Is defragmentation using XP is okay?

I tried on Vista RC1 or Beta 2 (can't remember which. I tried them both). I
defrag it using XP - the drive where i installed vista, and the Vista can't
load afterwards.

I don't want to try this on my Retail vista yet. I found the defragmentation
program in vista disappointing.

I also read in help and support, that you can get a more advance view by
using file called defrag.exe



where I can get that file?

Thanks

Defragging in XP may have caused system files that should never be moved to
be moved in Vista. Any other hypotheses are welcome.

The defragmentation program in Vista is mostly an improvement on XP (low
priority IO, etc) with the inaccurate GUI taken out.

You can call defrag.exe from any administrator command prompt. From an
administrator command prompt type defrag /? and you will get a help
printout. I use defrag /v <vol>: to defragment from the command prompt when
I need to defrag from the command prompt. Defrag /a /v <vol>: is useful as
well.

I believe this attempts to answer your questions/issues.

Thanks!
-Victoria


"WTan" <WTan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:346FF659-F6F7-4558-B596-859AA9E9E1C3@microsoft.com...
> Is defragmentation using XP is okay?
>
> I tried on Vista RC1 or Beta 2 (can't remember which. I tried them both).
> I
> defrag it using XP - the drive where i installed vista, and the Vista
> can't
> load afterwards.
>
> I don't want to try this on my Retail vista yet. I found the
> defragmentation
> program in vista disappointing.
>
> I also read in help and support, that you can get a more advance view by
> using file called defrag.exe
>
> where I can get that file?
>
> Thanks

Could you please explain why it is MS cannot provide and accurate GUI for
the defragmentation program?

Is it the MS position that all the third party defrag applications contain
inaccurate GUI's?

--
Leo

When I was young and adventurous, I wanted to join a violent,
armed group with no regard for the law, but the IRS wasn't hiring.







"Victoria House [MSFT]" <vhouse@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0BBB1A03-3380-417E-81E8-218B90BD876E@microsoft.com...
> Defragging in XP may have caused system files that should never be moved
> to be moved in Vista. Any other hypotheses are welcome.
>
> The defragmentation program in Vista is mostly an improvement on XP (low
> priority IO, etc) with the inaccurate GUI taken out.
>
> You can call defrag.exe from any administrator command prompt. From an
> administrator command prompt type defrag /? and you will get a help
> printout. I use defrag /v <vol>: to defragment from the command prompt
> when I need to defrag from the command prompt. Defrag /a /v <vol>: is
> useful as well.
>
> I believe this attempts to answer your questions/issues.
>
> Thanks!
> -Victoria
>
>
> "WTan" <WTan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:346FF659-F6F7-4558-B596-859AA9E9E1C3@microsoft.com...
>> Is defragmentation using XP is okay?
>>
>> I tried on Vista RC1 or Beta 2 (can't remember which. I tried them both).
>> I
>> defrag it using XP - the drive where i installed vista, and the Vista
>> can't
>> load afterwards.
>>
>> I don't want to try this on my Retail vista yet. I found the
>> defragmentation
>> program in vista disappointing.
>>
>> I also read in help and support, that you can get a more advance view by
>> using file called defrag.exe
>>
>> where I can get that file?
>>
>> Thanks
>

Leo wrote:
> Could you please explain why it is MS cannot provide and accurate GUI
> for the defragmentation program?
>
> Is it the MS position that all the third party defrag applications
> contain inaccurate GUI's?

I'm curious as to why this matters.

If I want to see little pictures move about the screen while my computer
runs a defrag I go and watch a video.

Because for the average user, they don't care. For the average power
user, they use something else (O&O Defrag, etc.).

--
Dustin Harper
dharper@vistarip.com
http://www.vistarip.com


Leo wrote:
> Could you please explain why it is MS cannot provide and accurate GUI
> for the defragmentation program?
>
> Is it the MS position that all the third party defrag applications
> contain inaccurate GUI's?
>

Why the old Windows Defrag UI was inaccurate:

Say you have a 100GB volume.
To be truly accurate, defrag would display 1 colored bar for each cluster on
the volume (4k/cluster on most). Anything else is inaccurate.
Your screen may be about 1900x1280 pixels, so you can fit about 1900
clusters in the width of your screen, graphically.

You need about 26214400 bars of 1 cluster each to display your disk
accurately, cluster by cluster on your 100GB hard drive. (ie each cluster
that is free is white, each that is part of a fragmented piece of file is
red, and the rest are green or blue). If defrag took up your whole monitor,
we would need about 13797 rows of volume data to be accurate. That's a lot
to scroll through for a picture of the volume.
The old UI could be expanded to nearly screen width. So that means each bar
in the old UI, on a 100GB volume, would have been nearly 14000 clusters
(taken from row calculation above.)
That is to say, 54MB+.

