would like to set a specific folder which is frequently used

[sohn0521]

I would like to set a specific folders in which files are frequently moved, downloaded, deleted (like the downloaded folder) so that it would be defragged and moved into the place (e.g. the end of drive), which probably requires less frequency of defragment. cuz at least for me, except some folders, there is a little changes in other folders.

 

Thanks.

[Alan_B]

I would guess that Windows does not consider a specific folder to be a specific region of the disc.

Therefore if you edit a file the new version gets written to available free space regardless of the distance from the original version,

and when the old version is deleted that leaves a pocket of free space for totally unrelated files.

 

Windows will keep files in a specific region of the disc - inside a partition.

I use a separate partition for my downloads.

[sohn0521]

thanks for the answer.

 

I usually seperate the partitions but it isn't as it's not my pc.

Can I do it without format?

[Alan_B]

Live Windows Partition managers generally ought to warn against critical partition actions whilst running applications.

I honoured that instruction when I added a new partition to unallocated space on my Laptop,

but even so C:\ plus all the other partitions vanished and the system was unbootable.

 

The only "Application" I failed to close was my A.V. / FIREWALL / Suspect Behaviour protection against malware.

 

This Boot-CD rescued everything

http://www.partition...otable-cd.html.

 

Because it is a Boot-CD there is no interference from anything else, including A.V. / FIREWALL / Suspect Behaviour malware protection.

 

When you create the partition you can choose format for the new partition, e.g. FAT32 or NTFS.

This has no effect on the other partitions - it does not format them at the same time.

 

If there is insufficient unallocated space for your desired new partition you can shrink what you have.

You can even shrink C:\ if you are brave or prepare for utter disaster.

 

I am not brave but I shrunk my C:\ from 50 GB to 25 GB,

but I was totally prepared with two separate Macrium Boot Recover CD's and two separate Macrium Partition Image backup files on separate external drives.

I know many people who are not cautious and they too are successful, so far.

For 20 years I suffered lost chkdsk / scandisk fragments and B.S.O.D.'s on a daily basis before moving to XP

 

I strongly recommend that you do NOT learn how to use any Partition Tool on a friend's computer,

and it would be safer to start on an external drive that holds no valuable data.

[Super Fast]

thanks for the answer.

 

I usually seperate the partitions but it isn't as it's not my pc.

Can I do it without format?

 

In Vista or Windows 7, you can resize the partitions by right-clicking My Computer & choosing Manage.

Under Storage/Disk Management, highlight the partition you wish to resize with your mouse & right-click/shrink it.

 

If you are using XP, you have to use a 3rd party utility to do this, but it can be done, because I have done it. I think EaseUS makes a free partition shrinker.

[Super Fast]

This Boot-CD rescued everything

http://www.partition...otable-cd.html.

 

Because it is a Boot-CD there is no interference from anything else, including A.V. / FIREWALL / Suspect Behaviour malware protection.

 

For 20 years I suffered lost chkdsk / scandisk fragments and B.S.O.D.'s on a daily basis before moving to XP

 

Alan, the link gives a

404 Resource Not Find

 

error

 

Could you update the link? I have successfully located the correct download resource for the above listed download initiation sequence, but other less savy users may end up divulging themselves of a considerable time slot, attempting to navigate properly to the aforementioned listed application.

 

Additionally, if you were suffering B.S.O.D. daily, sounds like you had one of the following:

 

- Malware/rootkit

- Incorrect/malfunctioning/bad driver

- Blown motherboard caps (hardware)

- BHO items

- Bad harddisk/dying sectors

 

XP is quite a bit better at handling things than older OS versions, but I never had any problems with Windows 98/ME etc. Of course, I used a clean installed, as opposed to the OEM editions, which usually come quite saturated with trialware/adware/nagware etc...

 

You may have simply been the victim of targeted OEM distributions that caused problems on the older OS which would refuse to give all applications their own memory space to run in. Which would cause crashes because of cross contamination from one memory area being written over by another application. Cross-linked files.

 

I did have the occasional problem, but never daily. Perhaps after some months of using, I would encounter the occasional cross-linked file, or some other problem. Never daily B.S.O.D nor lost CHKDSK fragments.

 

XP, I have run that for years at a time with no problems.

 

*Edit: Experience has shown that running a daily chkdsk WILL result in lost files. Never good to run that, unless it is absolutely necessary. Just like running a registry cleaner daily will result in the eventual loss of .Reg keys critical to Windows, so also will chkdsk relegate perfectly normal files as "missing" or "corrupted" during the scan.

 

I would hazard the guess that, being the meticulous guy you are, maybe you ran it daily, which was NOT a good thing under 98/ME.

This would create errors that compound themselves each time it is run, resulting in daily B.S.O.D.

 

Thankfully, XP was lots better. Not perfect. Just better.

[Alan_B]

Here it is again

http://www.partition...ootable-cd.html

The page title is

MiniTool Partition Wizard Bootable CD 7.0

 

It is looking good right now - it is working in preview which shows

...ootable etc instead of

...otable

 

Perhaps an 'o' got dropped when "Add Reply" was hit.

Will see what happens when posted

 

Perhaps this will work

http://www.partition...m/download.html

The page Title is

Free Download MiniTool Partition Wizard Now!

 

This page includes the 39 MByte ISO at the bottom.

 

The main index page for their products is

http://www.minitool.ca/index.html

 

Perhaps that link is short enough to avoid the chop

 

Before I retired My employer supplied several different P.C.'s.

I suffered with both Windows 95 and 98 on all of them.

I never maintained them - that was done by I.T.

I only used them to create and edit 'C' and Assembler source code,

and to run the compilers and linkers and convert the source code into machine code that was written into Erasable Proms,

which I plugged into 8 bit micros-computers for real-time security monitoring systems (Fire/Burglar Alarms)

 

Every other day WIndows would refuse to shut-down,

it would totally ignore everything other than me unplugging the mains plug.

 

The other days it would always reprimand me for not shutting down properly

 

I never volunteered for either ChkDsk or the earlier ScanDisc,

it was always in response to the start-up message stating what fragments were lost.

 

I am suspicious of XP.

In my view a more ambitious system with far greater potential for disaster,

and the off-shore Technical Support population was too small for the the anticipated BSODs and lost fragments,

so where 95/98 would tell me all that was wrong ( EVERYTHING )

XP would bury the problems in the event logs.

 

I notice that Windows 7 buries the chkdsk reports in System Volume Information

You cannot get much more inaccessible than that :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Super Fast]

Alan, I know this is Nov that u posted, but I wish to add something here.

 

Windows will come up with a "disk needs to be checked for consistency" error, oft times from a simple hasty unplugging a drive, or if Windows locks & you have a hard shutdown, or a malware attacks your pc, etc.

 

Point I am making is, that many occasions occur that trigger the chkdsk scanner to prompt you to "fix" the situation, where a fix is not really needed. When you have problems, it can save your hide. Oft times, it is a great tool.

 

But I have also seen it mark totally valid & useable files as corrupted, delete them, etc. Leaving me to have to try to undelete & recover them as best I know how. Quite simply, using dskchk simply because Windows suggests a need to can ruin the files you have.

 

If ever you need to run it, best back up your data/files first, then allow it to run. Windows itself may not be in harm from chkdsk so much as external drives & devices. If you have several hundred thousands of pictures/data/documents/files, etc, & Windows wishes to "repair" the damage, I hope that someone will think 2 times, even 3 or 5 times, before blindly trusting Windows to "fix" a problem which may not even exist.

 

I would chasten people to only use it when necessary, & especially on external drives if they value having all their files. CHKDSK does NOT play nice if it thinks it needs to truncate certain of your files, CHOP! CHOP! Gone, deleted!

[Alan_B]

Long before XP I remember CHKDSK, and before that SCANDISK.

Most mornings I think these were the tools I was told to run in order that I could access numerous CHK1234,??? CHK1235.??? etc "lost clusters",

and then I could inspect the contents to see if they were important chunks of my documents that had fallen out of the FAT32 allocation tables or whatever.

 

XP with NTFS was a new era - bits still got lost, but not so frequently,

and when they were lost XP was so ashamed it never told me - I had to look in the event log to see any looming disasters

 

I always found ominous warnings every time Acronis had previously mounted a partition image backup file.

Once it had mounted it with a drive letter it could never be unmounted so the image file on the external drive was always "in use",

even when I closed all instances of Windows Explorer and closed all applications that might have been able to see that drive letter.

That image file and the external drive were "carried to the grave" on shut down,

and the next restart gave me warnings and chkdsk always found some security/MFT issues to fix on the external drive.

Fortunately it never asked for any "/F" option to dig deep, and the image file always survived and could be validated as a survivor.

 

I do agree with you that CHKDSK with "power options" is a risky game.