Guest Lord Turkey Cough Posted February 14, 2008 Posted February 14, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor "Tilly821" <Tilly821.34s9bc@DoNotSpam.com> wrote in message news:Tilly821.34s9bc@DoNotSpam.com... > > The expert Lord Turkey is correct. > > Here is a true independent whitepaper: > http://files.diskeeper.com/pdf/IDC_Defrag_WhitePaper_2003.pdf > Conducted by IDC (International Data Corporation) and sponsered by > American Business Research Corporation. Both are reputable companies. > (Its about Diskeeper, so of course they would want to include it on > their site. The are buisnesses who's only reason de etre is to make money any which way they can. http://www.idg.com/www/HomeNew.nsf/docs/corporate_profile Their 'research' is about as reliable as the nutritional information on a packe of sausasges. > > Also, as a tech journalist (and because I'm a nerd), I have conducted a > few tests of my own. Its is true, you can see significant improvements > with defragmentation, especially with a third-party utility. > > However, it may be true you have not seen these imrpovements if you do > not use your computer regularly (therefore there would not be as much > fragmentation to restore), or store and edit large files. You also may > have not seen these improvements on a computer with other issues or > damage. > > Defragging will maintain your computer's health, speed and reliability. > The reason I suggest a third party, is because they are light years > quicker (compared to the built-in) and they do not interfere with your > work (meaning you don't have to log off to defrag). > > With this maintence you should not have to upgrade your hardware as > often. > I don't know if this will change your mind, but (if you try it) I hope > it saves you some money in the long run. If you do buy a defragger time you boot up, then time it after you have defraged. Then see if you can get your monry back from the company who conned you. > > > -- > Tilly821 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Tilly821's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/member.php?userid=39315 > View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=912810 > > http://forums.techarena.in >
Guest Lord Turkey Cough Posted February 14, 2008 Posted February 14, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor It was a fraudian slip. His subconcious mind typed in the keys, and inadvertently revealed the truth. Typing is a subconcious activity. "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:%23Zgrun0bIHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > You meant incorrect. > > Tilly821 wrote: >> The expert Lord Turkey is correct. >> >> Here is a true independent whitepaper: >> http://files.diskeeper.com/pdf/IDC_Defrag_WhitePaper_2003.pdf >> Conducted by IDC (International Data Corporation) and sponsered by >> American Business Research Corporation. Both are reputable companies. >> (Its about Diskeeper, so of course they would want to include it on >> their site. >> >> Also, as a tech journalist (and because I'm a nerd), I have conducted a >> few tests of my own. Its is true, you can see significant improvements >> with defragmentation, especially with a third-party utility. >> >> However, it may be true you have not seen these imrpovements if you do >> not use your computer regularly (therefore there would not be as much >> fragmentation to restore), or store and edit large files. You also may >> have not seen these improvements on a computer with other issues or >> damage. >> >> Defragging will maintain your computer's health, speed and reliability. >> The reason I suggest a third party, is because they are light years >> quicker (compared to the built-in) and they do not interfere with your >> work (meaning you don't have to log off to defrag). >> >> With this maintence you should not have to upgrade your hardware as >> often. >> I don't know if this will change your mind, but (if you try it) I hope >> it saves you some money in the long run. >> >> >> -- >> Tilly821 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Tilly821's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/member.php?userid=39315 >> View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=912810 >> >> http://forums.techarena.in > >
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted February 14, 2008 Posted February 14, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor As I said, I won't argue based upon pure speculation. The studies are out there, as suggested by Glee, for instance. If you want answers, that's your path. I guarantee you that I have plenty of experience with defrag, it's effects on performance and it's potential damage to the disk. So much that I can't really pick one off the top of my head and would have to go searching. So, yes, I could spend another few days tossing balderdash back and forth, but I choose to cease participating as of now. Your entire argument, attitude and even your name are more than a little disgusting. Sorry, just can't do it any more. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://www.grystmill.com "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message news:K%1tj.552$d62.229@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net... > > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message > news:%23rFbzOzbIHA.4344@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> What you rely upon is called "anecdotal" evidence. I have lots of that >> stuff regarding Defrag, > > Yes so much you are unable to produce any as evidence. > >>and it all contradicts yours. Particularly older systems with small >>drives, regular defragging almost always produces marked improvement in >>performance. (If the machine isn't being used much, defrag obviously won't >>help *much*, but then maintenance can be scheduled much less frequently.) >>Only if the drive is already sketchy and if defrag is run WAY TOO MUCH >>(daily), is there any risk of damage. The amount of work you put the drive >>through is balanced by reducing the amount of excessive thrashing that >>occurs on a fragmented disk. >> >> My recommendation has always been to schedule maintenance once a month >> for a well-used personal machine, less often for a lightly used machine, >> but much more often for a heavy working machine, especially one that has >> constantly used databases. How often becomes a question of how much you >> want the machine down for maintenance. >> >> -- >> Gary S. Terhune >> MS-MVP Shell/User >> http://www.grystmill.com >> >> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message >> news:%VNsj.91$Ef1.63@newsfe6-win.ntli.net... >>> >>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message >>> news:O7S8DwqbIHA.4652@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>>>I see. It's obviously so, it must be so, therefore it is so. >>>> >>>> I asked you for real data and you give me pure speculation. I have no >>>> wish to engage in speculation, though for your sake I hope an expert >>>> comes along and gives you a good discussion. >>>> >>> >>> I am 'expert' enough thank you. >>> >>> OK real data for you. >>> >>> 1. I have defragged before and I took the time to make a >>> a note of the time taken for certain operations, boot up >>> etc.... Result no noticable difference, infact it even took longer >>> to boot up, there was no performance benefit whatsoever. >>> *Infact* if anything my machine was slower. >>> >>> So there is one piece of real data. >>> >>> 2. Goto step 1. >>> >>> Quite remarkable, you won't find any facts or figure for the performance >>> increase from a defrag from the sellers of defrag software. >>> I did not one produce had a * after performance increase, eg >>> performance increase* >>> >>> *performance increase may be unpredictable. >>> >>> Which is a nice way of covering it from being sued when it makes no >>> difference >>> or infact gets worse, I assume the 'unpredictability range' includes >>> negative increases. >>> >>> http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles%2F2007%2Fs1807%2F19s07%2F19s07.asp >>> "However, a recent study by Diskeeper Corporation (http://www.diskeeper.com) >>> found that a brand-new computer with a fresh installation of WinXP can >>> boot about 27% faster after running a basic disk defragmentation." >>> >>> Hmmm...an 'independant' study by a company selling defrag software!! >>> >>> And what an interesting study it is, because a brand new computer will >>> of course >>> be already defragged in the first place!! >>> >>> Anyway defragging is a waste of time, I know that from experience as I >>> have done >>> it a few times myself on a different machine, performance is either >>> worse or it makes >>> no difference. And it's a big let down when you find you wasted all that >>> time for no effect, >>> it will seem slower even if it is the same because the performance >>> increase you expected >>> won't be there. >>> Of course you computer will tend to get slower over time but that is >>> generally because >>> you have more stuff installed on it, and the only way to cure that is to >>> uninstall it. >>> >>> So....it ain't broke so I ain't fixing it :O) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> -- >>>> Gary S. Terhune >>>> MS-MVP Shell/User >>>> http://www.grystmill.com >>>> >>>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message >>>> news:9UKsj.46$Ef1.42@newsfe6-win.ntli.net... >>>>> >>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message >>>>> news:eQ0ngsobIHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>>>>> >>>>>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:2Ivsj.7701$OU5.240@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:5bi1r3h832q6d313r2bb2i9igdfhqfvnh8@4ax.com... >>>>>>>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>"Pepperoni" <Pepperoni@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>news:CE574FD5-CC58-4D0C-99B0-EECFFA1C7BC0@microsoft.com... >>>>>>>>>> My disk defragmetor keeps running in a loop and I have tried >>>>>>>>>> everything i >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> and nothing seems to be working. So, if you have any help to >>>>>>>>>> offer please >>>>>>>>>> tell me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Defragging is a waste of time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Balderdash. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fragmented files will be slower to load, and if they are badly >>>>>>>> fragmented the slowdown can be crippling. Not too long ago I >>>>>>>> encountered a system where their master database (inventory - file >>>>>>>> size approximately 100 megabytes) was in over 10 thousand fragments >>>>>>>> and the users were complaining about slow performance. One >>>>>>>> simple >>>>>>>> defrag (took several hours) and the speedup was tremendous. They >>>>>>>> now have a scheduled task to defrag the file weekly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't believe that for a minute. >>>>>>> Defragging actually slows a computer down. >>>>>> >>>>>> Balderdash. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Obviusly a system lacking in drive space and memory is going to be >>>>>>> slow, but you need to upgrade not defrag. >>>>>> >>>>>> You're talking about an entirely different subject, there. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Another benefit of regular defragging is hard drive failure, how >>>>>>> lovely, >>>>>>> lost your entire database , yum yum. >>>>>> >>>>>> Got any references there? Actual tests? >>>>> >>>>> Wears out your hard drive. >>>>> I mean that is pretty self evident isn't it? >>>>> It's a bit lilke driving 5,000 miles in your car every week and >>>>> expecting it >>>>> to last 5 years - it's not going to happen.These are mechanical >>>>> devices >>>>> and hence wear out. I my self have never had a drive failure as I >>>>> treat mine >>>>> with respect. Several hours of hard thrashing takes it toll. The >>>>> bearing don't >>>>> get time to cool down and fail. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Gary S. Terhune >>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User >>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted February 14, 2008 Posted February 14, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor That's like Psych 100, right? How you makin' out with that? -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://www.grystmill.com "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message news:%m2tj.299$St5.138@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net... > It was a fraudian slip. > His subconcious mind typed in the keys, and inadvertently revealed the > truth. > Typing is a subconcious activity. > > > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:%23Zgrun0bIHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> You meant incorrect. >> >> Tilly821 wrote: >>> The expert Lord Turkey is correct. >>> >>> Here is a true independent whitepaper: >>> http://files.diskeeper.com/pdf/IDC_Defrag_WhitePaper_2003.pdf >>> Conducted by IDC (International Data Corporation) and sponsered by >>> American Business Research Corporation. Both are reputable companies. >>> (Its about Diskeeper, so of course they would want to include it on >>> their site. >>> >>> Also, as a tech journalist (and because I'm a nerd), I have conducted a >>> few tests of my own. Its is true, you can see significant improvements >>> with defragmentation, especially with a third-party utility. >>> >>> However, it may be true you have not seen these imrpovements if you do >>> not use your computer regularly (therefore there would not be as much >>> fragmentation to restore), or store and edit large files. You also may >>> have not seen these improvements on a computer with other issues or >>> damage. >>> >>> Defragging will maintain your computer's health, speed and reliability. >>> The reason I suggest a third party, is because they are light years >>> quicker (compared to the built-in) and they do not interfere with your >>> work (meaning you don't have to log off to defrag). >>> >>> With this maintence you should not have to upgrade your hardware as >>> often. >>> I don't know if this will change your mind, but (if you try it) I hope >>> it saves you some money in the long run. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Tilly821 >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Tilly821's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/member.php?userid=39315 >>> View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=912810 >>> >>> http://forums.techarena.in >> >> > >
Guest Lord Turkey Cough Posted February 14, 2008 Posted February 14, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message news:O9yKkI2bIHA.5900@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > As I said, I won't argue based upon pure speculation. The studies are out > there, as suggested by Glee, for instance. If you want answers, that's > your path. I guarantee you that I have plenty of experience with defrag, > it's effects on performance and it's potential damage to the disk. So much > that I can't really pick one off the top of my head and would have to go > searching. So, yes, I could spend another few days tossing balderdash back > and forth, but I choose to cease participating as of now. Your entire > argument, attitude and even your name are more than a little disgusting. > Sorry, just can't do it any more. Well you have not been 'doing it at all' just links to software retailers sites. Not one ounce of independant evidence. No proof no nothing. Just an air of pomposity. So as you can't put up it is gracious, at least, of you, to shut up. > > -- > Gary S. Terhune > MS-MVP Shell/User > http://www.grystmill.com > > "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message > news:K%1tj.552$d62.229@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net... >> >> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message >> news:%23rFbzOzbIHA.4344@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>> What you rely upon is called "anecdotal" evidence. I have lots of that >>> stuff regarding Defrag, >> >> Yes so much you are unable to produce any as evidence. >> >>>and it all contradicts yours. Particularly older systems with small >>>drives, regular defragging almost always produces marked improvement in >>>performance. (If the machine isn't being used much, defrag obviously >>>won't help *much*, but then maintenance can be scheduled much less >>>frequently.) Only if the drive is already sketchy and if defrag is run >>>WAY TOO MUCH (daily), is there any risk of damage. The amount of work you >>>put the drive through is balanced by reducing the amount of excessive >>>thrashing that occurs on a fragmented disk. >>> >>> My recommendation has always been to schedule maintenance once a month >>> for a well-used personal machine, less often for a lightly used machine, >>> but much more often for a heavy working machine, especially one that has >>> constantly used databases. How often becomes a question of how much you >>> want the machine down for maintenance. >>> >>> -- >>> Gary S. Terhune >>> MS-MVP Shell/User >>> http://www.grystmill.com >>> >>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message >>> news:%VNsj.91$Ef1.63@newsfe6-win.ntli.net... >>>> >>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message >>>> news:O7S8DwqbIHA.4652@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>>>>I see. It's obviously so, it must be so, therefore it is so. >>>>> >>>>> I asked you for real data and you give me pure speculation. I have no >>>>> wish to engage in speculation, though for your sake I hope an expert >>>>> comes along and gives you a good discussion. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I am 'expert' enough thank you. >>>> >>>> OK real data for you. >>>> >>>> 1. I have defragged before and I took the time to make a >>>> a note of the time taken for certain operations, boot up >>>> etc.... Result no noticable difference, infact it even took longer >>>> to boot up, there was no performance benefit whatsoever. >>>> *Infact* if anything my machine was slower. >>>> >>>> So there is one piece of real data. >>>> >>>> 2. Goto step 1. >>>> >>>> Quite remarkable, you won't find any facts or figure for the >>>> performance >>>> increase from a defrag from the sellers of defrag software. >>>> I did not one produce had a * after performance increase, eg >>>> performance increase* >>>> >>>> *performance increase may be unpredictable. >>>> >>>> Which is a nice way of covering it from being sued when it makes no >>>> difference >>>> or infact gets worse, I assume the 'unpredictability range' includes >>>> negative increases. >>>> >>>> http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles%2F2007%2Fs1807%2F19s07%2F19s07.asp >>>> "However, a recent study by Diskeeper Corporation (http://www.diskeeper.com) >>>> found that a brand-new computer with a fresh installation of WinXP can >>>> boot about 27% faster after running a basic disk defragmentation." >>>> >>>> Hmmm...an 'independant' study by a company selling defrag software!! >>>> >>>> And what an interesting study it is, because a brand new computer will >>>> of course >>>> be already defragged in the first place!! >>>> >>>> Anyway defragging is a waste of time, I know that from experience as I >>>> have done >>>> it a few times myself on a different machine, performance is either >>>> worse or it makes >>>> no difference. And it's a big let down when you find you wasted all >>>> that time for no effect, >>>> it will seem slower even if it is the same because the performance >>>> increase you expected >>>> won't be there. >>>> Of course you computer will tend to get slower over time but that is >>>> generally because >>>> you have more stuff installed on it, and the only way to cure that is >>>> to uninstall it. >>>> >>>> So....it ain't broke so I ain't fixing it :O) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Gary S. Terhune >>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User >>>>> http://www.grystmill.com >>>>> >>>>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:9UKsj.46$Ef1.42@newsfe6-win.ntli.net... >>>>>> >>>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message >>>>>> news:eQ0ngsobIHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:2Ivsj.7701$OU5.240@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:5bi1r3h832q6d313r2bb2i9igdfhqfvnh8@4ax.com... >>>>>>>>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>"Pepperoni" <Pepperoni@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>news:CE574FD5-CC58-4D0C-99B0-EECFFA1C7BC0@microsoft.com... >>>>>>>>>>> My disk defragmetor keeps running in a loop and I have tried >>>>>>>>>>> everything i >>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>> and nothing seems to be working. So, if you have any help to >>>>>>>>>>> offer please >>>>>>>>>>> tell me. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Defragging is a waste of time. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Balderdash. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fragmented files will be slower to load, and if they are badly >>>>>>>>> fragmented the slowdown can be crippling. Not too long ago I >>>>>>>>> encountered a system where their master database (inventory - file >>>>>>>>> size approximately 100 megabytes) was in over 10 thousand >>>>>>>>> fragments >>>>>>>>> and the users were complaining about slow performance. One >>>>>>>>> simple >>>>>>>>> defrag (took several hours) and the speedup was tremendous. >>>>>>>>> They >>>>>>>>> now have a scheduled task to defrag the file weekly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't believe that for a minute. >>>>>>>> Defragging actually slows a computer down. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Balderdash. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Obviusly a system lacking in drive space and memory is going to be >>>>>>>> slow, but you need to upgrade not defrag. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You're talking about an entirely different subject, there. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Another benefit of regular defragging is hard drive failure, how >>>>>>>> lovely, >>>>>>>> lost your entire database , yum yum. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Got any references there? Actual tests? >>>>>> >>>>>> Wears out your hard drive. >>>>>> I mean that is pretty self evident isn't it? >>>>>> It's a bit lilke driving 5,000 miles in your car every week and >>>>>> expecting it >>>>>> to last 5 years - it's not going to happen.These are mechanical >>>>>> devices >>>>>> and hence wear out. I my self have never had a drive failure as I >>>>>> treat mine >>>>>> with respect. Several hours of hard thrashing takes it toll. The >>>>>> bearing don't >>>>>> get time to cool down and fail. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune >>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User >>>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
Guest Buffalo Posted February 15, 2008 Posted February 15, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor Lord Turkey Cough wrote: [snip] >> It didn't feel any faster because it was not any faster > I timed the boot up time and it infact took longer after defragging. > FACT not anecdote. [snip] So, just because the boot up time was longer, that proves your point? I guess you think that because the boot up time was slower, all the computer functions and programs were also slower. Pretty flawed thinking. Jumping to conclusions. I also don't believe the 'miraculous' speed increases promoted by Diskeeper, but I do listen to Glee and Gary , not blindly, but open-mindidly(I probably mispelled it). They are very informative and accurate 99.9% of the time. Being bullheaded and argumentive can be a way of life, but there are more fun approaches which can be more productive and enjoyable. Buffalo
Guest MEB Posted February 15, 2008 Posted February 15, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor Debated upon whether I would get into this ridiculous argument, but: I'll just add this comment, which happens to coincide with most of the material on the subject. [Oh boy another web page] Fragmentation happens to cause significant impact upon hard drives, particularly in the NT/XP environment as files are not stored in the fashion one would [non-informed] generally think off. Ponder upon these overly simplified explanations: Many files are created or modified each time their application is run or accessed, and the system does not use the next available hard drive space to place those file segments/additions, but may place them in any unused space on the disk. This creates files which might extend from the base address [fat address or MFT] to anywhere else on the partition handled by jump instructions or other, which indicates the location of the next segment needed. These may once again be jumped to the next segment that may actually be at the opposite end of the disk/partition. Picture that happening several dozen times during the access of that one file. During this time, the hard drive controller, OS, and the algorithms used, may place other segments elsewhere on the disk, either temporarily or permanently. Think of a large file and picture the number of additional head movements needed to access JUST that one file and the extra time [additional nanoseconds] needed, then consider that there are likely a dozen or more additional files [dlls and other exes, etc.] needed for that one application which are also fragmented taking that same whipping head motion picking up a fragment here and there... Now let's picture that application has a data base of information, new information is added to that base but is stored wherever it was created. After running that same application and saving those new bits of data, that data base now exists in several thousand non-contiguous sectors of the hard drive. To view or access that data base ALL those segments must be found and brought together for the visual display, so these scattered bits are temporarily collected in the swap file and/or memory. All of this, of course, takes more head movement and time than if the files were contiguous and the application's other needed files were also closer together. A good indication is when intermittent Windows errors begin to show up for some reason or hard drive access times become excessive. If one goes to Safe Mode, shuts off Windows handling of virtual memory [swap] then deletes the win386.swp file after a restart in DOS, restarts to Safe mode and defrags, then turns ON Windows management when done; restarting to Windows Normal Mode and behavior will be noticeably improved. Part of the reason is that the SWAP file is no longer scattered all over the disk, and is contiguous [Fat systems]. NT's defragmentation is of course different as are the results.. Regarding new installations and defragging: A major misconception is that a newly installed OS is defragmented and arraigned closely on the disk. As the files are expanded areas of the disk, various areas are used to hold temporary copies of those files in any available area of the disk. Each file may first be copied, then expanded, then added to the proper directory; or may be placed in temporary storage pending installation order, then placed with some directory [listed as part of]. Each time the file is written, it takes up space on the drive, which may or may not be the next contiguous area, and may be some scattered areas upon the disk [other segments of files may already be using an area which might have been used]. The directories themselves [via the table] assign the "base" area then list the various temporary and permanent locations of the files listed under the various directories. Nothing at this stage requires these files are actually assigned an area of the disk in which all the directory's files are located within a specific segment of the disk, e.g., one file after the other or one sector after the other. Continuing to use a newly installed disk without ever defragmenting it, will eventually cause errors and at minimum, slower loading times; noticeable after extended usage. The first defragmentation done on a disk attempts to align the various individual segments of the files into contiguous areas/segments. If one has used something like "Align for faster Windows Loading" [MSDeFrag - not a recommended setting}, then the files are arraigned according to the monitored access, space required while running, and other factors held [created by taskmon] in C:\WINDOWS\APPLOG\ and using Logitec Mouse as example LOGI_MWX.LGC to supposedly place the file in an area conducive to its loading and any additional space it might require while loading/running [some exe files temporarily expand on disk and become fragmented in the process]. IF this is a fairly new system or taskmon has been disabled then the files will NOT be arraigned properly as there is not enough saved details. Successive deframentations generally take less time, and decrease file movement.. Watch a defragment tool: it checks the fats, then folders; then files, and only adjusts what has or is fragmented [unless one uses the Align for Faster Windows which WILL constantly move files around based upon the logic files {which is why its not recommended}] Now, should any wish to complain this provides no conclusive proof, then they should get off their dead behinds and actually look at a fragmemented disk and defragmented disk with a hex/disk editor. THEN come back and post, maybe someone will listen, though I doubt it ... Or if you like visuals displays, then run MS Defrag and look at the details,, and watch it move files around trying to place all the file segments together. The short answer is: defragmentation can decrease OS access times and reduce wear and tear on your hard disk. Load times ARE NOT a definitive display of problems with defragmentation, but with the routines used, and INCLUDING a fragmented swap file. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com _________
Guest glee Posted February 15, 2008 Posted February 15, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor Lord Turkey Breath, who defragged a hard drive once and now thinks he is an expert on disk defragmenters, wrote in message news:8l2tj.297$St5.134@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net... > > "Tilly821" wrote in message news:Tilly821.34s9bc@DoNotSpam.com... >> >> snip >> Here is a true independent whitepaper: >> http://files.diskeeper.com/pdf/IDC_Defrag_WhitePaper_2003.pdf >> Conducted by IDC (International Data Corporation) and sponsered by >> American Business Research Corporation. Both are reputable companies. >> (Its about Diskeeper, so of course they would want to include it on >> their site. > > The are buisnesses who's only reason de etre is to make money any > which way they can. > http://www.idg.com/www/HomeNew.nsf/docs/corporate_profile > > Their 'research' is about as reliable as the nutritional information on > a packe of sausasges. > snip Your bad spelling aside, you now reveal to the readers here your desperation to make yourself appear correct. What you hope to prove by linking the corporate profile of IDG in fact proves the opposite. IDG is a respected publisher and promoter of IT conferences. Among their IT related publications are: Australian Macworld, Australian PC World, CIO Magazine, Computer Dealer News, Computerworld, PC World, and a couple hundred more similar publications and associated websites. http://www.idg.com/www/HomeNew.nsf/docs/Brands http://www.idg.com/www/idgproducts.nsf/typeform?readform&type=publication Similarly, American Business Research Corporation has sponsored a large number of surveys, polls, and reports used by IT departments, among others. Your ridiculous contention throughout this thread that we should disregard any reports by companies that make defragmenters because they are in the business of selling disk defragmenters, is as asinine as saying we should disregard all information about viruses from anti-virus software companies because they are in the business of selling anti-virus software. As I stated earlier in the thread, the effects of defragmenting on performance will vary depending upon the size and free space of the drive as well as the type of files frequently created or modified. Your blanket contention that defragmenters are of no use is, like most generalizations and blanket proclamations, absurd because it does not consider any disk usage pattern other than your own. I think the readers here can easily see how little such a generalization is worth. -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+ http://dts-l.net/ http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
Guest Lord Turkey Cough Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message news:us8pEk4bIHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Lord Turkey Breath, who defragged a hard drive once and now thinks he is > an expert on disk defragmenters, wrote in message > news:8l2tj.297$St5.134@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net... >> >> "Tilly821" wrote in message news:Tilly821.34s9bc@DoNotSpam.com... >>> >>> snip >>> Here is a true independent whitepaper: >>> http://files.diskeeper.com/pdf/IDC_Defrag_WhitePaper_2003.pdf >>> Conducted by IDC (International Data Corporation) and sponsered by >>> American Business Research Corporation. Both are reputable companies. >>> (Its about Diskeeper, so of course they would want to include it on >>> their site. >> >> The are buisnesses who's only reason de etre is to make money any >> which way they can. >> http://www.idg.com/www/HomeNew.nsf/docs/corporate_profile >> >> Their 'research' is about as reliable as the nutritional information on >> a packe of sausasges. >> snip > > Your bad spelling aside, you now reveal to the readers here your > desperation to make yourself appear correct. What you hope to prove by > linking the corporate profile of IDG in fact proves the opposite. IDG is > a respected publisher and promoter of IT conferences. Among their IT > related publications are: Australian Macworld, Australian PC World, CIO > Magazine, Computer Dealer News, Computerworld, PC World, and a couple > hundred more similar publications and associated websites. All of whom are saphrasites of the parasetic software/PC industry > http://www.idg.com/www/HomeNew.nsf/docs/Brands > http://www.idg.com/www/idgproducts.nsf/typeform?readform&type=publication > > Similarly, American Business Research Corporation has sponsored a large > number of surveys, polls, and reports used by IT departments, among > others. > > Your ridiculous contention throughout this thread that we should disregard > any reports by companies that make defragmenters because they are in the > business of selling disk defragmenters, is as asinine as saying we should > disregard all information about viruses from anti-virus software companies > because they are in the business of selling anti-virus software. (Or the report from tobacco companies that cigarettes don't cause cancer.) You are not far off the mark there! Actually did a virus scan today for laugh, it reported soomething which returned nothing in google. Looked like it was part of some DVD package. Anyway here it is!! The file was called ultradvdchcker02.ver <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /><title> dvd player software free pc at dvd-player-software.com </title> <meta name="keywords" content="dvd,player,software,free,pc,morph,copy,players,players,players" /> <meta name="description" content="Experience Blu-Ray & HD bDVD/b Playback Excellence w/ PowerDVD 