We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
XP and 2,000 Users of 12gb Harddrives +
Topic Started: Jul 17 2005, 05:22 PM (443 Views)
Captain Kam
Custom member title
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
This is just a survey I need to find out something.

I'm running Windows 98, and defragged today from 12:00 to 2:22 my time (both PM), doing in total two hours.

I'm wondering if Windows 2,000 or Windows XP Defragment's faster than Windows 98, so I need to know how much time it takes to defragment in a Windows 2,000 or Windows XP on a 12gb + Hard drive (preferably more than 8gb taken). ^_^' So if somebody could tell me how fast it normally takes for them to Defragment on their computer, and what OS they're using, I'd be grateful.

;D Thanks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke6006
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I've never done it but I had an old 98 SE machine it took a while, I aren't sure this would have speeded up in other os' though. Maybe just taking half an hour off? Not much I would have thought.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pete
Member Avatar
"Magnitude without direction"
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
i defrag both my winxp hard drives regularly so they only take a few minutes....
i'm pretty sure that the frequency of defragmentation affects the time more than the OS....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dbzlotrfan
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Also (correct if wrong) but doesn't defragging if done enough and done extremlly frequently it won't even work at all or (doen't seem to)? Thought I read that some where on this forum (if so very old topic).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paper
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Use Dirms. It won't take as long. It's for Windows NT, 200 or XP only

http://www.dirms.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sipefree
Member Avatar
Moved to paid hosting.
[ *  *  * ]
To defrag 80 GB on a Mac takes 10 mins.

:luna:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rory
Member Avatar
i;m a mess
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
To be honest, the length of time it takes depends on how long since you last defragged it, and how much data is fragmented.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Captain Kam
Custom member title
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Thank you very much Rory ;D

All I need to know is if the more "Modern" OS's Defragment faster anyways. XP I never had experience with Windows 2,000's Defragmentation, nor XP's.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

its not neccesarily faster based on new technology, its based on overall system speed, and file fragmentation, and how the OS allocates files.

the Defragmenting software wriiten for Windows OS's hasnt changed since the days of 3.11. its the same File defragmenting architecture that has been around since the old days. mainly cus its built for x86 systems on an NTFS file system.

for me, to defrag an 80gig HD with all my main stuff on it which is about halfway full took me maybe 5-10 minutes? i was in the shower and it was done when i got out. my 120gig with all my music took maybe 4 minutes just to push around a bit so its REALLY hard to say whats better.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
kingy
1 in 10 people understands binary, the other 1 doesn't
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It also depends if you are using the old Fat32 or the newer NTFS
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

haha good old FAT32. actually by saying that i retract my former statement. the defragmenting algorithms were changed once the NTFS file structure was introduced. NTFS was originally introduced within the Windows NT OS releases like NT1, 2, 3, 4(windows 2000) and XP which is basicly NT5.

it was and is now the standard but i am not ENTIRELY sure if 95,98, and ME ran FAT32 or NTFS. I believe they do use NTFS but they may revert to FAT32 since you always have that option upon reformatting.

long = lots of file fragmenting, short = lots of open space but no fragging(only needs compressing)

basicly ur asking an un-answerable question. same basic algorithms on 2 file systems. forget it and be happy!
Quote Post Goto Top
 
dbzlotrfan
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
it was and is now the standard but i am not ENTIRELY sure if 95,98, and ME ran FAT32 or NTFS. I believe they do use NTFS but they may revert to FAT32 since you always have that option upon reformatting.

don't know abut others, but ME was FAT. Or atlest the version I had (dont' remember which).


And sorry if off topic. But besides name, what else is diffrent between a FAT32 drive and a NTFS. Less bugs, more speed?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

easier for file allocations tables. better search algorithms, overall more robust system, etc.. u know, many other new things involving large and oddly placed words within uncomprehensible sentences, the normal hehe.

basicly, easier on the computer, faster, less fragmentation.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Community Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply