 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows Me / System Tools / November 2006Defrqg
My system is a 5 yr. old Dell Dimension 4100 c. a 933 Mhz Pentium and a 30 GB hard drive c. about 10 GB free. Recently, when I defrag, it is taking a lot longer than usual; i.e. 45 min. vs. 6-7 hours. I defrag regularly, every week or two. I haven't done anything unusual AFAIK, other than to uninstall 2 games I was no longer playing. More over, after the uninstalls, the defrag program ran once quite quickly, say 1-1.5 hours. Then today we're back to 5-7 hours. I always shut off all the background programs so there's no re-starting the defrag program. It takes forever to run, but almost never has to restart. Anybody got any ideas? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. BillR. BillR asked :- > ... Anybody got any ideas? As to the cause? No - but would suggest that you try running Defrag in Safe Mode to see if it (consistently?) runs at it's more 'normal' speed of less than a couple of hours. If so, it suggests that you still have something running in the background when running in Normal Mode. Mart > My system is a 5 yr. old Dell Dimension 4100 c. a 933 Mhz Pentium and a 30 > GB hard drive c. about 10 GB free. Recently, when I defrag, it is taking [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > never has to restart. Anybody got any ideas? Thanks in advance for your > thoughts. BillR. Your problem was common with 98 & ME until it was overcome by the free ScanDefrag utility which disables background programs including the screen saver, you can find details in the readme or download it here: < http://home.earthlink.net/~bblanton2/scandefrag/main.htm > or < http://www.blueorbsoft.com/scandefrag/index.html > You need not run the utilities in "thorough" mode unless given a reason to do so. -- ct > My system is a 5 yr. old Dell Dimension 4100 c. a 933 Mhz Pentium and > a 30 GB hard drive c. about 10 GB free. Recently, when I defrag, it [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > restart. Anybody got any ideas? Thanks in advance for your > thoughts. BillR. > Your problem was common with 98 & ME Please read the message again. The problem as reported has little in common with that fixed by using scandefrag. The user reports no problems of defrag restarting but rather was enquiring as to why the length of time taken to defrag has suddenly increased from 45 minutes to 6-7 hours. Scandefrag may well help the poster but the usual reason for a longer defrag is that the disk has for some reason become far more fragmented than usual or that the amount of free space is considerably less than before since defrag needs lots of free space to work effectively.  SignatureMike Maltby mike.maltby@gmail.com > Your problem was common with 98 & ME until it was overcome > by the free ScanDefrag utility which disables background programs [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You need not run the utilities in "thorough" mode unless given a > reason to do so. If there is a problem and if the OP takes the time to understand the readme, running the ScanDefrag utility may assist in determining the nature of that problem. ScanDefrag with its log can also be a useful diagnostic tool in addition to the outstanding disk maintenance utility that it is. Signature_ct_ >> Your problem was common with 98 & ME > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> You need not run the utilities in "thorough" mode unless given a >> reason to do so. I hate to contradict you but one doesn't need to use scandefrag to determine what may be wrong if anything. SignatureMike Maltby mike.maltby@gmail.com > If there is a problem and if the OP takes the time to understand the > readme, running the ScanDefrag utility may assist in determining the > nature of that problem. ScanDefrag with its log can also be a useful > diagnostic tool in addition to the outstanding disk maintenance > utility that it is. I don't believe there is a contradiction Mike, just two different ways to get to the same place, that's all. Signature_ct_ > I hate to contradict you but one doesn't need to use scandefrag to > determine what may be wrong if anything. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> diagnostic tool in addition to the outstanding disk maintenance >> utility that it is. > I don't believe there is a contradiction Mike, just two different ways > to get to the same place, that's all. I've no argument with that whatsoever. SignatureMike Maltby mike.maltby@gmail.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.