I have users that frequently request defrags on their XP pc's.
What I want to know is how do you prove that it helps in performance or in
my opinion dose snot help unless the drive is badly defragmented. Like a ps
that is 2 years old or a drive that is over 60% full.

Is there a way to provide proof that it helps in performance.

Why do you have to prove anything? If your users don't like the way
their computers are running let them find another job.

"Don't become a defrag junkie"
http://winhlp.com/node/82

---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Toxic wrote:

Toxic

The reality is that there are so many scenarios that what suits one
situation does not have a significant impact in another. Defragmenting
should not be taken in isolation. You should always run Disk CleanUp (
or cCleaner ) before running Disk Defragmenter. The combination of the
two will have an an impact but it will differ from one system to
another.

A point worth making is that a system which has limited RAM and CPU
capacity may need all the help it can get to achieve an acceptable level
of performance. The percentage improvement will be greater on computers
in this situation than those with plenty of RAM and CPU capacity. You
may also get differing results as between desktops and laptops given
that most laptops have hard disks with slower rotational speeds.


--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Toxic wrote:

In my experience it makes very little difference.

The reason that computers get slow over time is mostly due to users
installing trial software which doesn't fully uninstall. This leaves all
kinds of baggage behind on the system, slowing it. Thus, if you want to keep
your main computer running well, use a spare one for trying-out software. Or,
test stuff in a virtual machine.

On which subject it annoys me greatly that so many prebuilt computers come
with preinstalled trial software. From the above it's clear that this is like
accepting a 'new' car with 5,000 miles on the clock. It ain't a new PC, it's
a used one, and uninstalling the junk still won't entirely give you that
new-computer sparkle.

--------------------------
"This is a wonderful computer. It's 20yrs old and absolutely reliable. And,
in all that time it's only had four mobos, six processors, two cases, seven
OS's ...."


"Toxic" wrote:

Anteaus@discussions.microsoft.com (=?Utf-8?B?QW50ZWF1cw==?=) wrote in
news:A9D54EFD-AD8F-4C81-A22B-64C95934B649@microsoft.com:

How's that work?

Simply taking up disk space won't slow a machine down. If it's not
running, how's it slowing the system down?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

Bert

Many here might say Norton or McAfee are not for my machine. They are
frequently supplied and make for poor performance.


--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bert Hyman wrote:

It depends on how badly and what files are fragmented, and what your usage
patterns are. Generally, regular defragmentation will at the very least, keep
your system running without the drive being the performance bottleneck.

For 'badly' and 'moderately' fragmented systems, defragmentation will
restore lost performance and the system should become more responsive
overall. This is what I've observed with my systems and those of my friends.
I'd rather stick an automatic defragmenter on my systems and prevent the
growth of fragmentation rather than deal with it later regularly. To use a
rough analogy, fragmentation is like a drive affliction that is prevented
rather than cured.

If there are many small to medium size files (~ 60 MB) and they are in
multiple fragments, you'll most probably see poorer file access peformance.
Larger files in fewer number of fragments will not be such a problem. For
sequential file operations like file copying or texture loading in games,
fragmentation is pretty bad.

If the MFT is fragmented, you'll see a performance drop for file acess,
this is why Windows pre-allocates some space for contiguous MFT growth.
Actually, automatic defraggers also resize the MFT automatically to make it
future-contiguous and prevent it's fragmentation.


"Toxic" wrote:

Bert,
My understanding of it is that anytime a program is installed, registry
entries are made. The more keys you have in your registry, the longer it
takes for software to load because the OS has to parse though until it finds
the key it needs (your settings) in order for the program to launch. All
this parsing takes time, while you twiddle your thumbs. Best to keep
software installs to a minimum.
-I have discovered that uninstall isn't always the answer either. If you
run a search of the registry in registry editor, you find all sorts of left
over keys, which will slow the machine down.

"Bert Hyman" wrote:

"The more keys you have in your registry, the longer it takes for
software to load because the OS has to parse though until it finds
the key it needs..."

This is actually a widely held misconception. (Not at all your fault.)
The notion that your computer must hunt high and low through your
registry to root out what it needs is erroneous. In fact, the
application references the specific registry key(s) it needs and your
computer goes straight there. Either the specified key(s) exist or they
don't. If the keys aren't there the computer won't go running around
trying to find them.

---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

CrabbyOlMan wrote:

Leonard Grey wrote:
I agree with your comment if the key is known, but what about a list of
items, like ..... a list of uninstall programs? Windows does not
know the key, it has to search that leg of a tree to find all
uninstalls.
So how does windows *know* the keys if the keys could be of any list and
any value, if it does not search? And there have to be other
situations like this!

Windows knows exactly where the list of uninstall programs is.

---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Big_Al wrote:

Leonard Grey wrote:
the keys below it. It has to search those keys to build a list to
display the add/remove programs to the user. That's why you have a
delay and add/remove is not instant.

'Add/Remove' is instant for me, and I don't use a registry cleaner. My
computer is 6 years old (in July.)

---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Big_Al wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:22:44 GMT, Big_Al <BigAl@MD.com> wrote:

I use safarp for my add/removes. It has no delay whilst the add/remove
applet does...go figure.
--

Cheers,

DrT

** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.

Leonard Grey wrote:
On all three of mine, it takes from 15 to 40 seconds to fill. Any clue as to why?
Mike

Nope. But if you like to use registry cleaners, who knows what they have
done to your computer...

I am afraid that I am unable to help you any further. Hopefully you will
get advice from someone else, otherwise I would try a web search.

---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

MikeR wrote:

Leonard Grey wrote: