| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 114201 | 2010-11-22 07:31:00 | I feel like a defrag... | SoniKalien (792) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1155358 | 2010-11-22 22:52:00 | NTFS + Modern HD's with dynamic pagefile The defrag I use is none. Probably makes just as much difference in the real world (as confirmed by some real world testing by some tech sites) Also keep in mind, if your hard drive has some undetected bad sectors, a defrag can kill win (have seen this happen) |
1101 (13337) | ||
| 1155359 | 2010-11-23 00:47:00 | I never defrag and have never seen any up to date evidence to suggest I should. Every year or so I end up wiping my system drive and re-installing windows, close enough for me. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1155360 | 2010-11-23 03:34:00 | I use the one that comes with Windows. | Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1155361 | 2010-11-24 22:10:00 | Do all these defrags use window's prefetch data? Because the default windows one will defrag as normal, but will also arrange data so your commonly used programs and startup files are place sequentially so bootup times and program startups are faster. | utopian201 (6245) | ||
| 1155362 | 2010-11-25 00:20:00 | We use mydefrag on pretty much every PC that comes in the workshop. It's quite surprising how much it does speed up some machines. |
CYaBro (73) | ||
| 1155363 | 2010-11-25 01:16:00 | Do all these defrags use window's prefetch data? Because the default windows one will defrag as normal, but will also arrange data so your commonly used programs and startup files are place sequentially so bootup times and program startups are faster. Good question. I wonder how different things would be if you defragged with Defraggler then used the windows one? |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1155364 | 2010-11-25 01:21:00 | I defragged a vista pc yesterday, im so glad Win7 gives you a little more feedback now The vista pc just says defragging (this could take several minutes to hours)!! no way of telling how long it is going to take Win 7 machine (you hard drive is 6% fragmented) way better |
Gobe1 (6290) | ||
| 1155365 | 2010-11-25 01:34:00 | Good question. I wonder how different things would be if you defragged with Defraggler then used the windows one? Well I know back in the days of win 98, the norton defragger would arrange things differently to the default windows one. If these third party defraggers don't take into account prefetch data, then you're simply wearing out your drive, since the drive will have to go all over the place to load windows files and frequently used programs instead of loading it all through one sequential read. That is, they will have the effect of -fragmenting- your drive, even if they complete the defrag operation faster than the windows one. |
utopian201 (6245) | ||
| 1155366 | 2010-11-25 02:30:00 | Potentially, but depending how often you defrag, wear isn't an issue, even on the likes of Compact Flash devices. What matters most is that the particular file is all in one location on the HDD, and it's not loading a single 1MB file from like 5 different places. That and there's a *ton* of data in prefetch. No point in having certain parts of MSOffice right in sequence with everything else, so I'm not sure how much merit there is to that argument. |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1155367 | 2010-11-25 02:40:00 | How prefetch works is it looks at the files loaded in the first 2mins of the computer loading up (or something like that) and puts those files into prefetch data. So when you defrag, it puts those files at the start so boot ups are faster. What i meant with the loading things from all over the place is the 3rd party defragger may put the antivirus at one place, windows files in another and firewall in yet another, whereas if they were all in one place, the hdd head wouldn't need to move. |
utopian201 (6245) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||