Therefore, our UI was inaccurate. I don't know the calculation for a pixel
width in the old code....
BUT if for example, we went by "winner per pixel width", then one
single-pixel-width bar's color would be determined simply by whether there
was more free space, fragged space, non fragged space, or unmovable space.
So in the 54MB example, if 10MB was free space, 10MB was fragged space, and
10MB was unmovable, with the rest being non-fragmented space, the entire bar
would be blue. This problem is of course twice as bad with a 200GB volume.

With storage sizes increasing so quickly, there is not a good way to be
accurate enough to provide a decent picture. Admittedly, once defrag has
been running on a schedule on your computer for a while, the volume will be
largely separated into big blue and white chunks, but for less frequently
defragmented volumes, the UI is still no good.

**
You can view the accuracy problem yourself by resizing the defrag analysis
window in XP (in computer management) a few times and watching red bars
"magically" disappear with the resizing. Sometimes they even migrate. I
have one on an XP box that magically appears when the window is slightly
wider than my screen, in the middle of an otherwise "free" space.
**


As to 2nd question:
I can not speak for Microsoft as to the accuracy of other defragmenter UIs,
only our own.






"Leo" <ldontwant@mail.com> wrote in message
news:8F1D73E8-8314-4AD4-AD9A-784F37E34778@microsoft.com...
> Could you please explain why it is MS cannot provide and accurate GUI for
> the defragmentation program?
>
> Is it the MS position that all the third party defrag applications contain
> inaccurate GUI's?
>
> --
> Leo
>
> When I was young and adventurous, I wanted to join a violent,
> armed group with no regard for the law, but the IRS wasn't hiring.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Victoria House [MSFT]" <vhouse@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0BBB1A03-3380-417E-81E8-218B90BD876E@microsoft.com...
>> Defragging in XP may have caused system files that should never be moved
>> to be moved in Vista. Any other hypotheses are welcome.
>>
>> The defragmentation program in Vista is mostly an improvement on XP (low
>> priority IO, etc) with the inaccurate GUI taken out.
>>
>> You can call defrag.exe from any administrator command prompt. From an
>> administrator command prompt type defrag /? and you will get a help
>> printout. I use defrag /v <vol>: to defragment from the command prompt
>> when I need to defrag from the command prompt. Defrag /a /v <vol>: is
>> useful as well.
>>
>> I believe this attempts to answer your questions/issues.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Victoria
>>
>>
>> "WTan" <WTan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:346FF659-F6F7-4558-B596-859AA9E9E1C3@microsoft.com...
>>> Is defragmentation using XP is okay?
>>>
>>> I tried on Vista RC1 or Beta 2 (can't remember which. I tried them
>>> both). I
>>> defrag it using XP - the drive where i installed vista, and the Vista
>>> can't
>>> load afterwards.
>>>
>>> I don't want to try this on my Retail vista yet. I found the
>>> defragmentation
>>> program in vista disappointing.
>>>
>>> I also read in help and support, that you can get a more advance view by
>>> using file called defrag.exe
>>>
>>> where I can get that file?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>

That is not the point.

The MS representative said the XP defrag GUI was not accurate. Why is it MS
can not produce an accurate defrag GUI for those who may want it.

Is the MS representing hinting that third party defrag application with a
GUI are not accurate?

--
Leo

When I was young and adventurous, I wanted to join a violent,
armed group with no regard for the law, but the IRS wasn't hiring.







"Robert Moir" <robspamtrap@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uR7Xz4vSHHA.5100@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Leo wrote:
>> Could you please explain why it is MS cannot provide and accurate GUI
>> for the defragmentation program?
>>
>> Is it the MS position that all the third party defrag applications
>> contain inaccurate GUI's?
>
> I'm curious as to why this matters.
>
> If I want to see little pictures move about the screen while my computer
> runs a defrag I go and watch a video.
>

Thanks for that answer.

--
Leo

When I was young and adventurous, I wanted to join a violent,
armed group with no regard for the law, but the IRS wasn't hiring.







