Vista - Vista Does NOT Defrag

I have run Defrag several times on this computer and watched it finish.

Is there a way to get the defrag tool in Vista to report the file
fragmentation?

Why doesn't Vista defragment the volume fully when it is run?

When I switch over to the XP side on dual boot, I run XP's defrag tool.
XP's Defrag tool always reports that "I need to defrag this disk". Is it OK
to defrag the Vista Volume with Windows XP Defrag?

What up with this? Why doesn't Vista work as well as XP?

Hi TheComputerWizard,

The defrag program on Vista is different to the one on previous versions of
Windows as there is no longer a graphical display of the process. In
addition, defrag can be set to run on a schedule to automatically run at a
set time and day. This can be changed to whatever you want. You can also run
it manually if you wish. Either way, it works in the background at a low
priority without a graphical display.
You can also run defrag from an administrative command prompt. To do this,
click on the start orb and type 'cmd' in the search box. DO NOT press enter.
Instead, hold down 'Ctrl', 'Shift' and then press enter. After providing
administrative credentials, you will be at the command prompt. If you do this
correctly, the prompt will read 'C:\Windows\system32>'. At this prompt, type
'defrag /?' for a full list of the defrag command together with a few
examples. To get a detailed report of the fragmentation status, enter 'defrag
C: -a -v'. To perform a full defragmentation, enter 'defrag C: -w' or
'defrag C: -w -f' to force a defragmentation if you have low disk space. Note
that in both cases you can add the switches '-a' and '-v' if you want more
detailed output.
Even if they work, it is inadvisable to run a disk tool created for another
version of Windows other than that for which they were designed. A tool that
doesn't fully understand the filing system used can cause problems which
might necessitate in the reinstallation of the operating system.
Dwarf

"TheComputerWizard@xxxxxx" wrote:

Each defrag utility checks the OS partition and not the complete HD unless
it is "all" one partition - therefore comparing Vista defrag to XP's
(different partitions) is the old apple and orange stuff.

Note that by default Vista runs defrag (believe default setting every
Wednesday at 3:00 am).

"TheComputerWizard@xxxxxx"
<TheComputerWizardGmailcom@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7572070B-7184-40DF-81AE-15FE7584BD4D@xxxxxx

Hi TheComputerWizard,

Unfortunately, I made a mistake with part of my previous post. I stated that
in both cases you can add the switches '-a' and '-v' if you want more
detailed output. This is in fact incorrect. You cannot add these switches to
the command 'defrag C: -w' or 'defrag C: -w -f'. This is something that I
didn't realise until I tried it myself.
Dwarf

"Dwarf" wrote:

vista defrag runs differently. low priority in the background with no display of what it is doing.

I prefer Auslogics Disk Defrag.
fast, efficient and with a NEAT moving boxes display.




mikeyhsd@xxxxxx



"TheComputerWizard@xxxxxx" <TheComputerWizardGmailcom@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:7572070B-7184-40DF-81AE-15FE7584BD4D@xxxxxx
I have run Defrag several times on this computer and watched it finish.

Is there a way to get the defrag tool in Vista to report the file
fragmentation?

Why doesn't Vista defragment the volume fully when it is run?

When I switch over to the XP side on dual boot, I run XP's defrag tool.
XP's Defrag tool always reports that "I need to defrag this disk". Is it OK
to defrag the Vista Volume with Windows XP Defrag?

What up with this? Why doesn't Vista work as well as XP?

>> ...and with a NEAT moving boxes display.

Deeply sad.

SteveT

nope, just shallow happy.



mikeyhsd@xxxxxx



"Steve Thackery" <nobody@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:%23EnA4TYZIHA.5984@xxxxxxDeeply sad.

SteveT

Color me shallow too. My defrag has been running for over 13 hours and I
have no clue as to where it is in the process. Every time I ran it
automatically it told me it could not defrag the whole disk at one time.
Can't be lack of space as it had over 100GB of free space. I miss the boxes
or at the very least some kind of graphics.

"mikeyhsd" wrote: