Re: What's the best free disk defragger, not in Windows, for NTFS and FAT drives/partitions?
Arno
> Hi!
> Are there any good free disk disk defraggers that can be run outside of
> Windows like with a boot disk/disc or before Windows is loaded?
> Sometimes, files can't be defragged because of them being in used.
> Thank you in advance. :)
Separate second windows installation?
Arno
--
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: ar...@wagner.name
GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
DevilsPGD
<a...@zimage.comANT> was claimed to have wrote:
>Hi!
>
>Are there any good free disk disk defraggers that can be run outside of
>Windows like with a boot disk/disc or before Windows is loaded?
>Sometimes, files can't be defragged because of them being in used.
>
>Thank you in advance. :)
Contig.
Ant
>> Are there any good free disk disk defraggers that can be run outside of
>> Windows like with a boot disk/disc or before Windows is loaded?
>> Sometimes, files can't be defragged because of them being in used.
>>
>> Thank you in advance. :)
>
> Contig.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897428.aspx says only
for XP and higher. What about 2000 SP4? Can this defragger move
pagefile, MFT, etc. too?
--
"What is that?" "Some kind of insect?" "It's an ant." "Girl, you needed
an exterminator. She had ants on her face." "Well, these aren't your
garden-variety dumpster ants." "And they aren't ... to decomp." "Why are
they in her stomach?" "La hormiga culona--leaf cutter ants. It's a
Colombian dish." "Are you saying that people eat them?" "Fried." "Okay,
so we are looking for a club that serves fried ants." --CSI: Miami
(Wannabe episode; #218)
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: phi...@earthlink.netANT
( ) or ANT...@zimage.com
Ant is/was listening to a song on his home computer: 505 - Cernit Trandafir
Rod Speed
> Hi!
Lo!!!
> Are there any good free disk disk defraggers that can be run outside
> of Windows like with a boot disk/disc or before Windows is loaded?
There is no point in furiously defragging anymore.
> Sometimes, files can't be defragged because of them being in used.
> Thank you in advance. :)
Even if you are ordered to shove your head up a dead bear's arse, again ?
DevilsPGD
<a...@zimage.comANT> was claimed to have wrote:
>On 11/25/2009 7:50 PM PT, DevilsPGD typed:
>
>>> Are there any good free disk disk defraggers that can be run outside of
>>> Windows like with a boot disk/disc or before Windows is loaded?
>>> Sometimes, files can't be defragged because of them being in used.
>>>
>>> Thank you in advance. :)
>>
>> Contig.
>
>http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897428.aspx says only
>for XP and higher. What about 2000 SP4? Can this defragger move
>pagefile, MFT, etc. too?
Contig was supported on NT4 and Windows 2000 back in the day, but I
don't run any legacy OSes here so I can't speak to the current state of
affairs.
Worst case, you'll need to snag an older version of Contig.
Ed Light
not do what you need.
--
Ed Light
Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com
Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com
Send spam to the FTC at
sp...@uce.gov
Thanks, robots.
Don Lope de Aguirre
news:7n6eooF...@mid.individual.net...
> There is no point in furiously defragging anymore.
How about defragging once a month at least? If it is now useless then why
does both Vista and Win7 have tasks auto set to defrag once per week? It
seems that Microsoft disagrees with you.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> There is no point in furiously defragging anymore.
> How about defragging once a month at least?
There are very few systems that benefit at all from anything like as high a defrag rate as that.
> If it is now useless then why does both Vista and Win7 have tasks auto set to defrag once per week?
There are plenty who cant grasp that defragging most modern systems is pointless.
> It seems that Microsoft disagrees with you.
Yes, but then they have done that in the past and ended up doing
it my way too, most obviously with sleeping hard drives by default.
What matters is that there are very few situations where extra seeks
due to fragmentation are even detectable by the user in a proper
double blind trial. The vast bulk of linear access to large files is with
media files where the speed of access to the file is entirely dependant
on the media play speed and so extra seeks arent even visible at all.
The bulk of other access to large files is not linear, most obviously
with databases, so there arent even any extra seeks at all with those.
One situation where you do see extra seeks matter is copying very
large files, most obviously video files, but it makes a lot more sense
to avoid copying those than to furiously defrag to improve the speed
of copying those files.
Similarly with backups, it makes a lot more sense to do the
backups in the background or when the system is not being
used than to furiously defrag or even defrag monthly.
Ed Light
> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Rod is filtered out by alot of us. Very nice without him.
Meat Eaters are Sinners - Repent!
> There are plenty who cant grasp that defragging most modern systems is pointless.
Do you play computer games at all? I ask because I have seen people
claim their load times for games has decreased after a defrag. What say
you to that?
Rod Speed
No more than those who rip the sexual organs off plants and munch on them.
> Rod Speed wrote
>> There are plenty who cant grasp that defragging most modern systems is pointless.
> Do you play computer games at all?
Yes.
> I ask because I have seen people claim their load times for games has decreased after a defrag. What say you to that?
Bet they wouldnt be able to pick it in a double blind trial.
mscot...@aol.com
Defragging has it's place. I tend to do it when ever I tidy my
office, ie every few months and not every week.
Michael
Rod Speed
>> No more than those who rip the sexual organs off plants and munch on them.
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> There are plenty who cant grasp that defragging most modern systems is pointless.
>>> Do you play computer games at all?
>> Yes.
>>> I ask because I have seen people claim their load times for
>>> games has decreased after a defrag. What say you to that?
>> Bet they wouldnt be able to pick it in a double blind trial.
> Defragging has it's place.
Nope, not with most modern systems anymore.
> I tend to do it when ever I tidy my office, ie every few months
I'm not stupid enough to tidy the office either.
> and not every week.
I'm not stupid enough to do it every few months either.
Ed Light
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> There are plenty who cant grasp that defragging most modern systems is pointless.
Note: Rod is filtered out by most group regulars. No need to deal with
his nonsense.
Don Lope de Aguirre
> Bet they wouldnt be able to pick it in a double blind trial.
>
The one person on the web forum said they actually measured the difference
before and after defrag so kind of hard to argue with that claim unless they
were lying.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Bet they wouldnt be able to pick it in a double blind trial.
> The one person on the web forum said they actually measured the
> difference before and after defrag so kind of hard to argue with that
> claim unless they were lying.
Nope, the other fundamental question is whether the measured
difference is noticeable. If it isnt, its not worth worrying about.
David Brown
"Microsoft disagrees with you" is as good an argument as "Kermit the
Frog disagrees with you". There are so many bad choices for defaults in
Windows that this is absolutely no indication that defragging is useful
in general, or useful on a regular basis.
There are occasional situations where defragging on windows is a good
idea, and it can therefore be useful to have a defragger around. But it
only makes sense to use it when you really need it (for example, to
compact a file system before shrinking a disk partition).
Other operating systems (Macs, Linux, BSD, AIX, Solaris, various other
*nixes, etc.) either don't have any file system defragmentation tools at
all, or provide them only for occasional usage. Given that writing a
defragmenter is not that hard (especially when the file system provides
appropriate support), the obvious conclusion is that there is no good
technical reason for defragmenting in general use of these systems.
With Windows, the file systems suffer more from fragmentation due to
Windows stunningly bad allocation algorithms, but even there
fragmentation is not typically a problem.
Cronos
> "Microsoft disagrees with you" is as good an argument as "Kermit the
> Frog disagrees with you". There are so many bad choices for defaults in
> Windows that this is absolutely no indication that defragging is useful
> in general, or useful on a regular basis.
But Microsoft is not Kermit the frog and have many very smart people
working for them so I think it might be prudent to give them some
credibility instead of discounting them without understanding why they
have it set to auto defrag once per week. My guess is they do that
because to do it once a week means it is far quicker to keep the HDDs
defragged than doing it once every few months.
Cronos
>
> Nope, the other fundamental question is whether the measured
> difference is noticeable. If it isnt, its not worth worrying about.
>
>
Whether you notice or not is beside the point because the benefit is
there and is measurable regardless of if you notice it or not. I can't
tell if my game is running at 24fps or 30fps but knowing it is running
at 30fps is preferable.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Nope, the other fundamental question is whether the measured
>> difference is noticeable. If it isnt, its not worth worrying about.
> Whether you notice or not is beside the point
Like hell if is. If you cant see any difference, there isnt any point in defragging.
> because the benefit is there and is measurable regardless of if you notice it or not.
Mindlessly silly.
> I can't tell if my game is running at 24fps or 30fps but knowing it is running at 30fps is preferable.
Even sillier.
Jerry Peters
> Don Lope de Aguirre wrote:
>> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7n6eooF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> There is no point in furiously defragging anymore.
>>
>> How about defragging once a month at least? If it is now useless then
>> why does both Vista and Win7 have tasks auto set to defrag once per
>> week? It seems that Microsoft disagrees with you.
>
> "Microsoft disagrees with you" is as good an argument as "Kermit the
> Frog disagrees with you". There are so many bad choices for defaults in
> Windows that this is absolutely no indication that defragging is useful
> in general, or useful on a regular basis.
They seem to have taken over from IBM in this regard. IBM's defaults
were very often the least usable alternative. MS's seem to be the most
annoying alternative.
Jerry
Jerry Peters
Smart people? You certainly wouldn't know it looking at Windows.
Sorry, but appeals to authority will only get you so far. Evidence
would be a lot better.
Jerry
David Brown
I have agreed many times with Rod about defragging, but I think this may
be the first time I think his "silly" responses are fully appropriate!
If you don't notice the effect of a supposed improvement, then it
doesn't matter. Defragging may have a /measurable/ effect on some
operations, without being noticeable - in which case, it doesn't matter.
David Brown
Respect and credibility is something a person or company must work hard
to earn, and can quickly loose. MS has worked long and hard to ensure
they have as little credibility with technically knowledgeable people as
they possibly can.
I am /not/ saying that they are always wrong. But you must be very
na�ve to assume that what they say is right, without looking for
independent confirmation or proof.
It is generally true that defragging will be faster if the last time you
ran it was a week ago rather than two months ago. But the total time
wasted on weekly defrags over those two months is much more than the
time wasted for a single defrag once every two months. But whether you
do it once a week or every second month, it is still wasted time.
You wanted to know the reason newer Windows defaults to auto defragging
once a week? It's because lots of people, such as yourself, assume that
this is a "new feature" - another "reason" for "upgrading" to Vista /
Windows 7. Companies like DiskKeeper have done a great false
advertising job persuading people that they need scheduled defragmenters
- MS is simply cashing in on their marketing.
Rod Speed
Nope, the fools that decide the defaults cant grasp the basics, that unless the user
can detect the difference that defragging makes, there isnt any point in doing it.
mscot...@aol.com
> David Brown wrote:
> > Cronos wrote:
> >> David Brown wrote:
>
> >>> "Microsoft disagrees with you" is as good an argument as "Kermit the
> >>> Frog disagrees with you". There are so many bad choices for
> >>> defaults in Windows that this is absolutely no indication that
> >>> defragging is useful in general, or useful on a regular basis.
>
> >> But Microsoft is not Kermit the frog and have many very smart people
> >> working for them so I think it might be prudent to give them some
> >> credibility instead of discounting them without understanding why
> >> they have it set to auto defrag once per week. My guess is they do
> >> that because to do it once a week means it is far quicker to keep
> >> the HDDs defragged than doing it once every few months.
>
> > Respect and credibility is something a person or company must work
> > hard to earn, and can quickly loose. MS has worked long and hard to
> > ensure they have as little credibility with technically knowledgeable
> > people as they possibly can.
>
> > I am /not/ saying that they are always wrong. But you must be very
> > independent confirmation or proof.
>
> > It is generally true that defragging will be faster if the last time
> > you ran it was a week ago rather than two months ago. But the total
> > time wasted on weekly defrags over those two months is much more than
> > the time wasted for a single defrag once every two months. But
> > whether you do it once a week or every second month, it is still
> > wasted time.
> > You wanted to know the reason newer Windows defaults to auto
> > defragging once a week? It's because lots of people, such as
> > yourself, assume that this is a "new feature" - another "reason" for
> > "upgrading" to Vista / Windows 7. Companies like DiskKeeper have
> > done a great false advertising job persuading people that they need
> > scheduled defragmenters - MS is simply cashing in on their marketing.
>
> Nope, the fools that decide the defaults cant grasp the basics, that unless the user
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is no excuse not to backup a drive, but recovery of a corrupted or
damaged drive can often be easier if the files are not fragmented.
The files that often get very fragmented are ones that grow, such as e-
mail inboxes, and documents/spread sheets that have been worked on a
lot. These are often viewed as very importat files to recover.
Do an occasional defrag, and a very regular backup.
Michael
Bilky White
>
> unless the user
> can detect the difference that defragging makes, there isnt any point in
> doing it.
>
Wise words. And that is also why you should never bother to change the oil
in your car engine either.
David Brown
<snip>
>
> It is no excuse not to backup a drive, but recovery of a corrupted or
> damaged drive can often be easier if the files are not fragmented.
>
I think the word "often" here is a gross exaggeration. It is
conceivable that a professional recovery service will find it marginally
easier to recover non-fragmented files, but that's about it.
In the good old days of small drives, few files, and plain text formats
then your argument might hold water when piecing together a lost file
from individual disk sectors.
David Brown
Oil changes /do/ make user-detectable changes, albeit over a long time.
Defragging doesn't, no matter how long you leave it - except perhaps
in that the increased wear and tear on the disk due to unnecessary
defragging may lower its lifetime.
Bilky White
news:4b278631$0$3882$8404...@news.wineasy.se...
>
> Oil changes /do/ make user-detectable changes, albeit over a long time.
> Defragging doesn't, no matter how long you leave it - except perhaps in
> that the increased wear and tear on the disk due to unnecessary defragging
> may lower its lifetime.
Thanks David, I just enjoy yanking Rod's chain from time to time, keep him
on his toes :)
David Brown
Fair enough - I can understand that!
mscot...@aol.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
If the FATs are lost all fragmentation information is also lost.
If the MFT has been overwritten, or lost, then all fragmentation is
also lost.
On a large fragmented disk, a large file can have many fragments - a
few hundred for e-mail files. These are not easy to join together by
hand, or by program.
About 1/3rd of my data recovery jobs do require a raw recovery mode
where there is no fragment information available. The automatic
recovery rate on non defragged drives does decrease.
Data recovery is not a subsitute for good backups. Anything to make
it easier is worth an occasional defrag.
Michael
www.cnwrecovery.com
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> David Brown wrote
>>> Cronos wrote
>>>> David Brown wrote
>>>>> "Microsoft disagrees with you" is as good an argument as "Kermit
>>>>> the Frog disagrees with you". There are so many bad choices for
>>>>> defaults in Windows that this is absolutely no indication that
>>>>> defragging is useful in general, or useful on a regular basis.
>>>> But Microsoft is not Kermit the frog and have many very smart
>>>> people working for them so I think it might be prudent to give
>>>> them some credibility instead of discounting them without
>>>> understanding why they have it set to auto defrag once per week.
>>>> My guess is they do that because to do it once a week means it is
>>>> far quicker to keep the HDDs defragged than doing it once every
>>>> few months.
>>> Respect and credibility is something a person or company must work
>>> hard to earn, and can quickly loose. MS has worked long and hard to
>>> ensure they have as little credibility with technically
>>> knowledgeable people as they possibly can.
>>> I am /not/ saying that they are always wrong. But you must be very
>>> na�ve to assume that what they say is right, without looking for
>>> independent confirmation or proof.
>>> It is generally true that defragging will be faster if the last time
>>> you ran it was a week ago rather than two months ago. But the total
>>> time wasted on weekly defrags over those two months is much more
>>> than the time wasted for a single defrag once every two months. But
>>> whether you do it once a week or every second month, it is still
>>> wasted time.
>>> You wanted to know the reason newer Windows defaults to auto
>>> defragging once a week? It's because lots of people, such as
>>> yourself, assume that this is a "new feature" - another "reason" for
>>> "upgrading" to Vista / Windows 7. Companies like DiskKeeper have
>>> done a great false advertising job persuading people that they need
>>> scheduled defragmenters - MS is simply cashing in on their marketing.
>> Nope, the fools that decide the defaults cant grasp the basics, that
>> unless the user can detect the difference that defragging makes,
>> there isnt any point in doing it.
> It is no excuse not to backup a drive, but recovery of a corrupted
> or damaged drive can often be easier if the files are not fragmented.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense to backup instead of defrag, stupid.
> The files that often get very fragmented are ones that grow, such as
> e- mail inboxes, and documents/spread sheets that have been worked
> on a lot. These are often viewed as very importat files to recover.
> Do an occasional defrag, and a very regular backup.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense to backup instead of defrag, stupid.
Rod Speed
Makes a hell of a lot more sense to backup instead of defrag, stupid.
Jerry Peters
Why does it matter if you can't tell the difference?
Jerry
Jerry Peters
important how repeatable was the measurement?
One measurement before and one after is not statistically valid. You'd
need to make multiple measurements before and after and perform the
standard tests for statistical validity.
Jerry
David Brown
Judging by this post and your signature, you would be one of these
"professional recovery services" I was talking about. So yes, I can see
how your job might be a easier with defragmented disks in cases when
there is a trashed FAT/MFT/etc. and files that can be recognized and put
back together.
However, making your job slightly easier is not a good reason to defrag.
Disaster recovery would also be easier if people never compressed or
encoded files, or used binary formats for word processor files, or used
jpeg instead of bmp for images, or any one of a thousand other ways to
make hard-to-identify files and file fragments.
The huge majority of people will never need or use your services -
either they have good backups, or they never have a hard disk disaster,
or they don't know about such services, or can't (or won't) afford them.
Therefore, it is not a reason for people to defrag their disks.
BD
> Nope, not with most modern systems anymore.
I've found one scenario where defragging has proven critical:
I use a Windows Explorer 'replacement' called Directory Opus. One of
the features I like about it is its ability to show, on the fly, the
total space consumed by a directory and all its subdirectories. If
there are enough subdirectories involved, that will end up with my
machine grinding for a *long* time.
The fix for this, assuming I want this functionality, is to
'defragment' the directories, as well as the files - rewriting them to
the innermost tracks on the disk. This is something that most
defraggers just won't do. I have only found *one* product that will
relocate directories - Ultimate Defrag.
Once I allow that tool to reorg my volume in this fashion, the heads
don't need to move around the whole bloody disk surface to read the
directories, and as a result, this little bit of functionality in
Directory Opus is quick, and quiet.
So I would agree, that under most circumstances it's doubtful whether
regular defragging is essential. But it absolutely has its place,
depending on your usage of the filesystem, and shouldn't be discounted
altogether.
BD.
Rod Speed
>> Nope, not with most modern systems anymore.
> I've found one scenario where defragging has proven critical:
No you havent.
> I use a Windows Explorer 'replacement' called Directory Opus.
> One of the features I like about it is its ability to show, on the fly,
> the total space consumed by a directory and all its subdirectories.
> If there are enough subdirectories involved, that will end up with
> my machine grinding for a *long* time.
Just because that app is completely fucked, proves
nothing except that that app is completely fucked.
> The fix for this, assuming I want this functionality, is
> to 'defragment' the directories, as well as the files -
> rewriting them to the innermost tracks on the disk.
Directorys dont get fragged and fragmented files have no effect
whatever on repeated mindless rereading of directorys anyway.
> This is something that most defraggers just won't do. I have only
> found *one* product that will relocate directories - Ultimate Defrag.
> Once I allow that tool to reorg my volume in this fashion,
> the heads don't need to move around the whole bloody
> disk surface to read the directories, and as a result, this
> little bit of functionality in Directory Opus is quick, and quiet.
Obvious lie on the speed.
And caching the directorys would have a much bigger effect anyway.
> So I would agree, that under most circumstances
> it's doubtful whether regular defragging is essential.
Its not doubtful, its absolutely certain that it is not essential.
> But it absolutely has its place, depending on your usage of the filesystem,
Like hell it does.
> and shouldn't be discounted altogether.
Wrong, as always.
BD
> Wrong, as always.
Oi. What are you, twelve?
Rod Speed
>> Wrong, as always.
>
> Oi. What are you, twelve?
Old enough to be your father, and quite possibly even your grandfather, thanks.
Trent
wrote in Message id: <7orhooF...@mid.individual.net>:
That makes sense. Must be senility or Alzheimers, then.
Bilky White
news:6ae9ec1e-efa4-4a45...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Wrong, as always.
>
> Oi. What are you, twelve?
Roddy boy knows his stuff all right but he has a chip the size of NZ on his
shoulder. Consequently, if you disagree with him, he stamps his feet and
hurls salvo after salvo of abuse at you. Most people KF him but I
personally find his rants hugely entertaining.
Trent
Message id: <4b28c265$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>:
>Roddy boy knows his stuff all right
Sometimes. Maybe. He still doesn't know what happens if you connect a hard
drives #RESET signal to GND, then power it up. He'll throw a tantrum if
you call him on it.
BD
> Roddy boy knows his stuff all right but he has a chip the size of NZ on his
> shoulder. Consequently, if you disagree with him, he stamps his feet and
> hurls salvo after salvo of abuse at you. Most people KF him but I
> personally find his rants hugely entertaining.
Obviously he works alone.
Bob Willard
> Don Lope de Aguirre wrote:
>> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7n6eooF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> There is no point in furiously defragging anymore.
>>
>> How about defragging once a month at least? If it is now useless then
>> why does both Vista and Win7 have tasks auto set to defrag once per
>> week? It seems that Microsoft disagrees with you.
>
> Frog disagrees with you". There are so many bad choices for defaults in
> Windows that this is absolutely no indication that defragging is useful
> in general, or useful on a regular basis.
>
> idea, and it can therefore be useful to have a defragger around. But it
> only makes sense to use it when you really need it (for example, to
> compact a file system before shrinking a disk partition).
I can imagine nasty combinations of workloads and platforms that would
make defragging helpful, but they must be really rare now.
In a former life (~15 years ago), doing backup from HD=>tape, it was
obvious that defragging before starting a backup kept the tape mostly
streaming, while skipping the defrag step led to a lot of shoe-shining.
That system was a 486/33 with 4MB of RAM, running Win 3.1, with a
3600 RPM non-DMA FAT16 HD, and a QIC (definitely not quick) tape
connected over a shared parallel port; and, the (Colorado) backup
software was very primitive.
In that era, I used to say that any mag.tape had only two speeds:
"It streams or it sucks".
Over the past dozen or so years, I've never been able to notice any
performance gain due to defragging, which is why I always recommend
using a defragger which is free: either none, or whatever is bundled
with the OS.
--
Cheers, Bob
Rod Speed
You're the only one throwing tantrums, child.
Cronos
> Smart people? You certainly wouldn't know it looking at Windows.
>
> Sorry, but appeals to authority will only get you so far. Evidence
> would be a lot better.
>
> Jerry
Unfounded trolling will get you no where with me.
*plonk*
Cronos
> I am /not/ saying that they are always wrong. But you must be very
> na�ve to assume that what they say is right, without looking for
> independent confirmation or proof.
>
> It is generally true that defragging will be faster if the last time you
> ran it was a week ago rather than two months ago. But the total time
> wasted on weekly defrags over those two months is much more than the
> time wasted for a single defrag once every two months. But whether you
> do it once a week or every second month, it is still wasted time.
On Vista and Win7 it does it in the background so there is no lost time!
Looks like you are the gullible one that needs to do some research and
not me. Stop parroting what you read in this forum from long time trolls
and you might learn something.
Cronos
> Nope, the fools that decide the defaults cant grasp the basics, that unless the user
> can detect the difference that defragging makes, there isnt any point in doing it.
