Defragmentation of Hard Drive Partitions in Dual-Boot Scenario

Hi All,

Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 2

Windows Vista -32-Bit Ultimate

Windows XP Home Edition, states that Windows XP Home Edition should be
Defragmented. So I booted into Windows Vista in order to Defragment Windows
XP Home Edition Partition, so the files to be moved would not be in used.

Also makes it easier to empty the \Temp folders, so no files would be in
use warning. This works great.

But Windows Vista reports that the drive in question, does not need to
be Defragmented.

Why the difference?


--
thecreator

"thecreator" <thecreator@home.com> wrote in message
news:ePlshxtvGHA.1512@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Hi All,
>
> Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 2
>
> Windows Vista -32-Bit Ultimate
>
> Windows XP Home Edition, states that Windows XP Home Edition should be
> Defragmented. So I booted into Windows Vista in order to Defragment
> Windows XP Home Edition Partition, so the files to be moved would not be
> in used.
>
> Also makes it easier to empty the \Temp folders, so no files would be
> in use warning. This works great.
>
> But Windows Vista reports that the drive in question, does not need to
> be Defragmented.
>
> Why the difference?
>
>
> --
> thecreator
>

Well, it could be that the defragment program in XP uses a different
algorithm than the one in Vista.

Perhaps using a third-party disk defragment tool from both systems would
show the same results, instead of different ones. It really comes down to a
question of which one do you trust, and then stick with it.

--
Mark

My favourite so far: Unknown device has been correctly installed.

Because the defragger in Vista runs once a week on its own.

"thecreator" <thecreator@home.com> wrote in message
news:ePlshxtvGHA.1512@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Hi All,
>
> Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 2
>
> Windows Vista -32-Bit Ultimate
>
> Windows XP Home Edition, states that Windows XP Home Edition should be
> Defragmented. So I booted into Windows Vista in order to Defragment
> Windows XP Home Edition Partition, so the files to be moved would not be
> in used.
>
> Also makes it easier to empty the \Temp folders, so no files would be
> in use warning. This works great.
>
> But Windows Vista reports that the drive in question, does not need to
> be Defragmented.
>
> Why the difference?
>
>
> --
> thecreator
>

I sure second Mark, and I appreciate Colin's good point that by default the
defragger in Vista has been set to run once a week. I honestly don't know
who the defrag team for Vista has chosen along with management to make the
defragger for MSFT but someone does. I honestly have no idea without asking
those people how they think they compare. I strongly urge you to use a 3rd
party system. I'm not knowledgable enough to make comparisons of
alogarithms in different defraggers and I'm grateful to Mark for having
typed the word so all I had to do was look down at his spelling and not
undergo the painful thought process of why after so many years I have to
pause when I spell it or anything else that has rhythym in it, whether it's
rhythym and blues or arrhythmias or whatever.

Executive Soft has a whole support area that has white papers and other
articles by their technical team and managers in their company that do a
good job of teaching you file systems and defragmentation science.

I'm glad though that you're concerned about defrag because simply it is very
important. Investing in a good defragger is one of the biggest bangs for
your buck you're ever going to get with your computers. One member of the
File Core Services for Vista has commented that when you install Vista it
can become defragmented significantly. I suppose this is partly dependent
on the hard drive that you use and its condition at the time.

I have noticed that although I pound my computers and Vista gets a workout
every day for hours at a time sometimes, that its defragger has yet to say
it needs defragging. Taking Mark's advice, I don't trust the watered down
defragger that MSFT has gotten some company to make for it. I know that the
same company who made the defragger for XP, ExecutiveSoft then promptly
posted a chart on its web site at www.diskeeper.com comparing XP's defragger
and showcasing how inadequate it was.

I currently have done a mod to get Perfect Disk 8 to work on Vista.
Diskeeper also offers a trial for a Vista Capable defragger on their site.
Here's information on those guys and I strongly urge everyone to try Perfect
Disk (at least when Raxco becomes Vista compatible) and/or Diskeeper and
compare it to what the XP diskeeper does. You can drill into the results
and more sophisticated ways to compare, or if you're like most people, just
test all three of them several times after you've used some graphics
intensive applications or if you're a gamer or game enthusiast, done a lot
of gaming for several days, and then reflect on the results as Mark says.

I think you'll chose either Diskeeper or Perfect Disk. I like Perfect Disk
for every day use better--I like its interface better but for boot-time
defragmentation which XP and Vista's defragger do not do, I like Diskeeper.

Perfect Disk is at www.raxco.com and Diskeeper is at www.diskeeper.com (they
have a comparison chart on the site with other defraggers). Both of these
have defrag setups that can be pushed out on a network.

Currently to get PD working on Vista, you have to install the SDK>install
and use MSI called Orca> open
the PerfectDisk msi and patch the LaunchCondition table (select it fromthe
left list of tables). They'll get around to updating PD for Vista, but
right now Diskeeper 10 already is and a free full functionality trial is
avaialable for 30 days.

