OT - Windows 2K Defragger

[letterman@invalid.com]

Somewhat off topic......

Windows 3.x thru Windows 98SE had the slowest defragger. I finally
learned that I could install the DEFRAG.EXE from Windows ME. Finally
there was one that worked fast.

I just installed Windows 2000 on another computer.
I see once again MS went back to the slow defragger. Not only that,
but the older versions (Windows 3.x thru Win98se) showed the process
in a graphic and showed the percentage completed. The one in 2K dont
show anything except some colored bars, and I have no idea what
percentage is completed. What a useless POS.

Can I install the defragger from WinME in Win2K?

(Note: I will not likely continue using Windows 2000. I am just
playing with it. I picked up a used laptop computer with a formatted
harddrive, and the guy gave me a windows 2K CD with it.) I decided to
install it, even though this laptop is likely too slow for Win2K (It
was designed for Win98, and only has 64megs of ram and a 366
processor). Win2k works on it, but it's slow, and I still can not get
myself to like anything above Win98. Either way, I wanted to run the
defragger and found how terrible it is.

Thanks

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

You're right, it's totally OT. Go whine to the Win2K people about it. Or do
some research and you'll discover that in many very capable persons'
opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Win2K or XP defraggers.
99% of the problem here is between your ears.

For example, I've heard the same thing about XP's defragger not having a
progress bar, and yet I have no problem seeing the progress listed at the
bottom of the window, because it's right there in the Status bar. If you
can't see a status bar in your Win2K system, I'll bet you a dollar that it's
because you don't have Defrag configured to show it.

As for using the ME defragger, why don't you just TRY IT!?! After all, you
admit that this is just a test/play installation.

Freakin' idiot whines about how slow a utility is and in the next breath
explains that the hardware is a pile of slow crap that can't even run the OS
decently. Man, it takes all kinds, don't it?

LOL, if you think you don't like Win2K/XP defragger, wait until you see
Vista's (or rather, don't, since it shows no details at all, just the Vista
equivalent of the hourglass in front of a simple panel telling you that it's
defragging your system.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:f6u3a4hlk2fge7l0mden1d6of4277bvciq@4ax.com...
> Somewhat off topic......
>
> Windows 3.x thru Windows 98SE had the slowest defragger. I finally
> learned that I could install the DEFRAG.EXE from Windows ME. Finally
> there was one that worked fast.
>
> I just installed Windows 2000 on another computer.
> I see once again MS went back to the slow defragger. Not only that,
> but the older versions (Windows 3.x thru Win98se) showed the process
> in a graphic and showed the percentage completed. The one in 2K dont
> show anything except some colored bars, and I have no idea what
> percentage is completed. What a useless POS.
>
> Can I install the defragger from WinME in Win2K?
>
> (Note: I will not likely continue using Windows 2000. I am just
> playing with it. I picked up a used laptop computer with a formatted
> harddrive, and the guy gave me a windows 2K CD with it.) I decided to
> install it, even though this laptop is likely too slow for Win2K (It
> was designed for Win98, and only has 64megs of ram and a 366
> processor). Win2k works on it, but it's slow, and I still can not get
> myself to like anything above Win98. Either way, I wanted to run the
> defragger and found how terrible it is.
>
> Thanks

 

[philo]

<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:f6u3a4hlk2fge7l0mden1d6of4277bvciq@4ax.com...
> Somewhat off topic......
>
> Windows 3.x thru Windows 98SE had the slowest defragger. I finally
> learned that I could install the DEFRAG.EXE from Windows ME. Finally
> there was one that worked fast.
>
> I just installed Windows 2000 on another computer.
> I see once again MS went back to the slow defragger. Not only that,
> but the older versions (Windows 3.x thru Win98se) showed the process
> in a graphic and showed the percentage completed. The one in 2K dont
> show anything except some colored bars, and I have no idea what
> percentage is completed. What a useless POS.
>
> Can I install the defragger from WinME in Win2K?
>
> (Note: I will not likely continue using Windows 2000. I am just
> playing with it. I picked up a used laptop computer with a formatted
> harddrive, and the guy gave me a windows 2K CD with it.) I decided to
> install it, even though this laptop is likely too slow for Win2K (It
> was designed for Win98, and only has 64megs of ram and a 366
> processor). Win2k works on it, but it's slow, and I still can not get
> myself to like anything above Win98. Either way, I wanted to run the
> defragger and found how terrible it is.
>
>