7." /> <SCRIPT LANGUAGE='Javascript' SRC='/dvd-player-software.com.js?f302=1&rrm=3'></SCRIPT> <link href='/css/w01/t101.css?def=Akamai%3aHostingURL%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fi.nuseek.com%7cBdyStyl%3aPageBackgroundColor%3d%23fff%7cBdyStyl%3aFont%3darial%7cBdyStyl%3aFontSize%3d12%7cBdyStyl%3aFontColor%3d%230e5fd8%7cBdyStyl%3aPrimaryColor%3d%231b5709%7cBdyStyl%3aPrimaryColorComplement%3d%23fff%7cBdyStyl%3aSecondaryColor%3d%23c44242%7cBdyStyl%3aSecondaryColorComplement%3d%23fff%7cBdyStyl%3aTertiaryColor%3d%23f3f3f3%7cBdyStyl%3aTertiaryColorComplement%3d%23476ec7%7cPgHdr%3aFontSize%3d18%7cPgHdr%3aFont%3dVerdana%7cRelLink%3aFont%3darial%7cRelLink%3aFontSize%3d14%7cRelLink%3aFontColor%3d%23476ec7%7cRelLink%3aHoverFontColor%3d%23c03625%7cRelLink%3aBackgroundColor%3d%23fafad9%7cRelLink%3aDividerColor%3d%23e2dfb8%7cRelLink%3aHoverBackgroundColor%3d%23fbfbf5%7cRelLink%3aImagePath%3d%2fimages%2fmisc%2fbullets%2f0006.gif%7cRelLink%3aImageWidth%3d10%7cRelLink%3aImageHeight%3d10%7cResult%3aImagePath%3d%2fimages%2fmisc%2fbullets%2f0006.gif%7cResult%3aHeaderFont%3darial%7cResult%3aHeaderFontSize%3d12%7cResult%3aHeaderFontColor%3d%23000%7cResult%3aTitleFont%3darial%7cResult%3aTitleFontSize%3d16%7cResult%3aTitleFontColor%3d%2300c%7cResult%3aAbstractFont%3darial%7cResult%3aAbstractFontSize%3d12%7cResult%3aAbstractFontColor%3d%23000%7cResult%3aURLFont%3darial%7cResult%3aURLFontSize%3d12%7cResult%3aURLFontColor%3d%23008000%7cResult%3aSidebarBorderColor%3d%23ccc%7cSrchBox%3aTextboxWidth%3d200%7cSrchBox%3aImagePath%3d%2fimages%2fmisc%2fbuttons%2f0006.gif%7cSrchBox%3aImageWidth%3d60%7cSrchBox%3aImageHeight%3d22%7cSrchBox%3aAlign%3dright%7cSearchLinkGroup%3aHoverLinkColor%3d%23ff9%7cUsrCust%3aFontType%3dverdana%7cUsrCust%3aFontSize%3d11%7cUsrCust%3aFontColor%3d%23666%7cUsrCust%3aLinkColor%3d%230e5fd8' rel='stylesheet' title='default' type='text/css' /> <script language="javascript" type="Text/Javascript"> <!-- --> </script> <style type="text/css"> <!-- --> </style> </head> <body id="wf01" class="pg2"> <form name="parking_form" method="get" action="/default.pk" id="parking_form"> <div> </div> <!-- ==================================== Major Version: 3.0 Client_IP: 86.10.74.34 Webserver_Number: 21 Total_Process_Time: 0343ms ==================================== --> <table cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> </table> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" id="container"> <tr> <td class="col1"> </td> <td class="col2"> <table cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td> <table cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </td> </tr> </table> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="hdr"> <tr> <td class="hdrL"> <div class="header"><h1><a href="http://dvd-player-software.com">Welcome to <b>dvd-player-software.com</b></a></h1></div> </td> <td class="hdrR"> </td> </tr> </table> <table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" id="oneColLayout"> <tr> <td class="oneCol"> </td> </tr> </table> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" id="twoColLayout"> <tr> <td class="twoColL"> <div class="resMain"><h2>Sponsored listings for DVD Player Software:</h2><ul><li onclick="javascript:pcNav('?tu=http%3a%2f%2frc10.overture.com%2fd%2fsr%2f%3fxargs%3d15KPjg151SkZamwretdb3PSueKwl4axca59c9rD5R8HtZIoS5gVed8a6vHksV5W7064w%255FVyfeU%255FaEUK%255Fvymf2IFAiKTFuID7Kh0Y3DzY00M6YZb%252DQYirEvwevrl9J7D3wQMy68fJKErvqNLdL%252DP2g4pswOzByc%252DPNnwMe1xeMIQevVig0sskqFc5Zxm9EsgbqxKOwOS7UjfqvrhXfFfZwQ%252D%252DxtkeysPyRkLl2h5m0a9VeHIC55v6zJfZEIu7Xny9uVPaWpjJkCOg3GtuQgt0jSji%255FfnJwyY3f278dJ8Nc2KLyVUH%255FZDDsfiPjSjOSKftE24G%255FyJpjbVR6jNAA7ahQ1X6HtKgSGKGAqs0TXR6wFfMm4q2GzAKfXACEGUmM%252E&du=www.CyberLink.com%2fpowerdvd&rs=946611020&r=1&dn=dvd-player-software.com&st=&ac=0&tmid=101&thid=107&anid=57&rlsid=1&wid=1&pn=YahooDM&ref=&rst=&rpn=0&dw=0&rlt=0&sc=-1%3d1%2c0%3d1&sid=b402c3dc-8833-41dc-987b-5f0bb6a1fcdc&vip=10.5.2.108&adt=0&vid=64527c65-53da-410f-8047-f81c1c395ea2&ici=0&rlrt=1&rllt=related&di=&spc=5&su=http%3a%2f%2fwww.dvd-player-software.com%3a80%2fultradvd.ver');" onmouseover="status='www.CyberLink.com/powerdvd'; return true;" onmouseout="status=''; return true;"><span class="titleJS">Cyberlink Powerdvd 7</span><br /><span class="abstract">Experience Blu-Ray & HD <b>DVD</b> Playback Excellence w/ PowerDVD 7.</span><br /><span class="url">www.CyberLink.com/powerdvd</span></li><li onclick="javascript:pcNav('?tu=http%3a%2f%2frc10.overture.com%2fd%2fsr%2f%3fxargs%3d15KPjg155SjJamwr2sfLTJTuOEw14axca588NtBpNwH9df5iMxXOZ4bKDIk8F4RPo2swPSy%255FSX%255FaIfK%255Ff%252DkfiNEAyJRg%252D9L73y347DxIk%255FMxuXYY5KhrMoxOnqnoZLfEw2fi68eNG3nvidYdvwOX5djddAwByb%252DfFpx863xO8bBuuJ1QAnrxXCcMkJmNZYhMy1W5t%255FTbNSCdjr4TDHI5FAm%252DxFpeylNiEWXi3U520OvAWNIzRhp7DPeI4X0ZDBpJnJPe6p2o1OKxjCvaEh%252DF3JnzramMg2ICvXhMc%255F5E5kwpmfd1PtzQ%252DrmJ7%255F2v%255FbP400s2XxFpG2Q3O1DhYuPgVnA%252DfkPlHIdDkx4AjWKcVySIqj%252DjXvQryGG3EqY3Ix3w%252E%252E&du=www.prosoft3d.com&rs=946611020&r=2&dn=dvd-player-software.com&st=&ac=0&tmid=101&thid=107&anid=57&rlsid=1&wid=1&pn=YahooDM&ref=&rst=&rpn=0&dw=0&rlt=0&sc=-1%3d1%2c0%3d1&sid=b402c3dc-8833-41dc-987b-5f0bb6a1fcdc&vip=10.5.2.108&adt=0&vid=64527c65-53da-410f-8047-f81c1c395ea2&ici=0&rlrt=1&rllt=related&di=&spc=5&su=http%3a%2f%2fwww.dvd-player-software.com%3a80%2fultradvd.ver');" onmouseover="status='www.prosoft3d.com'; return true;" onmouseout="status=''; return true;"><span class="titleJS">NEW - <b>DVD</b> <b>Player</b> 5.0 <b>Software</b> - $9.95</span><br /><span class="abstract">Play all your <b>DVDs</b> on your computer with <b>DVD</b> <b>Player</b> 5.0. Download.</span><br /><span class="url">www.prosoft3d.com</span></li><li onclick="javascript:pcNav('?tu=http%3a%2f%2frc10.overture.com%2fd%2fsr%2f%3fxargs%3d15KPjg15tSn5amwrercr3AS%252DGAw14axca58MtsDpJ7GtRc5iMxXOh4aafAm8x4Tfo2swPRyfST%255FKUUJfv%255Fm%255F%252DOEgeNQluAEfWugoHFy4w6Mq2hWYlxsOwhw%252D%255FpmY5INHytUy68epaErvqNLdX5P2g4pswOzB6Q%255FfBuxc%252D1xeYIQevVig0sskqFc5Zxm9EsgbqxKOwOS7UjfqvrhXfFfZwQ%252D%252DxtkeysPyRkLl2h5m0a9VeHIC55v6zJfZEIu7Xny9uVPaWpjJkCOg3GtuQgt0jSji%255FfnJwyY3f278dJ8Nc2KLyVUH%255FZDDsfiPjSjOSKftE24G%255FyJpjbVR6jNAA7ahQ1X6HtKgSGKGIqs0TXR6sFfMuo%252DCG%252DCKfXTy0ndAIM7vKECA%252E%252E&du=www.sonic.com&rs=946611020&r=3&dn=dvd-player-software.com&st=&ac=0&tmid=101&thid=107&anid=57&rlsid=1&wid=1&pn=YahooDM&ref=&rst=&rpn=0&dw=0&rlt=0&sc=-1%3d1%2c0%3d1&sid=b402c3dc-8833-41dc-987b-5f0bb6a1fcdc&vip=10.5.2.108&adt=0&vid=64527c65-53da-410f-8047-f81c1c395ea2&ici=0&rlrt=1&rllt=related&di=&spc=5&su=http%3a%2f%2fwww.dvd-player-software.com%3a80%2fultradvd.ver');" onmouseover="status='www.sonic.com'; return true;" onmouseout="status=''; return true;"><span class="titleJS">New <b>DVD</b> Decoder</span><br /><span class="abstract">Sonic's powerful new <b>DVD</b> Decoder allows you to play <b>DVDs</b> on your PC.</span><br /><span class="url">www.sonic.com</span></li><li onclick="javascript:pcNav('?tu=http%3a%2f%2frc10.overture.com%2fd%2fsr%2f%3fxargs%3d15KPjg14FSmpamwr%252DjfbXISeKKwlsaxca588toDJd5HNVf8mQ8De19aqDHnMd4Sexn%252DF%252DNwPOX%255F6AeK%255Ff4m%255F%252DKEQ6JQ1GOHeT6yt2awIo7P6ijWNNPgvMa8bXkm4RMO3YOa20ZSOP%252Dk%252D3MZOHJKz9G%255FI8CzQvqpbJjwMe%255FxOMZFrPQ3UQpqlGGfs9N%252D%255FF7jLm1WJ8JPMBUCd6YlFCXAu5Wmo94kL2UDjgTKSOj4BkK3FmCJiYgrKnJYokXu7HwhI6aafWsyNQKLRCDtKgyoUvU2T3Cn84kZzjXn%252DIMnSpiP7uc6Qi%252Dn2If7bdbvML5P401szC5GJvUQi%252DoPC0vfgceBvarfEOPYWw%252D5gjWK5hCZ5j0qheHQ7yOG3Flb1AXvt61GfY2&du=www.ToshibaHDDVD.com&rs=946611020&r=4&dn=dvd-player-software.com&st=&ac=0&tmid=101&thid=107&anid=57&rlsid=1&wid=1&pn=YahooDM&ref=&rst=&rpn=0&dw=0&rlt=0&sc=-1%3d1%2c0%3d1&sid=b402c3dc-8833-41dc-987b-5f0bb6a1fcdc&vip=10.5.2.108&adt=0&vid=64527c65-53da-410f-8047-f81c1c395ea2&ici=0&rlrt=1&rllt=related&di=&spc=5&su=http%3a%2f%2fwww.dvd-player-software.com%3a80%2fultradvd.ver');" onmouseover="status='www.ToshibaHDDVD.com'; return true;" onmouseout="status=''; return true;"><span class="titleJS">Toshiba HD-A30</span><br /><span class="abstract">Next-Generation HD-<b>DVD</b> <b>Player</b> Available Now. Learn More Today.</span><br /><span class="url">www.ToshibaHDDVD.com</span></li><li onclick="javascript:pcNav('?tu=http%3a%2f%2frc10.overture.com%2fd%2fsr%2f%3fxargs%3d15KPjg15RSnpamwryid7rLT%252DGAw14axca598trDph5H9Rf5iMxXOF7Z6DCnMZ7ROVxv1PdzvuS%255F6YVJPL5mfyPEw6LQFWJEfWugoHBy4I6P62n4OcYP4Uex%252DzhmoXiDU8dImOycNKoz6%255FBI9X5KQ0TvYICyR%252DR9fZswMeyx%255FFPQbeKhwYx7Q2GLO5ynKUp977CX50ITcRUDauPwnWbcMxw%252D8R0keWlOlYUXiig5nlTp12EOjZho6rMYo4LuaOgzoLML7ft3IUPIhHR5Lc8vlrRmDzI39s2Ow7k%255FaM5GWxnXMLMJT5ZuDsP%255FqPfmqOMJIk94W3AHc6beCWiIwJtLQF8UKf%255FbQ3TIHdtuE6zTdZLc8%252Ds%252DCO2FuDEACAxM14AzuOE&du=www.circuitcity.com&rs=946611020&r=5&dn=dvd-player-software.com&st=&ac=0&tmid=101&thid=107&anid=57&rlsid=1&wid=1&pn=YahooDM&ref=&rst=&rpn=0&dw=0&rlt=0&sc=-1%3d1%2c0%3d1&sid=b402c3dc-8833-41dc-987b-5f0bb6a1fcdc&vip=10.5.2.108&adt=0&vid=64527c65-53da-410f-8047-f81c1c395ea2&ici=0&rlrt=1&rllt=related&di=&spc=5&su=http%3a%2f%2fwww.dvd-player-software.com%3a80%2fultradvd.ver');" onmouseover="status='www.circuitcity.com'; return true;" onmouseout="status=''; return true;"><span class="titleJS"><b>DVD</b> <b>Player</b> <b>Software</b>: Circuit City</span><br /><span class="abstract">Circuit City - Official Site. Free Shipping on Orders $24 and Up.</span><br /><span class="url">www.circuitcity.com</span></li></ul><span class="prevDisable">prev</span><span class="next"><a href="/jobs/dvd/player/software/dvd_player_software.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56 PM|qs=06oENya4ZGM2uCjAyqVAoHdkSsb19c7JRwknfvJfVV0wGM6BLsNMELW-1Mr2dG0OY6Wf3ym50WLU7rnQ8nhxNmkWWFYT75Qz9TCy4jLaRFNOsoO8viJdPCUdOjXGTl058C1HH5y8dQvxTuv87h2HceejYGAqvbZncM4-tFcE16CPUF4r2AhQVSfGVLOWKkyNcf8jrrhTIau-TshkeJ_ajhgJDXAV9nt2O5R-6g1mEs69oRjjAWcJOZJsGVSOyjbzJeN6QTQRJJIj6p1eCYDyqmlJV00URCJCaJE5ZlPU45NwY6hNQk0yHDS6jfbpDfkgB_gj-siGjl-dohj3-egs_NwcbopqoUGwfP2u4Nwn_1dbsQ1NorGzcOmDQxSNy22E9_ztfUmPh2Dxyo1rFxDpAJ_uVaavQ6lKKMzFzg6akTNudgsCWWExLvh0eSqBKF0GqRFBlKK5UsNnOr|gifts', null);">next</a></span></div> </td> <td class="twoColR"> <div class="resRelLinks clearfix"><div class="resRelLinks_Hdr"><span>Related Links</span></div><div class="resRelLinks_Col1"><ul><li class="first"><a class="first" href="/buy/dvd/player/software/dvd_player_software.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56 PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9RFZEIFBsYXllciBTb2Z0d2FyZTtSPTE7Uz1NIw..|search', null);"><span>DVD Player Software</span></a></li><li><a href="/buy/dvd/player/software/dvd_copy.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56 PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9RFZEIENvcHk7Uj0yO1M9ZCMtIzN0|search', null);"><span>DVD Copy</span></a></li><li><a href="/buy/dvd/player/software/dvd_copy_software.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56 PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9RFZEIENvcHkgU29mdHdhcmU7Uj0zO1M9ZCMtIzN0|search', null);"><span>DVD Copy Software</span></a></li><li><a href="/buy/dvd/player/software/dvd_players.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56 PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9RFZEIFBsYXllcnM7Uj00O1M9ZCMtIzN0|search', null);"><span>DVD Players</span></a></li><li><a href="/buy/dvd/player/software/region_free_dvd.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56 PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9UmVnaW9uIEZyZWUgRFZEO1I9NTtTPWQjLSMzdA..|search', null);"><span>Region Free DVD</span></a></li><li><a href="/buy/dvd/player/software/media_player.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56 PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9TWVkaWEgUGxheWVyO1I9NjtTPWQjLSMzdA..|search', null);"><span>Media Player</span></a></li><li><a href="/buy/dvd/player/software/dvd_duplication.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56 PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9RFZEIER1cGxpY2F0aW9uO1I9NztTPWQjLSMzdA..