Why is it that different programs take different lengths of time? When I used to
use the default Windows XP defragger, I'd have to run it overnight it took so
long (120Gb drive in 2 partitions). Then I bought Perfect Disk. It still took an
hour or two. Now I use a free program called Auslogics Disk Defrag. I can
actually launch it and sit there and watch it do the job, taking a few minutes
on all but my C drive, which maybe takes 7 or 8 minutes. I'm assuming it's doing
a good job despite the short length of time it takes. What's up? Thanks.

rfdjr1@optonline.net wrote:
> Why is it that different programs take different lengths of time? When I used to
> use the default Windows XP defragger, I'd have to run it overnight it took so
> long (120Gb drive in 2 partitions). Then I bought Perfect Disk. It still took an
> hour or two. Now I use a free program called Auslogics Disk Defrag. I can
> actually launch it and sit there and watch it do the job, taking a few minutes
> on all but my C drive, which maybe takes 7 or 8 minutes. I'm assuming it's doing
> a good job despite the short length of time it takes. What's up? Thanks.

This is not scientific, but I've always used one. If for no other
reason than to occupy my bored hours now and then, TV getting worse over
the years :-)
I used to see years ago the defrag I used would move data as needed to
fill holes and move from the end and only move what was needed. Fragged
files (if thats a word) would be fixed efficiently too. The one I've
used lately counts the files moved and it seems to move a ton of them
when I only have 5 fragmented files. (thats an exaggeration but you get
the point). But it doesn't just fill a 2 sector hole with a 2 sector
file as the old programss did. I've always wondered myself, why is it
so complicated. Seems like they are trying to arrange by usage or
type, if not ever so subtle, rather than just fix the fragmentation!

Bottom line, I too think they take longer than they should. I have
always used the type that you can see more detail with. ie. The XP
defrag leaves you guessing, where O&O defrag has a very good user
interface, if not good bells and whistles.

rfdjr1@optonline.net wrote:
> Why is it that different programs take different lengths of time? When I used to
> use the default Windows XP defragger, I'd have to run it overnight it took so
> long (120Gb drive in 2 partitions). Then I bought Perfect Disk. It still took an
> hour or two. Now I use a free program called Auslogics Disk Defrag. I can
> actually launch it and sit there and watch it do the job, taking a few minutes
> on all but my C drive, which maybe takes 7 or 8 minutes. I'm assuming it's doing
> a good job despite the short length of time it takes. What's up? Thanks.

Depends, there are different defrag techniques around.

The simple defrag will take the shortest amount of time and only
consists of defragmenting the files that are fragmented.

The next level involves defragmenting based on file sizes. The larger
files are put towards the top of the disk (usually these are
applications) and the smaller ones toward the bottom (log files).

The next level involves defragmenting based on access and/or frequency
of use. This involves placing applications you launch frequently
towards the top (os / etc).

..... I'm sure I may have left out a few variations; but, you get the
point...

James Kosin

<rfdjr1@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:66g0e4ts8alduos49kk4q6r7brnb0ol5ml@4ax.com...
> Why is it that different programs take different lengths of time? When I
> used to
> use the default Windows XP defragger, I'd have to run it overnight it took
> so
> long (120Gb drive in 2 partitions). Then I bought Perfect Disk. It still
> took an
> hour or two. Now I use a free program called Auslogics Disk Defrag. I can
> actually launch it and sit there and watch it do the job, taking a few
> minutes
> on all but my C drive, which maybe takes 7 or 8 minutes. I'm assuming it's
> doing
> a good job despite the short length of time it takes. What's up? Thanks.

This does not answer you question, but try Defraggler by Piriform. Piriform
gave us CCleaner (formerly Crap Cleaner), a dependable application for
eliminating, uh, crap.

