What is the best defragmenter?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I used Diskeeper 8 and it seemed to do a better job than the original defragmenter in Win2k. I read
someone using Perfect Disk. Any other recommendations?

And what are some other utilities to keep your hard drives working well? Does error checking in Windows
make any difference? Does it really fix anything? Is it better to use a DOS type utility to circumvent
the operating system entirely?
47 answers Last reply
More about what defragmenter
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Frank W. wrote:

    > I used Diskeeper 8 and it seemed to do a better job than the original defragmenter in Win2k. I read
    > someone using Perfect Disk. Any other recommendations?
    >
    > And what are some other utilities to keep your hard drives working well? Does error checking in Windows
    > make any difference? Does it really fix anything? Is it better to use a DOS type utility to circumvent
    > the operating system entirely?
    >
    >

    For most PC users, I recommend any defragger that is free -- which means the
    one built into WinWhatever.

    The most useful HD utility for any WinWhatever PC is backup IMHO.
    --
    Cheers, Bob
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Frank W <reply_to_newsgroup@please.ccom> wrote
    in message news:375g4iF57esstU1@individual.net...

    > I used Diskeeper 8 and it seemed to do a better job
    > than the original defragmenter in Win2k. I read someone
    > using Perfect Disk. Any other recommendations?

    Dont bother defragging unless you are in some very unusual situation.

    > And what are some other utilities to keep your hard drives working well?

    I just enable SMART. Thats not so much to keep it
    working well as to get an early warning if its dying.

    Tho I spose you could claim that monitoring the
    drive temp with an alarm for that using SMART
    is a ute to keep the hard drives working well.

    You dont see too many hard drives go overtemp on a
    fan failure tho, its usually seen with the cpu much earlier.

    > Does error checking in Windows make any difference?

    Depends on how often your system sees a mains failure.

    > Does it really fix anything?

    Yes, in that situation it does.

    > Is it better to use a DOS type utility to
    > circumvent the operating system entirely?

    Nope, they're useless now.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> shared:

    >Dont bother defragging unless you are in some very unusual situation.

    Hmm
    Why?

    I understand defrag helps the system performance...
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Ann Onimus <Ann@Onimus.net> wrote in message
    news:vkas01ppglclrlv69rsjsihpj4cs10vavt@news.Onimus.net...
    > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

    >> Dont bother defragging unless you are in some very unusual situation.

    > Hmm
    > Why?

    Because its pointless with most modern systems.

    > I understand defrag helps the system performance...

    You 'understand' wrong.

    I bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a proper
    randomised double blind trial without being allowed
    to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.

    And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> shared:

    >Because its pointless with most modern systems.

    >You 'understand' wrong.
    >
    >I bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a proper
    >randomised double blind trial without being allowed
    >to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.
    >
    >And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.

    Yeah, well, good point...or is it?

    So, you are saying that defrag applications are built just to smoke
    our understanding of modern systems?
    That the only point in using them is to run them just for the hack of
    it? :)

    hmmmm.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Rod Speed wrote:
    > Ann Onimus <Ann@Onimus.net> wrote in message
    > news:vkas01ppglclrlv69rsjsihpj4cs10vavt@news.Onimus.net...
    >
    >>Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >
    >
    >>>Dont bother defragging unless you are in some very unusual situation.
    >
    >
    >>Hmm
    >>Why?
    >
    >
    > Because its pointless with most modern systems.

    Define "modern."

    >
    >
    >>I understand defrag helps the system performance...
    >
    >
    > You 'understand' wrong.
    >
    > I bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a proper
    > randomised double blind trial without being allowed
    > to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.
    >
    > And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.
    >
    >


    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    What exactly is degraggin supposed to do? Make it faster for the drive to access data? Make it faster
    at moving data once accessed? Enquiring minds need to know.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > > I understand defrag helps the system performance...
    >
    > You 'understand' wrong.

    Ah, no she understands perfectly. Maybe _you_ don't have a need to defrag
    with the apps _you_ use, and that's fine... for _you_. However, you quite
    obviously don't use the apps _I_ do because the difference is readily
    discernible.

    > I bet you wouldn't be able to pick it in a proper
    > randomised double blind trial without being allowed
    > to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.

    Try rendering a conformed 50 gig avi fle with Premier Pro with a fragmented
    drive and see how long it takes versus a disk that's just been defragged. No
    display of fragmentation needed to see the difference.

    > And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.

    Anyone with even the most basic of observation skills would easily recognize
    the difference when doing the above mentioned task. Just because _you_ don't
    need to defrag doesn't mean _everyone_ doesn't need to defrag.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >
    >Ann Onimus <Ann@Onimus.net> wrote in message
    >news:vkas01ppglclrlv69rsjsihpj4cs10vavt@news.Onimus.net...
    >> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >
    >>> Dont bother defragging unless you are in some very unusual situation.
    >
    >> Hmm
    >> Why?
    >
    >Because its pointless with most modern systems.
    >
    >> I understand defrag helps the system performance...

    It can depending upon the system and how it is used.


    Sorry, but it can and does make a difference in some situations. I
    have a partition that I use for downloads so it becomes highly
    fragmented after a while. When trying to watch a video on that
    partition there can often be problems due to delays in getting data
    off the disk. Taking the time to defragment the drive (or copying the
    file to another non-fragmented partition) will resolve the issues.

    Now for normal use by someone that doesn't download binary files from
    the internet, I agree that defragmenting is something that will
    probably won't be needed. It might be helpful to defragment a normal
    users system on occasion , but probably no more than every few months
    and the process shouldn't take long since their system probably won't
    be that fragmented.
    >I bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a proper
    >randomised double blind trial without being allowed
    >to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.
    >
    >And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.
    >
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Frank W. wrote:
    > What exactly is degraggin supposed to do? Make it faster for the drive to access data? Make it faster
    > at moving data once accessed? Enquiring minds need to know.
    >
    >
    I've seen Windows machines crash when their drives became too
    fragmented.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:18:05 -0600, "Frank W."
    <reply_to_newsgroup@please.ccom> wrote:

    >What exactly is degraggin supposed to do? Make it faster for the drive to access data? Make it faster
    >at moving data once accessed? Enquiring minds need to know.
    >

    Howdy,

    No expert I, but...

    Yes, and yes.

    Essentially, a fragmented drive is analogous to an office
    that stores its multi-page documents by putting each page in
    a different file.

    When the document needs to be accessed, it takes a while to
    find, then assemble, all the parts.

    It is just the same for data that needs to be assembled for
    use (or transfer) on your system, but is stored in many bits
    and pieces in a variety of locations on your drive.

    The defragging process just locates those pieces, and puts
    'em together.

    HTH,

    --
    Kenneth

    If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Chuck U. Farley" wrote:
    >> > I understand defrag helps the system performance...
    >>
    >> You 'understand' wrong.
    >
    > Ah, no she understands perfectly. Maybe _you_ don't have a need to defrag
    > with the apps _you_ use, and that's fine... for _you_. However, you quite
    > obviously don't use the apps _I_ do because the difference is readily
    > discernible.
    >
    >> I bet you wouldn't be able to pick it in a proper
    >> randomised double blind trial without being allowed
    >> to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.
    >
    > Try rendering a conformed 50 gig avi fle with Premier Pro with a fragmented
    > drive and see how long it takes versus a disk that's just been defragged. No
    > display of fragmentation needed to see the difference.
    >
    >> And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.
    >
    > Anyone with even the most basic of observation skills would easily recognize
    > the difference when doing the above mentioned task. Just because _you_ don't
    > need to defrag doesn't mean _everyone_ doesn't need to defrag.


    You may be correct about the dependence on specific apps, but
    one of the 2 big PC mags published an article on defragging
    utilities 12 to 14 months ago, and their conclusion regarding
    Windows XP was that they could see no speed difference between
    the fragged and de-fragged OS. Their conclusion was that for
    WinXP, defragging isn't needed. Of course, they didn't test *your*
    system, and it could be that WinXP defrags in the background.
    I notice that after about 10 or 15 minutes of inactivity, my hard drive
    starts chattering quietly. Maybe it's defragging?

    *TimDaniels*
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Ann Onimus <Ann@Onimus.net> wrote in message
    news:hp6t011931m4n4fiptgmriiuedqd37gv5g@news.Onimus.net...
    > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

    >> Because its pointless with most modern systems.

    >> You 'understand' wrong.

    >> I bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a proper
    >> randomised double blind trial without being allowed
    >> to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.

    >> And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.

    > Yeah, well, good point...or is it?

    > So, you are saying that defrag applications are built
    > just to smoke our understanding of modern systems?

    Nope, fragmentation did have a noticeable effect with older
    slower hard drives which took more time to move the heads
    from fragment to fragment and they were generally run with
    much less free space and with cruder space allocation
    algorithms so fragmented rather more quickly.

    Many got into the habit of obsessively defragging and just
    keep mindlessly defragging with modern systems that dont
    see any benefit they could pick in a proper double blind trial.

    > That the only point in using them is to run them just for the hack of it? :)

    > hmmmm.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    news:420E9EA6.5010404@prodigy.net...
    > Rod Speed wrote
    >> Ann Onimus <Ann@Onimus.net> wrote
    >>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

    >>>> Dont bother defragging unless you are in some very unusual situation.

    >>> Hmm
    >>> Why?

    >> Because its pointless with most modern systems.

    > Define "modern."

    Bought or assembled in the last few years.

    >>> I understand defrag helps the system performance...

    >> You 'understand' wrong.

    >> I bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a proper
    >> randomised double blind trial without being allowed
    >> to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.

    >> And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Frank W <reply_to_newsgroup@please.ccom> wrote
    in message news:377o75F59nd4qU1@individual.net...

    > What exactly is degraggin supposed to do?

    Ensure that all files are contiguous, all the sectors used for
    a particular file have no bits of other files between them.

    > Make it faster for the drive to access data?

    Yes.

    > Make it faster at moving data once accessed?

    Nope.

    > Enquiring minds need to know.

    Well they cant. That would be spilling the beans.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    news:420EAB3B.9090404@prodigy.net...
    > Frank W. wrote:

    >> What exactly is degraggin supposed to do? Make it faster for the drive to
    >> access data? Make it faster at moving data once accessed? Enquiring minds
    >> need to know.

    > I've seen Windows machines crash when their drives became too fragmented.

    Oh bullshit. You were hallucinating.

    Have fun explaining why none of mine have ever crashed
    due to fragmentation when I never defrag at all.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    In article <3783s8F57orv3U1@individual.net>, rod_speed@yahoo.com says...
    >
    > CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    > news:420EAB3B.9090404@prodigy.net...
    > > Frank W. wrote:
    >
    > >> What exactly is degraggin supposed to do? Make it faster for the drive to
    > >> access data? Make it faster at moving data once accessed? Enquiring minds
    > >> need to know.
    >
    > > I've seen Windows machines crash when their drives became too fragmented.
    >
    > Oh bullshit. You were hallucinating.
    >
    > Have fun explaining why none of mine have ever crashed
    > due to fragmentation when I never defrag at all.

    There is a bug in NT where Windows could crash on bootup if the MFT
    became too fragmented.
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;228734

    --
    If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
    All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
    law!!
    http://home.att.net/~andyross
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Andrew Rossmann" <andysnewsreply@no_junk.comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1c791a1fe43e080498979a@news.comcast.giganews.com...
    > In article <3783s8F57orv3U1@individual.net>, rod_speed@yahoo.com says...
    > >
    > > CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    > > news:420EAB3B.9090404@prodigy.net...
    > >
    > > > I've seen Windows machines crash when their drives became too fragmented.
    > >
    More likely volume corruption.

    > > Oh bullshit. You were hallucinating.
    > >
    > > Have fun explaining why none of mine have ever crashed
    > > due to fragmentation when I never defrag at all.
    >
    > There is a bug in NT where Windows could crash on bootup if the MFT
    > became too fragmented.
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;228734
    >
    Ntldr is crashing, the OS hasn't even started.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Kenneth" <usenet@SPAMLESSsoleassociates.com> wrote in message
    news:b1dt01lomp0hra7f0sm6d4nejr6iu4ljkp@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:18:05 -0600, "Frank W."
    > <reply_to_newsgroup@please.ccom> wrote:
    >
    >>What exactly is degraggin supposed to do? Make it faster for the drive to
    >>access data? Make it faster
    >>at moving data once accessed? Enquiring minds need to know.
    >>
    >
    > Howdy,
    >
    > No expert I, but...
    >
    > Yes, and yes.
    >
    > Essentially, a fragmented drive is analogous to an office
    > that stores its multi-page documents by putting each page in
    > a different file.
    >
    > When the document needs to be accessed, it takes a while to
    > find, then assemble, all the parts.
    >
    > It is just the same for data that needs to be assembled for
    > use (or transfer) on your system, but is stored in many bits
    > and pieces in a variety of locations on your drive.
    >
    > The defragging process just locates those pieces, and puts
    > 'em together.

    And the modern reality is that it takes very little time for the
    heads to move from one fragment to another, and the heads
    are moving around all over the drive for various reasons like
    the internet temporary cache etc etc etc and very few apps
    read much continuously anymore, and those that do can still
    get access to the data plenty fast enough with fragments
    when say playing a DVD file or music anyway.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Chuck U. Farley <chuckufarley@dyslexia.com> wrote
    in message news:377qadF5bkhbfU1@individual.net...

    >>> I understand defrag helps the system performance...

    >> You 'understand' wrong.

    > Ah, no she understands perfectly.

    Nope.

    > Maybe _you_ don't have a need to defrag with
    > the apps _you_ use, and that's fine... for _you_.
    > However, you quite obviously don't use the apps
    > _I_ do because the difference is readily discernible.

    I said MOST modern systems for a reason.

    >> I bet you wouldn't be able to pick it in a proper
    >> randomised double blind trial without being allowed
    >> to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.

    > Try rendering a conformed 50 gig avi fle with Premier Pro
    > with a fragmented drive and see how long it takes versus
    > a disk that's just been defragged. No display of fragmentation
    > needed to see the difference.

    The difference is trivial in the total time it takes.

    And most dont do that sort of thing much anyway.

    >> And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.

    > Anyone with even the most basic of observation skills would easily recognize
    > the difference when doing the above mentioned task. Just because _you_ don't
    > need to defrag doesn't mean _everyone_ doesn't need to defrag.

    I said MOST modern systems for a reason.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > I said MOST modern systems for a reason.

    Yeah, vague and inspecific insinuations are always best when you make
    incorrect generalizations based only on your own anecdotal experience.

    > >> I bet you wouldn't be able to pick it in a proper
    > >> randomised double blind trial without being allowed
    > >> to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.
    >
    > > Try rendering a conformed 50 gig avi fle with Premier Pro
    > > with a fragmented drive and see how long it takes versus
    > > a disk that's just been defragged. No display of fragmentation
    > > needed to see the difference.
    >
    > The difference is trivial in the total time it takes.

    It most assuredly is _not_ trivial, you'd know that if you actually used the
    app.

    > And most dont do that sort of thing much anyway.

    Yeah, and _most_ people only use a computer for web browsing and email so by
    your logic "most" people don't need a "modern" computer anyway.

    > > Anyone with even the most basic of observation skills would easily
    recognize
    > > the difference when doing the above mentioned task. Just because _you_
    don't
    > > need to defrag doesn't mean _everyone_ doesn't need to defrag.
    >
    > I said MOST modern systems for a reason.

    See above.
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
    news:yIqdnaK_PoASTZPfRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
    > "Chuck U. Farley" wrote:
    >>> > I understand defrag helps the system performance...
    >>>
    >>> You 'understand' wrong.
    >>
    >> Ah, no she understands perfectly. Maybe _you_ don't have a need to defrag
    >> with the apps _you_ use, and that's fine... for _you_. However, you quite
    >> obviously don't use the apps _I_ do because the difference is readily
    >> discernible.
    >>
    >>> I bet you wouldn't be able to pick it in a proper
    >>> randomised double blind trial without being allowed
    >>> to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.
    >>
    >> Try rendering a conformed 50 gig avi fle with Premier Pro with a fragmented
    >> drive and see how long it takes versus a disk that's just been defragged. No
    >> display of fragmentation needed to see the difference.
    >>
    >>> And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.
    >>
    >> Anyone with even the most basic of observation skills would easily recognize
    >> the difference when doing the above mentioned task. Just because _you_ don't
    >> need to defrag doesn't mean _everyone_ doesn't need to defrag.

    > You may be correct about the dependence on specific apps, but
    > one of the 2 big PC mags published an article on defragging
    > utilities 12 to 14 months ago, and their conclusion regarding
    > Windows XP was that they could see no speed difference between
    > the fragged and de-fragged OS. Their conclusion was that for
    > WinXP, defragging isn't needed.

    And they are right with most modern systems.

    > Of course, they didn't test *your* system, and it could be that WinXP
    > defrags in the background.

    Nope, it doesnt.

    > I notice that after about 10 or 15 minutes of inactivity, my hard drive
    > starts chattering quietly. Maybe it's defragging?

    Nope, its keeping track of what has changed to speed access.

    It also periodically reorganises the system drive to speed
    access, but that isnt defragging and the system files dont
    fragment much on most modern systems anyway.
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    shawn <nanoflower@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:fn0u01t4o6khnv6crr3e4b8tcutek26s9f@4ax.com...
    > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >> Ann Onimus <Ann@Onimus.net> wrote
    >>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

    >>>> Dont bother defragging unless you are in some very unusual situation.

    >>> Hmm
    >>> Why?

    >> Because its pointless with most modern systems.

    >>> I understand defrag helps the system performance...

    > It can depending upon the system and how it is used.

    > Sorry, but it can and does make a difference in some situations.

    I used the word MOST for a reason.

    > I have a partition that I use for downloads so it becomes highly
    > fragmented after a while. When trying to watch a video on that
    > partition there can often be problems due to delays in getting data
    > off the disk. Taking the time to defragment the drive (or copying the
    > file to another non-fragmented partition) will resolve the issues.

    I used the word MOST for a reason.

    > Now for normal use by someone that doesn't download
    > binary files from the internet, I agree that defragmenting
    > is something that will probably won't be needed. It might be
    > helpful to defragment a normal users system on occasion,

    Nope.

    > but probably no more than every few months

    Complete waste of time.

    > and the process shouldn't take long since
    > their system probably won't be that fragmented.

    If it isnt, there isnt any point in defragging.

    >> I bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a proper
    >> randomised double blind trial without being allowed
    >> to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.

    >> And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Rod Speed wrote:
    > CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    > news:420E9EA6.5010404@prodigy.net...
    >
    >>Rod Speed wrote
    >>
    >>>Ann Onimus <Ann@Onimus.net> wrote
    >>>
    >>>>Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >
    >
    >>>>>Dont bother defragging unless you are in some very unusual situation.
    >
    >
    >>>>Hmm
    >>>>Why?
    >
    >
    >>>Because its pointless with most modern systems.
    >
    >
    >>Define "modern."
    >
    >
    > Bought or assembled in the last few years.

    Then you're wrong, because you didn't specify an OS. Build a
    system today, put Windows 98 on it (as I recall, W98 is still
    the most commonly run OS on PCs), and it'll still have problems
    with fragmentation.

    Perhaps XP is more clever.

    Unix always was.
    >
    >
    >>>>I understand defrag helps the system performance...
    >
    >
    >>>You 'understand' wrong.
    >
    >
    >>>I bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a proper
    >>>randomised double blind trial without being allowed
    >>>to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.
    >
    >
    >>>And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.
    >
    >
    >


    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Rod Speed wrote:
    > CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    > news:420EAB3B.9090404@prodigy.net...
    >
    >>Frank W. wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>What exactly is degraggin supposed to do? Make it faster for the drive to
    >>>access data? Make it faster at moving data once accessed? Enquiring minds
    >>>need to know.
    >
    >
    >>I've seen Windows machines crash when their drives became too fragmented.
    >
    >
    > Oh bullshit. You were hallucinating.
    >
    > Have fun explaining why none of mine have ever crashed
    > due to fragmentation when I never defrag at all.
    >
    >
    BS.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Andrew Rossmann wrote:
    > In article <3783s8F57orv3U1@individual.net>, rod_speed@yahoo.com says...
    >
    >>CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    >>news:420EAB3B.9090404@prodigy.net...
    >>
    >>>Frank W. wrote:
    >>
    >>>>What exactly is degraggin supposed to do? Make it faster for the drive to
    >>>>access data? Make it faster at moving data once accessed? Enquiring minds
    >>>>need to know.
    >>
    >>>I've seen Windows machines crash when their drives became too fragmented.
    >>
    >>Oh bullshit. You were hallucinating.
    >>
    >>Have fun explaining why none of mine have ever crashed
    >>due to fragmentation when I never defrag at all.
    >
    >
    > There is a bug in NT where Windows could crash on bootup if the MFT
    > became too fragmented.
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;228734
    >
    Rod thinks he knows more about Windows than Microsoft does.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Andrew Rossmann <andysnewsreply@no_junk.comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1c791a1fe43e080498979a@news.comcast.giganews.com...
    > Rod Speed rod_speed@yahoo.com wrote
    >> CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
    >>> Frank W. wrote

    >>>> What exactly is degraggin supposed to do? Make it faster
    >>>> for the drive to access data? Make it faster at moving data
    >>>> once accessed? Enquiring minds need to know.

