Quote:
Originally Posted by EHaskins
The only functional difference I've seen is that defrag now allows you to choose which volumes to defragment.
|
Now why in the world did they remove that feature in the first place...
Just wondering... Does Vista's defragmenter appear to be any faster than XP's defragmenter? Or are they still living in the past with an extremely slow algorithm?
Hmm, according to Wikipedia, Vista has improved the GUI defragmenter by allowing low priority defragmentation and scheduled defragmentation; plus it does not defragment files if it has fragments larger than 64 MB when using the GUI. But the article does not say if it performs any faster if there was no 64 MB fragment restriction (this feature reduces the disk space needed when doing a normal defrag, but would also speed up the process if there were many large files on the drive).
EDIT: Yes Protronie, it didn't take as long. But that would be because there were less major fixes needed.
DISCLAIMER: I have not used Vista and I probably will not for another year, only because I have decided that the best time to buy a new laptop is when I am ready for college. The biggest reason is that the best hardware today will probably become the low budget hardware of next year, more or less.