Anybody come across this weird defragmenting situation?

[monty1945@lycos.com]

I defragmented two computer, both have the old kind of hard drives,
which are both 20 gig. The older computer, which is P2, 400 MgHz,
with less RAM, defragments faster than the newer one, which is P3, 700
MgHz. Both are XP Pro SP2. I defragmented the more powerful computer,
then spent a couple of hours on it, but didn't do anything different
than I do on the other computer, then I defragmented again, and it
took longer to do than the less powerful computer, even though I spent
a lot more time on it, and certainly did more. Is it possible that
the ways the files are organized on the more powerful computer makes
it more susceptible to file fragmenting, and if so is there anything I
can do about it at this point? The less powerful one has a bit less
free space, about a gig less, so I'm assuming that is not an issue. I
am not the original owner of either, so I don't know exactly what was
done before I got them.

Thanks.

 

[V Green]

Same filesystem used on each?

FAT32 takes a LOT less time to defrag than NTFS.

<monty1945@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1191808932.668548.109740@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> I defragmented two computer, both have the old kind of hard drives,
> which are both 20 gig. The older computer, which is P2, 400 MgHz,
> with less RAM, defragments faster than the newer one, which is P3, 700
> MgHz. Both are XP Pro SP2. I defragmented the more powerful computer,
> then spent a couple of hours on it, but didn't do anything different
> than I do on the other computer, then I defragmented again, and it
> took longer to do than the less powerful computer, even though I spent
> a lot more time on it, and certainly did more. Is it possible that
> the ways the files are organized on the more powerful computer makes
> it more susceptible to file fragmenting, and if so is there anything I
> can do about it at this point? The less powerful one has a bit less
> free space, about a gig less, so I'm assuming that is not an issue. I
> am not the original owner of either, so I don't know exactly what was
> done before I got them.
>
> Thanks.
>

 

[JS]

Could be the number and types of applications and processes running in the
background (AV software that run as real time monitors can cause a slowdown)
that are different on each PC.
To see what loads, try Autoruns from the MS Windows SysInternals site:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/ProcessesAndThreads/Autoruns.mspx

AutoRuns will show/list all apps/etc. that load/run when you first boot
(Boot Execute tab),
when you logon (Logon tab) and other programs that load (grouped by labeled
tabs) for easy viewing.
It also provides the ability to selectively allows you to stop (use with
care) any program that you don't want to load. You can undo any changes you
have made. To get additional details on an item in the list you may need to
highlight the item (right click) and use the 'Search Online' option to get
the details, especially useful for the more obscure items in the list.

For processes that are running you can use Task Manager (Ctrl+Alt+Del) or
Process Explorer:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/SystemInformation/ProcessExplorer.mspx

Once you have Process Explorer installed and running:
In the taskbar select View and check 'Show Process Tree' and 'Show Lower
Pane' options.
Then expand the process named 'Explorer' (click on the + sign)
In the column on the left named 'CPU', look for any high CPU usage when you
are not defragging.
Click on the CPU column to sort the processes by %CPU usage (Highest to
Lowest).
Then click on the process that's using most or all the CPU % the highlight
it,
Now that it's highlighted, right click and from the options listed select:
Search Online
This should display what out there on the web about that process.
You can also double click on any process to open up a more detailed
'Properties' window.
Note: some entries like Explorer and System/Services may need to be expanded
to show the detail,
(sub processes), in this case click on the + located to the left of the
entry.

Next with Process Explorer running start the Defrag application and then
watch for other processes that may kick into high gear and slow things down.

JS

<monty1945@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1191808932.668548.109740@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>I defragmented two computer, both have the old kind of hard drives,
> which are both 20 gig. The older computer, which is P2, 400 MgHz,
> with less RAM, defragments faster than the newer one, which is P3, 700
> MgHz. Both are XP Pro SP2. I defragmented the more powerful computer,
> then spent a couple of hours on it, but didn't do anything different
> than I do on the other computer, then I defragmented again, and it
> took longer to do than the less powerful computer, even though I spent
> a lot more time on it, and certainly did more. Is it possible that
> the ways the files are organized on the more powerful computer makes
> it more susceptible to file fragmenting, and if so is there anything I
> can do about it at this point? The less powerful one has a bit less
> free space, about a gig less, so I'm assuming that is not an issue. I
> am not the original owner of either, so I don't know exactly what was
> done before I got them.
>
> Thanks.
>

 

[JS]

You might also check to see what mode (PIO or DMA) the drives on both
computer are set to. Also back then a drive that was running at 5000 RPM was
considered very fast, so even though they are both the same size the speed
is important.

JS

<monty1945@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1191808932.668548.109740@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>I defragmented two computer, both have the old kind of hard drives,
> which are both 20 gig. The older computer, which is P2, 400 MgHz,
> with less RAM, defragments faster than the newer one, which is P3, 700
> MgHz. Both are XP Pro SP2. I defragmented the more powerful computer,
> then spent a couple of hours on it, but didn't do anything different
> than I do on the other computer, then I defragmented again, and it
> took longer to do than the less powerful computer, even though I spent
> a lot more time on it, and certainly did more. Is it possible that
> the ways the files are organized on the more powerful computer makes
> it more susceptible to file fragmenting, and if so is there anything I
> can do about it at this point? The less powerful one has a bit less
> free space, about a gig less, so I'm assuming that is not an issue. I
> am not the original owner of either, so I don't know exactly what was
> done before I got them.
>
> Thanks.
>