[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Windows Vista Fail... (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 6/28/2009 3:48:47 PM EDT
|
So I put my computer on defragmenter and left. It's been six hours and it's still going at it...
XP used to take 45 minutes at the most. What gives? 
|
|
Quoted: Windows 7 goes into defrag everytime the computer goes into hibernate. Pretty cool. Disk defragmenter on Vista runs every week by default unless you change the setting. I avoid hibernation in PCs. Suspend to S3 is preferred here. I did pre-order to copies of Windows 7, but so far I like the Vista GUI and task bar better. |
|
Quoted:
So I put my computer on defragmenter and left. It's been six hours and it's still going at it... XP used to take 45 minutes at the most. What gives? What kind of CPU do have? I noticed on my old PC that had an AMD processor the defrag took WAY longer. My Intel processor can do the work in a fraction of the time. |
|
Quoted:
You want fail though? I got this message one time while checking for updates to Vista: http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v2626/47/39/63205893/n63205893_33334334_2164864.jpg 
YO DAWG. I HEARD YOU LIKE UPDATES SO WE UPDATED YOUR UPDATER SO YOU CAN UPDATE WHILE YOU UPDATE. |
|
Vista really sucks balls. I'm not a microsoft hater, but I've had nothing but problems with Vista on my work laptop.
Yeah, it looks pretty, but how about not BSOD'ing me and then coming up with "We'll try to repair this, but if it doesn't work, the laptop might not come up" screen. |
|
Quoted: Vista really sucks balls. I'm not a microsoft hater, but I've had nothing but problems with Vista on my work laptop. Yeah, it looks pretty, but how about not BSOD'ing me and then coming up with "We'll try to repair this, but if it doesn't work, the laptop might not come up" screen. Windoze? http://www.linuxmint.com/ Not any more. |
|
Quoted:
Some of you are complaining that you don't get little color-changing blocks, so obviously, the defrag utility is inferior? 
No, I missed the fragmented file names and locations, number of files and fragments.... Defraggler gives me those, lets me scan when I want, and I can rebuild the fragmented files that will not defrag. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Some of you are complaining that you don't get little color-changing blocks, so obviously, the defrag utility is inferior?
Uhh, yeah. It's not like it's going to impact the performance ANY MORE than having a 3D rendered desktop. And you sat there and sagely considered the changing of each little colored block, I'm sure. They ditched the stupid map because it is meaningless. Pick a colorful screensaver and stare at that while defragging if you MUST be amusing by changing colors. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Some of you are complaining that you don't get little color-changing blocks, so obviously, the defrag utility is inferior?
Uhh, yeah. It's not like it's going to impact the performance ANY MORE than having a 3D rendered desktop. And you sat there and sagely considered the changing of each little colored block, I'm sure. They ditched the stupid map because it is meaningless. Pick a colorful screensaver and stare at that while defragging if you MUST be amusing by changing colors. It's like a fucking mosquito zapper. I can't help but stare. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Some of you are complaining that you don't get little color-changing blocks, so obviously, the defrag utility is inferior?
Uhh, yeah. It's not like it's going to impact the performance ANY MORE than having a 3D rendered desktop. And you sat there and sagely considered the changing of each little colored block, I'm sure. They ditched the stupid map because it is meaningless. Pick a colorful screensaver and stare at that while defragging if you MUST be amusing by changing colors. It's like a fucking mosquito zapper. I can't help but stare. Don't feel bad, I can stare at 'Aurora' for hours. |
|
Quoted:
xp does not recongize all 6 gigs of ram and it takes just as long to defrag my 5 tb of drives Need a 64bit OS to recognize above 4gb (3.5something, whatever) of RAM. XP64, Vista64, Win7-64bit, various Server editions, etc. ETA: Nevermind, I think I misinterpreted what you meant. |
|
Quoted: Doesn't it default to automatically defrag once week? I've been using 64 bit Vista over a year with no problems and no complaints. Yes. ETA: Right click on one of your drives, select properties, go to tools and select defragmenter. You're schedule window should pop up. |
|
Wow, my thread is still going!
Welp, it finished after 9 hours. Vista has been a pest about many small things. I've been lucky to not have any major issues. The warning prompt screen needs getting used to, slows down the computer. I've played with W7 and it's everything Vista wants to be. |
|
Quoted:
Wow, my thread is still going! Welp, it finished after 9 hours. Vista has been a pest about many small things. I've been lucky to not have any major issues. The warning prompt screen needs getting used to, slows down the computer. I've played with W7 and it's everything Vista wants to be. You can disable the warning prompts, just google "disable uac." 
And Vista/7 must be better with defrag... I don't have to bother setting up scheduled jobs, it's already there. I have 6 TB online with one computer with no reported defragmentation! |
Low priority defragmentationThe defrag engine in Windows Vista does not affect the performance of other processes that are running on the computer. Other processes are not affected because defragmentation runs as a low priority process. And, defragmentation uses only minimal CPU resources and memory resources. If the system is using lots of CPU resources and memory resources, the defragmentation process may take a longer time to finish.ETA: Why would anyone want to use a third party disk defragger or even run the Vista defrag program manually? It runs once a week, in the background, in a manner that doesn't impact performance. People bitched that they actually had to run a defrag manually on Win 9x thru XP, so MS has it set to run automatically, once a week with no input from the user. Now people are complaining that it doesn't work or sucks. Just because it doesn't prompt you or flash meaningless colored blocks on the screen doesn't mean it isn't doing anything. ETA2: Here is a list of features found in the Vista defrag and how it operates different than the XP and below version: |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I hate Vista. Never used it... never will. never used it but hate it? 
He has an open mind.
Me, on the other hand, bought my wife a new Viao with Vista. My wife HATES it so I do as well, because I am her IT guy. 
Me, I would not put up with it, but I have a Mac. Bill |
|
Quoted:
Low priority defragmentationThe defrag engine in Windows Vista does not affect the performance of other processes that are running on the computer. Other processes are not affected because defragmentation runs as a low priority process. And, defragmentation uses only minimal CPU resources and memory resources. If the system is using lots of CPU resources and memory resources, the defragmentation process may take a longer time to finish.ETA: Why would anyone want to use a third party disk defragger or even run the Vista defrag program manually? It runs once a week, in the background, in a manner that doesn't impact performance. People bitched that they actually had to run a defrag manually on Win 9x thru XP, so MS has it set to run automatically, once a week with no input from the user. Now people are complaining that it doesn't work or sucks. Just because it doesn't prompt you or flash meaningless colored blocks on the screen doesn't mean it isn't doing anything. ETA2: Here is a list of features found in the Vista defrag and how it operates different than the XP and below version: People like some of the other free defrag programs because they offer advanced options that allow you to choose where the reorganized data is kept on the disk for faster access. |