Computer maintenance

[Lagu]

Hi

Today I run AD-Aware SE and found 30 Trojans and dialers as I removed. Then I run Disc cleaning and remove a lot of unnecessary files.

Next step was when I run Defrag on the hard disc 3 times. Windows says I not need to defrag but I refuse to listen to this message. Defrag went very fast because there was no large files to defrag.

When locking on the Defrag windows I noticed following:

First was an amount of files as was defragged (blue colour). Besides files as not could be moved (green) following of a large empty area. Next is a large amount of files (blue) following of a bigger empty area and last a small amount of files as lies last on the disc.

I think it seems a little strange. Why not all files within the last one isn’t near each other. Instead there is a large empty space. Is that normal?

The hard disc has an area of 80 GB but shows 76.3 GB I guess Windows holds a large amount of the area and other files as is necessary for Windows itself and Recovery files. I know Windows have an own partition but the disc chows only one.
Used space is 9.4 GB
Free space is 66.9 GB

After defrag I ran Panda antivirus for search “whole this computer”. 2 805.675 files was searched and 17 viruses/Trojans was founded and all of them were eliminated. The last virus/Trojan as was founded was Coockie/Tradedoubler.

Now I will do the same on my AMD Athlon 1001 GHz. But this will take some times compared with the AMD Athlon 64.

Lagu ;)

[AMD-USR_JL]

I think it seems a little strange. Why not all files within the last one isn’t near each other. Instead there is a large empty space. Is that normal?

It is just the way that windows defragments the files. You can run 0&0 Defrag (http://www.download.com/O-O-Defrag-Professional-Edition/3000-2094_4-10418985.html?tag=lst-0-2) (free for 30 days), it can organize your files in different ways, like putting files that are used more frequently at the front of your disc drive.

When the people sell you disc drives they measure it in a different way then your computer reads it. Yours is suppose to be 80Gb but it can only read 76.4Gb, i have 200Gb but i can only read 186 gb of it. Maybe someone else remembers how the retailers measure the disc drives.

[drezha]

I believe its that the manufacturer's measure 1Gb = 1000Mb but Windows is correct and measures 1Gb=1024Mb :)

[Lagu]

Hi AMD-USR_JL

It is just the way that windows defragments the files. You can run 0&0 Defrag (http://www.download.com/O-O-Defrag-Professional-Edition/3000-2094_4-10418985.html?tag=lst-0-2) (free for 30 days), it can organize your files in different ways, like putting files that are used more frequently at the front of your disc drive.
__________________________________________________ _________________

Thank you for the tip
O-O is right now running on my old Athlon as a test.

Lagu :D

[gamer007]

I recommend O&O as well. Great defrag program.

That reminds me, I better defrag soon. Haven't for over a month. :shock:

[NeoGen]

A month, hey? I can't remember the last time I did one... :lol:

[spikey_richie]

I run Spybot S&D once a week, adaware once a month and CCleaner every couple of days.

I also use AVG for my AV program, and my PC is nice and clean.

A good old defrag is good once in a while too.

Have a look at neowin.net forums for tips on cleaning up Windows and improving boot times etc...

[Lagu]

Hi

On my Athlon 64 I have a Maxtor 6Y080L0 disc 80 GB.
On my old Athlon I have a Quantum Fireball 20 40 GB

Checking “System information” chose “disc” shows I have a size of 76.33 GB (81.956.689.920 Byte)
Doing the same on my old Athlon shows I have a size of 37.27 GB (40.023.244.800 Byte)

There are some strange things. The disc as have a size of 80 GB seems to have more than it says. The disc should be 81 GB instead for 80 GB.

The other disc seems to be more correct say 40.02 GB.

How can it be so? Can’t windows calculate the right size? Or is Bytes not the same for all of us common peoples and the manufactures?

It seems as the bigger disc you have the more incorrect is the size of the disc. How can we else explain this phenomenon? Is it the manufactory as have overestimate or underestimate their product?

Is there any as have filled their disc more than it says I.E. if Windows says you have 75 GB on a 80 GB disc and you have filled it to say 79 GB?

Is there any genius as can tell us an acceptable explanation?

Lagu :? :)

[Lagu]

Hi

The defragging went well. It took 43 minutes to defrag a large disc and a smaller one. I could se how all files were defragged in 2 cakes with no empty area between them. However when I clicked on a cluster there was 1 file then 1 empty then 1 file then empty and so on.

