Defragment my disk

I don't understand what you want to do. You don't defrag to 100%, you defrag to 0%.

>>299808
I want the fragmentation bar to show 100% (because that means complete defragmentation, right?)
I ran a defrag on the C drive last night and now it's showing 8% instead of the earlier 10% in the fragmentation bar. Is that a good thing or bad?

>>299975
>I want the fragmentation bar to show 100% (because that means complete defragmentation, right?)
No. Defragmentation is the process of reducing disk fragmentation. You want that number to be as low as possible.

>I ran a defrag on the C drive last night and now it's showing 8% instead of the earlier 10% in the fragmentation bar. Is that a good thing or bad?
It's a good thing.

Frankly, 8% disk fragmentation is low enough that you won't see any actual improvement from trying to defragment that disk any further. You may as well just leave it as it is now.

>>299998
Thank you tech anon. Is there a way I can repay you?

>>300008
>Thank you tech anon.
No problem.

>Is there a way I can repay you?
I'm curious - what's the rest of the name of "Don't Even Think About..."?

>>300019
*crickets*

>>299764

You cannot fully defragment a disk in-system because of unmovable data. There will always be files that cannot be moved at that moment as Windows is using them at that moment.
Also the fuller a drive is the more difficult it becomes for a system to defragment it because it cannot find enough tempoary space to move things inbetween. That's why you wont get it down to 0. But 10 is a very good value anyway.

>>300019
Don't Even Think About It. I was 16 when I named it that since I used to share the laptop with my parents and wanted to use the E drive all to myself.

>>300034
Sure you can: all the defagmentors you pay for can defrag the disk whilst Windows is booting and they're the only thing running so there are no unmovable files.

>>300343

That's why I said
>in- system