Though the winME defragger will work fine on win98

NT and Win9x defraggers are not interchangeble,
though the win2k /XP defraggers work fine, if you don't like them
there are some 3rd party utilities out there...such as disk keeper, etc

 

[Roger Fink]

FAT32/NTFS

letterman@invalid.com wrote:
> Somewhat off topic......
>
> Windows 3.x thru Windows 98SE had the slowest defragger. I finally
> learned that I could install the DEFRAG.EXE from Windows ME. Finally
> there was one that worked fast.
>
> I just installed Windows 2000 on another computer.
> I see once again MS went back to the slow defragger. Not only that,
> but the older versions (Windows 3.x thru Win98se) showed the process
> in a graphic and showed the percentage completed. The one in 2K dont
> show anything except some colored bars, and I have no idea what
> percentage is completed. What a useless POS.
>
> Can I install the defragger from WinME in Win2K?
>
> (Note: I will not likely continue using Windows 2000. I am just
> playing with it. I picked up a used laptop computer with a formatted
> harddrive, and the guy gave me a windows 2K CD with it.) I decided to
> install it, even though this laptop is likely too slow for Win2K (It
> was designed for Win98, and only has 64megs of ram and a 366
> processor). Win2k works on it, but it's slow, and I still can not get
> myself to like anything above Win98. Either way, I wanted to run the
> defragger and found how terrible it is.
>
> Thanks

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:11:43 -0400, "Roger Fink" <fink@manana.org>
wrote:

>FAT32/NTFS

It's Fat32. I have dos installed on the drive too, and it's dual
booting. I wont run any omputer that can not have dos installed, and
I know the NTFS cant work with dos.

>
>letterman@invalid.com wrote:
>> Somewhat off topic......
>>
>> Windows 3.x thru Windows 98SE had the slowest defragger. I finally
>> learned that I could install the DEFRAG.EXE from Windows ME. Finally
>> there was one that worked fast.
>>
>> I just installed Windows 2000 on another computer.
>> I see once again MS went back to the slow defragger. Not only that,
>> but the older versions (Windows 3.x thru Win98se) showed the process
>> in a graphic and showed the percentage completed. The one in 2K dont
>> show anything except some colored bars, and I have no idea what
>> percentage is completed. What a useless POS.
>>
>> Can I install the defragger from WinME in Win2K?
>>
>> (Note: I will not likely continue using Windows 2000. I am just
>> playing with it. I picked up a used laptop computer with a formatted
>> harddrive, and the guy gave me a windows 2K CD with it.) I decided to
>> install it, even though this laptop is likely too slow for Win2K (It
>> was designed for Win98, and only has 64megs of ram and a 366
>> processor). Win2k works on it, but it's slow, and I still can not get
>> myself to like anything above Win98. Either way, I wanted to run the
>> defragger and found how terrible it is.
>>
>> Thanks
>

 

[Lil' Dave]

