If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Add WinMe to existing Win2K system?
BTW, isn't it Illegitimus Non Carborundum, and not Nil Carborundum
Illegitemi? As long as we are butchering "Latin," let's do it correctly, eh? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Add WinMe to existing Win2K system?
"Walter H Donavan" wrote in message ... Sorry, Noel. Have you tried a 3rd party defragger?? Speedisk (norton) perhaps? ) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Add WinMe to existing Win2K system?
Noel wrote: "and will simply put the programs as close together as possible,
in any order (which is why it's so fast). the resulting mess may well be very slow to load, as the HD has to jump around a lot during the loading of the OS, and programs therein." Walter replied: your explanation makes sense. I feel I just got a better understnding of the defrag process, and I thank you, However. It took about four hours today to defrag 17 GB using the W2K defragger. The same process takes roughly ten minutes under WinME. Assuming pgms actually won't load as fast when defrgged by Win ME (and they don't seem slow to me), is not being able to use my machine for four hours worth it? I think not. What I will probably do, although it is tedious, is rebuild a WME/W2K dual boot system, with the WME system used only for defragging. I am, btw, a firm believer that HDDs should be defragged daily (a practice also used by Windows guru Fred Langa), and I am unwilling to give Windows my HDDs for several hours a day to do that. If any of the defraggers recommended by OPs are free, I will try them. It would be better than destroying a newly rebuilt W2K system and tediously building a dual boot system. Anyway, thanks to all. Walterius, Old and cranky in Fort Lauderdale |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Add WinMe to existing Win2K system?
Follow-up: I tried Diskeeper Lite. Although it takes a very long time, it
can run in the background, so it does not tie up the computer. I will use it and not bother with a dual boot system. If and when I can afford it on my Social Security income, I will get the Diskeeper Lite full version. Thanks to all who replied. I appreciate it. Walterius Old, and defragmenting in Fort Lauderdale |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Add WinMe to existing Win2K system?
Every time you run the defragger in Win2k, it should get somewhat faster, as
the system will be partially optimised already. Copping and changing defraggers is the worst thing you can possibly do! Each defragger has its own idea of where files should be put,, and every time you change the defragger, it has to start the whole process again. My advice is to stick with the Win2k defragger for a few weeks/months, and see what the defrag time is at the end of that. Defrags on the OS host drive are always going to take longer than on a data drive (which is effectively what your W2K partition is, when defragging from Win ME), since most of the action takes place on that drive, and differing usage patterns can change the optimum ordering that Windows decides upon Why not defrag overnight? - it's what most people do (me? - I just like watching the blocks moving, but then I'm easily entertainedg) -- Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows) Nil Carborundum Illegitemi http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm http://tinyurl.com/6oztj Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's "Walter H Donavan" wrote in message ... Noel wrote: "and will simply put the programs as close together as possible, in any order (which is why it's so fast). the resulting mess may well be very slow to load, as the HD has to jump around a lot during the loading of the OS, and programs therein." Walter replied: your explanation makes sense. I feel I just got a better understnding of the defrag process, and I thank you, However. It took about four hours today to defrag 17 GB using the W2K defragger. The same process takes roughly ten minutes under WinME. Assuming pgms actually won't load as fast when defrgged by Win ME (and they don't seem slow to me), is not being able to use my machine for four hours worth it? I think not. What I will probably do, although it is tedious, is rebuild a WME/W2K dual boot system, with the WME system used only for defragging. I am, btw, a firm believer that HDDs should be defragged daily (a practice also used by Windows guru Fred Langa), and I am unwilling to give Windows my HDDs for several hours a day to do that. If any of the defraggers recommended by OPs are free, I will try them. It would be better than destroying a newly rebuilt W2K system and tediously building a dual boot system. Anyway, thanks to all. Walterius, Old and cranky in Fort Lauderdale |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Add WinMe to existing Win2K system?
Well, I didn't want to talk about it, but the real reason I wanted to use
the WME defrag was to watch the little blocks move. Anyway, I'm happy with Diskeeper Lite. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Add WinMe to existing Win2K system?
Good choice there in Florida g. Harry. "Walter H Donavan" wrote in message ... Well, I didn't want to talk about it, but the real reason I wanted to use the WME defrag was to watch the little blocks move. Anyway, I'm happy with Diskeeper Lite. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Add WinMe to existing Win2K system?
Don't forget to run pagedefrag to defragment your paging and in-use
system files. Can makes a difference on overall performance. John Walter H Donavan wrote: Well, I didn't want to talk about it, but the real reason I wanted to use the WME defrag was to watch the little blocks move. Anyway, I'm happy with Diskeeper Lite. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Add WinMe to existing Win2K system?
Pagedefrag? That must be part of the paid version, John, or? It cerytainly isn't available on my free version. Harry. "John John" wrote in message ... Don't forget to run pagedefrag to defragment your paging and in-use system files. Can makes a difference on overall performance. John Walter H Donavan wrote: Well, I didn't want to talk about it, but the real reason I wanted to use the WME defrag was to watch the little blocks move. Anyway, I'm happy with Diskeeper Lite. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Add WinMe to existing Win2K system?
No, it's the free Sysinternals tool he
http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/PageDefrag.html It's for the NT family Operating Systems, I don't think it works on ME. John webster72n wrote: Pagedefrag? That must be part of the paid version, John, or? It cerytainly isn't available on my free version. Harry. "John John" wrote in message ... Don't forget to run pagedefrag to defragment your paging and in-use system files. Can makes a difference on overall performance. John Walter H Donavan wrote: Well, I didn't want to talk about it, but the real reason I wanted to use the WME defrag was to watch the little blocks move. Anyway, I'm happy with Diskeeper Lite. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Finding CD KEY from WinME CD :was help with logo.sys | Sugien | General | 114 | November 28th 05 10:16 PM |
Very slow | PAT (pAUL) | General | 14 | November 4th 04 04:24 AM |
Unable to share printer connected to Win 98 system on Win2K networ | Bill | Networking | 2 | October 28th 04 05:07 PM |
Windows ME Restore and Autorun glitches: any advice to solve? | Brian | General | 11 | October 13th 04 07:04 PM |
master ide controller | annalee15 | Hardware | 14 | September 20th 04 10:44 PM |