Defraggers?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Rustiferion, Feb 25, 2006.

  1. Rustiferion

    Rustiferion Guest

    Hi there

    Could someone explain what the differences are between the different defrag
    utilities? I have both Norton (Speed Disk) and of course Windows
    Defragmenter. Norton takes up to 8 hours to defrag a 40G disk, and often
    hangs for several hours, sometimes permanently. Windows takes about half an
    hour, and has never hung. OTOH, I wonder if Windows does "as good a job" as
    Norton might eventually do. Is one, in fact, 'better' than the other? Is
    the disk really half empty, or just half full? :)

    Defragmentation is supposed to be a straightforward process - copying
    fragments to a single contiguous location ("concatenation"), then moving the
    restored file back to a 'permanent' location closer to the physical center
    of the disk. So why do various utilities have such different methods - and
    problems? Can anyone recommend a defragger that is both fast AND thorough?

    ~Rusty
    Rustiferion, Feb 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rustiferion

    Trax Guest

    "Rustiferion" <> wrote:

    |>Hi there
    |>
    |>Could someone explain what the differences are between the different defrag
    |>utilities? I have both Norton (Speed Disk) and of course Windows
    |>Defragmenter. Norton takes up to 8 hours to defrag a 40G disk, and often
    |>hangs for several hours, sometimes permanently. Windows takes about half an
    |>hour, and has never hung. OTOH, I wonder if Windows does "as good a job" as
    |>Norton might eventually do. Is one, in fact, 'better' than the other? Is
    |>the disk really half empty, or just half full? :)
    |>
    |>Defragmentation is supposed to be a straightforward process - copying
    |>fragments to a single contiguous location ("concatenation"), then moving the
    |>restored file back to a 'permanent' location closer to the physical center
    |>of the disk. So why do various utilities have such different methods - and
    |>problems? Can anyone recommend a defragger that is both fast AND thorough?

    Give O&O defrag a try http://www.majorgeeks.com/download809.html It's
    the best I've found. Other defrag programs took waaaay to long or
    didn't do a good enough job.

    Also in a dos/command window at the root of your drive type in:
    ATTRIB -H -R *.* /S
    This removes the read only bit from all the files, (a Defrag program
    won't move a read only file) - The H removes the hidden bit cause you
    can't remove the read only bit if it's hidden...
    It's what I do, system drives as well as storage partitions.

    --
    Like news? Check this out...
    http://www.jeroenwijering.com/whatsup/
    Trax, Feb 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rustiferion

    Jerry G. Guest

    Defragging can be very critical to the operating system. It is best to
    use the one that is with the operating system, rather than an after
    market one.

    --

    Jerry G.


    "Rustiferion" <> wrote in message
    news:Ml3Mf.1112$...
    Hi there

    Could someone explain what the differences are between the different
    defrag
    utilities? I have both Norton (Speed Disk) and of course Windows
    Defragmenter. Norton takes up to 8 hours to defrag a 40G disk, and
    often
    hangs for several hours, sometimes permanently. Windows takes about
    half an
    hour, and has never hung. OTOH, I wonder if Windows does "as good a
    job" as
    Norton might eventually do. Is one, in fact, 'better' than the other?
    Is
    the disk really half empty, or just half full? :)

    Defragmentation is supposed to be a straightforward process - copying
    fragments to a single contiguous location ("concatenation"), then moving
    the
    restored file back to a 'permanent' location closer to the physical
    center
    of the disk. So why do various utilities have such different methods -
    and
    problems? Can anyone recommend a defragger that is both fast AND
    thorough?

    ~Rusty
    Jerry G., Feb 25, 2006
    #3
  4. Rustiferion

    Senti Guest

    Trax wrote:

    > Also in a dos/command window at the root of your drive type in:
    > ATTRIB -H -R *.* /S
    > This removes the read only bit from all the files, (a Defrag program
    > won't move a read only file) - The H removes the hidden bit cause you
    > can't remove the read only bit if it's hidden...
    > It's what I do, system drives as well as storage partitions.


    Won't that also remove the read-only attribute from essential system
    files, possibly exposing them to potential corruption/infection?

    ~SF
    Senti, Feb 25, 2006
    #4
  5. Rustiferion

    Rich Guest

    Rustiferion wrote:
    > Hi there
    >
    > Could someone explain what the differences are between the different defrag
    > utilities? I have both Norton (Speed Disk) and of course Windows
    > Defragmenter. Norton takes up to 8 hours to defrag a 40G disk, and often
    > hangs for several hours, sometimes permanently. Windows takes about half an
    > hour, and has never hung. OTOH, I wonder if Windows does "as good a job" as
    > Norton might eventually do. Is one, in fact, 'better' than the other? Is
    > the disk really half empty, or just half full? :)
    >
    > Defragmentation is supposed to be a straightforward process - copying
    > fragments to a single contiguous location ("concatenation"), then moving the
    > restored file back to a 'permanent' location closer to the physical center
    > of the disk. So why do various utilities have such different methods - and
    > problems? Can anyone recommend a defragger that is both fast AND thorough?
    >
    > ~Rusty
    >
    >


    Executive Software Diskeeper. It's the only one worth using. Very fast,
    very thorough.

    http://www.executive.com/defrag.asp
    Rich, Feb 25, 2006
    #5
  6. Trax wrote:

    > (a Defrag program won't move a read only file)


    I use both Diskeeper and once in a while for kicks the built-in Windows
    2000 defragger. Both will defrag a read-only file.

    <additional>
    Diskeeper is an *excellent* defrag program, much better than the OS
    included application. I started with Version 1. Since I still use Win2K,
    I've not upgraded beyond version 6. It's not free.
    http://www.diskeeper.com/diskeeper/home/diskeeper.asp

    --
    -bts
    -Warning: I brake for lawn deer
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Feb 25, 2006
    #6
  7. Rustiferion

    Trax Guest

    Senti <> wrote:

    |>Trax wrote:
    |>
    |>> Also in a dos/command window at the root of your drive type in:
    |>> ATTRIB -H -R *.* /S
    |>> This removes the read only bit from all the files, (a Defrag program
    |>> won't move a read only file) - The H removes the hidden bit cause you
    |>> can't remove the read only bit if it's hidden...
    |>> It's what I do, system drives as well as storage partitions.

    |>Won't that also remove the read-only attribute from essential system
    |>files, possibly exposing them to potential corruption/infection?

    No, having a system bit set will also prevent the read only bit from
    changing but that's one bit (system) I don't want to change.

    When you run ATTRIB -H -R *.* /S you will see a screen full of errors
    like:
    "Not resetting system file - G:\Recycled\desktop.ini"

    Those would be the files with system attributes not changing it's read
    only bit.



    --
    Like news? Check this out...
    http://www.jeroenwijering.com/whatsup/
    Trax, Feb 26, 2006
    #7
  8. Rustiferion

    Shep© Guest

    Shep©, Feb 26, 2006
    #8
  9. Rustiferion

    Mitch Guest

    In article <Ml3Mf.1112$>, Rustiferion
    <> wrote:

    > OTOH, I wonder if Windows does "as good a job" as
    > Norton might eventually do. Is one, in fact, 'better' than the other?

    The tools included in Windows seem typically to be as minimal as
    Microsoft could get away with.
    In no case would I assume that something included with Windows is as
    good as you need to use.

    > Defragmentation is supposed to be a straightforward process - copying
    > fragments to a single contiguous location


    Wrong -- you are assuming there is only one way and only one reason to
    order them.
    What sequence should files be in? Should the OS be on the fast track?
    What about apps? What about files? How does the defrag know one from
    another? How about load order? How about the directory tree, and
    sorting hierarchically?
    Even more, defragmenting doesn't have to refer to the whole drive --
    you can defragment files, so that all parts of a single file are
    contiguous, even though they may be anywhere on the drive.
    Not only is defrag not so obvious and simple, many tools can use
    different algorithms for reordering, in case you know what you are
    doing.
    Mitch, Feb 26, 2006
    #9
  10. Rustiferion

    Senti Guest

    Trax wrote:
    > Senti <> wrote:
    >
    > |>Trax wrote:
    > |>
    > |>> Also in a dos/command window at the root of your drive type in:
    > |>> ATTRIB -H -R *.* /S
    > |>> This removes the read only bit from all the files, (a Defrag program
    > |>> won't move a read only file) - The H removes the hidden bit cause you
    > |>> can't remove the read only bit if it's hidden...
    > |>> It's what I do, system drives as well as storage partitions.
    >
    > |>Won't that also remove the read-only attribute from essential system
    > |>files, possibly exposing them to potential corruption/infection?
    >
    > No, having a system bit set will also prevent the read only bit from
    > changing but that's one bit (system) I don't want to change.
    >
    > When you run ATTRIB -H -R *.* /S you will see a screen full of errors
    > like:
    > "Not resetting system file - G:\Recycled\desktop.ini"
    >
    > Those would be the files with system attributes not changing it's read
    > only bit.
    >


    Oh yeah... forgot all about the System bit. *bangs head on desk*

    Thanks for the reminder.

    ~SF
    Senti, Feb 26, 2006
    #10
  11. Rustiferion

    mistletoad Guest

    Mitch <> wrote in
    news:250220061525404387%:

    > In article <Ml3Mf.1112$>,
    > Rustiferion <> wrote:
    >
    >> OTOH, I wonder if Windows does "as good a job" as
    >> Norton might eventually do. Is one, in fact, 'better'
    >> than the other?

    > The tools included in Windows seem typically to be as
    > minimal as Microsoft could get away with.
    > In no case would I assume that something included with
    > Windows is as good as you need to use.
    >
    >> Defragmentation is supposed to be a straightforward
    >> process - copying fragments to a single contiguous
    >> location

    >
    > Wrong -- you are assuming there is only one way and only
    > one reason to order them.
    > What sequence should files be in? Should the OS be on the
    > fast track? What about apps? What about files? How does the
    > defrag know one from another? How about load order? How
    > about the directory tree, and sorting hierarchically?
    > Even more, defragmenting doesn't have to refer to the whole
    > drive -- you can defragment files, so that all parts of a
    > single file are contiguous, even though they may be
    > anywhere on the drive. Not only is defrag not so obvious
    > and simple, many tools can use different algorithms for
    > reordering, in case you know what you are doing.


    Wow, only 10 replies to hear something actually accurate and
    useful in a help group! Not bad, actually.

    Here's my approach:

    Ever since computers became a household appliance, most new
    users have never heard of partitioning. (Or are told to not
    worry about it by "helpful" salemen who may or may not get a cut
    on service charges.)

    I have an 8.4 GB drive partitioned into 7, and a 40GB drive on
    another machine partitioned into 17 virtual drives.

    You can google for "hard disk partition" to find out more.

    If you had your OS and program files on the C partition, and
    everything else logically divided by whatever method you like on
    the others, it would never take you more than a few minutes to
    defrag any partition, regardless of the defragger you use.

    Go ahead and laugh, but the 2 machines in question run 95B and
    98 SE Lite respectively. I have upgraded the Windows defrags
    that "came with" to the Me (or 2000, I can't remember) version
    which has the Intel logo at the startup. It's supposed to be
    better, although I didn't see much difference. Probably because
    I have my drive partitioned so the job is always quite easy.

    The dozen or so commercial defraggers are just there for
    companies to take money from people who lack certain basic
    knowledge. And, if your system is really new, I actually read
    somewhere that defragmenting MAY be a thing of the past, since
    the new systems (processors, bus speeds, drive read/write
    speeds etc) are so fast that in tests of the newest stuff (and
    this was at least a year ago!!!) they could find virtually no
    difference in performance before and after defragging.

    Make of that what you will.

    The bottom line, basics matter. Partitions are a VERY good
    thing.

    Most people who have an un-partitioned HD of 10GB or more ( I
    shudder to think of some poor sap with a single un-partitioned
    200GB drive) spend HOURS defragging, often having the system
    hang and having to reboot in the end anyway.

    AFA removing the R,H,S attributes, since the only post-98SE
    Windows element I am familiar with is the above-mentioned Intel
    defragger, I don't even know if you can do that in XP (not that
    I know what you are running).

    I have never done that (although easily could). If you watch the
    defragger graphic display, you will see that while it does not
    touch those files, it still fills everything around them and you
    end up with the same thing. Not that I believe M$ is always (or
    ever) right about anything, but I can see a certain point to not
    messing with the most crucial system files. A HD failure can
    occur at any time, after all.

    Good luck.
    mistletoad, Feb 26, 2006
    #11
  12. Rustiferion

    Mitch Guest

    In article <Xns97768F2C8CB7Amistlinvalid@216.196.97.135>, mistletoad
    <> wrote:

    > I have an 8.4 GB drive partitioned into 7, and a 40GB drive on
    > another machine partitioned into 17 virtual drives.

    That's pretty extreme, in any case.
    I can think of reasons for as many as four partitions -- I have to
    wonder about any more than that. (Unless someone's in software
    development.)

    > If you had your OS and program files on the C partition, and
    > everything else logically divided by whatever method you like on
    > the others, it would never take you more than a few minutes to
    > defrag any partition, regardless of the defragger you use.

    It sounds like you are using partitions to divide files on your system,
    instead of folders. Don't let fast defragging lead you into sectioning
    storage uselessly. Many partitions also means many small boxes instead
    of using a few larger boxes.

    > Most people who have an un-partitioned HD of 10GB or more ( I
    > shudder to think of some poor sap with a single un-partitioned
    > 200GB drive) spend HOURS defragging,

    My external (firewire) drive is partitioned into only two -- 10 GB for
    a boot volume (always like to have a boot volume with repair and
    diagnostic tools, etc) and 240 GB for storage. I don't need to defrag
    it because it is mostly used for storage, not dynamic writes like an OS
    or scratch disk space.

    > often having the system
    > hang and having to reboot in the end anyway.

    But some OSes don't do that, so it isn't a universal problem.
    Mitch, Feb 26, 2006
    #12
  13. Rustiferion

    mistletoad Guest

    Mitch <> wrote in
    news:260220061100206481%:

    > In article <Xns97768F2C8CB7Amistlinvalid@216.196.97.135>,
    > mistletoad <> wrote:
    >
    >> I have an 8.4 GB drive partitioned into 7, and a 40GB
    >> drive on another machine partitioned into 17 virtual
    >> drives.

    > That's pretty extreme, in any case.


    I have been called that before.

    > I can think of reasons for as many as four partitions -- I
    > have to wonder about any more than that. (Unless someone's
    > in software development.)


    I'm not. Not smart enough with programming languages. In fact,
    the furthest I ever got was to get DOS to draw a circle in a
    short evening course I took in 1987. Although I could sure think
    of some improvements for about ½ of software I use, not to
    mention that I find 90% of what I've tried useless or totally
    redundant garbage.

    >> If you had your OS and program files on the C partition,
    >> and everything else logically divided by whatever method
    >> you like on the others, it would never take you more than
    >> a few minutes to defrag any partition, regardless of the
    >> defragger you use.


    > It sounds like you are using partitions to divide files on
    > your system, instead of folders. Don't let fast defragging
    > lead you into sectioning storage uselessly. Many partitions
    > also means many small boxes instead of using a few larger
    > boxes.


    "Uselessly?"
    I happen to think that's a GREAT way to divide your data. (I
    also use the term "directories".) And boxes being a good
    analogy, would you rather move around 3 200-lb boxes or thirty
    20-lb boxes (with your own HANDS, of course, no trucks or carts
    allowed)?

    I REALLY don't see the appeal of scrolling through 50 (or 300)
    main (ie in this case - please excuse possibly incorrect
    terminology - not root and not sub of main) directories on one
    partition, let alone in a "file manager" like Windows Explorer.
    Even with real file managers it sucks.

    (Nor do I see the appeal of 10, 15 or more levels of
    subdirectories, another common effect of the single partition.)

    Personally, I'd much rather hit 3 keys (in less than a second)
    and to switch to another partition with 10 or less main
    directories. (Using a real file manager, of course, it's
    impossible in WE.)

    >> Most people who have an un-partitioned HD of 10GB or more
    >> ( I shudder to think of some poor sap with a single
    >> un-partitioned 200GB drive) spend HOURS defragging,


    > My external (firewire) drive is partitioned into only two
    > -- 10 GB for a boot volume (always like to have a boot
    > volume with repair and diagnostic tools, etc) and 240 GB
    > for storage. I don't need to defrag it because it is mostly
    > used for storage, not dynamic writes like an OS or scratch
    > disk space.


    Unless you NEVER delete ANYTHING or change ANY files EVER, you
    should be defragging that drive once in a while. (Have fun,
    BTW.)

    And if you actually don't EVER delete ANYTHING or change ANY
    files, then you will either be buying a lot of external drives
    or burning a LOT of discs.

    >> often having the system
    >> hang and having to reboot in the end anyway.


    > But some OSes don't do that, so it isn't a universal
    > problem.


    Of course not. But I know several people (including the OP) who
    appear to suffer from this problem. And that was the point of my
    answer, a suggestion on how to get rid of that problem forever.
    mistletoad, Feb 27, 2006
    #13
  14. Rustiferion

    Mitch Guest

    In article <Xns9776BA7D9C11Cmistlinvalid@216.196.97.135>, mistletoad
    <> wrote:

    > > It sounds like you are using partitions to divide files on
    > > your system, instead of folders. Don't let fast defragging
    > > lead you into sectioning storage uselessly. Many partitions
    > > also means many small boxes instead of using a few larger
    > > boxes.

    >
    > "Uselessly?"

    I was just saying that good ideas can always be taken too far, not that
    it was always useless.

    > I REALLY don't see the appeal of scrolling through 50 (or 300)
    > main (ie in this case - please excuse possibly incorrect
    > terminology - not root and not sub of main) directories on one
    > partition, let alone in a "file manager" like Windows Explorer.
    > Even with real file managers it sucks.

    I don't know what you would think of it, but the Mac OS columns view is
    very clean and easy to browse through.

    > Personally, I'd much rather hit 3 keys (in less than a second)
    > and to switch to another partition with 10 or less main
    > directories.

    Well, you can do that in several other OSes; or use one click, or
    automate the sorting in many ways, or set partitions or folders to be
    used by specific apps, or set some to be hidden or locked, or available
    only to specific users. Partitions aren't the only way to do things.

    > > My external (firewire) drive is partitioned into only two
    > > -- 10 GB for a boot volume (always like to have a boot
    > > volume with repair and diagnostic tools, etc) and 240 GB
    > > for storage. I don't need to defrag it because it is mostly
    > > used for storage, not dynamic writes like an OS or scratch
    > > disk space.

    >
    > Unless you NEVER delete ANYTHING or change ANY files EVER, you
    > should be defragging that drive once in a while. (Have fun,
    > BTW.)


    Not really. The main reason for defragmenting a drive is to speed up
    accessing the files on it. If it is used for backups, or speed is not
    important, then defragmenting just doesn't mean anything.
    Mitch, Feb 27, 2006
    #14
  15. Rustiferion

    Leythos Guest

    In article <t75Mf.71575$H%4.66970@pd7tw2no>,
    says...
    > Trax wrote:
    >
    > > Also in a dos/command window at the root of your drive type in:
    > > ATTRIB -H -R *.* /S
    > > This removes the read only bit from all the files, (a Defrag program
    > > won't move a read only file) - The H removes the hidden bit cause you
    > > can't remove the read only bit if it's hidden...
    > > It's what I do, system drives as well as storage partitions.

    >
    > Won't that also remove the read-only attribute from essential system
    > files, possibly exposing them to potential corruption/infection?


    Defrag programs have two methods - Defragment and Pack. Both WILL MOVE
    READ ONLY FILES.

    --


    remove 999 in order to email me
    Leythos, Feb 27, 2006
    #15
  16. Rustiferion

    Trax Guest

    Leythos <> wrote:

    |>In article <t75Mf.71575$H%4.66970@pd7tw2no>,
    |> says...
    |>> Trax wrote:
    |>>
    |>> > Also in a dos/command window at the root of your drive type in:
    |>> > ATTRIB -H -R *.* /S
    |>> > This removes the read only bit from all the files, (a Defrag program
    |>> > won't move a read only file) - The H removes the hidden bit cause you
    |>> > can't remove the read only bit if it's hidden...
    |>> > It's what I do, system drives as well as storage partitions.
    |>>
    |>> Won't that also remove the read-only attribute from essential system
    |>> files, possibly exposing them to potential corruption/infection?

    |>Defrag programs have two methods - Defragment and Pack. Both WILL MOVE
    |>READ ONLY FILES.

    O&O has four modes, the 4th moving pretty much everything. I'm an old
    user and from the start would see defragers not touch system or read
    only files (they've progressed since); I've used ATTRIB -H -R *.* /S
    forever - keeps me from having to RTFM.


    --
    http://folk.ntnu.no/shane/stasj/pics/humor/div/cs_geek.jpg
    Trax, Feb 27, 2006
    #16
  17. Rustiferion

    Leythos Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Leythos <> wrote:
    >
    > |>In article <t75Mf.71575$H%4.66970@pd7tw2no>,
    > |> says...
    > |>> Trax wrote:
    > |>>
    > |>> > Also in a dos/command window at the root of your drive type in:
    > |>> > ATTRIB -H -R *.* /S
    > |>> > This removes the read only bit from all the files, (a Defrag program
    > |>> > won't move a read only file) - The H removes the hidden bit cause you
    > |>> > can't remove the read only bit if it's hidden...
    > |>> > It's what I do, system drives as well as storage partitions.
    > |>>
    > |>> Won't that also remove the read-only attribute from essential system
    > |>> files, possibly exposing them to potential corruption/infection?
    >
    > |>Defrag programs have two methods - Defragment and Pack. Both WILL MOVE
    > |>READ ONLY FILES.
    >
    > O&O has four modes, the 4th moving pretty much everything. I'm an old
    > user and from the start would see defragers not touch system or read
    > only files (they've progressed since); I've used ATTRIB -H -R *.* /S
    > forever - keeps me from having to RTFM.


    The only thing that defraggers can do is open files that are in use -
    such as PST or MDF or other files that are types of databases, when in
    use. So, a MS SQL server database set can't be defragged unless you stop
    the SQL Service. You can still boot in safe mode and defrag them, or do
    a boot-time defrag/pack, but that's not always an option.

    --


    remove 999 in order to email me
    Leythos, Feb 27, 2006
    #17
  18. On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:58:27 -0600, mistletoad wrote:

    > I actually read somewhere that defragmenting MAY be a thing of
    > the past, since the new systems (processors, bus speeds, drive read/write
    > speeds etc) are so fast that in tests of the newest stuff (and this was at
    > least a year ago!!!) they could find virtually no difference in
    > performance before and after defragging.


    You're missing the point by a mile here.

    With many OS, particularly earlier Windows, defragging is essential to
    avoid disc block allocation errors. If the drive is severely fragmented,
    the OS "gets lost" allocating space and ends up jumbling the drive, to the
    point where data may be lost or the system crash.

    The speed of the processor has nothing to do with this.

    And you are also, perhaps, thinking of OS such as Linux which use a
    different drive seek/store algorithm which reduces fragmentation to the
    point where they don't need to be defragmented.

    BIG differences.

    --
    Gary G. Taylor * Pomona|anomoP, CA * http://www.donavan.org
    "The two most abundant things in the Universe are hydrogen and stupidity."
    --Robert A. Heinlein, Harlan Ellison, Frank Zappa, and many others
    "Living free is the best revenge." --GT
    Gary G. Taylor, Feb 27, 2006
    #18
  19. Rustiferion

    Leythos Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > With many OS, particularly earlier Windows, defragging is essential to
    > avoid disc block allocation errors. If the drive is severely fragmented,
    > the OS "gets lost" allocating space and ends up jumbling the drive, to the
    > point where data may be lost or the system crash.


    I've never seen what you describe in using Windows since it's first
    version, and I've seen a LOT of badly fragmented drives in my time.

    --


    remove 999 in order to email me
    Leythos, Feb 27, 2006
    #19
  20. Rustiferion

    mistletoad Guest

    "Gary G. Taylor" <> wrote in
    news:p:

    > On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:58:27 -0600, mistletoad wrote:
    >
    >> I actually read somewhere that defragmenting MAY be a
    >> thing of the past, since the new systems (processors, bus
    >> speeds, drive read/write speeds etc) are so fast that in
    >> tests of the newest stuff (and this was at least a year
    >> ago!!!) they could find virtually no difference in
    >> performance before and after defragging.

    >
    > You're missing the point by a mile here.


    You mean the PC Magazine writer did. I'm just mentioning what I
    read, not that I personally agree with it. Nor do I think that
    defragging should be abandoned even if there IS no speed
    difference before and after. Most magazine articles are a waste
    of time written so that sponsors will buy ad space. It was a
    minor point in the post anyway.

    You may have noticed about the only thing magazine reviewers and
    writers appear to have been concentrating on in the last 10
    years - except for (occasionally) comparing prices or (in some
    products, like scanners or monitors) sometimes image quality, is
    SPEED. Like CDRW, scanning, processor, memory, bus. Some matter
    somewhat, some matter only if you like to spend you time playing
    with hi-tech measurement devices, some don't matter at all. Put
    an average user (let alone an average moron) behind a 286 or a
    dual P4 and he will come up with exactly the same thing taking
    exactly the same amount of time (or more often than not,
    nothing). And anyone who burns a CD-R at anything over 12x is
    stupid - IMO (I hope I am allowed to have one).

    > With many OS, particularly earlier Windows, defragging is
    > essential to avoid disc block allocation errors. If the
    > drive is severely fragmented, the OS "gets lost" allocating
    > space and ends up jumbling the drive, to the point where
    > data may be lost or the system crash.


    This may be redundant, but you apparently missed the several
    times that words like "latest", "fastest", "newest" etc.
    appeared in that paragraph.

    > The speed of the processor has nothing to do with this.


    > And you are also, perhaps, thinking of OS such as Linux
    > which use a different drive seek/store algorithm which
    > reduces fragmentation to the point where they don't need to
    > be defragmented.
    >
    > BIG differences.


    I know nothing about Linux and my Mac experience is limited to
    about 30 hrs. (I got one when I heard they "don't crash". Well,
    they do, and ONE mouse button and that weird AppleControl
    (command?) key are just stupid (IMHO). As are the 2 Win95 keys,
    not to mention the 10-20 multimedia/control/shortcut keys many
    keyboards have these days.

    (The main difference between Macs and PC's as I see it is that
    Macs have always been bought by people who are either better at
    dealing with creativity than with technology, or who have more
    money, or both.)

    Back to the topic, I've seen drives that could not be
    defragmented (usually an unpartitioned 40GB + with XP running on
    500Mhz or slower machines - yes, the world is full of people
    with NO clue) but they are not unusable, just extremely slow and
    unfragmentable.

    I don't know enough about computers to comment on the rest of
    your post. I only reply to posts asking for help where I have at
    least some understanding of the subject and/or (with some
    hesitation) where no one else appears to want to bother.
    mistletoad, Feb 28, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.

Share This Page