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ONFA81N$IHA.4648@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:f6u3a4hlk2fge7l0mden1d6of4277bvciq@4ax.com...
>> Somewhat off topic......
>>
>> Windows 3.x thru Windows 98SE had the slowest defragger. I finally
>> learned that I could install the DEFRAG.EXE from Windows ME. Finally
>> there was one that worked fast.
>>
>> I just installed Windows 2000 on another computer.
>> I see once again MS went back to the slow defragger. Not only that,
>> but the older versions (Windows 3.x thru Win98se) showed the process
>> in a graphic and showed the percentage completed. The one in 2K dont
>> show anything except some colored bars, and I have no idea what
>> percentage is completed. What a useless POS.
>>
>> Can I install the defragger from WinME in Win2K?
>>
>> (Note: I will not likely continue using Windows 2000. I am just
>> playing with it. I picked up a used laptop computer with a formatted
>> harddrive, and the guy gave me a windows 2K CD with it.) I decided to
>> install it, even though this laptop is likely too slow for Win2K (It
>> was designed for Win98, and only has 64megs of ram and a 366
>> processor). Win2k works on it, but it's slow, and I still can not get
>> myself to like anything above Win98. Either way, I wanted to run the
>> defragger and found how terrible it is.
>>
>>
>
> Though the winME defragger will work fine on win98
>
> NT and Win9x defraggers are not interchangeble,
> though the win2k /XP defraggers work fine, if you don't like them
> there are some 3rd party utilities out there...such as disk keeper, etc
>
>

Licensed diskeeper retail CD version 8 here. Yep, diskeeper installation
works in 98SE and ME on my PC. Version 10 is out there now.

A little further OT. Those with XP w/SP3, and, early diskeeper version 9
and prior SP3 installs a new version of MMC. After opening such a
diskeeper window, any further use will cause an MMC fault and consequential
popup indicating same. Does not affect usage of diskeeper however. XP
defrag uses a diluted form of diskeeper, that calls the executable only, no
MMC involved as is not affected.

WinME defrag, as with other 9X defrag, rely on the msdos layer and FAT/FAT32
filesystem. Even if was strictly a window environment program totally
independent of msdos, does not understand NTFS and the MFT reserved area.

3rd party defragmenters usually offer a more precise graphical
representation of the condition of fragmentation, and, may offer a graphical
representation of more classifications of files. For instance, with
diskeeper version 8, the MFT reserved area is presented as system reserved
area. XP's defrag (diluted diskeeper) does no such thing.

The most impressive 3rd party defragger for me in 9X was the Norton version.
Had an option to put the swapfile at the end of the partition. If you
locked the size of the swapfile, nothing ever really changed regarding the
swapfile.

Another commonly used 3rd party defragger is perfectdisk.
--
Dave

 

[Roger Fink]

The file system affects the performance of the defragger. When I had 98SE I
used the defragger in the Fix-it 2000 utilities suite because it was much
faster than the Windows alternative. When I switched to W2K the same Fix-it
defragger was so ridiculously slow I went with the Microsoft defragger
instead. It's much better than your rant implies. That's what I was trying
to say with <FAT32/NTFS> for anyone capable of making the interpretive leap.

letterman@invalid.com wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:11:43 -0400, "Roger Fink" <fink@manana.org>
> wrote:
>
>> FAT32/NTFS
>
> It's Fat32. I have dos installed on the drive too, and it's dual
> booting. I wont run any omputer that can not have dos installed, and
> I know the NTFS cant work with dos.
>
>>
>> letterman@invalid.com wrote:
>>> Somewhat off topic......
>>>
>>> Windows 3.x thru Windows 98SE had the slowest defragger. I finally
>>> learned that I could install the DEFRAG.EXE from Windows ME.
>>> Finally there was one that worked fast.
>>>
>>> I just installed Windows 2000 on another computer.
>>> I see once again MS went back to the slow defragger. Not only that,
>>> but the older versions (Windows 3.x thru Win98se) showed the process
>>> in a graphic and showed the percentage completed. The one in 2K
>>> dont show anything except some colored bars, and I have no idea what
>>> percentage is completed. What a useless POS.
>>>
>>> Can I install the defragger from WinME in Win2K?
>>>
>>> (Note: I will not likely continue using Windows 2000. I am just
>>> playing with it. I picked up a used laptop computer with a
>>> formatted harddrive, and the guy gave me a windows 2K CD with it.)
>>> I decided to install it, even though this laptop is likely too slow
>>> for Win2K (It was designed for Win98, and only has 64megs of ram
>>> and a 366 processor). Win2k works on it, but it's slow, and I
>>> still can not get myself to like anything above Win98. Either way,
>>> I wanted to run the defragger and found how terrible it is.
>>>
>>> Thanks

