Vista - Defragment/precompact Vista disk???

In message <b0gik4da5cmhfkhojn0nnpkhsbas1ump2u@xxxxxx> Bo Berglund
<boberglund@xxxxxx> was claimed to have wrote:
Correct. Even on my fairly small 500GB drive I have 122096127 total
allocation units on disk, which is more pixels then my 24" 1920x1200
monitor can display.

The graphic hasn't meant anything for a long time as even if you had a
small enough drive to fit within the number of pixels on your screen,
XP's drive map didn't use 1 pixel images.

With 1% fragmentation you don't need to defragment, so move on to the
next step.

You can get more info by adding -v to the end of the command line:

Windows Disk Defragmenter
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corp.

Analysis report for volume F: 750GB

Volume size = 699 GB
Cluster size = 4 KB
Used space = 540 GB
Free space = 159 GB
Percent free space = 22 %

File fragmentation
Percent file fragmentation = 0 %
Total movable files = 3,578
Average file size = 122 MB
Total fragmented files = 6
Total excess fragments = 144
Average fragments per file = 1.04
Total unmovable files = 12

Free space fragmentation
Free space = 159 GB
Total free space extent = 2,351
Average free space per extent = 69 MB
Largest free space extent = 28.03 GB

Folder fragmentation
Total folders = 203
Fragmented folders = 1
Excess folder fragments = 0

Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation
Total MFT size = 8 MB
MFT record count = 3,707
Percent MFT in use = 43
Total MFT fragments = 3

Note: On NTFS volumes, file fragments larger than 64MB are not
included in the fragmentation statistics

You do not need to defragment this volume.

I too use Diskeeper 2009 (just upgraded) on Vista, and it's got the GUI and drive map. Defrags much faster than the Vista defragger too.

Mark Rae [MVP] wrote:But isn't that what Vista is all about -- graphical eye candy added to
XP that wastes processor cycles?

Bob

<bobfnospam@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uyTZmhraJHA.4052@xxxxxx
No.


--
Mark Rae
ASP.NET MVP
http://www.markrae.net

In message <uyTZmhraJHA.4052@xxxxxx>
bobfnospam@xxxxxx was claimed to have wrote:
Yup. Running IE7 in protected mode, and enforcing limited user
privileges in other applications is all graphical eye candy.

Of course when it comes to eye candy, Aero manages to offload work over
to the otherwise all-but-used GPU, so Aero is actually using less CPU
then XP in many cases.

But don't worry about letting those pesky facts while you're busy having
a good rant, 'eh?

"DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:593ll4ds7r5f4ba9t0p0ij131cntbvnvhl@xxxxxx
Correct.
Indeed. It always makes you look cool and hard to have a pop at the latest
MS OS - exactly the same phenomenon was noted when XP was first released.

When Vienna (or whatever it ends up being called) comes out next year,
expect a slew of posts saying how crap it is and can't we have good ol'
Vista back, etc...


--
Mark Rae
ASP.NET MVP
http://www.markrae.net

In message <ekwfLwsaJHA.4276@xxxxxx> "Mark Rae [MVP]"
<mark@xxxxxx> was claimed to have wrote:
But it makes a better rant to whine about eye candy -- And in fairness
with a subpar video card and transparency, the end result may be slower
then turning Aero off since most CPUs aren't all that busy most of the
time anyway.

I'm a little disappointed that Microsoft didn't make
Aero-without-transparency a more obvious choice, and put the wording
around the non-Aero themes to indicate it's for under powered machines
or something similar that would embarrass the gamer types out of using
it.
Yup. It took well past XP SP2's release before a lot of the naysayers
moved over. I stuck it out with 2000 myself until XP SP2.
I'm not seeing that one, 7 is coming out too quickly, the good 'ol days
will still be XP. Shame, but a necessary one to get MS' OS release
schedule back up to speed, and so such is Vista's fate.