Ken Bland

Justin

cCleaner now takes a lot longer than it used to!

~~~~


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Justin Thyme wrote:
> <rfdjr1@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:66g0e4ts8alduos49kk4q6r7brnb0ol5ml@4ax.com...
>> Why is it that different programs take different lengths of time?
>> When I used to
>> use the default Windows XP defragger, I'd have to run it overnight
>> it took so
>> long (120Gb drive in 2 partitions). Then I bought Perfect Disk. It
>> still took an
>> hour or two. Now I use a free program called Auslogics Disk Defrag.
>> I can actually launch it and sit there and watch it do the job,
>> taking a few minutes
>> on all but my C drive, which maybe takes 7 or 8 minutes. I'm
>> assuming it's doing
>> a good job despite the short length of time it takes. What's up?
>> Thanks.
>
> This does not answer you question, but try Defraggler by Piriform.
> Piriform gave us CCleaner (formerly Crap Cleaner), a dependable
> application for eliminating, uh, crap.
>
> Ken Bland

"Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%2392LIdlIJHA.508@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Justin
>
> cCleaner now takes a lot longer than it used to!
>
> ~~~~
>
>
> Gerry
> ~~~~
> FCA
> Stourport, England
> Enquire, plan and execute
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I haven't noticed that, Gerry. Are you sure you're not asking it to clean
more stuff?

Ken Bland

No. This happened a month or so ago. A updated version of cCleaner.


--



Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Justin Thyme wrote:
> "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%2392LIdlIJHA.508@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Justin
>>
>> cCleaner now takes a lot longer than it used to!
>>
>> ~~~~
>>
>>
>> Gerry
>> ~~~~
>> FCA
>> Stourport, England
>> Enquire, plan and execute
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> I haven't noticed that, Gerry. Are you sure you're not asking it to
> clean more stuff?
>
> Ken Bland

The latest version of CCleaner 2.12.651 seems to have corrected this....


"Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OGXo2FoIJHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
No. This happened a month or so ago. A updated version of cCleaner.


--



Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Justin Thyme wrote:
> "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%2392LIdlIJHA.508@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Justin
>>
>> cCleaner now takes a lot longer than it used to!
>>
>> ~~~~
>>
>>
>> Gerry
>> ~~~~
>> FCA
>> Stourport, England
>> Enquire, plan and execute
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> I haven't noticed that, Gerry. Are you sure you're not asking it to
> clean more stuff?
>
> Ken Bland

I have the freeware version 2.04.543. Looks like I need to uninstall and
download the latest version.

Thanks for the advice.

--



Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




ColTom2 wrote:
> The latest version of CCleaner 2.12.651 seems to have corrected
> this....
>
>
> "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:OGXo2FoIJHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> No. This happened a month or so ago. A updated version of cCleaner.
>
>
>
> Justin Thyme wrote:
>> "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:%2392LIdlIJHA.508@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Justin
>>>
>>> cCleaner now takes a lot longer than it used to!
>>>
>>> ~~~~
>>>
>>>
>>> Gerry
>>> ~~~~
>>> FCA
>>> Stourport, England
>>> Enquire, plan and execute
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> I haven't noticed that, Gerry. Are you sure you're not asking it to
>> clean more stuff?
>>
>> Ken Bland

Should I or should I not use the registry cleaner in CCleaner? I hear such
conflicting info about this, I'm curious about what you all think.

Donna in SW Idaho

"ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:OzMS3PwIJHA.3708@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> The latest version of CCleaner 2.12.651 seems to have corrected this....
>
>
> "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:OGXo2FoIJHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> No. This happened a month or so ago. A updated version of cCleaner.
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Gerry
> ~~~~
> FCA
> Stourport, England
> Enquire, plan and execute
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> Justin Thyme wrote:
>> "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:%2392LIdlIJHA.508@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Justin
>>>
>>> cCleaner now takes a lot longer than it used to!
>>>
>>> ~~~~
>>>
>>>
>>> Gerry
>>> ~~~~
>>> FCA
>>> Stourport, England
>>> Enquire, plan and execute
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> I haven't noticed that, Gerry. Are you sure you're not asking it to
>> clean more stuff?
>>
>> Ken Bland
>
>
>