User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Defragging a 240gb approx drive

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    22 Jul 2008
    Location
    Rosebud, Mornington Peninsula
    Posts
    2,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Defragging a 240gb approx drive

    ok some people dont like to defrag but i do usually lol

    This comp is partioned at 246gb and 10gb - not interested on defragging D which is restore but is it safe to defrag c: at that size im a little unsiure lol?

    have installed heaps recently - in the past only had 20gb drive or less
    Cat (aka Cathy) - Another Canon user - 400D, 18-55,75-300mm Kit Lens,50mm f1.8, Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro, Sigma 28-70 f2.8-4 DG, Tripod and a willingness to learn
    Software used: PhotoImpact, Irfanview and a lot of plugins
    We don't make a photograph just with a camera, we bring to the act of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen, the music we have heard, the people we have loved. - Ansel Adams


  2. #2
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    22 Jul 2008
    Location
    Rosebud, Mornington Peninsula
    Posts
    2,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ah well it defragged ok tried last night but was real slow

  3. #3
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,188
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    With windows NT technology(ie. any of the Windows based on NT, 2K, XP, Vista...etc... it's not necessary. Doesn't seem to produce any effective gain in any manner, so it seems like wasted time.

    From memory(and I'm not a tech, just an enthusiastic curious type) I don't think there's ever any reason to be fearful of defragging anyhow, unless your drive is overly full.. in the high 90% region. I think there could be data loss in some rare cases due to buffering if the drive is near it's limit
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  4. #4
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    22 Jul 2008
    Location
    Rosebud, Mornington Peninsula
    Posts
    2,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    thanks authur - i spose i just like the see tjhose continginous blue bits

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    01 Jun 2009
    Location
    Brisbane North
    Posts
    537
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by arthurking83 View Post
    With windows NT technology(ie. any of the Windows based on NT, 2K, XP, Vista...etc... it's not necessary. Doesn't seem to produce any effective gain in any manner, so it seems like wasted time.

    From memory(and I'm not a tech, just an enthusiastic curious type) I don't think there's ever any reason to be fearful of defragging anyhow, unless your drive is overly full.. in the high 90% region. I think there could be data loss in some rare cases due to buffering if the drive is near it's limit
    Not sure I can agree with your "not necessary" comment Arthur. Any of the recent verisions of Windows are clearly far superior to the old days but the simple fact is that when the O/S creates space for a file, it cannot know what eventual size that file might grow to. Many files do not change size during their life of course but many data files do. As files are modified during updates, fragmentation often results and this unavoidably leads to increased head movement to read or write the required blocks. Defragmentation will eliminate this for most files each time it is performed.

    These days, with the various buffering and caching methods employed by the O/S and the drive electronics, the effects are probably far less obvious then they once were. Perhaps this is why you made your comment?

    In any case, defragging is still a useful bit of housekeeping that most people should do on Windows systems.

    Your comments re near-full drives are very valid. Most defraggers will caution the user or refuse to run once a certain usage threshold is reached (often 85-90% used space)
    The world is an AMAZING place . . .
    flickr :: panoramio

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    14 Jul 2009
    Location
    NorthWest
    Posts
    723
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Defragging and regularly cleaning/compressing registry's etc make a significant difference. I have mine set to auto once a week. Defragging also helps keep pc's stable - a lot less crashes etc
    Successful People Make Adjustments - Evander Holyfield

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •