"George (Bindar Dundat)" <JustMe@nothome.net> wrote in message
news:OGN03ULRDHA.2148@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl
...message sent yesterday..

Well, thanks for all the input.

Does anyone know of a freeware program that will tell the percent of fragmentation?

Percentage of fragmentation is nearly useless number. Percentage of what, to
start with. Beyond that, it's more a case of what files are fragmented and where
the fragments are located.

Unless you're doing a search on a large number of files, the general condition
of all files is irrelevant. It's the files that are being continually accessed
that matter. Files that are being written and rewritten (documents, internet
files, email) are the most prone to fragmentation, and at the same time most
problematic as they become more so.

The more relevant consideration of when to defragment is when was it last
defragmented, relative to how much use it gets. For Win98, heavy usage (several
hours per day of active use, particularly word processing and internet/email
use) calls for twice weekly maintenance. An hour or two of nightly email and
surfing, games, etc., or several hours of light use (it's there, but mostly
idle), calls for weekly maintenance. Minimalist use might extend the schedule to
once a month, maybe.

No, I don't know of any such program, though Windows 2000 and XP provide full
reports--"percentage fragmented" (though, like I say, percentage of what?),
fragmented files listed, number of fragments per fragmented file, etc.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP for Windows 9x

*Recommended Help Sites*
http://www.dts-l.org
http://www.mvps.org
http://www.aumha.org

How to Use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups
http://support.microsoft.com/?pr=newswhelp
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"sg" <sasguy393@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b8922de.0307081647.6fe98f2a@posting.google.c om...

Pile of useless garbage.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP for Windows 9x

*Recommended Help Sites*
http://www.dts-l.org
http://www.mvps.org
http://www.aumha.org

How to Use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups
http://support.microsoft.com/?pr=newswhelp
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:upuqWPdRDHA.2148@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

Agreed. "Less is more".

Gary S. Terhune wrote:

CRACKUP Report: Windows 95(b)
Generated Wednesday, July 09, 2003 16:49:44

Drive C:P C R HARD (FAT32)
Last scan: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 16:49:12
15298 Moveable files
825 Directories
28 Unmoveable files
6939 Zero-length files

1 Unmovable fragmented files
27 Unmovable unfragmented files
237 Moveable fragmented files and directories
15886 Moveable unfragmented files and directories

3470 Moveable extra fragments (MEF)
18 Unmovable extra fragments (UEF)
404 Bounded free fragments (BFF)
2 Unbounded free fragments (UFF)

2042868 Total clusters (TC)
41000 Unmovable clusters (UC)
27163 Moveable fragmented allocated clusters
372237 Moveable unfragmented allocated clusters
78225 Bounded free clusters
1524241 Unbounded free clusters (UFC)

*** Fragmentation (moveable files only): 0.8%
*** Fragmentation (all files): 0.8%

--
Thanks & Good Luck,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23VPSDaeRDHA.704@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Pile of useless garbage.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP for Windows 9x
|
| *Recommended Help Sites*
| http://www.dts-l.org
| http://www.mvps.org
| http://www.aumha.org
|
| How to Use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups
| http://support.microsoft.com/?pr=newswhelp
| +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:upuqWPdRDHA.2148@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > Do a Defrag after a sluggish boot or when this says so:
| > http://www.pcmag.com/ 's CrackUp, by Gregory A. Wolking & Bob
Flanders.
| > Also, take DiskAction, to determine what is constantly writing to
the
| > HDD, which causes the restarts. Take BHOCop & StartupCop too.
| >
| > http://www.pcmag.com/ Has many, many great utilities: BHOCop, COA2,
| > Crackup, DiskAction, EndItAll2, HDValet, ListZapper, RegDetective,
| > RegEdit+, StartupCop, WinTidy, etc. Now, suddenly, there is a
| > subscription fee at PCMag, but, it's worth it, especially if you can
get
| > the whole bundle that is there.
| >
| > .........Start..................
| > Yearly billing $19.97
| > Yearly billing (For PC Magazine subscribers) $14.97
| > Monthly billing (limit 3 downloads/month) $4.97
| > .........End...................
| >
| > You may try Google, but do you really want to download from any odd
| > site?
| > http://www.google.com/
| >
| > --
| > Thanks & Good Luck,
| > Naturally, you will not sue,
| > should things get worse after this,
| > PCR
| > pcrrcp@netzero.net
| > "sg" <sasguy393@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:9b8922de.0307081647.6fe98f2a@posting.google.c om...
| > | Well, thanks for all the input.
| > |
| > | Does anyone know of a freeware program that will tell the percent
of
| > fragmentation?
| >
| >
|

So? As Gary said, "Pile of useless garbage."