    >>> I've seen Windows machines crash when their drives became too fragmented.

    >> Oh bullshit. You were hallucinating.

    >> Have fun explaining why none of mine have ever crashed
    >> due to fragmentation when I never defrag at all.

    > There is a bug in NT where Windows could crash
    > on bootup if the MFT became too fragmented.
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;228734

    That's a bug in the boot code, not the OS crashing when the drive is too
    fragmented.
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Chuck U. Farley <chuckufarley@dyslexia.com> wrote in
    message news:S2MPd.5269$u16.4143@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

    >> I said MOST modern systems for a reason.

    > Yeah, vague and inspecific insinuations are always best when you make
    > incorrect generalizations based only on your own anecdotal experience.

    Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
    your predicament better than that pathetic effort, Farley.

    I said that much more explicitly elsewhere.

    >>>> I bet you wouldn't be able to pick it in a proper
    >>>> randomised double blind trial without being allowed
    >>>> to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.

    >>> Try rendering a conformed 50 gig avi fle with Premier Pro
    >>> with a fragmented drive and see how long it takes versus
    >>> a disk that's just been defragged. No display of fragmentation
    >>> needed to see the difference.

    >> The difference is trivial in the total time it takes.

    > It most assuredly is _not_ trivial,

    Bullshit.

    > you'd know that if you actually used the app.

    Guess which silly little prat has just got egg all over its silly little face
    yet again ?

    >> And most dont do that sort of thing much anyway.

    > Yeah, and _most_ people only use a computer for web browsing and email
    > so by your logic "most" people don't need a "modern" computer anyway.

    Need is an entirely separate issue to what they use.

    >>> Anyone with even the most basic of observation skills
    >>> would easily recognize the difference when doing the
    >>> above mentioned task. Just because _you_ don't need to
    >>> defrag doesn't mean _everyone_ doesn't need to defrag.

    >> I said MOST modern systems for a reason.

    > See above.

    See above.
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    news:420FDF63.8010802@prodigy.net...
    > Rod Speed wrote
    >> CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
    >>> Rod Speed wrote
    >>>> Ann Onimus <Ann@Onimus.net> wrote
    >>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

    >>>>>> Dont bother defragging unless you are in some very unusual situation.

    >>>>> Hmm
    >>>>> Why?

    >>>> Because its pointless with most modern systems.

    >>> Define "modern."

    >> Bought or assembled in the last few years.

    > Then you're wrong, because you didn't specify an OS.

    Nope, you know what by far the most common OS is.

    > Build a system today, put Windows 98 on it

    Hardly anyone would do that.

    > (as I recall, W98 is still the most commonly run OS on PCs),

    Not with newly built or bought systems it aint.

    > and it'll still have problems with fragmentation.

    > Perhaps XP is more clever.

    No perhaps about it. And even say SE and
    ME are quite a bit better than 98 on that.

    And we are seeing modern system with more
    free space just because of the buyable drive
    sizes now, and that sees less fragmentation too.

    And the main reason that defragging is a waste of time is
    because modern drives seek very quickly and modern OSs
    have the heads moving around over the drive quite a bit
    when large files are read from end to end as well.

    > Unix always was.

    Its never got used in enough systems to matter
    when I used the word MOST for a reason.

    >>>>> I understand defrag helps the system performance...

    >>>> You 'understand' wrong.

    >>>> I bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a proper
    >>>> randomised double blind trial without being allowed
    >>>> to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.

    >>>> And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Rod Speed wrote:
    > CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    > news:420FDF63.8010802@prodigy.net...
    >
    >>Rod Speed wrote
    >>
    >>>CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
    >>>
    >>>>Rod Speed wrote
    >>>>
    >>>>>Ann Onimus <Ann@Onimus.net> wrote
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >
    >
    >>>>>>>Dont bother defragging unless you are in some very unusual situation.
    >
    >
    >>>>>>Hmm
    >>>>>>Why?
    >
    >
    >>>>>Because its pointless with most modern systems.
    >
    >
    >>>>Define "modern."
    >
    >
    >>>Bought or assembled in the last few years.
    >
    >
    >>Then you're wrong, because you didn't specify an OS.
    >
    >
    > Nope, you know what by far the most common OS is.
    >
    >
    >>Build a system today, put Windows 98 on it
    >
    >
    > Hardly anyone would do that.
    >

    For sure they do.

    >
    >>(as I recall, W98 is still the most commonly run OS on PCs),
    >
    >
    > Not with newly built or bought systems it aint.
    >
    >
    >>and it'll still have problems with fragmentation.
    >
    >
    >>Perhaps XP is more clever.
    >
    >
    > No perhaps about it. And even say SE and
    > ME are quite a bit better than 98 on that.
    >
    > And we are seeing modern system with more
    > free space just because of the buyable drive
    > sizes now, and that sees less fragmentation too.
    >
    > And the main reason that defragging is a waste of time is
    > because modern drives seek very quickly and modern OSs
    > have the heads moving around over the drive quite a bit
    > when large files are read from end to end as well.

    It's all relative. If you push them, you'll see the difference.
    If they're coasting (i.e. if you've wasted money on more hardware
    than you need), it won't matter.

    >
    >
    >>Unix always was.
    >
    >
    > Its never got used in enough systems to matter
    > when I used the word MOST for a reason.
    >

    I think Windows' days are numbered. I know many disagree.

    >
    >>>>>>I understand defrag helps the system performance...
    >
    >
    >>>>>You 'understand' wrong.
    >
    >
    >>>>>I bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a proper
    >>>>>randomised double blind trial without being allowed
    >>>>>to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.
    >
    >
    >>>>>And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.
    >
    >
    >


    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    news:420FE059.7010607@prodigy.net...
    > Andrew Rossmann wrote:
    >> In article <3783s8F57orv3U1@individual.net>, rod_speed@yahoo.com says...
    >>
    >>>CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    >>>news:420EAB3B.9090404@prodigy.net...
    >>>
    >>>>Frank W. wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>What exactly is degraggin supposed to do? Make it faster for the drive to
    >>>>>access data? Make it faster at moving data once accessed? Enquiring minds
    >>>>>need to know.
    >>>
    >>>>I've seen Windows machines crash when their drives became too fragmented.
    >>>
    >>>Oh bullshit. You were hallucinating.
    >>>
    >>>Have fun explaining why none of mine have ever crashed
    >>>due to fragmentation when I never defrag at all.
    >>
    >>
    >> There is a bug in NT where Windows could crash on bootup if the MFT became
    >> too fragmented.
    >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;228734
    >>
    > Rod thinks he knows more about Windows than Microsoft does.

    You couldnt bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag
    even if your pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it.

    That aint the OS crashing, thats the boot loader crashing.
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Rod Speed wrote:
    > "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    > news:420FE059.7010607@prodigy.net...
    >
    >>Andrew Rossmann wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article <3783s8F57orv3U1@individual.net>, rod_speed@yahoo.com says...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    >>>>news:420EAB3B.9090404@prodigy.net...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Frank W. wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>What exactly is degraggin supposed to do? Make it faster for the drive to
    >>>>>>access data? Make it faster at moving data once accessed? Enquiring minds
    >>>>>>need to know.
    >>>>
    >>>>>I've seen Windows machines crash when their drives became too fragmented.
    >>>>
    >>>>Oh bullshit. You were hallucinating.
    >>>>
    >>>>Have fun explaining why none of mine have ever crashed
    >>>>due to fragmentation when I never defrag at all.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> There is a bug in NT where Windows could crash on bootup if the MFT became
    >>>too fragmented.
    >>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;228734
    >>>
    >>
    >>Rod thinks he knows more about Windows than Microsoft does.
    >
    >
    > You couldnt bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag
    > even if your pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it.
    >
    > That aint the OS crashing, thats the boot loader crashing.
    >
    >
    I've seen Windows machines crash when their drives became too
    fragmented.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    news:420FDF93.6040102@prodigy.net...
    > Rod Speed wrote:
    >> CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    >> news:420EAB3B.9090404@prodigy.net...
    >>
    >>>Frank W. wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>What exactly is degraggin supposed to do? Make it faster for the drive to
    >>>>access data? Make it faster at moving data once accessed? Enquiring minds
    >>>>need to know.
    >>
    >>
    >>>I've seen Windows machines crash when their drives became too fragmented.
    >>
    >>
    >> Oh bullshit. You were hallucinating.
    >>
    >> Have fun explaining why none of mine have ever crashed
    >> due to fragmentation when I never defrag at all.
    > BS.

    You're full of that.
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    news:420FF40D.4000507@prodigy.net...
    > Rod Speed wrote:
    >> CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    >> news:420FDF63.8010802@prodigy.net...
    >>
    >>>Rod Speed wrote
    >>>
    >>>>CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
    >>>>
    >>>>>Rod Speed wrote
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Ann Onimus <Ann@Onimus.net> wrote
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>
    >>
    >>>>>>>>Dont bother defragging unless you are in some very unusual situation.
    >>
    >>
    >>>>>>>Hmm
    >>>>>>>Why?
    >>
    >>
    >>>>>>Because its pointless with most modern systems.
    >>
    >>
    >>>>>Define "modern."
    >>
    >>
    >>>>Bought or assembled in the last few years.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Then you're wrong, because you didn't specify an OS.
    >>
    >>
    >> Nope, you know what by far the most common OS is.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Build a system today, put Windows 98 on it
    >>
    >>
    >> Hardly anyone would do that.

    > For sure they do.

    Hardly anyone does.
    >
    >>
    >>>(as I recall, W98 is still the most commonly run OS on PCs),
    >>
    >>
    >> Not with newly built or bought systems it aint.
    >>
    >>
    >>>and it'll still have problems with fragmentation.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Perhaps XP is more clever.
    >>
    >>
    >> No perhaps about it. And even say SE and
    >> ME are quite a bit better than 98 on that.
    >>
    >> And we are seeing modern system with more
    >> free space just because of the buyable drive
    >> sizes now, and that sees less fragmentation too.
    >>
    >> And the main reason that defragging is a waste of time is
    >> because modern drives seek very quickly and modern OSs
    >> have the heads moving around over the drive quite a bit
    >> when large files are read from end to end as well.

    > It's all relative. If you push them, you'll see the difference.

    Nope. If you 'push' them the heads are by definition
    moving around more than if you dont so the moving
    around that fragments cause will be less noticeable.

    > If they're coasting (i.e. if you've wasted money on more hardware than you
    > need), it won't matter.

    You've got that backwards, as usual.

    >>>Unix always was.
    >>
    >>
    >> Its never got used in enough systems to matter
    >> when I used the word MOST for a reason.

    > I think Windows' days are numbered.

    Irrelevant to what MOST run on modern systems NOW.

    > I know many disagree.

    Yep, its days arent numbered, you watch.

    >>>>>>>I understand defrag helps the system performance...
    >>
    >>
    >>>>>>You 'understand' wrong.
    >>
    >>
    >>>>>>I bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a proper
    >>>>>>randomised double blind trial without being allowed
    >>>>>>to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.
    >>
    >>
    >>>>>>And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    news:420FF43D.3050500@prodigy.net...
    > Rod Speed wrote:
    >> "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    >> news:420FE059.7010607@prodigy.net...
    >>
    >>>Andrew Rossmann wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>In article <3783s8F57orv3U1@individual.net>, rod_speed@yahoo.com says...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:420EAB3B.9090404@prodigy.net...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Frank W. wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>What exactly is degraggin supposed to do? Make it faster for the drive
    >>>>>>>to access data? Make it faster at moving data once accessed? Enquiring
    >>>>>>>minds need to know.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>I've seen Windows machines crash when their drives became too fragmented.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Oh bullshit. You were hallucinating.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Have fun explaining why none of mine have ever crashed
    >>>>>due to fragmentation when I never defrag at all.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> There is a bug in NT where Windows could crash on bootup if the MFT became
    >>>> too fragmented.
    >>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;228734
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Rod thinks he knows more about Windows than Microsoft does.
    >>
    >>
    >> You couldnt bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag
    >> even if your pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it.
    >>
    >> That aint the OS crashing, thats the boot loader crashing.
    > I've seen Windows machines crash when their drives became too
    > fragmented.

    Dont believe it. You've actually seen it crash for other reasons.

    Have fun explaining why none of mine have ever crashed
    due to fragmentation when I never defrag at all.
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Rod Speed wrote:
    > "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    > news:420FF43D.3050500@prodigy.net...
    >
    >>Rod Speed wrote:
    >>
    >>>"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    >>>news:420FE059.7010607@prodigy.net...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Andrew Rossmann wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>In article <3783s8F57orv3U1@individual.net>, rod_speed@yahoo.com says...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    >>>>>>news:420EAB3B.9090404@prodigy.net...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Frank W. wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>What exactly is degraggin supposed to do? Make it faster for the drive
    >>>>>>>>to access data? Make it faster at moving data once accessed? Enquiring
    >>>>>>>>minds need to know.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>I've seen Windows machines crash when their drives became too fragmented.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Oh bullshit. You were hallucinating.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Have fun explaining why none of mine have ever crashed
    >>>>>>due to fragmentation when I never defrag at all.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> There is a bug in NT where Windows could crash on bootup if the MFT became
    >>>>>too fragmented.
    >>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;228734
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Rod thinks he knows more about Windows than Microsoft does.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>You couldnt bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag
    >>>even if your pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it.
    >>>
    >>>That aint the OS crashing, thats the boot loader crashing.
    >>
    >>I've seen Windows machines crash when their drives became too
    >>fragmented.
    >
    >
    > Dont believe it. You've actually seen it crash for other reasons.
    >
    > Have fun explaining why none of mine have ever crashed
    > due to fragmentation when I never defrag at all.
    >
    >
    If you never turn them on, they'll never crash.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > Guess which silly little prat has just got egg all over its silly little
    face
    > yet again ?

    Rod Speed, meet Folkert Rienstra. In addition to sharing an obvious
    ignorance of informed debate, you both share one other thing... my kill
    file.

    See Ya!
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    news:421005AC.7030900@prodigy.net...
    > Rod Speed wrote:
    >> "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    >> news:420FF43D.3050500@prodigy.net...
    >>
    >>>Rod Speed wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    >>>>news:420FE059.7010607@prodigy.net...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Andrew Rossmann wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>In article <3783s8F57orv3U1@individual.net>, rod_speed@yahoo.com says...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>news:420EAB3B.9090404@prodigy.net...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>Frank W. wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>What exactly is degraggin supposed to do? Make it faster for the drive
    >>>>>>>>>to access data? Make it faster at moving data once accessed?
    >>>>>>>>>Enquiring minds need to know.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>I've seen Windows machines crash when their drives became too
    >>>>>>>>fragmented.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Oh bullshit. You were hallucinating.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Have fun explaining why none of mine have ever crashed
    >>>>>>>due to fragmentation when I never defrag at all.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> There is a bug in NT where Windows could crash on bootup if the MFT
    >>>>>> became too fragmented.
    >>>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;228734
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Rod thinks he knows more about Windows than Microsoft does.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>You couldnt bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag
    >>>>even if your pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it.
    >>>>
    >>>>That aint the OS crashing, thats the boot loader crashing.
    >>>
    >>>I've seen Windows machines crash when their drives became too
    >>>fragmented.
    >>
    >>
    >> Dont believe it. You've actually seen it crash for other reasons.
    >>
    >> Have fun explaining why none of mine have ever crashed
    >> due to fragmentation when I never defrag at all.
    >>
    >>
    > If you never turn them on, they'll never crash.

    Even you should be able to bullshit your way out
    of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
  39. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Perfectdisk.
  40. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:11:34 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
    wrote:


    >Dont believe it. You've actually seen it crash for other reasons.
    >
    >Have fun explaining why none of mine have ever crashed
    >due to fragmentation when I never defrag at all.
    >
    Maybe you don't do a hell of a lot with your PC except hang out in
    this news group. I've never seen a PC crash due to fragmentation
    either but I install and delete games with multi GB of data on them
    all the time so I do defragment on occassion because it is better to
    keep the data tightly together so the heads don't have to seek so much
    all the time.
  41. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:59:12 -0800, "Timothy Daniels"
    <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:


    > You may be correct about the dependence on specific apps, but
    > one of the 2 big PC mags published an article on defragging
    > utilities 12 to 14 months ago, and their conclusion regarding
    > Windows XP was that they could see no speed difference between
    > the fragged and de-fragged OS. Their conclusion was that for
    > WinXP, defragging isn't needed. Of course, they didn't test *your*
    > system, and it could be that WinXP defrags in the background.
    > I notice that after about 10 or 15 minutes of inactivity, my hard drive
    > starts chattering quietly. Maybe it's defragging?
    >
    >*TimDaniels*

    If you care to look it up in the MS Knowledge base you will see that
    MS themselves recommends occasional defragmentation of the HDD's on
    XP.
  42. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:53:49 -0800, David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote:

    >Perfectdisk.

    PerfectDisk v6.

    V7 is a god-awful ugly piece of software that will melt your eyes from
    their sockets. I think Raxco hired the guy responsible for the blink html
    tag to redesign the gui of v7. AFAIK, the engine underneath is the same
    as v6.


    I like O&O Defrag too. It has some features that PD lacks.

    --
    Michael Cecil
    http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
  43. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Chris Pound <Chris@invalid.noemail> wrote in message
    news:tcc211dekemc3lj21ggsh03fnvu201qon7@4ax.com...
    > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

    >> Dont believe it. You've actually seen it crash for other reasons.

    >> Have fun explaining why none of mine have ever crashed
    >> due to fragmentation when I never defrag at all.

    > Maybe you don't do a hell of a lot with your
    > PC except hang out in this news group.

    Or maybe not. I bet my systems get used a hell of a lot more than yours do.

    > I've never seen a PC crash due to fragmentation either but I install
    > and delete games with multi GB of data on them all the time so I
    > do defragment on occassion because it is better to keep the data
    > tightly together so the heads don't have to seek so much all the time.

    Its a nice theory. I bet you wouldnt be able to pick the defragged
    config without being allowed to use a ute that displays the
    fragmentation in a proper randomised double blind trial.
  44. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Chris Pound <Chris@invalid.noemail> wrote in message
    news:7qc2119044tji3ggs7nc4su4gi0qngpp29@4ax.com...
    > Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote

    >> You may be correct about the dependence on specific apps, but
    >> one of the 2 big PC mags published an article on defragging
    >> utilities 12 to 14 months ago, and their conclusion regarding
    >> Windows XP was that they could see no speed difference between
    >> the fragged and de-fragged OS. Their conclusion was that for
    >> WinXP, defragging isn't needed. Of course, they didn't test *your*
    >> system, and it could be that WinXP defrags in the background.
    >> I notice that after about 10 or 15 minutes of inactivity, my hard drive
    >> starts chattering quietly. Maybe it's defragging?

    > If you care to look it up in the MS Knowledge base you will see that MS
    > themselves recommends occasional defragmentation of the HDD's on XP.

    Who cares ? If you cant pick the difference, its a waste of time.

    Someone just repeated what they had been told and didnt actually try it.
  45. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:41:32 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
    wrote:


    >Someone just repeated what they had been told and didnt actually try it.
    >
    Well, gamers say they can tell the difference in some games and many
    game developers readme files recommend defragging too. We are not
    talking seconds of difference here but rather micro seconds which can
    show up as stuttering in disk heavy active games. I'll keep doing the
    occasional defrag no matter what you say.
  46. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Chris Pound <Chris@invalid.noemail> wrote in message
    news:onm2111c5hslm5japp8375036ac35ul0ej@4ax.com...
    > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

    >> Someone just repeated what they had been told and didnt actually try it.

    > Well, gamers say they can tell the difference in some games

    Bet they cant in a proper randomised double blind trial.

    > and many game developers readme files recommend defragging too.

    Someone just repeated what they had been told and didnt actually try it.

    > We are not talking seconds of difference here but rather micro
    > seconds which can show up as stuttering in disk heavy active games.

    Bullshit.

    > I'll keep doing the occasional defrag no matter what you say.

    You're always welcome to stand on your head and whistle Dixey until
    the cows come home or someone puts a bullet in you if you like too.
  47. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Eric Gisin wrote:

    >Gone into stealth troll mode, Rodney?

    You knew it was coming... 8)

    P.S. You misspelled "Ronnie". 8)
Ask a new question

Read More

Storage