That means there is a empty area between each file. It was a surprice to discower that. Any of you as have discovered that?

Lagu :?

[spikey_richie]

Yes, that's because some of the files can't be moved because they're either too large to fit into a gap, or are in use (swap file, driver files etc...)

[Kooonsty]

That O & O is very nice, I have never heard of it before, but giving it a try, it is well worth it.

[NeoGen]

I think I tried that one once... is that the one that can defrag while you're in screensaver?

[Lagu]

Hi NeoGen

I don´t know. When I run it I had stopped all programs as Boinc, Panda (Virusprogramme) and WhatPulse. I think it isnt good have antivirus running at the same time.

Lagu :)

[drezha]

[quote="Lagu"]=

There are some strange things. The disc as have a size of 80 GB seems to have more than it says. The disc should be 81 GB instead for 80 GB.

The other disc seems to be more correct say 40.02 GB./quote]

Maybe thats the same explanation as I gave earlier except there taking everything as 1000 chunks whereas Windows is correct at 1024 chuncks?

I mean what happens if the manufacturer's take a Mb as 1000Kb but MS 1024Kb?

[AMD-USR_JL]

I think I tried that one once... is that the one that can defrag while you're in screensaver?

Yea, they also have a screensaver version @ their website (http://www.oo-software.com/en/download/). I haven't used it, but i guess i will when trial runs out since it says it's free.

[Empty_5oul]

yeah its just the rounding. On a small drive it isnt too noticable but as the drives get bigger so does the size lost.

[spikey_richie]

;) :roll: :cool:

[gamer007]

AMD-USR_JL :lol:

Ya, way to post that here. ;)

[drezha]

:lol:

Works better if you copy it and paste into Notepad where there's no formatting :p

Anyhow...whast the benefit of running that over the MS one?

[Strongbow]

Guys,

In reference to the disk space usage. It is important to understand block sizes (Microsoft call them cluster sizes), as it is the size of the block that greatly affects not only disk usage but disk performance.

If you use FAT32 then it has a scaling block size which is dependent on the size of the volume. If you're using more than a 32GB volume then it will have 32KB blocks. Now if a 33KB file is written then it will use two of these blocks and phyisically take up 64KB of disk space. Very inefficient use of disk space.

If you're using NTFS then it has a uniform block size of 4KB. So if you write that 33KB file to an NTFS disk it will use 9 NTFS blocks which total 36KB of disk space. By the way, even though NTFS uses smaller block sizes than FAT32 it is still a higher performing format as it's tables are in binary and so do not need to be read as many times as the old FAT32 format.

In UNIX/Linux and on servers you would change the block size based on the type of access and usage it requires. The larger block sizes are more suited to large files for example databases that require fast and large read/write access. Small block sizes are typically better for system partitions and small file access.

Hope this helps!

[NeoGen]

I presume that NTFS by having much smaller blocks, will have index tables much larger than FAT32, right? Not that it is bad, because tables a bit larger are still no match for the FAT32's wasted space all across a hard drive. :roll:

I just hold a bit of a grudge against NTFS because if I boot from a dos disk, the hard drive won't be recognized. :? Are there dos tools for that?

[Strongbow]

Hi NeoGen,

It's quite different actually to a File Allocation Table as a FAT only lets the O/S know what is used and what isn't so that it can chain together blocks to create a virtual contigual file. With NTFS it uses a Master File Table (MFT) which is really a database and contains attributes (including security) on the data. The MFT is also much more intelligent in many ways and it takes into account capacity management and so reduces fragmentation of files although you still need to defrag from time to time but certainly not as often as a FAT based partition.

With regards to DOS boot. You can boot from a CD or a Diskette but why boot into a different O/S like DOS to read an NT filesystem? You would be better off booting the NTLoader from diskette so that you can utilize the NT tools like chkntfs, chkdsk and cacls.

Microsoft have listed the steps to do this (or you could just use the Rescue CD) http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;305595

...else there are NTFS readers available on the Net which work with DOS but you would really only be able to edit INI files and copy the odd file across rather than running the proper NT utilities!

[spikey_richie]

O&O keeps crashing on my PC. It gets to 99% and uses >90% CPU but after 2 or 3 hours it still hasn't finished.

It's crashing while looking at a file in _system restore...

[Strongbow]

I haven't used O&O for years but it used to have an option to scan at boot time, it may be worth trying that if the option is still there!

[Lagu]

Hi

When I ran O-O I couldn´t notice any high usage of Power or recourses. The recources was the whole timme very low say 5-10 % and I use my Athlon 1001 MHz 640 MB memory not my Athlon64 2300+

Lagu :)

[AMD-USR_JL]

O&O keeps crashing on my PC. It gets to 99% and uses >90% CPU but after 2 or 3 hours it still hasn't finished.

It's crashing while looking at a file in _system restore...

If you go under File>Options then to the the "tuning" tab, you can set how much of the system resources you want to use. You can also set if you want it to defrag the drives one by one or all at the same time. I don't if this will help with the crashed but it should help with the load.

[vaughan]

Illegal post deleted by me.

[Lagu]

Hi

I have cleaned the computer and after a start-up a got an alarm about BIOS as had change I didn’t understand that. When my computer was new and had the standard AMD fan I got high temperature regarding to uGuru. My reseller upgraded the Bios and the temp sank to 55-60 degree when it was hard working. I have saved the settings in BIOS setup but now uGuru shows 80 degree Celsius. I lie stable on 80 degree. I have never played with Bios settings before. I didn’t do anything, I only saved it and exit. However I know it is wrong because the newest BIOS version isn’t used. I’m not worry. There must have happened anything.

I have an ABIT motherboard and I not know how to upgrade the BIOS or where I can found it. :banghead: The Bios version is K8T800P-8237-6A7L1A1BC-19 build 11-12-2004. There must be a newer one. However, it is danger if it goes wrong. :bom:

Empty-5oul if you read above can you give me any advice and can you see if the voltage seems normal. I have QUIET as setting. You other members are of source welcome and reply.
I and Empty-5oul has the same motherboard and uGuru.

ABIT EQ shows following:

CPU 80 C
SYS 41 C
PVVM 47

V-core 1.51 Voltage
DDRVDD 2.66
DDRVTT 1.33
SBVDD 2.53
HTV 1.23
AGP 1.59
5V 5.05
3.3V 3.30
5VSB 5.02
3VDUAL 3.28
CPU fan 1860 rpm 12 cm in diameters
Auxiliary fan 8 cm …..

When I cleaned the computer I noticed the graphic card (ATI) has a little fan located on the underside. That had I never noticed before. The fan was full of dust and on the backside of the computer was a lot of dust where the can is perforate for the extra fan.

Lagu :help:

[Empty_5oul]

make sure that fan on the graphics is spinning, sometimes dust gets into the mechanism so you need to flick it to get it started.

80degress on the CPU seems very hot. I am assuming this is wrong, on the abit forums there are many posts saying the temparatures reported are inaccurate. Depending on which components you chose may cause the uguru to get them wrong.
Try the abit forums http://forum.abit-usa.com/ I have found people generally reply quickly with good responses.

** in the guru software there is a flashBIOS utility. Did you accidently run this, i think that is the only time the message is displayed.

[Lagu]

Empty-5oul

Thanks, I joined this forums and posted a message.

Lagu :D

[Frederic Brillouet]

When i was looking for reviews for the Asetek Vapochill Micro, I encountered a review in which the guy had forgotten to connect the fan at the power socket. He was doing something else when he heard his computer (amd powered) switch off. He looked at the temperature probe which read 120 degrees celsius!!! The cpu was not affected though. This proves again that AMD ROCKS :D

[Lagu]

Hi

I’ve now got my AMD home and the guy (he is an immigrant and they use to take their work seriousness) was nice and capable to do his work. He is much better than my old reseller. I showed him this message from the motherboard:

1. IF Early_Init_Onboard_Generator is not defined Onboard clock generator initalization.
Disable respective clock resource to empty PCI & DIMM slots.
2. Init onboard PWM
3. Init onboard H/W monitor devices.

Now the temp is 41 C idle and 55 C degree when crunching QMC and Red Library having 2 WORD windows open and 2 Internet pages at the same time. The computer use maximal of power of the CPU recourses. That is far better than before when I had 60-61 C degree.

I have also noised the fan now automatically adjust after the load.

Lagu :D :D