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

Even if the Win2000 partition is installed on a FAT32 partition, using ME
Defrag will, AFAIK, wreck the systems. I'm not an expert on the topic, but
it's my understanding that 2K/XP/Vista systems have certain critical files
placed at specific locations on the disk which ME Defrag is unaware of. ME
Defrag moves those files, system doesn't boot.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

"Roger Fink" <fink@manana.org> wrote in message
news:un0ODqU$IHA.1180@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> The file system affects the performance of the defragger. When I had 98SE
> I
> used the defragger in the Fix-it 2000 utilities suite because it was much
> faster than the Windows alternative. When I switched to W2K the same
> Fix-it
> defragger was so ridiculously slow I went with the Microsoft defragger
> instead. It's much better than your rant implies. That's what I was trying
> to say with <FAT32/NTFS> for anyone capable of making the interpretive
> leap.
>
> letterman@invalid.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:11:43 -0400, "Roger Fink" <fink@manana.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> FAT32/NTFS
>>
>> It's Fat32. I have dos installed on the drive too, and it's dual
>> booting. I wont run any omputer that can not have dos installed, and
>> I know the NTFS cant work with dos.
>>
>>>
>>> letterman@invalid.com wrote:
>>>> Somewhat off topic......
>>>>
>>>> Windows 3.x thru Windows 98SE had the slowest defragger. I finally
>>>> learned that I could install the DEFRAG.EXE from Windows ME.
>>>> Finally there was one that worked fast.
>>>>
>>>> I just installed Windows 2000 on another computer.
>>>> I see once again MS went back to the slow defragger. Not only that,
>>>> but the older versions (Windows 3.x thru Win98se) showed the process
>>>> in a graphic and showed the percentage completed. The one in 2K
>>>> dont show anything except some colored bars, and I have no idea what
>>>> percentage is completed. What a useless POS.
>>>>
>>>> Can I install the defragger from WinME in Win2K?
>>>>
>>>> (Note: I will not likely continue using Windows 2000. I am just
>>>> playing with it. I picked up a used laptop computer with a
>>>> formatted harddrive, and the guy gave me a windows 2K CD with it.)
>>>> I decided to install it, even though this laptop is likely too slow
>>>> for Win2K (It was designed for Win98, and only has 64megs of ram
>>>> and a 366 processor). Win2k works on it, but it's slow, and I
>>>> still can not get myself to like anything above Win98. Either way,
>>>> I wanted to run the defragger and found how terrible it is.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>
>

 

[Buffalo]

letterman@invalid.com wrote:
> Somewhat off topic......
>
> Windows 3.x thru Windows 98SE had the slowest defragger. I finally
> learned that I could install the DEFRAG.EXE from Windows ME. Finally
> there was one that worked fast.
>
> I just installed Windows 2000 on another computer.
> I see once again MS went back to the slow defragger. Not only that,
> but the older versions (Windows 3.x thru Win98se) showed the process
> in a graphic and showed the percentage completed. The one in 2K dont
> show anything except some colored bars, and I have no idea what
> percentage is completed. What a useless POS.
>
> Can I install the defragger from WinME in Win2K?
>
> (Note: I will not likely continue using Windows 2000. I am just
> playing with it. I picked up a used laptop computer with a formatted
> harddrive, and the guy gave me a windows 2K CD with it.) I decided to
> install it, even though this laptop is likely too slow for Win2K (It
> was designed for Win98, and only has 64megs of ram and a 366
> processor). Win2k works on it, but it's slow, and I still can not get
> myself to like anything above Win98. Either way, I wanted to run the
> defragger and found how terrible it is.
>
> Thanks