PCR wrote:

Have you read Crackup's own literature? Even they note that Win98 *purposely*
fragments system files during optimization.

Does the report tell you *which* files are fragmented? Do you have any *real*,
*useable* knowledge provided by this background application? (Even if it only
runs at startup, useless junk trying to load at startup, when everything else is
trying to load at startup...Not my idea of efficient use of Resources.)

Sheesh!

And the rest of the apps you cite are at least as bad, or worse.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP for Windows 9x

*Recommended Help Sites*
http://www.dts-l.org
http://www.mvps.org
http://www.aumha.org

How to Use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups
http://support.microsoft.com/?pr=newswhelp
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:eUaXHvlRDHA.2020@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

Well! I have read the Crackup lit... I do recall reading what you say,
but cannot find it now. This Readme, OTOH, appears to say it is good for
Win98. Anyway, I figure, if it is not 100% accurate due to changes in
Win98 file storage techniques, YET it can certainly say when
fragmentation gets worse than the norm, as established after a Defrag.
IOW, I'm close to my last Defrag, and the report says .8% fragmented.
When it gets to 20%, I know things are relatively worse. Below, I also
include the algorithm help screen.

I think I read that the "inacuracy" is due to the optimization phase of
Defragmenter. If true, for accuracy in Crackup, turn that off in
Defragmenter. However, I prefer to keep mine on, thinking it is meant to
be that way.

Now, it's OK, Terhune, to be totally out of your head & as loony as
Colorado. Many others here are. But that's what YOU are, if you don't
believe PCMag's "Registry Detective" & "RegEdit+" are two of the
greatest Registry tools ever written! This is your final opportunity to
comply! And the reputation of MVPs around the globe depends upon your
answer, even ~PA Bear's reputation! [:-).]

Getting serious, look how well written these docs are. Note where it
implies a swap file that is not "current" will be defragged. That gives
me an idea.

....Start....of Crackup's Readme.........
__________________________________________________ ______________

CrackUp, Version 1.0
Copyright (c) 1998 Ziff-Davis, Inc.
Written by Bob Flanders and Gregory A. Wolking
First Published in PC Magazine, US Edition, November 3, 1998
http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/pctech/co...t1719.001.html
__________________________________________________ ______________

PLATFORMS:
Windows 95, Windows 98

DESCRIPTION:
CrackUp accurately calculates disk fragmentation percents, and reports
the fragmentation of all local hard drives in a single window. It can
run in the background to check fragmentation at intervals, and warn if
any drive exceeds the specified fragmentation level. A detail report
provides raw fragmentation data in text or CSV format.

REVISION HISTORY:
Initial release.
....snip...
....End...............

.......A help screen of CrackUP.....
.......one of many fine PCMag programs....
....snip...
Each file (except for zero-length files which occupy zero clusters)
consists of a chain of clusters on disk. Each contiguous section of a
file's cluster chain is called a "fragment". Therefore, an unfragmented
file consists of exactly one fragment, and a fragmented file consists of
two or more fragments. All fragments in a file's chain other than the
first is called an "extra fragment". The file's fragmentation percentage
is the ratio of extra fragments to the number of clusters in its chain.
By definition, the very first cluster in a file's chain cannot be
fragmented. Therefore, the fragmentation percentage of a file can
approach, but never reach, 100%.
....snip...
A drive's free space can also be fragmented. Each contiguous area of
free space on the disk is one free fragment. CrackUp tallies free
fragments into two categories: bounded and unbounded. Bounded free
fragments are those fragments that have allocated clusters both before
and after them. Unbounded free space is defined as is the free space at
the very beginning and/or very end of the disk. CrackUp only considers
that portion of the disk between the first and last allocated clusters,
so it excludes unbounded free space from its calculations.

Windows Defrag considers certain files to be unmovable. This includes
all files (but not directories) that have both the Hidden and System
attributes set, and the current system swap file. (For the sake of
simplicity, CrackUp considers any file named with the extension ".SWP"
to be a swap file).
....snip...
CrackUp uses one of two formulas to calculate a disk's fragmentation
percentage.
The first formula, which considers only moveable files, is:
(MEF + BFF) / (TC - UC - UFC) * 100
The second formula considers all files, moveable or not, and it is:
(MEF + UEF + BFF) / (TC - UFC) * 100
The following table defines the statistics used in these formulas:

Abbreviation Title Description
TC Total Clusters The number of clusters on the disk.
MEF Moveable Extra Fragments The number of fragments other than the
first for each moveable file.
UEF Unmovable Extra Fragments Same as above for unmovable files.
UC Unmovable Clusters Total clusters in unmovable files.
BFF Bounded Free Fragments Number of free fragments bounded on both
sides by allocated clusters.
BFC Bounded Free Clusters Number of clusters in bounded free fragments
UFC Unbounded Free Clusters Number of free clusters not bounded by
files. In other words, the number of free clusters at the very beginning
and very end of the disk.