|search', null);"><span>DVD Duplication</span></a></li><li><a href="/buy/dvd/player/software/cd_dvd_duplicator.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56 PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9Q0QgRFZEIER1cGxpY2F0b3I7Uj04O1M9ZCMtIzN0|search', null);"><span>CD DVD Duplicator</span></a></li><li><a href="/buy/dvd/player/software/dvd_software.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56 PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9RFZEIFNvZnR3YXJlO1I9OTtTPWQjLSMzdA..|search', null);"><span>DVD Software</span></a></li><li><a href="/buy/dvd/player/software/burn_dvd.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56 PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9QnVybiBEVkQ7Uj0xMDtTPWQjLSMzdA..|search', null);"><span>Burn DVD</span></a></li><li><a href="/buy/dvd/player/software/dvd_copier.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56 PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9RFZEIENvcGllcjtSPTExO1M9ZCMtIzN0|search', null);"><span>DVD Copier</span></a></li><li><a href="/buy/dvd/player/software/dvd_burning_software.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56 PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9RFZEIEJ1cm5pbmcgU29mdHdhcmU7Uj0xMjtTPWQjLSMzdA..|search', null);"><span>DVD Burning Software</span></a></li><li><a href="/buy/dvd/player/software/dvd_copying.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56 PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9RFZEIENvcHlpbmc7Uj0xMztTPWQjLSMzdA..|search', null);"><span>DVD Copying</span></a></li><li><a href="/buy/dvd/player/software/dvd_ripper.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56 PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9RFZEIFJpcHBlcjtSPTE0O1M9ZCMtIzN0|search', null);"><span>DVD Ripper</span></a></li><li class="last"><a class="last" href="/buy/dvd/player/software/lightscribe.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56 PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9TGlnaHRzY3JpYmU7Uj0xNTtTPWQjLSMzdA..|search', null);"><span>Lightscribe</span></a></li></ul></div></div> <span></span> <div class="banner"></div> </td> </tr> </table> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" id="threeColLayout"> <tr> <td class="threeColL"> </td> <td class="threeColM"> </td> <td class="threeColR"> </td> </tr> </table> <div class="searchBox"><table><tr><td><input type="text" name="tsearch" id="tsearch" class="SearchBoxText" tabindex="1" /></td><td><input type="image" src="http://i.nuseek.com/images/misc/blank.gif" id="search_button" name="search_button" class="sb_btn" tabindex="2" /></td></tr></table></div><div class="clear"></div> <div class="searchLinkGroup clearfix"><div class="searchLinkGroup_Col1"><ul><li class="first"><a class="first" href="/get/dvd/player/software/insurance.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56 PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT03|free', null);"><span>Insurance</span></a></li><li><a href="/get/dvd/player/software/credit_cards.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56 PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT03|free', null);"><span>Credit Cards</span></a></li><li><a href="/get/dvd/player/software/education_online.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56 PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT03|free', null);"><span>Education Online</span></a></li><li><a href="/get/dvd/player/software/hotel_reservation.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56 PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT03|free', null);"><span>Hotel Reservation</span></a></li><li><a href="/get/dvd/player/software/dating_online.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56 PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT03|free', null);"><span>Dating Online</span></a></li><li class="last"><a class="last" href="/get/dvd/player/software/debt_consolidation.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56 PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT03|free', null);"><span>Debt Consolidation</span></a></li></ul></div></div> <div class="ftr"> <div class="userCustom"></div> </div> <table cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td class="col3"> </td> </tr> </table> <table cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> </table> <script language="JavaScript" src="http://as.casalemedia.com/sd?s=91026&f=1"></script></form> <script language='javascript' type='Text/Javascript'> function GetIPPI(g) { var xmlHttp = createXMLHttpRequest(); if (xmlHttp != null) { xmlHttp.open('GET', '/'+g+'.ippi?g='+g, true); xmlHttp.send(null); } } function createXMLHttpRequest() { try { return new ActiveXObject('Msxml2.XMLHTTP'); } catch(e) {} try { return new ActiveXObject('Microsoft.XMLHTTP'); } catch(e) {} try { return new XMLHttpRequest(); } catch(e) {} return null; } GetIPPI('9a2d0df7-6109-4457-b7db-e494cb1fb465'); </script> <img src='http://i.nuseek.com/images/misc/trk.gif?category=&keywords=DVD+Player+Software' /> </body> </html> > > As I stated earlier in the thread, the effects of defragmenting on > performance will vary depending upon the size and free space of the drive > as well as the type of files frequently created or modified. Your blanket > contention that defragmenters are of no use is, like most generalizations > and blanket proclamations, absurd because it does not consider any disk > usage pattern other than your own. I maintain defraging is a waste of time, I have had my PC over 2 years and have never defragged, my PC runs like a dream and nothing a Software salesman says will convince me otherwise. You have seen the riduclous claim that a brand hew PC, and hence already defragged PC, can have its performance increase by 27% and yet you are still not willing to accept that these people are little more than con artists. > > I think the readers here can easily see how little such a generalization > is worth. > -- > Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+ > http://dts-l.net/ > http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm >
Guest Lord Turkey Cough Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message news:e4idnVM1XIcYZinanZ2dnUVZ_t2inZ2d@comcast.com... > Lord Turkey Cough wrote: > [snip] >>> It didn't feel any faster because it was not any faster >> I timed the boot up time and it infact took longer after defragging. >> FACT not anecdote. > [snip] > > So, just because the boot up time was longer, that proves your point? > I guess you think that because the boot up time was slower, all the > computer > functions and programs were also slower. > Pretty flawed thinking. Jumping to conclusions. > I also don't believe the 'miraculous' speed increases promoted by > Diskeeper, > but I do listen to Glee and Gary , not blindly, but open-mindidly(I > probably > mispelled it). They are very informative and accurate 99.9% of the time. > > Being bullheaded and argumentive can be a way of life, but there are more > fun approaches which can be more productive and enjoyable. I am being neither, your only 'evidence' that I am is that "They are very informative and accurate 99.9% of the time", Have you done any tests yourself? I suspect not. Blindly accepting people are right because 'they usually are' may be beneficial at times but it can also be disasterous. > > Buffalo > >
Guest Lord Turkey Cough Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor The proof of the puffing is in the eating. All the detailed explantions in the world will not change test results which contradict them. It's a case of once bitten twice shy, and I have been bitten 2 or 3 times by the defragging myth. I don't intend getting bitten anymore. "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23Q8LId4bIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > > Debated upon whether I would get into this ridiculous argument, but: > I'll just add this comment, which happens to coincide with most of the > material on the subject. [Oh boy another web page] > > Fragmentation happens to cause significant impact upon hard drives, > particularly in the NT/XP environment as files are not stored in the > fashion > one would [non-informed] generally think off. > > Ponder upon these overly simplified explanations: > > Many files are created or modified each time their application is run or > accessed, and the system does not use the next available hard drive space > to > place those file segments/additions, but may place them in any unused > space > on the disk. This creates files which might extend from the base address > [fat address or MFT] to anywhere else on the partition handled by jump > instructions or other, which indicates the location of the next segment > needed. These may once again be jumped to the next segment that may > actually > be at the opposite end of the disk/partition. Picture that happening > several > dozen times during the access of that one file. During this time, the hard > drive controller, OS, and the algorithms used, may place other segments > elsewhere on the disk, either temporarily or permanently. > Think of a large file and picture the number of additional head movements > needed to access JUST that one file and the extra time [additional > nanoseconds] needed, then consider that there are likely a dozen or more > additional files [dlls and other exes, etc.] needed for that one > application > which are also fragmented taking that same whipping head motion picking up > a > fragment here and there... > Now let's picture that application has a data base of information, new > information is added to that base but is stored wherever it was created. > After running that same application and saving those new bits of data, > that > data base now exists in several thousand non-contiguous sectors of the > hard > drive. To view or access that data base ALL those segments must be found > and > brought together for the visual display, so these scattered bits are > temporarily collected in the swap file and/or memory. > All of this, of course, takes more head movement and time than if the > files > were contiguous and the application's other needed files were also closer > together. > > A good indication is when intermittent Windows errors begin to show up for > some reason or hard drive access times become excessive. If one goes to > Safe > Mode, shuts off Windows handling of virtual memory [swap] then deletes the > win386.swp file after a restart in DOS, restarts to Safe mode and defrags, > then turns ON Windows management when done; restarting to Windows Normal > Mode and behavior will be noticeably improved. Part of the reason is that > the SWAP file is no longer scattered all over the disk, and is contiguous > [Fat systems]. NT's defragmentation is of course different as are the > results.. > > Regarding new installations and defragging: > > A major misconception is that a newly installed OS is defragmented and > arraigned closely on the disk. As the files are expanded areas of the > disk, > various areas are used to hold temporary copies of those files in any > available area of the disk. Each file may first be copied, then expanded, > then added to the proper directory; or may be placed in temporary storage > pending installation order, then placed with some directory [listed as > part > of]. > Each time the file is written, it takes up space on the drive, which may > or > may not be the next contiguous area, and may be some scattered areas upon > the disk [other segments of files may already be using an area which might > have been used]. > The directories themselves [via the table] assign the "base" area then > list > the various temporary and permanent locations of the files listed under > the > various directories. Nothing at this stage requires these files are > actually > assigned an area of the disk in which all the directory's files are > located > within a specific segment of the disk, e.g., one file after the other or > one > sector after the other. Continuing to use a newly installed disk without > ever defragmenting it, will eventually cause errors and at minimum, slower > loading times; noticeable after extended usage. > > The first defragmentation done on a disk attempts to align the various > individual segments of the files into contiguous areas/segments. If one > has > used something like "Align for faster Windows Loading" [MSDeFrag - not a > recommended setting}, then the files are arraigned according to the > monitored access, space required while running, and other factors held > [created by taskmon] in C:\WINDOWS\APPLOG\ and using Logitec Mouse as > example LOGI_MWX.LGC to supposedly place the file in an area conducive to > its loading and any additional space it might require while > loading/running > [some exe files temporarily expand on disk and become fragmented in the > process]. IF this is a fairly new system or taskmon has been disabled then > the files will NOT be arraigned properly as there is not enough saved > details. > Successive deframentations generally take less time, and decrease file > movement.. Watch a defragment tool: it checks the fats, then folders; then > files, and only adjusts what has or is fragmented [unless one uses the > Align > for Faster Windows which WILL constantly move files around based upon the > logic files {which is why its not recommended}] > > Now, should any wish to complain this provides no conclusive proof, then > they should get off their dead behinds and actually look at a fragmemented > disk and defragmented disk with a hex/disk editor. THEN come back and > post, > maybe someone will listen, though I doubt it ... > Or if you like visuals displays, then run MS Defrag and look at the > details,, and watch it move files around trying to place all the file > segments together. > > The short answer is: defragmentation can decrease OS access times and > reduce wear and tear on your hard disk. Load times ARE NOT a definitive > display of problems with defragmentation, but with the routines used, and > INCLUDING a fragmented swap file. > > -- > > MEB > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com > _________ > > > >
Guest thanatoid Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in news:64Atj.541$%W6.439@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net: > The proof of the puffing is in the eating. No, the proof of the puffing is the whistling noise turkeys squeezed by their throats and prodded in their gut sometimes make. > All the detailed explantions in the world will not change > test results which contradict them. > > It's a case of once bitten twice shy, and I have been > bitten 2 or 3 times by the defragging myth. I don't intend > getting bitten anymore. I recall reading an article 3 or 4 years ago which basically claimed that defragmenting is no longer necessary due to HD technology improvements and insane processing speeds. This may well be true, but this is a 98 group and some of us do not buy shiny toys with Disasta pre-installed in home appliances stores. Also, a HD is a HD and no mechanical device 100% immune to "wear and tear" has yet been invented. I agree buying a defragger or even a partition tool is largely pointless - if you are able to think ahead, even fdisk is more than adequate. And scandisk and defrag always worked fine for me - I installed the ME versions and saw no noticeable improvement. But I also have 7 partitions on an 8.4 GB drive and 16 on a 40 GB drive. Partitions probably do more for "no-need-to-defrag" than anything else. My swap drive is also not on C and set to a fixed size. I haven't read the whole thread, but are you even running 98/98se? The below describes the situation as it is, pretty much. > "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:%23Q8LId4bIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> >> Debated upon whether I would get into this ridiculous >> argument, but: I'll just add this comment, which happens >> to coincide with most of the material on the subject. [Oh >> boy another web page] >> >> Fragmentation happens to cause significant impact upon >> hard drives, particularly in the NT/XP environment as >> files are not stored in the fashion >> one would [non-informed] generally think off. >> >> Ponder upon these overly simplified explanations: >> >> Many files are created or modified each time their >> application is run or accessed, and the system does not >> use the next available hard drive space to >> place those file segments/additions, but may place them in >> any unused space >> on the disk. This creates files which might extend from >> the base address [fat address or MFT] to anywhere else on >> the partition handled by jump instructions or other, which >> indicates the location of the next segment needed. These >> may once again be jumped to the next segment that may >> actually be at the opposite end of the disk/partition. >> Picture that happening several >> dozen times during the access of that one file. During >> this time, the hard drive controller, OS, and the >> algorithms used, may place other segments elsewhere on the >> disk, either temporarily or permanently. Think of a large >> file and picture the number of additional head movements >> needed to access JUST that one file and the extra time >> [additional nanoseconds] needed, then consider that there >> are likely a dozen or more additional files [dlls and >> other exes, etc.] needed for that one application >> which are also fragmented taking that same whipping head >> motion picking up a >> fragment here and there... >> Now let's picture that application has a data base of >> information, new information is added to that base but is >> stored wherever it was created. After running that same >> application and saving those new bits of data, that >> data base now exists in several thousand non-contiguous >> sectors of the hard >> drive. To view or access that data base ALL those segments >> must be found and >> brought together for the visual display, so these >> scattered bits are temporarily collected in the swap file >> and/or memory. All of this, of course, takes more head >> movement and time than if the files >> were contiguous and the application's other needed files >> were also closer together. >> >> A good indication is when intermittent Windows errors >> begin to show up for some reason or hard drive access >> times become excessive. If one goes to Safe >> Mode, shuts off Windows handling of virtual memory [swap] >> then deletes the win386.swp file after a restart in DOS, >> restarts to Safe mode and defrags, then turns ON Windows >> management when done; restarting to Windows Normal Mode >> and behavior will be noticeably improved. Part of the >> reason is that the SWAP file is no longer scattered all >> over the disk, and is contiguous [Fat systems]. NT's >> defragmentation is of course different as are the >> results.. >> >> Regarding new installations and defragging: >> >> A major misconception is that a newly installed OS is >> defragmented and arraigned closely on the disk. As the >> files are expanded areas of the disk, >> various areas are used to hold temporary copies of those >> files in any available area of the disk. Each file may >> first be copied, then expanded, then added to the proper >> directory; or may be placed in temporary storage pending >> installation order, then placed with some directory >> [listed as part >> of]. >> Each time the file is written, it takes up space on the >> drive, which may or >> may not be the next contiguous area, and may be some >> scattered areas upon the disk [other segments of files may >> already be using an area which might have been used]. >> The directories themselves [via the table] assign the >> "base" area then list >> the various temporary and permanent locations of the files >> listed under the >> various directories. Nothing at this stage requires these >> files are actually >> assigned an area of the disk in which all the directory's >> files are located >> within a specific segment of the disk, e.g., one file >> after the other or one >> sector after the other. Continuing to use a newly >> installed disk without ever defragmenting it, will >> eventually cause errors and at minimum, slower loading >> times; noticeable after extended usage. >> >> The first defragmentation done on a disk attempts to align >> the various individual segments of the files into >> contiguous areas/segments. If one has >> used something like "Align for faster Windows Loading" >> [MSDeFrag - not a recommended setting}, then the files are >> arraigned according to the monitored access, space >> required while running, and other factors held [created by >> taskmon] in C:\WINDOWS\APPLOG\ and using Logitec Mouse as >> example LOGI_MWX.LGC to supposedly place the file in an >> area conducive to its loading and any additional space it >> might require while loading/running >> [some exe files temporarily expand on disk and become >> fragmented in the process]. IF this is a fairly new system >> or taskmon has been disabled then the files will NOT be >> arraigned properly as there is not enough saved details. >> Successive deframentations generally take less time, and >> decrease file movement.. Watch a defragment tool: it >> checks the fats, then folders; then files, and only >> adjusts what has or is fragmented [unless one uses the >> Align >> for Faster Windows which WILL constantly move files around >> based upon the logic files {which is why its not >> recommended}] >> >> Now, should any wish to complain this provides no >> conclusive proof, then they should get off their dead >> behinds and actually look at a fragmemented disk and >> defragmented disk with a hex/disk editor. THEN come back >> and post, >> maybe someone will listen, though I doubt it ... >> Or if you like visuals displays, then run MS Defrag and >> look at the >> details,, and watch it move files around trying to place >> all the file segments together. >> >> The short answer is: defragmentation can decrease OS >> access times and reduce wear and tear on your hard disk. >> Load times ARE NOT a definitive display of problems with >> defragmentation, but with the routines used, and INCLUDING >> a fragmented swap file. -- "As you know, it is considered bad form to discuss the latest news with persons from the beyond." Karel Capek
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor Lord Turkey Cough wrote: > The proof of the puffing is in the eating. > All the detailed explantions in the world will not change > test results which contradict them. You haven't presented any, because there aren't any.
Guest Lord Turkey Cough Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:OxEwnvNcIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Lord Turkey Cough wrote: >> The proof of the puffing is in the eating. >> All the detailed explantions in the world will not change >> test results which contradict them. > > You haven't presented any, because there aren't any. I have. Time your PC running normally then defrag and time it again. Present you results here. I am not doing it myself because I know it is a waste of time. You don't so you show you results. And NO LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor Lord Turkey Cough wrote: > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:OxEwnvNcIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Lord Turkey Cough wrote: >>> The proof of the puffing is in the eating. >>> All the detailed explantions in the world will not change >>> test results which contradict them. >> >> You haven't presented any, because there aren't any. > > I have. > Time your PC running normally then defrag and time it again. > Present you results here. > > I am not doing it myself because I know it is a waste of time. Same here. Touche.
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor What a total crock. You haven't made any tests worth speaking of. You've made some observations of one drive. Well, I've made hundreds of similar observations and they contradict yours 99.99% of the time. In the case of defragmenting wearing out the drive, you didn't even do any tests. You just repeated some gossip. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://www.grystmill.com "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message news:64Atj.541$%W6.439@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net... > The proof of the puffing is in the eating. > All the detailed explantions in the world will not change > test results which contradict them. > > It's a case of once bitten twice shy, and I have been bitten > 2 or 3 times by the defragging myth. I don't intend getting bitten > anymore. > > > > "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:%23Q8LId4bIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> >> Debated upon whether I would get into this ridiculous argument, but: >> I'll just add this comment, which happens to coincide with most of the >> material on the subject. [Oh boy another web page] >> >> Fragmentation happens to cause significant impact upon hard drives, >> particularly in the NT/XP environment as files are not stored in the >> fashion >> one would [non-informed] generally think off. >> >> Ponder upon these overly simplified explanations: >> >> Many files are created or modified each time their application is run or >> accessed, and the system does not use the next available hard drive space >> to >> place those file segments/additions, but may place them in any unused >> space >> on the disk. This creates files which might extend from the base address >> [fat address or MFT] to anywhere else on the partition handled by jump >> instructions or other, which indicates the location of the next segment >> needed. These may once again be jumped to the next segment that may >> actually >> be at the opposite end of the disk/partition. Picture that happening >> several >> dozen times during the access of that one file. During this time, the >> hard >> drive controller, OS, and the algorithms used, may place other segments >> elsewhere on the disk, either temporarily or permanently. >> Think of a large file and picture the number of additional head movements >> needed to access JUST that one file and the extra time [additional >> nanoseconds] needed, then consider that there are likely a dozen or more >> additional files [dlls and other exes, etc.] needed for that one >> application >> which are also fragmented taking that same whipping head motion picking >> up a >> fragment here and there... >> Now let's picture that application has a data base of information, new >> information is added to that base but is stored wherever it was created. >> After running that same application and saving those new bits of data, >> that >> data base now exists in several thousand non-contiguous sectors of the >> hard >> drive. To view or access that data base ALL those segments must be found >> and >> brought together for the visual display, so these scattered bits are >> temporarily collected in the swap file and/or memory. >> All of this, of course, takes more head movement and time than if the >> files >> were contiguous and the application's other needed files were also closer >> together. >> >> A good indication is when intermittent Windows errors begin to show up >> for >> some reason or hard drive access times become excessive. If one goes to >> Safe >> Mode, shuts off Windows handling of virtual memory [swap] then deletes >> the >> win386.swp file after a restart in DOS, restarts to Safe mode and >> defrags, >> then turns ON Windows management when done; restarting to Windows Normal >> Mode and behavior will be noticeably improved. Part of the reason is that >> the SWAP file is no longer scattered all over the disk, and is contiguous >> [Fat systems]. NT's defragmentation is of course different as are the >> results.. >> >> Regarding new installations and defragging: >> >> A major misconception is that a newly installed OS is defragmented and >> arraigned closely on the disk. As the files are expanded areas of the >> disk, >> various areas are used to hold temporary copies of those files in any >> available area of the disk. Each file may first be copied, then expanded, >> then added to the proper directory; or may be placed in temporary storage >> pending installation order, then placed with some directory [listed as >> part >> of]. >> Each time the file is written, it takes up space on the drive, which may >> or >> may not be the next contiguous area, and may be some scattered areas upon >> the disk [other segments of files may already be using an area which >> might >> have been used]. >> The directories themselves [via the table] assign the "base" area then >> list >> the various temporary and permanent locations of the files listed under >> the >> various directories. Nothing at this stage requires these files are >> actually >> assigned an area of the disk in which all the directory's files are >> located >> within a specific segment of the disk, e.g., one file after the other or >> one >> sector after the other. Continuing to use a newly installed disk without >> ever defragmenting it, will eventually cause errors and at minimum, >> slower >> loading times; noticeable after extended usage. >> >> The first defragmentation done on a disk attempts to align the various >> individual segments of the files into contiguous areas/segments. If one >> has >> used something like "Align for faster Windows Loading" [MSDeFrag - not a >> recommended setting}, then the files are arraigned according to the >> monitored access, space required while running, and other factors held >> [created by taskmon] in C:\WINDOWS\APPLOG\ and using Logitec Mouse as >> example LOGI_MWX.LGC to supposedly place the file in an area conducive to >> its loading and any additional space it might require while >> loading/running >> [some exe files temporarily expand on disk and become fragmented in the >> process]. IF this is a fairly new system or taskmon has been disabled >> then >> the files will NOT be arraigned properly as there is not enough saved >> details. >> Successive deframentations generally take less time, and decrease file >> movement.. Watch a defragment tool: it checks the fats, then folders; >> then >> files, and only adjusts what has or is fragmented [unless one uses the >> Align >> for Faster Windows which WILL constantly move files around based upon the >> logic files {which is why its not recommended}] >> >> Now, should any wish to complain this provides no conclusive proof, then >> they should get off their dead behinds and actually look at a >> fragmemented >> disk and defragmented disk with a hex/disk editor. THEN come back and >> post, >> maybe someone will listen, though I doubt it ... >> Or if you like visuals displays, then run MS Defrag and look at the >> details,, and watch it move files around trying to place all the file >> segments together. >> >> The short answer is: defragmentation can decrease OS access times and >> reduce wear and tear on your hard disk. Load times ARE NOT a definitive >> display of problems with defragmentation, but with the routines used, and >> INCLUDING a fragmented swap file. >> >> -- >> >> MEB >> http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com >> _________ >> >> >> >> > >
Guest MEB Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message news:64Atj.541$%W6.439@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net... | The proof of the puffing is in the eating. | All the detailed explanations in the world will not change | test results which contradict them. | | It's a case of once bitten twice shy, and I have been bitten | 2 or 3 times by the defragging myth. I don't intend getting bitten anymore. | | | Really??? And where are those test results... got a link or three so we can verify ... Did you bother to read the post concerning ONE of the likely reasons for YOUR supposed problems with defrag [fragmented swap], or did you just blow them off? If the swap is in several areas of the drive, after defragging [without doing as I showed] you will notice a load delay as Windows adjusts to the new free segments on the disk, the secondary segments may be well back on the disk, hence longer loads. You will NOT achieve maximum startup speed, unless you follow the deletion of the swap > defrag > and re-start, because then the swap will be in one area of the disk [contiguous], rather than two or more.... In fact, to achieve maximum performance the command line should be "defrag.exe /P", which even moves some of those files which supposedly can not be moved. Here's the catch, guess what, I ACTUALLY do physically test these types of things, AND do use disk editors and other to verify ..... However, I think this group already realizes that you really aren't concerned with what actually does or does not occur, you're apparently primarily interested in spouting uninformed and unproven ideas. You're a conservative/Republican right? -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com _________ | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message | news:%23Q8LId4bIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... | > | > Debated upon whether I would get into this ridiculous argument, but: | > I'll just add this comment, which happens to coincide with most of the | > material on the subject. [Oh boy another web page] | > | > Fragmentation happens to cause significant impact upon hard drives, | > particularly in the NT/XP environment as files are not stored in the | > fashion | > one would [non-informed] generally think off. | > | > Ponder upon these overly simplified explanations: | > | > Many files are created or modified each time their application is run or | > accessed, and the system does not use the next available hard drive space | > to | > place those file segments/additions, but may place them in any unused | > space | > on the disk. This creates files which might extend from the base address | > [fat address or MFT] to anywhere else on the partition handled by jump | > instructions or other, which indicates the location of the next segment | > needed. These may once again be jumped to the next segment that may | > actually | > be at the opposite end of the disk/partition. Picture that happening | > several | > dozen times during the access of that one file. During this time, the hard | > drive controller, OS, and the algorithms used, may place other segments | > elsewhere on the disk, either temporarily or permanently. | > Think of a large file and picture the number of additional head movements | > needed to access JUST that one file and the extra time [additional | > nanoseconds] needed, then consider that there are likely a dozen or more | > additional files [dlls and other exes, etc.] needed for that one | > application | > which are also fragmented taking that same whipping head motion picking up | > a | > fragment here and there... | > Now let's picture that application has a data base of information, new | > information is added to that base but is stored wherever it was created. | > After running that same application and saving those new bits of data, | > that | > data base now exists in several thousand non-contiguous sectors of the | > hard | > drive. To view or access that data base ALL those segments must be found | > and | > brought together for the visual display, so these scattered bits are | > temporarily collected in the swap file and/or memory. | > All of this, of course, takes more head movement and time than if the | > files | > were contiguous and the application's other needed files were also closer | > together. | > | > A good indication is when intermittent Windows errors begin to show up for | > some reason or hard drive access times become excessive. If one goes to | > Safe | > Mode, shuts off Windows handling of virtual memory [swap] then deletes the | > win386.swp file after a restart in DOS, restarts to Safe mode and defrags, | > then turns ON Windows management when done; restarting to Windows Normal | > Mode and behavior will be noticeably improved. Part of the reason is that | > the SWAP file is no longer scattered all over the disk, and is contiguous | > [Fat systems]. NT's defragmentation is of course different as are the | > results.. | > | > Regarding new installations and defragging: | > | > A major misconception is that a newly installed OS is defragmented and | > arraigned closely on the disk. As the files are expanded areas of the | > disk, | > various areas are used to hold temporary copies of those files in any | > available area of the disk. Each file may first be copied, then expanded, | > then added to the proper directory; or may be placed in temporary storage | > pending installation order, then placed with some directory [listed as | > part | > of]. | > Each time the file is written, it takes up space on the drive, which may | > or | > may not be the next contiguous area, and may be some scattered areas upon | > the disk [other segments of files may already be using an area which might | > have been used]. | > The directories themselves [via the table] assign the "base" area then | > list | > the various temporary and permanent locations of the files listed under | > the | > various directories. Nothing at this stage requires these files are | > actually | > assigned an area of the disk in which all the directory's files are | > located | > within a specific segment of the disk, e.g., one file after the other or | > one | > sector after the other. Continuing to use a newly installed disk without | > ever defragmenting it, will eventually cause errors and at minimum, slower | > loading times; noticeable after extended usage. | > | > The first defragmentation done on a disk attempts to align the various | > individual segments of the files into contiguous areas/segments. If one | > has | > used something like "Align for faster Windows Loading" [MSDeFrag - not a | > recommended setting}, then the files are arraigned according to the | > monitored access, space required while running, and other factors held | > [created by taskmon] in C:\WINDOWS\APPLOG\ and using Logitec Mouse as | > example LOGI_MWX.LGC to supposedly place the file in an area conducive to | > its loading and any additional space it might require while | > loading/running | > [some exe files temporarily expand on disk and become fragmented in the | > process]. IF this is a fairly new system or taskmon has been disabled then | > the files will NOT be arraigned properly as there is not enough saved | > details. | > Successive deframentations generally take less time, and decrease file | > movement.. Watch a defragment tool: it checks the fats, then folders; then | > files, and only adjusts what has or is fragmented [unless one uses the | > Align | > for Faster Windows which WILL constantly move files around based upon the | > logic files {which is why its not recommended}] | > | > Now, should any wish to complain this provides no conclusive proof, then | > they should get off their dead behinds and actually look at a fragmemented | > disk and defragmented disk with a hex/disk editor. THEN come back and | > post, | > maybe someone will listen, though I doubt it ... | > Or if you like visuals displays, then run MS Defrag and look at the | > details,, and watch it move files around trying to place all the file | > segments together. | > | > The short answer is: defragmentation can decrease OS access times and | > reduce wear and tear on your hard disk. Load times ARE NOT a definitive | > display of problems with defragmentation, but with the routines used, and | > INCLUDING a fragmented swap file. | > | > -- | > | > MEB | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com | > _________ | > | > | > | > | |
