy and performing well. In Vista, it is
> implemented as a type of "set it and forget it" utility to be run in the
> background or at night. One off "defrags" tend to be sensed as a bit
> slow - especially as there is no entertaining visual feedback - but this
> is entirely inconsequential as its primary directive is background and
> off-hours defragmentation.
>
> If a user/business has need for a specialty defragmentation utility they
> should consider the benefits of a third party program such as from Roxio.
>
> Saucy

Diskeeper 2007 Pro works very well, is much faster and will defrag many
drives at same time...

http://www.diskeeper.com/diskeeper/solutions.asp


Saucy wrote:
> "JB" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Does the more robust NTFS file system have something to
>> with the fact that it takes 90 minutes plus with an
>> Intel core2duo to defrag a drive with 23 gigs of files
>> which Vista advises, "this drive does not need
>> defragmentation".?
>>
>> The XP defrag took as long but at least we had some
>> idea of how much the files were fragmented and what it
>> was doing, dare I suggest that MS may have been
>> "troubled" about the numerous complaints with the time
>> that XP takes to defrag and decided to hide what Vista
>> defrag is doing.!
>>
>> jess
>
>
> The defragmentation utilty is a general purpose defragmenter that will
> keep your hardisks healthy and performing well. In Vista, it is
> implemented as a type of "set it and forget it" utility to be run in the
> background or at night. One off "defrags" tend to be sensed as a bit
> slow - especially as there is no entertaining visual feedback - but this
> is entirely inconsequential as its primary directive is background and
> off-hours defragmentation.
>
> If a user/business has need for a specialty defragmentation utility they
> should consider the benefits of a third party program such as from Roxio.
>
> Saucy

I have been very happy with Diskeeper - both in XP and Vista

"Bigguy" <> wrote in message
news:...
Diskeeper 2007 Pro works very well, is much faster and will defrag many
drives at same time...

http://www.diskeeper.com/diskeeper/solutions.asp


Saucy wrote:
> "JB" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Does the more robust NTFS file system have something to
>> with the fact that it takes 90 minutes plus with an
>> Intel core2duo to defrag a drive with 23 gigs of files
>> which Vista advises, "this drive does not need
>> defragmentation".?
>>
>> The XP defrag took as long but at least we had some
>> idea of how much the files were fragmented and what it
>> was doing, dare I suggest that MS may have been
>> "troubled" about the numerous complaints with the time
>> that XP takes to defrag and decided to hide what Vista
>> defrag is doing.!
>>
>> jess
>
>
> The defragmentation utilty is a general purpose defragmenter that will
> keep your hardisks healthy and performing well. In Vista, it is
> implemented as a type of "set it and forget it" utility to be run in the
> background or at night. One off "defrags" tend to be sensed as a bit
> slow - especially as there is no entertaining visual feedback - but this
> is entirely inconsequential as its primary directive is background and
> off-hours defragmentation.
>
> If a user/business has need for a specialty defragmentation utility they
> should consider the benefits of a third party program such as from Roxio.
>
> Saucy

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:10:37 +0930, JB wrote:

> Does the more robust NTFS file system have something to
> with the fact that it takes 90 minutes plus with an
> Intel core2duo to defrag a drive with 23 gigs of files
> which Vista advises, "this drive does not need
> defragmentation".?
>
> The XP defrag took as long but at least we had some
> idea of how much the files were fragmented and what it
> was doing, dare I suggest that MS may have been
> "troubled" about the numerous complaints with the time
> that XP takes to defrag and decided to hide what Vista
> defrag is doing.!
>
> jess

As a counter, I would offer that this is the 21st century. A modern OS
with up-to-date file system should not need regular defragmentation.

"ray" <> wrote in message
news...
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:10:37 +0930, JB wrote:
>
>> Does the more robust NTFS file system have something to
>> with the fact that it takes 90 minutes plus with an
>> Intel core2duo to defrag a drive with 23 gigs of files
>> which Vista advises, "this drive does not need
>> defragmentation".?
>>
>> The XP defrag took as long but at least we had some
>> idea of how much the files were fragmented and what it
>> was doing, dare I suggest that MS may have been
>> "troubled" about the numerous complaints with the time
>> that XP takes to defrag and decided to hide what Vista
>> defrag is doing.!
>>
>> jess
>
> As a counter, I would offer that this is the 21st century. A modern OS
> with up-to-date file system should not need regular defragmentation.
>

As a counter counter you should note that all the common file systems for
windows, linux and Mac fragment.
Windows Vista and Mac do background defrags of at least some of the files.
If you only use ~75% of your disk at any time you probably won't need to
defrag between new computers.. if you keep filling the disk you will need to
defrag often.
You probably don't need a better defragger than the one in Vista as it
defrags free space which is probably the most important thing.

"ray" <> wrote in message
news...
>> < chop >
>>
>
> As a counter, I would offer that this is the 21st century. A modern OS
> with up-to-date file system should not need regular defragmentation.
>


Good one! Yes, in the modern world we shouldn't need vehicles, we should be
tele-transporting through fusion powered portals.

Saucy

"Saucy" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> "ray" <> wrote in message
> news...
>>> < chop >
>>>
>>
>> As a counter, I would offer that this is the 21st century. A modern OS
>> with up-to-date file system should not need regular defragmentation.
>>
>
>
> Good one! Yes, in the modern world we shouldn't need vehicles, we should
> be tele-transporting through fusion powered portals.
>
> Saucy

Just think if the software designed to run the tele-transporting equipment
was developed by Microsoft. In the middle of your transport, a Blue Screen
would appear and you would be screwed!


>

"Bill Yanaire" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "Saucy" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>> "ray" <> wrote in message
>> news...
>>>> < chop >
>>>>
>>>
>>> As a counter, I would offer that this is the 21st century. A modern OS
>>> with up-to-date file system should not need regular defragmentation.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Good one! Yes, in the modern world we shouldn't need vehicles, we should
>> be tele-transporting through fusion powered portals.
>>
>> Saucy
>
> Just think if the software designed to run the tele-transporting equipment
> was developed by Microsoft. In the middle of your transport, a Blue
> Screen would appear and you would be screwed!
>
>
>>
>
>

Can you say backup?