General discussion


Vista vs. XP defrag utility

By chatch1 ·
Today, after switching out my broken cd drive with a new one, i tested it by trying to boot with UBCD4win. Out of curiosity, i opened the XP defrag utility and analyzed my Vista partition with it. The partition is freshly defragged with Vista's utility. The report came back as 30% fragmented... and took a couple hours to finish(most time was spent "compacting files").

Result: the notebook boot time(power on until the hard drive stops working constantly because of superfetch) went down from 11 minutes to just over 3 minutes, and the performance of Vista is almost as fast as when i bought the notebook a year ago. What is the deal with Vista's defrag utility?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

11 minutes?!!?!?

by Oz_Media In reply to Vista vs. XP defrag utili ...

What the heck are you running it on that would take 11 mins to boot? soud slike a really screwed up file system.

As for defrags, I don't trust any Windows defrag utilities, I always go for third party utilities that seem to be more creative in how they manage the disk.

As for your example, I've seen the same with Win2K, where the Win2K defrag beat out the XP defrag as far as cleaning free space and compressing data is concerned. In fact I remember defragging XP havign it show as completely defragged and then running it again and it showing over 20% fragmentation, without using any files in the meantime.

Don' ttrust what they say, just use what works, again I recommend third party utilities, there are lots of them that do a grat job, I find with Vista though that it stays relatively defragged as it is an automatic/built-in feature to defrag on the fly, which sometimes slows performance if your box wasn't designed for Vista too.

Collapse -

I'm not sure about that OZ

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to 11 minutes?!!?!?

I had a ASUS NB here last week that was running Vista Business 32 Bit from new so it was designed for it most defiantly but it took 25 minutes to restart.

It was driving me crazy it was just so SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW When I asked the guy who owned it if he was happy with it his first comment was I wanted to load XP right? I just said No I want to add more RAM to this as it doesn't have anywhere near enough. I upped it to 4 GIG and the thing wasn't the same system after that one change. It now takes 2 Minutes to restart.

The crowd who made this just didn't install anywhere enough RAM to run Vista properly, on a NB that was designed for this OS. Something I've seen quite a lot of with Off The Shelf Systems they will work but just and they need to be upgraded from new to be usable.


Collapse -

I agree

by Oz_Media In reply to I'm not sure about that O ...

That's why I started by asking what he was running, as this is common for Vista "Capable" noteooks. It was teh sticker campaign that resulted in a failed class action suit.

You might remember that last year we had a discussion regarding Vista Capable stickers and how they were trying to have it seen as a class action suit; it was quite a debate actually.

In February '08 it was accepted as a class action suit and the forum went silly with it. It was obviously to be tried under strict limitations, limitations that would have lost the main plaintiff's case, which all other cases would be based on.

Well just last month another judge decided to throw it out as class action and said that the initial plaintiff would have to go on his own.

Point is, they made clear guidelines as to what Capable and Ready meant.

Many notebooks were sold to be Capable, and this just means they car run teh core Vista OS for the advantages of up to date security, and the basic file system. It does not say it would run well and in fact indicates that to get the full use and benefit from Vista, you would need to upgrade hardware.

Fortunately it is most common to see minimum 3GB notebooks on the shelf with new Vista notebooks with the better retail models having at least 4GB as well as better graphics cards and multicore processors.

It was bordeline deception but as always with a company like Microsoft, you always have to dig deep beyond their marketing efforts when sussing them up.

Collapse -

I'll side with Oz here

by Guru Of D0S In reply to 11 minutes?!!?!?

Well, ever since the demise of Windows 98, Microsoft's defrag, er, doesn't!! Apart from non-moveable system files...98's defrag could shove all the free space up one end of the disk...XP onwards just can't....and what's with the boring bars with the stupid pixel-wide lines....give us back the old fill screen rolling defrag with one box per cluster )

Damn.....it's good to be back!!!!

Collapse -

Wahey! GoD returns!

by gadgetgirl In reply to I'll side with Oz here

Good to see you back! - how are you doing?


Collapse -

The windows XP

by Dumphrey In reply to I'll side with Oz here

defrag utility is a striped down, watered down version of diskeeper. I haven't looked at the Vista defrag utility, but I would bet its diskeeper as well. Limitations on the defrag utility probably reflect licensing costs.

If they were more full featured, you would not need to purchase a third party product suck as Diskeeper...

Collapse -


by rob mekel In reply to I'll side with Oz here

Nice seeing you back

Collapse -

GOD quick run and hide it's dangerous here ATM

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to I'll side with Oz here

Just whatever you do do not make any mention of the TR Meeting coming up some people will try to get you to attend no matter what.

I officially announced TechRepublic?s Community Event that will be held in Louisville, Kentucky, on Friday, June 26, 2009.

Listing here




Collapse -

Falls off chair

by Oz_Media In reply to I'll side with Oz here

Bangs head on desk, wakes up in a stupor several days later and wonders, sh*t was that GoD?

Wow, talk about a hiatus! I am eager to hear what's changed, PM me!

Oh, and welcome back its great to hear from you again!

Collapse -

Offline defrag

by seanferd In reply to Vista vs. XP defrag utili ...

Wow, yeah, I'm with Oz here: what the heck causes such long boot times in the first place?

As to why the XP defrag did more: It was because you did it offline - Vista was not running. So defrag could then affect otherwise locked and unmovable files; possibly the boot files organization has improved, and quite likely the swap file was nicely defragmented.

For a quicker defrag, you can always delete (set to none) the swapfile, then recreate it (immediately).

Related Discussions

Related Forums