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor MEB wrote: > "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message > news:64Atj.541$%W6.439@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net... >> The proof of the puffing is in the eating. >> All the detailed explanations in the world will not change >> test results which contradict them. >> >> It's a case of once bitten twice shy, and I have been bitten >> 2 or 3 times by the defragging myth. I don't intend getting bitten >> anymore. > > Really??? And where are those test results... got a link or three so we > can > verify ... He has them in his back pocket! (Didn't you check that)? LOL. > Did you bother to read the post concerning ONE of the likely reasons for > YOUR supposed problems with defrag [fragmented swap], or did you just blow > them off? Was that a rhetorical question? :-)
Guest Lord Turkey Cough Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:utpndFOcIHA.4936@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Lord Turkey Cough wrote: >> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:OxEwnvNcIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> Lord Turkey Cough wrote: >>>> The proof of the puffing is in the eating. >>>> All the detailed explantions in the world will not change >>>> test results which contradict them. >>> >>> You haven't presented any, because there aren't any. >> >> I have. >> Time your PC running normally then defrag and time it again. >> Present you results here. >> >> I am not doing it myself because I know it is a waste of time. > > Same here. Touche. Ah so you agree defragging is a waste of time. Anyone who thinks it is a good thing would be happry to do it. Still I am glad you accept defragging is a waste of time. > >
Guest Lord Turkey Cough Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message news:OjRqBNOcIHA.5988@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > What a total crock. You haven't made any tests worth speaking of. You've > made some observations of one drive. Well, I've made hundreds of similar > observations and they contradict yours 99.99% of the time. Have heard lots of stories about disk failures, I have never had one and I have soome very old drives. Of course I didn't abuse them by defragging. So not only do I save on buying defragging software I save on doing backups and backup software and trying to recover data from a failed disk. A big saving in time and mooney all round. > > In the case of defragmenting wearing out the drive, you didn't even do any > tests. You just repeated some gossip. > > -- > Gary S. Terhune > MS-MVP Shell/User > http://www.grystmill.com > > "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message > news:64Atj.541$%W6.439@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net... >> The proof of the puffing is in the eating. >> All the detailed explantions in the world will not change >> test results which contradict them. >> >> It's a case of once bitten twice shy, and I have been bitten >> 2 or 3 times by the defragging myth. I don't intend getting bitten >> anymore. >> >> >> >> "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:%23Q8LId4bIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> >>> Debated upon whether I would get into this ridiculous argument, but: >>> I'll just add this comment, which happens to coincide with most of the >>> material on the subject. [Oh boy another web page] >>> >>> Fragmentation happens to cause significant impact upon hard drives, >>> particularly in the NT/XP environment as files are not stored in the >>> fashion >>> one would [non-informed] generally think off. >>> >>> Ponder upon these overly simplified explanations: >>> >>> Many files are created or modified each time their application is run or >>> accessed, and the system does not use the next available hard drive >>> space to >>> place those file segments/additions, but may place them in any unused >>> space >>> on the disk. This creates files which might extend from the base address >>> [fat address or MFT] to anywhere else on the partition handled by jump >>> instructions or other, which indicates the location of the next segment >>> needed. These may once again be jumped to the next segment that may >>> actually >>> be at the opposite end of the disk/partition. Picture that happening >>> several >>> dozen times during the access of that one file. During this time, the >>> hard >>> drive controller, OS, and the algorithms used, may place other segments >>> elsewhere on the disk, either temporarily or permanently. >>> Think of a large file and picture the number of additional head >>> movements >>> needed to access JUST that one file and the extra time [additional >>> nanoseconds] needed, then consider that there are likely a dozen or more >>> additional files [dlls and other exes, etc.] needed for that one >>> application >>> which are also fragmented taking that same whipping head motion picking >>> up a >>> fragment here and there... >>> Now let's picture that application has a data base of information, new >>> information is added to that base but is stored wherever it was created. >>> After running that same application and saving those new bits of data, >>> that >>> data base now exists in several thousand non-contiguous sectors of the >>> hard >>> drive. To view or access that data base ALL those segments must be found >>> and >>> brought together for the visual display, so these scattered bits are >>> temporarily collected in the swap file and/or memory. >>> All of this, of course, takes more head movement and time than if the >>> files >>> were contiguous and the application's other needed files were also >>> closer >>> together. >>> >>> A good indication is when intermittent Windows errors begin to show up >>> for >>> some reason or hard drive access times become excessive. If one goes to >>> Safe >>> Mode, shuts off Windows handling of virtual memory [swap] then deletes >>> the >>> win386.swp file after a restart in DOS, restarts to Safe mode and >>> defrags, >>> then turns ON Windows management when done; restarting to Windows Normal >>> Mode and behavior will be noticeably improved. Part of the reason is >>> that >>> the SWAP file is no longer scattered all over the disk, and is >>> contiguous >>> [Fat systems]. NT's defragmentation is of course different as are the >>> results.. >>> >>> Regarding new installations and defragging: >>> >>> A major misconception is that a newly installed OS is defragmented and >>> arraigned closely on the disk. As the files are expanded areas of the >>> disk, >>> various areas are used to hold temporary copies of those files in any >>> available area of the disk. Each file may first be copied, then >>> expanded, >>> then added to the proper directory; or may be placed in temporary >>> storage >>> pending installation order, then placed with some directory [listed as >>> part >>> of]. >>> Each time the file is written, it takes up space on the drive, which may >>> or >>> may not be the next contiguous area, and may be some scattered areas >>> upon >>> the disk [other segments of files may already be using an area which >>> might >>> have been used]. >>> The directories themselves [via the table] assign the "base" area then >>> list >>> the various temporary and permanent locations of the files listed under >>> the >>> various directories. Nothing at this stage requires these files are >>> actually >>> assigned an area of the disk in which all the directory's files are >>> located >>> within a specific segment of the disk, e.g., one file after the other or >>> one >>> sector after the other. Continuing to use a newly installed disk without >>> ever defragmenting it, will eventually cause errors and at minimum, >>> slower >>> loading times; noticeable after extended usage. >>> >>> The first defragmentation done on a disk attempts to align the various >>> individual segments of the files into contiguous areas/segments. If one >>> has >>> used something like "Align for faster Windows Loading" [MSDeFrag - not a >>> recommended setting}, then the files are arraigned according to the >>> monitored access, space required while running, and other factors held >>> [created by taskmon] in C:\WINDOWS\APPLOG\ and using Logitec Mouse as >>> example LOGI_MWX.LGC to supposedly place the file in an area conducive >>> to >>> its loading and any additional space it might require while >>> loading/running >>> [some exe files temporarily expand on disk and become fragmented in the >>> process]. IF this is a fairly new system or taskmon has been disabled >>> then >>> the files will NOT be arraigned properly as there is not enough saved >>> details. >>> Successive deframentations generally take less time, and decrease file >>> movement.. Watch a defragment tool: it checks the fats, then folders; >>> then >>> files, and only adjusts what has or is fragmented [unless one uses the >>> Align >>> for Faster Windows which WILL constantly move files around based upon >>> the >>> logic files {which is why its not recommended}] >>> >>> Now, should any wish to complain this provides no conclusive proof, then >>> they should get off their dead behinds and actually look at a >>> fragmemented >>> disk and defragmented disk with a hex/disk editor. THEN come back and >>> post, >>> maybe someone will listen, though I doubt it ... >>> Or if you like visuals displays, then run MS Defrag and look at the >>> details,, and watch it move files around trying to place all the file >>> segments together. >>> >>> The short answer is: defragmentation can decrease OS access times and >>> reduce wear and tear on your hard disk. Load times ARE NOT a definitive >>> display of problems with defragmentation, but with the routines used, >>> and >>> INCLUDING a fragmented swap file. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> MEB >>> http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com >>> _________ >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor Lord Turkey Cough wrote: > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:utpndFOcIHA.4936@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Lord Turkey Cough wrote: >>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>> news:OxEwnvNcIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>> Lord Turkey Cough wrote: >>>>> The proof of the puffing is in the eating. >>>>> All the detailed explantions in the world will not change >>>>> test results which contradict them. >>>> >>>> You haven't presented any, because there aren't any. >>> >>> I have. >>> Time your PC running normally then defrag and time it again. >>> Present you results here. >>> >>> I am not doing it myself because I know it is a waste of time. >> >> Same here. Touche. > > Ah so you agree defragging is a waste of time. Whoooosh.........! No big surprise there though.
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message news:xDKtj.635$%W6.612@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net... > > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message > news:OjRqBNOcIHA.5988@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> What a total crock. You haven't made any tests worth speaking of. You've >> made some observations of one drive. Well, I've made hundreds of similar >> observations and they contradict yours 99.99% of the time. > > Have heard lots of stories about disk failures, I have never had one and I > have > soome very old drives. > Of course I didn't abuse them by defragging. I have SEEN, HANDLED, WORKED WITH all these drives, not just heard stories. I've retired plenty of drives, 99.99% due to manufacturers' defect, not wearing out. I have seen very old drives (low GB or smaller) with years of hard duty, seen the same diskswith hardly any use. Believe me, the heavy-use ones were the ones that ALSO got regulrly defragged. there was hardly ay correlation between use and wearing out and *NO* correlation with defragging. > So not only do I save on buying defragging software I save on doing > backups and > backup software and trying to recover data from a failed disk. > A big saving in time and mooney all round. For personal needs, no money need be spent. For large commercial purposes, definitely worth the money, the time, the...whatever it takes to maintain a well defragged disk. Again, more guessing, more baseless gossip. Only reason I answer is because it's 5am and I'm bored. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://www.grystmill.com
Guest DaffyD® Posted May 11, 2008 Posted May 11, 2008 Re: disk defragmentor Don't you mean disk defragmenter? -- { : [|]=( DaffyD® If I knew where I was I'd be there now. "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message news:rYZrj.9104$zg.8159@newsfe5-win.ntli.net... > > "Pepperoni" <Pepperoni@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:CE574FD5-CC58-4D0C-99B0-EECFFA1C7BC0@microsoft.com... > > My disk defragmetor keeps running in a loop and I have tried everything i > > can > > and nothing seems to be working. So, if you have any help to offer please > > tell me. > > Defragging is a waste of time. > >
Recommended Posts