Windows guru's - help with slow comp - Page 2 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > The Pub
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

The Pub A friendly forum where everybody is nice, and will answer any questions you have about life.

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 29th, 2008, 12:45 PM   #21
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Default

omg, the BS in this thread.


First off, overdefragging causes wear on hard drive bearings, not the platter read/writes. It can also cause premature armature death ( the arm that swings the read head out over the platters).

Second,reloading a machine from scratch once a year? OMG, fuck no. keep the fucker clean and you don't need to do that. It takes me about 8-10 days to reload all of my software and get it back to working order. if you're one that likes to do the reload technique though I have this option for you. Get an image program like Norton Ghost. Format your machine and load it up with your base programs and get your settings all nice and pretty. Then use the image program and burn an image of your boot drive to a cd/dvd. Voila, when you want to reload later simply run the image program again and restore the image over a formatted drive. Saves you countless hours.

Hijackthis is great if you're somewhat savvy. Adaware is a good one as well as Prevx.

The biggest culprit to slowing a machine down is the bullshit stuff in your registry, services, and startup folder. HKLM/software/microsoft.windows.current version/run as well as the same folder under HKU in the registry are two spots to keep an eye on. Newer programs are getting sneaker and using services instead of relying on the registry run folder. Get rid of stupid update task shit like qtime systray etc... You can do those updates manually and not have 2% of cpu to run crap like that in the background each.
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old April 29th, 2008, 01:05 PM   #22
chris1044
Senior Member
 
chris1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Lost in the mitten!
Posts: 2,023
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lothos View Post
The biggest culprit to slowing a machine down is the bullshit stuff in your registry, services, and startup folder. HKLM/software/microsoft.windows.current version/run as well as the same folder under HKU in the registry are two spots to keep an eye on. Newer programs are getting sneaker and using services instead of relying on the registry run folder. Get rid of stupid update task shit like qtime systray etc... You can do those updates manually and not have 2% of cpu to run crap like that in the background each.
OK...explain then. IMO, my computer is VERY clean....I don't have any of the bullshit updates on automatic, none of the bullshit windows crap, I run firefox with adblock and various other security updates, and I run VERY little in the background as well. That is why I posted this up.....wtf are you talking about with the registry (AKA, dumb it down for the semi-illiterate)??
chris1044 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 01:11 PM   #23
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Default

start-run->regedit

look under hkey-current-user and hkey-local-machine You'll have a folder path software/microsoft/windows/currentversion/run and that will have all the crap you have launching on bootup.

another place is your control panel adminsitrator tools services for more things running.
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 01:42 PM   #24
schweeb
spelling nazi
 
schweeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-02-07
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 2,563
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lothos View Post
omg, the BS in this thread.


First off, overdefragging causes wear on hard drive bearings, not the platter read/writes. It can also cause premature armature death ( the arm that swings the read head out over the platters).
There's no such thing as overdefragging. The same shit I said before applies to hard drive bearings and armature death. Drives are rated for literally hundreds of thousands of hours of wear and tear.

I have literally thousands of drives under my control that spin all day and all night for years on end with no "worn bearings" or "armature death." Out of these disks I have to swap maybe 2 a month.
schweeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 02:01 PM   #25
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schweeb View Post
There's no such thing as overdefragging. The same shit I said before applies to hard drive bearings and armature death. Drives are rated for literally hundreds of thousands of hours of wear and tear.

I have literally thousands of drives under my control that spin all day and all night for years on end with no "worn bearings" or "armature death." Out of these disks I have to swap maybe 2 a month.
ok schweebster, how many of your thousands of drives "under your control" do you defrag daily? I've been in the support business for over 20 years now and I assure you without question that overdefragging causes premature hard disk failure.

Also, defragging too much is a waste with today's large drive sizes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defrag
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 02:08 PM   #26
JEEPR
Playing Possum
 
JEEPR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Harrison Township
Posts: 6,744
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

See, that's why I never answer a computer related question till after Lothos posts. It saves him the time of having to tell me what a dumbass I am..
JEEPR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 02:13 PM   #27
schweeb
spelling nazi
 
schweeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-02-07
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 2,563
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lothos View Post
ok schweebster, how many of your thousands of drives "under your control" do you defrag daily? I've been in the support business for over 20 years now and I assure you without question that overdefragging causes premature hard disk failure.

Also, defragging too much is a waste with today's large drive sizes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defrag
I don't defrag them, but there's databases (which will thrash a disk way more than defragging), images written, etc...

I call bullshit. Any drive that fails due to "overdefragging" was going to fail anyways.

After your initial defrag is complete the drive isn't going to have much to do anyways... fragmentation doesn't just materialize from nowhere.

20 years experience doesn't mean anything, drive technology has changed quite a bit even in the last 10 years. Anecdotal evidence from 20 years ago doesn't apply to today.

I never said defragging too often wasn't a waste. The only waste is of your time. You're not significantly cutting the lifetime of the drive down.
schweeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 02:14 PM   #28
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEEPR View Post
See, that's why I never answer a computer related question till after Lothos posts. It saves him the time of having to tell me what a dumbass I am..
hey, I've never called anyone an outright dumbass. Bio's shown me up on more than a few things and ryebread aint half bad either. But really people, logic here should be more than ample proof.

Defragging a drive makes the drive move a bunch of shit all over the drive in an attempt to sort data for faster access. The act of defragging is more time consuming and involved than simply telling a drive to go fetch me such and such file. How on earth does that not decrease the life expectancy of a mechanical device?
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 02:17 PM   #29
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schweeb View Post
I don't defrag them, but there's databases (which will thrash a disk way more than defragging), images written, etc...

I call bullshit. Any drive that fails due to "overdefragging" was going to fail anyways.

After your initial defrag is complete the drive isn't going to have much to do anyways... fragmentation doesn't just materialize from nowhere.

20 years experience doesn't mean anything, drive technology has changed quite a bit even in the last 10 years. Anecdotal evidence from 20 years ago doesn't apply to today.

I never said defragging too often wasn't a waste. The only waste is of your time. You're not significantly cutting the lifetime of the drive down.
your logic astounds me.
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 02:22 PM   #30
schweeb
spelling nazi
 
schweeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-02-07
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 2,563
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lothos View Post
your logic astounds me.
And yours astounds me. I deal with storage all day long.

I challenge you to find me a legitimate article that shows that defragmenting a drive too often cuts significantly into a drive's usable hours. It's a myth some computer ricer came up with to scare people, or possibly a "rule of thumb" from the old days that hasn't been properly quashed yet.
schweeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 02:27 PM   #31
RyeBread
Catch the wave
 
RyeBread's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: Fenton
Posts: 7,958
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lothos View Post
ryebread aint half bad either.

o.O

I take offense to that, I'm more than bad. :tonka:

I know a little about a lot. There's very little that I know a lot about. In most people's eyes that makes me dangerous, even though I'm usually trying to be helpful.
RyeBread is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 02:28 PM   #32
MrGrey
propane evangelist
 
MrGrey's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-04-07
Location: Davison
Posts: 798
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

:dunie:
MrGrey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 02:31 PM   #33
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Default

no, its mechanical certainty. The problem with your debate stance is you're taking the approach of the need to defragment and the rate of fragmentation. As drive capacities, and available free space, increased the fragmentation rates dropped. Better OS enhancements also improved the data sector management reducing the rate further to the point where its not as great a need to do anymore.

Along with that, drive makers improved upon the MTBF rates to a large degree. This doesn't eliminate the problem entirely, but it does make it much less likely.


"Disk failures and their metrics
Wikibooks
Wikibooks has a book on the topic of
Minimizing hard disk drive failure and data loss

Most major hard disk and motherboard vendors now support self-monitoring, analysis and reporting technology (S.M.A.R.T.), which attempts to alert users to impending failures.

However, not all failures are predictable. Normal use eventually can lead to a breakdown in the inherently fragile device, which makes it essential for the user to periodically back up the data onto a separate storage device. Failure to do so will lead to the loss of data. While it may be possible to recover lost information, it is normally an extremely costly procedure, and it is not possible to guarantee success. A 2007 study published by Google suggested very little correlation between failure rates and either high temperature or activity level.[34] While several S.M.A.R.T. parameters have an impact on failure probability, a large fraction of failed drives do not produce predictive S.M.A.R.T. parameters.[34] S.M.A.R.T. parameters alone may not be useful for predicting individual drive failures.[34]

A common misconception is that a colder hard drive will last longer than a hotter hard drive. The Google study showed the reverse -- "lower temperatures are associated with higher failure rates". Hard drives with S.M.A.R.T.-reported average temperatures below 27 C had failure rates worse than hard drives with the highest reported average temperature of 50 C, failure rates at least twice as high as the optimum S.M.A.R.T.-reported temperature range of 36 C to 47 C.[34]

SCSI, SAS and FC drives are typically more expensive and are traditionally used in servers and disk arrays, whereas inexpensive ATA and SATA drives evolved in the home computer market and were perceived to be less reliable. This distinction is now becoming blurred.

The mean time between failures (MTBF) of SATA drives is usually about 600,000 hours (some drives such as Western Digital Raptor have rated 1.2 million hours MTBF), while SCSI drives are rated for upwards of 1.5 million hours.[citation needed] However, independent research indicates that MTBF is not a reliable estimate of a drive's longevity.[35] MTBF is conducted in laboratory environments in test chambers and is an important metric to determine the quality of a disk drive before it enters high volume production. Once the drive product is in production, the more valid[citation needed] metric is annualized failure rate (AFR). AFR is the percentage of real-world drive failures after shipping.

SAS drives are comparable to SCSI drives, with high MTBF and high[citation needed] reliability.

Enterprise SATA drives designed and produced for enterprise markets, unlike standard SATA drives, have reliability comparable to other enterprise class drives.[citation needed]

Typically enterprise drives (all enterprise drives, including SCSI, SAS, enterprise SATA and FC) experience between 0.70%-0.78% annual failure rates from the total installed drives.[citation needed]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk


over-defragging is not a myth. It is a waste of time first and foremost and does reduce your drive's life.
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 02:32 PM   #34
schweeb
spelling nazi
 
schweeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-02-07
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 2,563
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

I'll back my challenge up with google's drive failure analysis study, in which they found no direct correlation between drive usage and failure rates, except in very young, and very old drives. Moreover, they also found no direct correlation between temperatures and drive failures.

http://research.google.com/archive/disk_failures.pdf

Quote:
One of our key findings has been the lack of a con-
sistent pattern of higher failure rates for higher temper-
ature drives or for those drives at higher utilization lev-
els. Such correlations have been repeatedly highlighted
by previous studies, but we are unable to confirm them
by observing our population. Although our data do not
allow us to conclude that there is no such correlation,
it provides strong evidence to suggest that other effects
may be more prominent in affecting disk drive reliabil-
ity in the context of a professionally managed data center
deployment.
schweeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 02:36 PM   #35
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schweeb View Post
I'll back my challenge up with google's drive failure analysis study, in which they found no direct correlation between drive usage and failure rates, except in very young, and very old drives. Moreover, they also found no direct correlation between temperatures and drive failures.

http://research.google.com/archive/disk_failures.pdf
so, you agreed with me on the last bit I posted? good
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 02:36 PM   #36
schweeb
spelling nazi
 
schweeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-02-07
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 2,563
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source, other than for quick fact finding. Please find me a legitimate case study in which the population of disks showed a large amount of failures due to high utilizations.

The google study, which shows that young and old drives are the only ones with a correlation here still support my point: drives which fail due to this were prone to failure already. Young drives with high utilization expose manufacturing issues, and old drives (5 yrs +) are just reaching the end of their lifetime.

Yes, I agree with part of what you pasted from Wikipedia that is accurate.
schweeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 02:39 PM   #37
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schweeb View Post
Wikipedia is not a legitimate source, other than for quick fact finding. Please find me a legitimate case study in which the population of disks showed a large amount of failures to to high utilizations.

The google study, which shows that young and old drives are the only ones with a correlation here still support my point: drives which fail due to this were prone to failure already. Young drives with high utilization expose manufacturing issues, and old drives (5 yrs +) are just reaching the end of their lifetime.
um, the wikipedia "source" that i posted agreed with your google study soure of improved drive lifetimes. that's not the argument. usage is usage man. and "6 million hours before failure" while a long time is still a time line.
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 02:40 PM   #38
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Default

usage is usage. defragging is usage. MTBF is still a failure time rate. the rate number increases over years, but still will exist. That doesn't make over defragging any less true.
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 02:59 PM   #39
schweeb
spelling nazi
 
schweeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-02-07
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 2,563
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lothos View Post
um, the wikipedia "source" that i posted agreed with your google study soure of improved drive lifetimes. that's not the argument. usage is usage man. and "6 million hours before failure" while a long time is still a time line.
The study showed that high disk usage didn't make any difference in the lifetime of the drive within a standard usage time.

And that's my point. "overdefragging" in itself in a myth, due to the very factors you quoted (OS improvements) plus what I said (fragmentation doesn't materialize from nowhere). If there's nothing much to defragment, you aren't putting any more wear on the drive than sitting and using the web.

Using your logic, torrenting is just as bad for your drive as defragmenting. And no one is concerned about that, since the actual impact it has on your total hours is so low it can be ignored. It's statistically irrelevant.
schweeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 03:01 PM   #40
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Default

just because the statistics make it low doesn't make it a myth.
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > The Pub

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:58 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.36446 seconds with 80 queries