| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 122724 | 2012-01-09 02:44:00 | To defrag or not to defrag | forrest44 (754) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1253067 | 2012-01-09 02:44:00 | Fresh Windows XP SP3 install, running on 80gb NTFS partition Should regular dsk defrags be done? I am of the understanding you don't need to worry nowadays (and haven't), would this thinking be correct? |
forrest44 (754) | ||
| 1253068 | 2012-01-09 03:05:00 | More or less. Windows manages it pretty well and hard drives are fast enough to deal with a bit of fragmentation. If windows seems to slow down, run it then. Even with XP 80gb is a small partition, be careful it doesn't get too full. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1253069 | 2012-01-09 06:21:00 | Windows manages it pretty well I am sorry to burst your bubble but Windows XP is very poor at maintaining a drive with little fragmentation but I do agree that a large HD means it is not noticed too often. It pays to do it about once a month. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 1253070 | 2012-01-09 12:13:00 | Well if XP is poor at it I was probably remembering something about 7. Toms Hardware recently did a test of system performance before and after deliberately fragmenting the hell out of a hard drive and failed to measure a significant difference. I've never run it regularly in 25 years of owning PCs, going right back to DOS and windows 3.11 and have never noticed an improvement on the occasions I did bother to do it. (Well ok, pre XP it did help a little but hard drives were tiny and defrag still took forever and sometimes wouldn't finish) I say if everything is humming along nicely don't worry about it. If things start to slow down consider it then. Or buy an SSD like I did, Defrag is not meant to be used on them :) |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1253071 | 2012-01-09 17:44:00 | Toms Hardware recently did a test of system performance before and after deliberately fragmenting the hell out of a hard drive and failed to measure a significant difference. The couple of times in years I've done it, it didn't do much. But I'd say some of it depends on how much you install, uninstall and generally change your drive contents around. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 1253072 | 2012-01-09 18:54:00 | Never been a biggie for me, either. | linw (53) | ||
| 1253073 | 2012-01-10 05:10:00 | The couple of times in years I've done it, it didn't do much. But I'd say some of it depends on how much you install, uninstall and generally change your drive contents around. The biggest one is how full the HD is. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 1253074 | 2012-01-10 06:02:00 | Windows Vista and 7 do defragmentation automatically in the background, as far as I know, XP doesn't. | Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1253075 | 2012-01-10 07:58:00 | If you use a decent defragger like MyDefrag or Defraggler then it does make a big difference. We run Mydefrag on every customers computer that comes in the workshop and we see big differences in most machines especially older XP machines. Windows 7 not so much but we still run it anyway. |
CYaBro (73) | ||
| 1253076 | 2012-01-11 03:17:00 | CYaBro is correct. The Windows XP defragger is not very sophisticated. I use the free MyDefrag when tidying up X P machines with setting selected for the 'once a month' option as this seems to be marginally more effective. | PENTIUM (426) | ||
| 1 | |||||