Sharesmagazine
 Home   Log In   Register   Our Services   My Account   Contact   Help 
 Stockwatch   Level 2   Portfolio   Charts   Share Price   Awards   Market Scan   Videos   Broker Notes   Director Deals   Traders' Room 
 Funds   Trades   Terminal   Alerts   Heatmaps   News   Indices   Forward Diary   Forex Prices   Shares Magazine   Investors' Room 
 CFDs   Shares   SIPPs   ISAs   Forex   ETFs   Comparison Tables   Spread Betting 
You are NOT currently logged in
 
Register now or login to post to this thread.

PC & MAC CLINIC - On line problem solving. (CPU)     

Crocodile - 16 Dec 2002 03:59

skinny - 06 Oct 2010 11:11 - 9160 of 11003

Just read the last few posts - what is wrong with the standard defragger?

Spaceman - 06 Oct 2010 11:15 - 9161 of 11003

To be honest I don't bother with defragging at all. For most people its not necessary.

ThePublisher - 06 Oct 2010 12:03 - 9162 of 11003

skinny.

A daft answer I know but - with Vista you don't get one of those nice red and blue segmented charts to show you all the hard work it is doing.

TP

HARRYCAT - 06 Oct 2010 12:06 - 9163 of 11003

That was Windows '98!!! XP doesn't do that. Window's defrag very slow though, imo. As mentioned, best to do it when PC idle for a few hours. Any basic maintenance you can do will help to speed up the processing speed. The less files / rubbish it has to search the faster it will operate.

hilary - 06 Oct 2010 12:06 - 9164 of 11003

My Windows defragger kept saying that there were a load of files that couldn't be defragged. The Auslogics defragger somehow manages to delete them. And it's pretty to look at as TP alludes to with his defragger.

ExecLine - 06 Oct 2010 12:29 - 9165 of 11003

I use XP's standard one - but 'pretty to look at' you say, Hils and TP?

That's at least worth a 'Hmmm?', I think.

hilary - 06 Oct 2010 12:41 - 9166 of 11003

I don't do ugly, Doc!

The Other Kevin - 06 Oct 2010 12:42 - 9167 of 11003

Pretty to look at? The words Drying Paint and Watching spring to mind!

kernow - 06 Oct 2010 12:56 - 9168 of 11003

Indeed. I started defrag at 21.00hrs. It was 34% complete at around 03.30 when I made a trip across the landing. Nothing else running and speed of scan on max.
Also as Hilary says some files were not defragged.
Thanks for all the responses - I'll probably try TP's solution first if only cos I like my ccleaner.

tyketto - 06 Oct 2010 13:28 - 9169 of 11003

I use Comodo, Firewall and Antivirus.Free.
Has very handy set of tools, including defrag.
It's very quick, but then it's only an 80 Gig HD.

Haystack - 06 Oct 2010 16:30 - 9170 of 11003

If you are going to defrag your disk then make sure you run CCleaner first to remove all the unwanted and temporary files otherwise it will take even longer.

ExecLine - 06 Oct 2010 20:14 - 9171 of 11003

Zachary about the CCleaner!

Clear the rubbish and then defrag and then defrag again. Get rid of those frags.

This post was done so fast on this machine, it was edited before it was posted. :-)

Haystack - 06 Oct 2010 22:39 - 9172 of 11003

One of the other problems with some of the defrag software is that it doesn't defrag the free space. This means that as files expand or new files get written they get bits and pieces to use. I notice that Piriform Defraggler has a feature to just defrag the free space and on a file by file basis if requested. It seems pretty good. It has made a better job at defragmentation than Smart Defrag, but it took around ten times as long. I am going to try the Auslogics Defrag system next.

Haystack - 07 Oct 2010 02:14 - 9173 of 11003

After Auslogics Defrag and then the other two repeated again I finally managed 0% fragmentation. Each defragmenter managed different files to a different degree.

ThePublisher - 07 Oct 2010 13:06 - 9174 of 11003

Whist we are in disk tidy up mode (must be too quiet for much trading) can I mention the massive disk space I recovered by using the facility to delete all the recovery points but one in Drive Properties.

I have a 250 gig disk on this machine. I let MS update my Vista. I recovered about 30 gig three months ago and another 30 gig had crept back by yesterday.

TP

ThePublisher - 08 Oct 2010 09:27 - 9175 of 11003

For those of you using Defraggler to work on free space you should look at this.

Judging from the date of the last message and that of the most recent update my guess is that the bug is not yet fixed.

TP

kernow - 08 Oct 2010 10:25 - 9176 of 11003

Well defraggler took even longer than the MS version 21.00hrs and finished around 09.30 this am. - and it had an MS defragged HD to start with. I'm still left with 11% defragmentation. I'll try Hillary's option next.

hilary - 08 Oct 2010 11:30 - 9177 of 11003

How full is your hard disk, Kernow?

skinny - 08 Oct 2010 11:32 - 9178 of 11003

That's a bit personnal!

hilary - 08 Oct 2010 11:35 - 9179 of 11003

Is your disk even hard, Skinners?

:o)
Register now or login to post to this thread.