I
Ike
On my core duo laptop, Vista defrag works quietly in the
background, which is a good/bad thing. It's good because
fragmentation never exceeds 3%. It's bad because some percentage
of system resources are absorbed by that process.
My laptop is a desktop replacement and is ON many hours a day,
including periods when I'm away from it and Vista can go to
work. The result is fine.
However, consider a laptop that is ON for short episodes of
actual use. Vista defrag senses that use, and idles. Defrag
probably does not happen until fragmentation hits some trigger
point, at which time the utility demands resources, which slows
down other things. I don't know that, and am just speculating -
but with finite resources and two things to do it makes sense
that neither would be done optimally.
This summer, my laptop will do a lot of traveling and I will be
working on it whenever it is ON.
Does it make sense to turn off the Vista defrag function and do
a competent 3rd party defrag once in a while?
Ike
background, which is a good/bad thing. It's good because
fragmentation never exceeds 3%. It's bad because some percentage
of system resources are absorbed by that process.
My laptop is a desktop replacement and is ON many hours a day,
including periods when I'm away from it and Vista can go to
work. The result is fine.
However, consider a laptop that is ON for short episodes of
actual use. Vista defrag senses that use, and idles. Defrag
probably does not happen until fragmentation hits some trigger
point, at which time the utility demands resources, which slows
down other things. I don't know that, and am just speculating -
but with finite resources and two things to do it makes sense
that neither would be done optimally.
This summer, my laptop will do a lot of traveling and I will be
working on it whenever it is ON.
Does it make sense to turn off the Vista defrag function and do
a competent 3rd party defrag once in a while?
Ike