CH


"Mark D. VandenBerg" <mvan103REMOVE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eLpfT4tvGHA.976@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> "thecreator" <thecreator@home.com> wrote in message
> news:ePlshxtvGHA.1512@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>
> Well, it could be that the defragment program in XP uses a different
> algorithm than the one in Vista.
>
> Perhaps using a third-party disk defragment tool from both systems would
> show the same results, instead of different ones. It really comes down to
> a question of which one do you trust, and then stick with it.
>
> --
> Mark
>
> My favourite so far: Unknown device has been correctly installed.

According to the MS team it is theirs.

"CH" <Whoops!Condi@novolunteersforpeacforce.net> wrote in message
news:ehOkhxwvGHA.3372@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>I sure second Mark, and I appreciate Colin's good point that by default the
>defragger in Vista has been set to run once a week. I honestly don't know
>who the defrag team for Vista has chosen along with management to make the
>defragger for MSFT but someone does. I honestly have no idea without
>asking those people how they think they compare. I strongly urge you to
>use a 3rd party system. I'm not knowledgable enough to make comparisons of
>alogarithms in different defraggers and I'm grateful to Mark for having
>typed the word so all I had to do was look down at his spelling and not
>undergo the painful thought process of why after so many years I have to
>pause when I spell it or anything else that has rhythym in it, whether it's
>rhythym and blues or arrhythmias or whatever.
>
> Executive Soft has a whole support area that has white papers and other
> articles by their technical team and managers in their company that do a
> good job of teaching you file systems and defragmentation science.
>
> I'm glad though that you're concerned about defrag because simply it is
> very important. Investing in a good defragger is one of the biggest bangs
> for your buck you're ever going to get with your computers. One member of
> the File Core Services for Vista has commented that when you install
> Vista it can become defragmented significantly. I suppose this is partly
> dependent on the hard drive that you use and its condition at the time.
>
> I have noticed that although I pound my computers and Vista gets a workout
> every day for hours at a time sometimes, that its defragger has yet to say
> it needs defragging. Taking Mark's advice, I don't trust the watered down
> defragger that MSFT has gotten some company to make for it. I know that
> the same company who made the defragger for XP, ExecutiveSoft then
> promptly posted a chart on its web site at www.diskeeper.com comparing
> XP's defragger and showcasing how inadequate it was.
>
> I currently have done a mod to get Perfect Disk 8 to work on Vista.
> Diskeeper also offers a trial for a Vista Capable defragger on their site.
> Here's information on those guys and I strongly urge everyone to try
> Perfect Disk (at least when Raxco becomes Vista compatible) and/or
> Diskeeper and compare it to what the XP diskeeper does. You can drill
> into the results and more sophisticated ways to compare, or if you're like
> most people, just test all three of them several times after you've used
> some graphics intensive applications or if you're a gamer or game
> enthusiast, done a lot of gaming for several days, and then reflect on
> the results as Mark says.
>
> I think you'll chose either Diskeeper or Perfect Disk. I like Perfect
> Disk for every day use better--I like its interface better but for
> boot-time defragmentation which XP and Vista's defragger do not do, I like
> Diskeeper.
>
> Perfect Disk is at www.raxco.com and Diskeeper is at www.diskeeper.com
> (they have a comparison chart on the site with other defraggers). Both of
> these have defrag setups that can be pushed out on a network.
>
> Currently to get PD working on Vista, you have to install the SDK>install
> and use MSI called Orca> open
> the PerfectDisk msi and patch the LaunchCondition table (select it fromthe
> left list of tables). They'll get around to updating PD for Vista, but
> right now Diskeeper 10 already is and a free full functionality trial is
> avaialable for 30 days.
>
> CH
>
>
> "Mark D. VandenBerg" <mvan103REMOVE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eLpfT4tvGHA.976@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>

Depending on how much your machine gets used by fragmenting apps you might
need to defrag more often than once a week. Perfect Disk and Diskeeper will
ID areas you haven't defragged when you allow the default defragger in Vista
to run. I know they are far better than the watered down defragger that
Execsoft made for XP. There is a chart comparing them that Diskeeper puts
on their site. There are specific limitations of the Defraggers in XP and
afik the same limitation of the watered down one in Vista. No doubt time
will make it easier to find direct comparisons of the Vista Defragger and
perhaps time will make it easier for MSFT to get off it's very slow butt and
publish information on key Vista utilities like Win RE, System Restore, and
System File Checker.

In Vista the MFT (Master File Table) can get highly fragmented and there is
no way for the Vista defragger to defrag it. Some believe overtime this
will hurt the performance of the new Vista Transactional NTFS File System
and this topic is debated on threads all over the web. In Vista, defrag
runs at low CPU priority and uses low priority I/O which helps ensure
minimal impact and high responsiveness for the rest of the system. This is a
big change from XP where the system was more or less unusable when defrag
was running. The interface has been dumbed down in Vista to make it usable
by anyone that can type defrag into search.

Colin did not mention it, but I don't see any mechanism at all for boot time
defrag of the paging file or Master File Table in the XP or Vista Defrag.
Information on why you need to do so periodically is below in the Extreme
Tech Article.

Hacking Windows XP: Speed Up Your Boot: Using Other Shareware Boot Defrag
Programs
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1786010,00.asp

Why is it crucial to defrag your drives daily?

Disk fragmentation causes crashes, slowdowns, freeze-ups and even total
system failures. The number one reason for performance bottlenecks is
fragmentation. Even the best hardware will eventually slow down unless the
drive is defragmented daily.
The disk drive is by far the slowest of the three main components of your
computer: CPU, memory and disk. If the drive isn't defragmented the fastest
CPU in the world won't improve your system's performance, because
information from the disk simply can't be delivered fast enough.
Manual defragmentation just isn't practical-who has time to defrag every
system, every day? Manual defragmentation is a break-fix situation.
Automatic defragmentation with Diskeeper, the Number One Automatic
Defragmenter, is the only true defrag solution. Diskeeper 10 uses "Set It
and Forget It"®, Smart Scheduling and I-FAAST technologies to defrag drives
as needed, keeping your systems running as fast as they did when they were
brand-new.
The various editions of Diskeeper run on the Intel® x86 platform (including
the Intel PentiumT and Pentium-compatible CPUs from other manufacturers)
running Microsoft Windows XP (Professional / Home / Tablet PC / Media Center
editions), Windows 2000 (all Professional and Server editions), Windows
Server 2003 (all editions), Windows NT 4.0 (all Server and Workstation
editions), and Windows 95 / 98 / Me. For more information on compatibility
read the Microsoft Knowledgebase article about Diskeeper, view our product
compatibility list, or select the type of environment your computers run in
from the following choices: Home User, Small Business or
Corporate/Government.

Third-party disk defragmenter tools for Windows Server 2003, Windows XP, and
Windows 2000
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;130539

Disk Defragmenter Limitations in Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows
Server 2003
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/227463/

Diskeeper versus windows xp defrag
http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-6142-0....sageID=1478909

http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=129934

Diskeeper References and Documentation
http://www.diskeeper.com/products/do...umentation.asp


Diskeeper Comparison Utility
http://www.diskeeper.com/downloads/survey.aspx?PId=62
http://www.diskeeper.com/downloads/survey.aspx?PId=62


Magic Defrag vs. Diskeeper
http://www.infopackets.com/channels/...eper_et_al.htm


CH


"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:OswX0hwvGHA.324@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Because the defragger in Vista runs once a week on its own.
>
> "thecreator" <thecreator@home.com> wrote in message
> news:ePlshxtvGHA.1512@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>
>

Vista Defrag FAQ
https://blogs.technet.com/filecab/articles/440717.aspx

CH


"thecreator" <thecreator@home.com> wrote in message
news:ePlshxtvGHA.1512@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Hi All,
>
> Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 2
>
> Windows Vista -32-Bit Ultimate
>
> Windows XP Home Edition, states that Windows XP Home Edition should be
> Defragmented. So I booted into Windows Vista in order to Defragment
> Windows XP Home Edition Partition, so the files to be moved would not be
> in used.
>
> Also makes it easier to empty the \Temp folders, so no files would be
> in use warning. This works great.
>
> But Windows Vista reports that the drive in question, does not need to
> be Defragmented.
>
> Why the difference?
>
>
> --
> thecreator
>

Good article, Chad. Explains a few of the issues we have been trying to
relay very well! Funny that the TechNet blog site has an expired
certificate, though...

--
Mark

"Chad Harris" <HQ@MSFTtindenialovervistamess.com> wrote in message
news:%23xqP8qowGHA.4944@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Vista Defrag FAQ
> https://blogs.technet.com/filecab/articles/440717.aspx
>
> CH
>
>
> "thecreator" <thecreator@home.com> wrote in message
> news:ePlshxtvGHA.1512@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>
>

Hi Mark,

Chad, Thank you. Mark, that particular page does not have an expired
certificate, as in my Internet Options, on Advanced tab, I have Warn about
invalid site certificates checked and checked also is Check for publisher's
certificate revocation.


--
thecreator


"Mark D. VandenBerg" <mvan103REMOVE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O4dIJOswGHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Good article, Chad. Explains a few of the issues we have been trying to
> relay very well! Funny that the TechNet blog site has an expired
> certificate, though...
>
> --
> Mark
>
> "Chad Harris" <HQ@MSFTtindenialovervistamess.com> wrote in message
> news:%23xqP8qowGHA.4944@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>

Using Opera, which I do, I get a warning saying:

"- The certificate for "blogs.technet.com" is signed by the unknown
Certificate Authority "Microsoft Secure Server Authority". It is not
possible to verify that this is a valid certificate"

So I was incorrect in saying "expired" and should have more closely read the
warning that the certificate signer could not be verified.

It may be a little "tit for tat" since Microsoft refuses to recognize Opera,
either.
--
Mark

"thecreator" <thecreator@home.com> wrote in message
news:uwlylGvwGHA.5064@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>
>

<snip>

>
>Mark, that particular page does not have an expired certificate, as in my
>Internet Options, on Advanced tab, I have Warn about invalid site
>certificates checked and checked also is Check for publisher's certificate
>revocation.
>
>
> --
> thecreator
>
>
>