"Victoria House [MSFT]" <vhouse@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:693A92AF-B285-4EA7-BCAF-CB40AFF1D3AD@microsoft.com...
> Why the old Windows Defrag UI was inaccurate:
>
> Say you have a 100GB volume.
> To be truly accurate, defrag would display 1 colored bar for each cluster
> on the volume (4k/cluster on most). Anything else is inaccurate.
> Your screen may be about 1900x1280 pixels, so you can fit about 1900
> clusters in the width of your screen, graphically.
>
> You need about 26214400 bars of 1 cluster each to display your disk
> accurately, cluster by cluster on your 100GB hard drive. (ie each cluster
> that is free is white, each that is part of a fragmented piece of file is
> red, and the rest are green or blue). If defrag took up your whole
> monitor, we would need about 13797 rows of volume data to be accurate.
> That's a lot to scroll through for a picture of the volume.
> The old UI could be expanded to nearly screen width. So that means each
> bar in the old UI, on a 100GB volume, would have been nearly 14000
> clusters (taken from row calculation above.)
> That is to say, 54MB+.
>
> Therefore, our UI was inaccurate. I don't know the calculation for a
> pixel width in the old code....
> BUT if for example, we went by "winner per pixel width", then one
> single-pixel-width bar's color would be determined simply by whether there
> was more free space, fragged space, non fragged space, or unmovable space.
> So in the 54MB example, if 10MB was free space, 10MB was fragged space,
> and 10MB was unmovable, with the rest being non-fragmented space, the
> entire bar would be blue. This problem is of course twice as bad with a
> 200GB volume.
>
> With storage sizes increasing so quickly, there is not a good way to be
> accurate enough to provide a decent picture. Admittedly, once defrag has
> been running on a schedule on your computer for a while, the volume will
> be largely separated into big blue and white chunks, but for less
> frequently defragmented volumes, the UI is still no good.
>
> **
> You can view the accuracy problem yourself by resizing the defrag analysis
> window in XP (in computer management) a few times and watching red bars
> "magically" disappear with the resizing. Sometimes they even migrate. I
> have one on an XP box that magically appears when the window is slightly
> wider than my screen, in the middle of an otherwise "free" space.
> **
>
>
> As to 2nd question:
> I can not speak for Microsoft as to the accuracy of other defragmenter
> UIs, only our own.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Leo" <ldontwant@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:8F1D73E8-8314-4AD4-AD9A-784F37E34778@microsoft.com...
>> Could you please explain why it is MS cannot provide and accurate GUI for
>> the defragmentation program?
>>
>> Is it the MS position that all the third party defrag applications
>> contain inaccurate GUI's?
>>
>> --
>> Leo
>>
>> When I was young and adventurous, I wanted to join a violent,
>> armed group with no regard for the law, but the IRS wasn't hiring.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Victoria House [MSFT]" <vhouse@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:0BBB1A03-3380-417E-81E8-218B90BD876E@microsoft.com...
>>> Defragging in XP may have caused system files that should never be moved
>>> to be moved in Vista. Any other hypotheses are welcome.
>>>
>>> The defragmentation program in Vista is mostly an improvement on XP (low
>>> priority IO, etc) with the inaccurate GUI taken out.
>>>
>>> You can call defrag.exe from any administrator command prompt. From an
>>> administrator command prompt type defrag /? and you will get a help
>>> printout. I use defrag /v <vol>: to defragment from the command prompt
>>> when I need to defrag from the command prompt. Defrag /a /v <vol>: is
>>> useful as well.
>>>
>>> I believe this attempts to answer your questions/issues.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> -Victoria
>>>
>>>
>>> "WTan" <WTan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:346FF659-F6F7-4558-B596-859AA9E9E1C3@microsoft.com...
>>>> Is defragmentation using XP is okay?
>>>>
>>>> I tried on Vista RC1 or Beta 2 (can't remember which. I tried them
>>>> both). I
>>>> defrag it using XP - the drive where i installed vista, and the Vista
>>>> can't
>>>> load afterwards.
>>>>
>>>> I don't want to try this on my Retail vista yet. I found the
>>>> defragmentation
>>>> program in vista disappointing.
>>>>
>>>> I also read in help and support, that you can get a more advance view
>>>> by
>>>> using file called defrag.exe
>>>>
>>>> where I can get that file?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>
>>
>

Glad to help, or at least satisfy the curiosity and perhaps show everyone
that we're not just fooling around, we did have a reason.

We get this question a lot, and now I can just copy/paste that answer in
when I get it. I've been thinking about posting it for a while.

-Victoria


"Leo" <ldontwant@mail.com> wrote in message
news:09604230-FF76-4E32-A8A8-88BB46332409@microsoft.com...
> Thanks for that answer.
>
> --
> Leo
>
> When I was young and adventurous, I wanted to join a violent,
> armed group with no regard for the law, but the IRS wasn't hiring.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Victoria House [MSFT]" <vhouse@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:693A92AF-B285-4EA7-BCAF-CB40AFF1D3AD@microsoft.com...
>> Why the old Windows Defrag UI was inaccurate:
>>
>> Say you have a 100GB volume.
>> To be truly accurate, defrag would display 1 colored bar for each cluster
>> on the volume (4k/cluster on most). Anything else is inaccurate.
>> Your screen may be about 1900x1280 pixels, so you can fit about 1900
>> clusters in the width of your screen, graphically.
>>
>> You need about 26214400 bars of 1 cluster each to display your disk
>> accurately, cluster by cluster on your 100GB hard drive. (ie each cluster
>> that is free is white, each that is part of a fragmented piece of file is
>> red, and the rest are green or blue). If defrag took up your whole
>> monitor, we would need about 13797 rows of volume data to be accurate.
>> That's a lot to scroll through for a picture of the volume.
>> The old UI could be expanded to nearly screen width. So that means each
>> bar in the old UI, on a 100GB volume, would have been nearly 14000
>> clusters (taken from row calculation above.)
>> That is to say, 54MB+.
>>
>> Therefore, our UI was inaccurate. I don't know the calculation for a
>> pixel width in the old code....
>> BUT if for example, we went by "winner per pixel width", then one
>> single-pixel-width bar's color would be determined simply by whether
>> there was more free space, fragged space, non fragged space, or unmovable
>> space. So in the 54MB example, if 10MB was free space, 10MB was fragged
>> space, and 10MB was unmovable, with the rest being non-fragmented space,
>> the entire bar would be blue. This problem is of course twice as bad
>> with a 200GB volume.
>>
>> With storage sizes increasing so quickly, there is not a good way to be
>> accurate enough to provide a decent picture. Admittedly, once defrag has
>> been running on a schedule on your computer for a while, the volume will
>> be largely separated into big blue and white chunks, but for less
>> frequently defragmented volumes, the UI is still no good.
>>
>> **
>> You can view the accuracy problem yourself by resizing the defrag
>> analysis window in XP (in computer management) a few times and watching
>> red bars "magically" disappear with the resizing. Sometimes they even
>> migrate. I have one on an XP box that magically appears when the window
>> is slightly wider than my screen, in the middle of an otherwise "free"
>> space.
>> **
>>
>>
>> As to 2nd question:
>> I can not speak for Microsoft as to the accuracy of other defragmenter
>> UIs, only our own.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Leo" <ldontwant@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:8F1D73E8-8314-4AD4-AD9A-784F37E34778@microsoft.com...
>>> Could you please explain why it is MS cannot provide and accurate GUI
>>> for the defragmentation program?
>>>
>>> Is it the MS position that all the third party defrag applications
>>> contain inaccurate GUI's?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Leo
>>>
>>> When I was young and adventurous, I wanted to join a violent,
>>> armed group with no regard for the law, but the IRS wasn't hiring.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Victoria House [MSFT]" <vhouse@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0BBB1A03-3380-417E-81E8-218B90BD876E@microsoft.com...
>>>> Defragging in XP may have caused system files that should never be
>>>> moved to be moved in Vista. Any other hypotheses are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> The defragmentation program in Vista is mostly an improvement on XP
>>>> (low priority IO, etc) with the inaccurate GUI taken out.
>>>>
>>>> You can call defrag.exe from any administrator command prompt. From an
>>>> administrator command prompt type defrag /? and you will get a help
>>>> printout. I use defrag /v <vol>: to defragment from the command prompt
>>>> when I need to defrag from the command prompt. Defrag /a /v <vol>: is
>>>> useful as well.
>>>>
>>>> I believe this attempts to answer your questions/issues.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> -Victoria
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "WTan" <WTan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:346FF659-F6F7-4558-B596-859AA9E9E1C3@microsoft.com...
>>>>> Is defragmentation using XP is okay?
>>>>>
>>>>> I tried on Vista RC1 or Beta 2 (can't remember which. I tried them
>>>>> both). I
>>>>> defrag it using XP - the drive where i installed vista, and the Vista
>>>>> can't
>>>>> load afterwards.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't want to try this on my Retail vista yet. I found the
>>>>> defragmentation
>>>>> program in vista disappointing.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also read in help and support, that you can get a more advance view
>>>>> by
>>>>> using file called defrag.exe
>>>>>
>>>>> where I can get that file?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

>> Defragging in XP may have caused system files that should never be moved
>> to
be moved in Vista.

Victoria:

Are you stating that defragging Vista via XP does cause problems, or may
cause problems?
What Vista files should not be moved and why are they tied to a cluster?

TIA