The labels in the abbreviation column are also shown in CrackUp's detail
report. Note that the report contains other information besides that
used in these formulas. CrackUp provides this information in case you
would like to develop your own formulas, such as the percentage of files
that are fragmented, the ratio of free space to allocated space, etc.

CrackUp Help ©1998 Ziff-Davis, Inc.
.......End........................................ .................

--
Thanks & Good Luck,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:ecOytOmRDHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| Have you read Crackup's own literature? Even they note that Win98
*purposely*
| fragments system files during optimization.
|
| Does the report tell you *which* files are fragmented? Do you have any
*real*,
| *useable* knowledge provided by this background application? (Even if
it only
| runs at startup, useless junk trying to load at startup, when
everything else is
| trying to load at startup...Not my idea of efficient use of
Resources.)
|
| Sheesh!
|
| And the rest of the apps you cite are at least as bad, or worse.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP for Windows 9x
|
| *Recommended Help Sites*
| http://www.dts-l.org
| http://www.mvps.org
| http://www.aumha.org
|
| How to Use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups
| http://support.microsoft.com/?pr=newswhelp
| +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:eUaXHvlRDHA.2020@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| > CRACKUP Report: Windows 95(b)
| > Generated Wednesday, July 09, 2003 16:49:44
| >
| > Drive C:P C R HARD (FAT32)
| > Last scan: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 16:49:12
| > 15298 Moveable files
| > 825 Directories
| > 28 Unmoveable files
| > 6939 Zero-length files
| >
| > 1 Unmovable fragmented files
| > 27 Unmovable unfragmented files
| > 237 Moveable fragmented files and directories
| > 15886 Moveable unfragmented files and directories
| >
| > 3470 Moveable extra fragments (MEF)
| > 18 Unmovable extra fragments (UEF)
| > 404 Bounded free fragments (BFF)
| > 2 Unbounded free fragments (UFF)
| >
| > 2042868 Total clusters (TC)
| > 41000 Unmovable clusters (UC)
| > 27163 Moveable fragmented allocated clusters
| > 372237 Moveable unfragmented allocated clusters
| > 78225 Bounded free clusters
| > 1524241 Unbounded free clusters (UFC)
| >
| > *** Fragmentation (moveable files only): 0.8%
| > *** Fragmentation (all files): 0.8%
| >
| > --
| > Thanks & Good Luck,
| > Naturally, you will not sue,
| > should things get worse after this,
| > PCR
| > pcrrcp@netzero.net
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > news:%23VPSDaeRDHA.704@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| > | Pile of useless garbage.
| > |
| > | --
| > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | MS MVP for Windows 9x
| > |
| > | *Recommended Help Sites*
| > | http://www.dts-l.org
| > | http://www.mvps.org
| > | http://www.aumha.org
| > |
| > | How to Use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups
| > | http://support.microsoft.com/?pr=newswhelp
| > | +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| > |
| > | "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| > | news:upuqWPdRDHA.2148@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > | > Do a Defrag after a sluggish boot or when this says so:
| > | > http://www.pcmag.com/ 's CrackUp, by Gregory A. Wolking & Bob
| > Flanders.
| > | > Also, take DiskAction, to determine what is constantly writing
to
| > the
| > | > HDD, which causes the restarts. Take BHOCop & StartupCop too.
| > | >
| > | > http://www.pcmag.com/ Has many, many great utilities: BHOCop,
COA2,
| > | > Crackup, DiskAction, EndItAll2, HDValet, ListZapper,
RegDetective,
| > | > RegEdit+, StartupCop, WinTidy, etc. Now, suddenly, there is a
| > | > subscription fee at PCMag, but, it's worth it, especially if you
can
| > get
| > | > the whole bundle that is there.
| > | >
| > | > .........Start..................
| > | > Yearly billing $19.97
| > | > Yearly billing (For PC Magazine subscribers) $14.97
| > | > Monthly billing (limit 3 downloads/month) $4.97
| > | > .........End...................
| > | >
| > | > You may try Google, but do you really want to download from any
odd
| > | > site?
| > | > http://www.google.com/
| > | >
| > | > --
| > | > Thanks & Good Luck,
| > | > Naturally, you will not sue,
| > | > should things get worse after this,
| > | > PCR
| > | > pcrrcp@netzero.net
| > | > "sg" <sasguy393@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:9b8922de.0307081647.6fe98f2a@posting.google.c om...
| > | > | Well, thanks for all the input.
| > | > |
| > | > | Does anyone know of a freeware program that will tell the
percent
| > of
| > | > fragmentation?
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| >
| >
|

PCR wrote:
Well, "regedit" works just fine for me. And I'm my own detective. (Sidney
Toler is my alter ego, for those old enough to get it). :-)

PCMag's "Registry Detective" (take "RegEdit+ too) is better than a naked
RegEdit search, because it will only find an item once, if there is a
"mirror" elsewhere. Also, it will find items in binary fields, which
RegEdit does not. Finally, it finds all matches in 10 seconds & puts
them all to the screen. There is a Details button for further
examination of the Key. The search criteria can be adjusted and narrowed
in various ways. There is a button to click that will get one into
RegEdit+ (or RegEdit) open to that Key. I only wish there were an easy
way to copy/post the Keys that were found in the search.

"RegEdit+" comes with a pre-set & configurable Favorites menu for Keys.
It has undo for any changes made kept in a History folder. Registry keys
can be dragged & dropped into it's Locator bar & will be remembered.

--
Thanks & Good Luck,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"Bill in Co" <none@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23t$0zQqRDHA.2768@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| PCR wrote:
| > Now, it's OK, Terhune, to be totally out of your head & as loony as
| > Colorado. Many others here are. But that's what YOU are, if you
don't
| > believe PCMag's "Registry Detective" & "RegEdit+" are two of the
| > greatest Registry tools ever written! This is your final opportunity
to
| > comply! And the reputation of MVPs around the globe depends upon
your
| > answer, even ~PA Bear's reputation! [:-).]
|
| Well, "regedit" works just fine for me. And I'm my own detective.
(Sidney
| Toler is my alter ego, for those old enough to get it). :-)
|
|

PCR wrote:
Not a problem for me. I have the patience to continue the search (and have).
No big deal.

I haven't had to do that yet.

10 seconds or one minute - doesn't matter to me. I don't need em all on the
screen at once - do you? Face it, I'm just an old fashioned kinda guy! I
still drive a stick shift, ya know! Not one of those automatic slushboxes!

Just extra bells and whistles (fluff to me). Thanks, but no thanks. The
basics work fine over here!

My primary point is that "percent fragmented" is a nearly useless figure, no
matter how "accurate" it is.

Beyond that. if you want an unfragmented swap file, set a minimum. On the other
hand, there are plenty of knowledgeable people who suggest that having the swap
file spread across the disk may actually be a *good* thing.

As for Regedit blah, blah... I have done a lot of Registry work, and never found
any need for anything more complicated than Regedit (and Regedt32). Pay money
for such? Not on your life! Especially not to a rag like PC Mag!

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP for Windows 9x

*Recommended Help Sites*
http://www.dts-l.org
http://www.mvps.org
http://www.aumha.org

How to Use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups
http://support.microsoft.com/?pr=newswhelp
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:ei0r%23goRDHA.3880@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Hmph! You have given a black eye to MVPdom, where till now I have always
had the utmost respect for you. No wonder there is a revolution afoot.
But I don't know anything about it!

Anyway, much care & thought obvious was put into the Ziff-Davis
programs. They are working well for me.

--
Thanks & Good Luck,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23nbWB4qRDHA.3132@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| My primary point is that "percent fragmented" is a nearly useless
figure, no
| matter how "accurate" it is.
|
| Beyond that. if you want an unfragmented swap file, set a minimum. On
the other
| hand, there are plenty of knowledgeable people who suggest that having
the swap
| file spread across the disk may actually be a *good* thing.
|
| As for Regedit blah, blah... I have done a lot of Registry work, and
never found
| any need for anything more complicated than Regedit (and Regedt32).
Pay money
| for such? Not on your life! Especially not to a rag like PC Mag!
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP for Windows 9x
|
| *Recommended Help Sites*
| http://www.dts-l.org
| http://www.mvps.org
| http://www.aumha.org
|
| How to Use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups
| http://support.microsoft.com/?pr=newswhelp
| +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:ei0r%23goRDHA.3880@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| > Well! I have read the Crackup lit... I do recall reading what you
say,
| > but cannot find it now. This Readme, OTOH, appears to say it is good
for
| > Win98. Anyway, I figure, if it is not 100% accurate due to changes
in
| > Win98 file storage techniques, YET it can certainly say when
| > fragmentation gets worse than the norm, as established after a
Defrag.
| > IOW, I'm close to my last Defrag, and the report says .8%
fragmented.
| > When it gets to 20%, I know things are relatively worse. Below, I
also
| > include the algorithm help screen.
| >
| > I think I read that the "inacuracy" is due to the optimization phase
of
| > Defragmenter. If true, for accuracy in Crackup, turn that off in
| > Defragmenter. However, I prefer to keep mine on, thinking it is
meant to
| > be that way.
| >
| > Now, it's OK, Terhune, to be totally out of your head & as loony as
| > Colorado. Many others here are. But that's what YOU are, if you
don't
| > believe PCMag's "Registry Detective" & "RegEdit+" are two of the
| > greatest Registry tools ever written! This is your final opportunity
to
| > comply! And the reputation of MVPs around the globe depends upon
your
| > answer, even ~PA Bear's reputation! [:-).]
| >
| > Getting serious, look how well written these docs are. Note where it
| > implies a swap file that is not "current" will be defragged. That
gives
| > me an idea.
| >
| > ...Start....of Crackup's Readme.........
| > __________________________________________________ ______________
| >
| > CrackUp, Version 1.0
| > Copyright (c) 1998 Ziff-Davis, Inc.
| > Written by Bob Flanders and Gregory A. Wolking
| > First Published in PC Magazine, US Edition, November 3, 1998
| > http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/pctech/co...t1719.001.html
| > __________________________________________________ ______________
| >
| > PLATFORMS:
| > Windows 95, Windows 98
| >
| > DESCRIPTION:
| > CrackUp accurately calculates disk fragmentation percents, and
reports
| > the fragmentation of all local hard drives in a single window. It
can
| > run in the background to check fragmentation at intervals, and warn
if
| > any drive exceeds the specified fragmentation level. A detail report
| > provides raw fragmentation data in text or CSV format.
| >
| > REVISION HISTORY:
| > Initial release.
| > ...snip...
| > ...End...............
| >
| > ......A help screen of CrackUP.....
| > ......one of many fine PCMag programs....
| > ...snip...
| > Each file (except for zero-length files which occupy zero clusters)
| > consists of a chain of clusters on disk. Each contiguous section of
a
| > file's cluster chain is called a "fragment". Therefore, an
unfragmented
| > file consists of exactly one fragment, and a fragmented file
consists of
| > two or more fragments. All fragments in a file's chain other than
the
| > first is called an "extra fragment". The file's fragmentation
percentage
| > is the ratio of extra fragments to the number of clusters in its
chain.
| > By definition, the very first cluster in a file's chain cannot be
| > fragmented. Therefore, the fragmentation percentage of a file can
| > approach, but never reach, 100%.
| > ...snip...
| > A drive's free space can also be fragmented. Each contiguous area of
| > free space on the disk is one free fragment. CrackUp tallies free
| > fragments into two categories: bounded and unbounded. Bounded free
| > fragments are those fragments that have allocated clusters both
before
| > and after them. Unbounded free space is defined as is the free space
at
| > the very beginning and/or very end of the disk. CrackUp only
considers
| > that portion of the disk between the first and last allocated
clusters,
| > so it excludes unbounded free space from its calculations.
| >
| > Windows Defrag considers certain files to be unmovable. This
includes
| > all files (but not directories) that have both the Hidden and System
| > attributes set, and the current system swap file. (For the sake of
| > simplicity, CrackUp considers any file named with the extension
".SWP"
| > to be a swap file).
| > ...snip...
| > CrackUp uses one of two formulas to calculate a disk's fragmentation
| > percentage.
| > The first formula, which considers only moveable files, is:
| > (MEF + BFF) / (TC - UC - UFC) * 100
| > The second formula considers all files, moveable or not, and it is:
| > (MEF + UEF + BFF) / (TC - UFC) * 100
| > The following table defines the statistics used in these formulas:
| >
| > Abbreviation Title Description
| > TC Total Clusters The number of clusters on the disk.
| > MEF Moveable Extra Fragments The number of fragments other than the
| > first for each moveable file.
| > UEF Unmovable Extra Fragments Same as above for unmovable files.
| > UC Unmovable Clusters Total clusters in unmovable files.
| > BFF Bounded Free Fragments Number of free fragments bounded on
both
| > sides by allocated clusters.
| > BFC Bounded Free Clusters Number of clusters in bounded free
fragments
| > UFC Unbounded Free Clusters Number of free clusters not bounded by
| > files. In other words, the number of free clusters at the very
beginning
| > and very end of the disk.
| >
| > The labels in the abbreviation column are also shown in CrackUp's
detail
| > report. Note that the report contains other information besides that
| > used in these formulas. CrackUp provides this information in case
you
| > would like to develop your own formulas, such as the percentage of
files
| > that are fragmented, the ratio of free space to allocated space,
etc.
| >
| > CrackUp Help ©1998 Ziff-Davis, Inc.
| > ......End......................................... ................
| >
| > --
| > Thanks & Good Luck,
| > Naturally, you will not sue,
| > should things get worse after this,
| > PCR
| > pcrrcp@netzero.net
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > news:ecOytOmRDHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| > | Have you read Crackup's own literature? Even they note that Win98
| > *purposely*
| > | fragments system files during optimization.
| > |
| > | Does the report tell you *which* files are fragmented? Do you have
any
| > *real*,
| > | *useable* knowledge provided by this background application? (Even
if
| > it only
| > | runs at startup, useless junk trying to load at startup, when
| > everything else is
| > | trying to load at startup...Not my idea of efficient use of
| > Resources.)
| > |
| > | Sheesh!
| > |
| > | And the rest of the apps you cite are at least as bad, or worse.
| > |
| > | --
| > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | MS MVP for Windows 9x
| > |
| > | *Recommended Help Sites*
| > | http://www.dts-l.org
| > | http://www.mvps.org
| > | http://www.aumha.org
| > |
| > | How to Use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups
| > | http://support.microsoft.com/?pr=newswhelp
| > | +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| > |
| > | "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| > | news:eUaXHvlRDHA.2020@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| > | > CRACKUP Report: Windows 95(b)
| > | > Generated Wednesday, July 09, 2003 16:49:44
| > | >
| > | > Drive C:P C R HARD (FAT32)
| > | > Last scan: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 16:49:12
| > | > 15298 Moveable files
| > | > 825 Directories
| > | > 28 Unmoveable files
| > | > 6939 Zero-length files
| > | >
| > | > 1 Unmovable fragmented files
| > | > 27 Unmovable unfragmented files
| > | > 237 Moveable fragmented files and directories
| > | > 15886 Moveable unfragmented files and directories
| > | >
| > | > 3470 Moveable extra fragments (MEF)
| > | > 18 Unmovable extra fragments (UEF)
| > | > 404 Bounded free fragments (BFF)
| > | > 2 Unbounded free fragments (UFF)
| > | >
| > | > 2042868 Total clusters (TC)
| > | > 41000 Unmovable clusters (UC)
| > | > 27163 Moveable fragmented allocated clusters
| > | > 372237 Moveable unfragmented allocated clusters
| > | > 78225 Bounded free clusters
| > | > 1524241 Unbounded free clusters (UFC)
| > | >
| > | > *** Fragmentation (moveable files only): 0.8%
| > | > *** Fragmentation (all files): 0.8%
| > | >
| > | > --
| > | > Thanks & Good Luck,
| > | > Naturally, you will not sue,
| > | > should things get worse after this,
| > | > PCR
| > | > pcrrcp@netzero.net
| > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > | > news:%23VPSDaeRDHA.704@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| > | > | Pile of useless garbage.
| > | > |
| > | > | --
| > | > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | > | MS MVP for Windows 9x
| > | > |
| > | > | *Recommended Help Sites*
| > | > | http://www.dts-l.org
| > | > | http://www.mvps.org
| > | > | http://www.aumha.org
| > | > |
| > | > | How to Use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups
| > | > | http://support.microsoft.com/?pr=newswhelp
| > | > | +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| > | > |
| > | > | "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| > | > | news:upuqWPdRDHA.2148@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > | > | > Do a Defrag after a sluggish boot or when this says so:
| > | > | > http://www.pcmag.com/ 's CrackUp, by Gregory A. Wolking &
Bob
| > | > Flanders.
| > | > | > Also, take DiskAction, to determine what is constantly
writing
| > to
| > | > the
| > | > | > HDD, which causes the restarts. Take BHOCop & StartupCop
too.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > http://www.pcmag.com/ Has many, many great utilities:
BHOCop,
| > COA2,
| > | > | > Crackup, DiskAction, EndItAll2, HDValet, ListZapper,
| > RegDetective,
| > | > | > RegEdit+, StartupCop, WinTidy, etc. Now, suddenly, there is
a
| > | > | > subscription fee at PCMag, but, it's worth it, especially if
you
| > can
| > | > get
| > | > | > the whole bundle that is there.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > .........Start..................
| > | > | > Yearly billing $19.97
| > | > | > Yearly billing (For PC Magazine subscribers) $14.97
| > | > | > Monthly billing (limit 3 downloads/month) $4.97
| > | > | > .........End...................
| > | > | >
| > | > | > You may try Google, but do you really want to download from
any
| > odd
| > | > | > site?
| > | > | > http://www.google.com/
| > | > | >
| > | > | > --
| > | > | > Thanks & Good Luck,
| > | > | > Naturally, you will not sue,
| > | > | > should things get worse after this,
| > | > | > PCR
| > | > | > pcrrcp@netzero.net
| > | > | > "sg" <sasguy393@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:9b8922de.0307081647.6fe98f2a@posting.google.c om...
| > | > | > | Well, thanks for all the input.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Does anyone know of a freeware program that will tell the
| > percent
| > | > of
| > | > | > fragmentation?
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
|

PCR wrote:
I haven't had a problem with that yet. Have you?

Not really. 20 minutes tops. But I may be faster than you are. I move
around in there pretty damn fast. Gettin to know the layout a wee bit
better, LOL.

I don't need an Undo in regedit. I'm pretty damn careful with what I do.

Bunk! Just more junkware (IMO). "Less is more", once again.

I can change something that occurs a hundred times in a Registry in 5 to 10
minutes PCR, using keystrokes almost entirely, if not entirely (*not* including
mirrored entries, which, of course, change themselves). Using just Regedit. I do
it fairly regularly, for various reasons--COA, for instance, and the manual
method has the advantage of forcing me to actually *look* at each and every one
of them, since perhaps I'm only interested in changing *some* instances, not
all. Regardless, doing such tasks manually is good for creating a proper
orientation--for learning the topology of a system.

The *primary* problem with idiot-proof tools is that you remain an idiot after
using them. You haven't proved a single thing.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP for Windows 9x

*Recommended Help Sites*
http://www.dts-l.org
http://www.mvps.org
http://www.aumha.org

How to Use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups
http://support.microsoft.com/?pr=newswhelp
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:et1kiAxRDHA.1556@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

LOL! Mirrors, schmirrors! Once you change on instance of a Registry value, it's
"mirror" ceases to exist and will no longer be found. Changing values one at a
time is precisely how one understands what is really there.

People who don't know how to deal with the Registry , how it's set up, etc.,
don't belong in there in the first place! Just like people who don't know what a
CLSID does should NOT use any Registry analysis tool, and should
*most_definitely* not let any such tool automatically fix things.

Put simply, if you're not already smarter that the tool you're using, you
shouldn't be using it!

Keystrokes, PCR. You never use keystrokes?

You've proven nothing except my own (and Bill's) point--that such tools are
either worthless fluff to someone who can safely use them, or dangerous to use
for those who don't. Though it's what I might expect from someone who gets
freaked because something keeps accessing his HD every five minutes, <bg>.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP for Windows 9x

*Recommended Help Sites*
http://www.dts-l.org
http://www.mvps.org
http://www.aumha.org

How to Use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups
http://support.microsoft.com/?pr=newswhelp
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:OWBoumxRDHA.1720@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

These tools are one road to knowledge. The docs are a Registry tutorial
in themselves. Furthermore, the safety features make exploration
somewhat less painful.

--
Thanks & Good Luck,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:eznW94xRDHA.3192@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| LOL! Mirrors, schmirrors! Once you change on instance of a Registry
value, it's
| "mirror" ceases to exist and will no longer be found. Changing values
one at a
| time is precisely how one understands what is really there.
|
| People who don't know how to deal with the Registry , how it's set up,
etc.,
| don't belong in there in the first place! Just like people who don't
know what a
| CLSID does should NOT use any Registry analysis tool, and should
| *most_definitely* not let any such tool automatically fix things.
|
| Put simply, if you're not already smarter that the tool you're using,
you
| shouldn't be using it!
|
| Keystrokes, PCR. You never use keystrokes?
|
| You've proven nothing except my own (and Bill's) point--that such
tools are
| either worthless fluff to someone who can safely use them, or
dangerous to use
| for those who don't. Though it's what I might expect from someone who
gets
| freaked because something keeps accessing his HD every five minutes,
<bg>.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP for Windows 9x
|
| *Recommended Help Sites*
| http://www.dts-l.org
| http://www.mvps.org
| http://www.aumha.org
|
| How to Use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups
| http://support.microsoft.com/?pr=newswhelp
| +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:OWBoumxRDHA.1720@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > Obviously, the stuff was meant for folk with fingers somewhat less
| > dexterous than yours & Colorado's. That doesn't make it junk. These
apps
| > are all well thought out, well documented, & they work well. Not
| > everyone knows which Registry branches are a mirror of which others.
So,
| > they may think an item that only occurs 10 times is there 20 times &
| > proceed to change them all. And for each change, they may "Registry
| > Menu, Export Registry File". Using these apps, the duplicates
(mirrors)
| > are automatically skipped. If the item is in a binary field, it is
| > discovered (not so with plain RegEdit). When the modifications are
made,
| > RegEdit+ will back them up to a folder, with undo. I think my case
is
| > proven.
| >
| > --
| > Thanks & Good Luck,
| > Naturally, you will not sue,
| > should things get worse after this,
| > PCR
| > pcrrcp@netzero.net
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > news:eSHrJOxRDHA.2084@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| > | I can change something that occurs a hundred times in a Registry
in 5
| > to 10
| > | minutes PCR, using keystrokes almost entirely, if not entirely
(*not*
| > including
| > | mirrored entries, which, of course, change themselves). Using just
| > Regedit. I do
| > | it fairly regularly, for various reasons--COA, for instance, and
the
| > manual
| > | method has the advantage of forcing me to actually *look* at each
and
| > every one
| > | of them, since perhaps I'm only interested in changing *some*
| > instances, not
| > | all. Regardless, doing such tasks manually is good for creating a
| > proper
| > | orientation--for learning the topology of a system.
| > |
| > | The *primary* problem with idiot-proof tools is that you remain an
| > idiot after
| > | using them. You haven't proved a single thing.
| > |
| > | --
| > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | MS MVP for Windows 9x
| > |
| > | *Recommended Help Sites*
| > | http://www.dts-l.org
| > | http://www.mvps.org
| > | http://www.aumha.org
| > |
| > | How to Use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups
| > | http://support.microsoft.com/?pr=newswhelp
| > | +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| > |
| > | "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| > | news:et1kiAxRDHA.1556@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| > | > Well, you will never know what is hiding in the binary fields,
then.
| > | > Also, should you need to search for an item that occurs, say, 40
| > times
| > | > in the Registry, you will be at it over an hour. Me-- it's 10
| > seconds, &
| > | > all to the screen-- remarkable. The Favorites key & undo in
RegEdit+
| > are
| > | > truly helpful.
| > | >
| > | > So, I think I have shown you, PCMag's stuff is decidedly not a
"Pile
| > of
| > | > useless garbage.".
| > | >
| > | > --
| > | > Thanks & Good Luck,
| > | > Naturally, you will not sue,
| > | > should things get worse after this,
| > | > PCR
| > | > pcrrcp@netzero.net
| > | > "Bill in Co" <none@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > | > news:edXCy2qRDHA.2144@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| > | > | PCR wrote:
| > | > | > PCMag's "Registry Detective" (take "RegEdit+ too) is better
than
| > a
| > | > naked
| > | > | > RegEdit search, because it will only find an item once, if
there
| > is
| > | > a
| > | > | > "mirror" elsewhere.
| > | > |
| > | > | Not a problem for me. I have the patience to continue the
search
| > (and
| > | > have).
| > | > | No big deal.
| > | > |
| > | > | > Also, it will find items in binary fields, which RegEdit
does
| > not.
| > | > |
| > | > | I haven't had to do that yet.
| > | > |
| > | > | > Finally, it finds all matches in 10 seconds & puts them all
to
| > the
| > | > screen.
| > | > |
| > | > | 10 seconds or one minute - doesn't matter to me. I don't
need em
| > all
| > | > on the
| > | > | screen at once - do you? Face it, I'm just an old
fashioned
| > kinda
| > | > guy! I
| > | > | still drive a stick shift, ya know! Not one of those
automatic
| > | > slushboxes!
| > | > |
| > | > | > There is a Details button for further
| > | > | > examination of the Key. The search criteria can be adjusted
and
| > | > narrowed
| > | > | > in various ways. There is a button to click that will get
one
| > into
| > | > | > RegEdit+ (or RegEdit) open to that Key. I only wish there
were
| > an
| > | > easy
| > | > | > way to copy/post the Keys that were found in the search.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "RegEdit+" comes with a pre-set & configurable Favorites
menu
| > for
| > | > Keys.
| > | > | > It has undo for any changes made kept in a History folder.
| > Registry
| > | > keys
| > | > | > can be dragged & dropped into it's Locator bar & will be
| > remembered.
| > | > |
| > | > | Just extra bells and whistles (fluff to me). Thanks, but no
| > thanks.
| > | > The
| > | > | basics work fine over here!
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| >
| >
|

Gary S. Terhune <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:#nbWB4qRDHA.3132@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

It is 100% useless.

There are 2 levels of fragmentation, and thus 4 possible scenarios.

1 Files may be fragmented on an unfragmented drive.
2 Files may be fragmented on a fragmented drive.
3 Files may be contiguous on a fragmented drive.
4 Files may be contiguous on an unfragmented drive.

A file is fragmented, or non-contiguous, when it is stored
in 2 or more parts.

A disk is fragmented, or non-contiguous, when the free space
is not contiguous on the drive, and cannot therefore be used
without creating further file and/or disk fragmentation.

You cannot flag 4 scenarios using just 1 percentage indicator.

Well, there *is* the "keep 'em occupied" factor, <g>.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP for Windows 9x

*Recommended Help Sites*
http://www.dts-l.org
http://www.mvps.org
http://www.aumha.org

How to Use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups
http://support.microsoft.com/?pr=newswhelp

http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html
(I can't distribute them directly, but for the paranoid who may be afraid of XP
influences, I've been told that the Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie is just what
the doctor ordered!.)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Hugh Candlin" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
news:%23JlZIOzRDHA.1324@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...