This is a somewhat faster free defragger for Win2000.
O&O Defrag 2000 Freeware
http://www.filehippo.com/download_oo_defrag/


Read about it and decide for yourself.
Buffalo

 

[someone watching]

> This is a somewhat faster free defragger for Win2000.
> O&O Defrag 2000 Freeware
> http://www.filehippo.com/download_oo_defrag/
>

OR, try this (the one I use)
http://www.kessels.com/Jkdefrag/

 

[Ingeborg]

Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> Even if the Win2000 partition is installed on a FAT32 partition, using
> ME Defrag will, AFAIK, wreck the systems. I'm not an expert on the
> topic, but it's my understanding that 2K/XP/Vista systems have certain
> critical files placed at specific locations on the disk which ME
> Defrag is unaware of. ME Defrag moves those files, system doesn't
> boot.
>

Defrag won't even start, because it's accessing the hardware directly.

 

[Dan]

Please be careful to use the proper defragger for the proper os.

"letterman@invalid.com" wrote:

> Somewhat off topic......
>
> Windows 3.x thru Windows 98SE had the slowest defragger. I finally
> learned that I could install the DEFRAG.EXE from Windows ME. Finally
> there was one that worked fast.
>
> I just installed Windows 2000 on another computer.
> I see once again MS went back to the slow defragger. Not only that,
> but the older versions (Windows 3.x thru Win98se) showed the process
> in a graphic and showed the percentage completed. The one in 2K dont
> show anything except some colored bars, and I have no idea what
> percentage is completed. What a useless POS.
>
> Can I install the defragger from WinME in Win2K?
>
> (Note: I will not likely continue using Windows 2000. I am just
> playing with it. I picked up a used laptop computer with a formatted
> harddrive, and the guy gave me a windows 2K CD with it.) I decided to
> install it, even though this laptop is likely too slow for Win2K (It
> was designed for Win98, and only has 64megs of ram and a 366
> processor). Win2k works on it, but it's slow, and I still can not get
> myself to like anything above Win98. Either way, I wanted to run the
> defragger and found how terrible it is.
>
> Thanks
>

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

I assumed so. What I'm curious about is if I use a WinME defrag installed on
Win98, 98SE, or ME, to defrag a Win2K partition (FAT32), will it mess up the
installation. I say yes. But I'm going to have to wait until this weekend to
test it, as my only Win2k machine is on a machine that won't run Win9x. I'll
have to stick a new HD into another machine I have here, then install both
Win2K and WinME.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

"Ingeborg" <a@b.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9AFA65F19A58Eabinvalid@217.21.244.90...
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>
>> Even if the Win2000 partition is installed on a FAT32 partition, using
>> ME Defrag will, AFAIK, wreck the systems. I'm not an expert on the
>> topic, but it's my understanding that 2K/XP/Vista systems have certain
>> critical files placed at specific locations on the disk which ME
>> Defrag is unaware of. ME Defrag moves those files, system doesn't
>> boot.
>>
>
> Defrag won't even start, because it's accessing the hardware directly.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <9345a4922drpgb17i87n0dp4pj9pkvjffa@4ax.com>,
letterman@invalid.com writes
>On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:11:43 -0400, "Roger Fink" <fink@manana.org>
>wrote:
>
>>FAT32/NTFS
>
>It's Fat32. I have dos installed on the drive too, and it's dual
>booting. I wont run any omputer that can not have dos installed, and

With you there.

>I know the NTFS cant work with dos.
[]
I'd have put it as "DOS can't understand NTFS", but we're on the same
wavelength!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

.... on Thursdays on BBC Two, the former BBC2. (John Peel in "Radio Times", 1-7
May 1999.)