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 -

Lots of running services

by chatch1 In reply to Offline defrag

I use this as a desktop, and i use it for web/application development, so i have local replicas of SQL databases for testing etc. running. It has about 117 processes running after startup...1.7gb ram used(out of 3).

I think both of you are correct about the partition not being locked by Vista. The fragmented files were probably system files that couldnt be moved unless you were running a separate OS.

Collapse -

Yep that will be the reason here

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Lots of running services

Any Defrag App would have managed to do the same when run without the OS being loaded.

Any OS Locks Files that where never placed in the right place on the HDD to begin with so you are stuck with slower Performance that you should have.


Collapse -

HAL, you're answering questions as HAL again :0

by seanferd In reply to Yep that will be the reas ...

Or have you just given up since you've gotten those two extra thumbs? (Even though it's been a while already.)

Of course, it really isn't a Question question, but you could form bad habits this way.

Edited for shocked vs laughing (although I suppose one is as good as the other here).

Collapse -

I've actually given up completely now

by OH Smeg Moderator In reply to HAL, you're answering que ...

TR is misbehaving like there is no tomorrow so I no longer care.

Like for instance I logged in this time and it showed that I was logged in but when I went to Post a Reply I was prompted to Log In.

Then other times I'm logged in as Smeggy and the next time I post a reply it comes up as HAL again so I have finally come to the conclusion that TR is out to get me so I don't bother any more.

Must be JD's ShowTunes or the fact that he's now asking questions about Novel has overloaded the servers and they is Broke. :^0

Lets see which Account comes up this time as it doesn't appear to matter which User Name & Password I use TR just choses what they want me logged in as and there is no way around it. :-&

Col 0:-)

Collapse -

Wow, sure, yeah. That's a lot going on under the hood.

by seanferd In reply to Lots of running services

For a normal Vista defrag maybe just log in under another account that doesn't have all the extra processes/services running.

3 minutes for that startup probably is not too bad, really.

Collapse -

I'd kill to get boot times down to 11 minutes!

by acavasin In reply to Wow, sure, yeah. That's a ...

Warning: This is from the desk of a(n) (obviously) technological nincompoop. I have a brand new HP Dv6z with Vista Ultimate, 500 g HD & 8 g of RAM. It worked remarkably well until about 2 months ago when I had our tech group send a guy in to hook me up to our business network. From that point on it's been a swift descent into laptop ****; one thing after another. It now takes an easy 15 minutes to boot and it's driving me nuts. I've had the tech group back several times for head-scratching, chin rubbing sessions, but the patient is still dying. Are there any suggestions besides boat anchor?

Collapse -

64 MB fragments

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

Vista's defragger excludes fragments larger than 64MB by default, so even if the vista defragger reports a fully defragmented disk, there could actually be large fragments present. XP's defragger reports all the fragments IIRC.

Get something like Diskeeper 2009 pro for defragging if you want fast and good results. It will defrag in a fraction of the time it takes the windows utilities, and yet do a far better job.

And, yes, 11 minutes is way too long for bootup; heck, even 3 mins is too long :)

Also, disable superfetch; despite all the hype, I found it to be totally useless.

Related Discussions

Related Forums