Author Topic: How fragmented is your hard drive (Read 15179 times)

X'tyfe · « **Reply #30 on:** November 21, 2005, 10:30:41 AM »

i have had no issue with the defrag in windows xp
it was terrible in win9x

whats the difference between that and the one in xp?

plastik · « **Reply #31 on:** November 21, 2005, 05:45:07 PM »

You should win an award or something, because that is one holy mofo of a fragment. i couldn't eve begin to come up with an explanation of how it got that bad. crazy stuff. i bet when you defragged it, it showed hella improved performance. also, windows defragger is all you need to defrag drives, but i noticed it doesn't compact all the files like it should, so you'll probably have to go over it more than once no matter how bad it is.. the best way to keep from bad fragments such as those is to install windowsXP on a 2-2.5GB partition, then change the 'program files' and 'document and settings' variables(in registry) to another partition/hard drive, you will have almost no fragments in your windows drive, hence everything will run as fast as it should be. i've done this before and noticed ALOT of improvement. although it'd be nice if hard drives came self-defragging out-of-the-box

Om3ga · « **Reply #32 on:** November 21, 2005, 05:59:57 PM »

and a partition for quake2, WoW!

X'tyfe · « **Reply #33 on:** November 21, 2005, 06:21:45 PM »

ya i have one too

and for classic doom, which i also play alot

ĄƦçɧąɳɠҾԼ · « **Reply #34 on:** November 21, 2005, 07:05:20 PM »

Well, I don't really use anything on the drive, except the emulators, so I really didn't notice much of a difference. I have since also gotten rid of the page file on that system.

Here is how my main system looks at the moment.

I always put Windows on it's own partition, and only install things there like web browsers, media players, anti-virus, and firewalls. I have turned off the page file on this system as well, and I have noticed somewhat of an improvement, so I will be getting rid of that 2GB partition I set aside for it.

Now my question to you guys is, why are you using FAT32? $:-\$

Om3ga · « **Reply #35 on:** November 21, 2005, 08:39:38 PM »

Quote from: Xtife on November 21, 2005, 06:21:45 PM

ya i have one too and for classic doom, which i also play alot

i have one for... just windows and other stuff, and another one for games, audio, and media.

plastik · « **Reply #36 on:** November 22, 2005, 02:08:31 AM »

I use FAT32 because sometimes I have problems with NTFS, and also my slackware 10.2 gave me problems when i tried to access NTFS. i only set aside 4GB or so for a linux partition (which is now out of this box) and i use FAT32 drives for downloads/other stuff etc.

X'tyfe · « **Reply #37 on:** November 22, 2005, 06:05:04 AM »

iv always used ntfs since i moved from win9x
never had any problems

linux almost messed up my file hdd when i accessed it from there haha
it kept scanning it, and i did a deep scan and it fixed it
said it was dirty

i only moved a file from it to my linux partition, i didnt write to to it i dont think

gots a question solo
whats your boot and swap partitions for?

ĄƦçɧąɳɠҾԼ · « **Reply #38 on:** November 22, 2005, 08:45:32 AM »

@plastik:
Ok if your dual booting then FAT32 is good for both Windows and Linux together. As far as I know NTFS support in Linux is still not great, which is why it gives problems. But in a complete Windows environment then NTFS would be the way to go.

@Xtife:
The boot partition is where Windows is installed. The swap partition was where I put the pagefile. I've turned the pagefile off so that 2GB partition is sitting there going to waste, I'm going to get rid of it and add that 2GB back to the main partition of Drive 2 when I get a chance.

[BTF]adam · « **Reply #39 on:** November 22, 2005, 08:50:57 AM »

What's wrong with FAT32 anyway? its what mines as.. though i didnt make that choice.. someone else did that for me when i wasnt as computer literate as i am now..

X'tyfe · « **Reply #40 on:** November 22, 2005, 09:03:01 AM »

@solo isnt 4gp a bit small for windows? i use maybe 15gp for mine
but that includes a few essential programs like office and such'

when ever i download stuff it ends up on my desktop
so i need some space for that aswell

does disabling the page file really help all that much?

@adam fat32 was used for win9x and winxp has kept it for people who still like it from that i guess, i dont think you would see that much difference if you converted to ntfs
but its still better for xp. you should be able to convert it with stuff on the disk if you wanted to

ĄƦçɧąɳɠҾԼ · « **Reply #41 on:** November 22, 2005, 09:19:13 AM »

@Adam:
Here is a comparison of different file systems if you want to see the differences between the two,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems

And a list of limitations of FAT32,
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314463

@Xtife
4GB's is just enough for windows. Personally I don't download things to my desktop, I put them in other folders.

Well, I noticed an improvement from disableing my page file, but I have 1GB of RAM. You may not want to do that if you have less RAM than that.

[BTF]adam · « **Reply #42 on:** November 22, 2005, 10:02:35 AM »

how would one go about that xtife

plastik · « **Reply #43 on:** November 22, 2005, 10:20:40 AM »

sx/adam are you refering to disabling the paging file ? you goto control panel > system > advanced > performance : settings > advanced > virtual memory : change select the drive windows is installed on, then select 'No Paging File'. you can also change the paging file size in MB from there also.

[BTF]adam · « **Reply #44 on:** November 22, 2005, 10:24:12 AM »

I was referring to keeping all data but converting to NTFS

Author Topic: How fragmented is your hard drive (Read 15179 times)

plastik

plastik

plastik

El Box de Shoutamente