>
>
Can you visually detect when one jet is doing 400 knots and the other is
doing 450 knots? Your theory is like Swiss cheese.
Cronos
> Wise words. And that is also why you should never bother to change the
> oil in your car engine either.
Or change your underwear.
Cronos
> Defragging doesn't, no matter how long you leave it - except perhaps in
> that the increased wear and tear on the disk due to unnecessary
> defragging may lower its lifetime.
Bullshit meter.
(/)
Cronos
> They seem to have taken over from IBM in this regard. IBM's defaults
> were very often the least usable alternative. MS's seem to be the most
> annoying alternative.
>
> Jerry
Did you really need to respond to the same post twice? Let me guess. You
are a Linux zealot.
Cronos
> I can imagine nasty combinations of workloads and platforms that would
> make defragging helpful, but they must be really rare now.
>
> In a former life (~15 years ago), doing backup from HD=>tape, it was
> obvious that defragging before starting a backup kept the tape mostly
> streaming, while skipping the defrag step led to a lot of shoe-shining.
> That system was a 486/33 with 4MB of RAM, running Win 3.1, with a
> 3600 RPM non-DMA FAT16 HD, and a QIC (definitely not quick) tape
> connected over a shared parallel port; and, the (Colorado) backup
> software was very primitive.
>
> In that era, I used to say that any mag.tape had only two speeds:
> "It streams or it sucks".
>
> Over the past dozen or so years, I've never been able to notice any
> performance gain due to defragging, which is why I always recommend
> using a defragger which is free: either none, or whatever is bundled
> with the OS.
Just because your eyes don't visually detect the difference does not
mean there is no difference. Can you visually tell the dif between a
2.4ghz cpu and a 2.6ghz cpu? No!
Cronos
> If you don't notice the effect of a supposed improvement, then it
> doesn't matter. Defragging may have a /measurable/ effect on some
> operations, without being noticeable - in which case, it doesn't matter.
>
>
Car A travels at 45mph, car B travels at 47mph,everything else being
equal, which do you think will reach it's destination first? Doh!
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Nope, the fools that decide the defaults cant grasp the basics, that unless the user can detect the difference that
>> defragging makes, there isnt any point in doing it.
> Can you visually detect when one jet is doing 400 knots and the other is doing 450 knots?
Irrelevant to whether defragging is worth doing with the vast bulk of modern systems.
> Your theory is like Swiss cheese.
What you have between the ears in spades.
Rod Speed
So there isnt any point in upgrading from one to the other, stupid.
Rod Speed
> David Brown wrote
Doesnt happen with defragging, because the absolute vast bulk of linear
access to very large files is with media files where it takes EXACTLY
the same time to play the file whether its fragmented or not.
BD
And the fact that you're older means what, exactly? That it's okay for
you to be a contrary ass? Yeah, good luck with that. Your call, but
just don't expect any deference from me. ;-)
Rod Speed
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>> Oi. What are you, twelve?
>> Old enough to be your father, and quite possibly even your grandfather, thanks.
> And the fact that you're older means what, exactly?
Why did you bring up age, fuckwit ?
<reams of you desperately attempting to bullshit your way out of your predicament
that fools absolutely no one at all, as always, flushed where it belongs>
Jerry Peters
Smart people make poor decisions all the time, look at Bill Clinton,
or Tiger Woods, or even more apropos, Windows Vista.
Your very smart people at MS *really* blew it with Vista.
Jerry Peters
And for most people's workloads would there be enough of a difference
to actually make a difference? If I can't tell there's a difference it
doesn't matter for any practical purposes.
David Brown
>> Nope, not with most modern systems anymore.
>
> I've found one scenario where defragging has proven critical:
>
> I use a Windows Explorer 'replacement' called Directory Opus. One of
> the features I like about it is its ability to show, on the fly, the
> total space consumed by a directory and all its subdirectories. If
> there are enough subdirectories involved, that will end up with my
> machine grinding for a *long* time.
>
> The fix for this, assuming I want this functionality, is to
> 'defragment' the directories, as well as the files - rewriting them to
> the innermost tracks on the disk. This is something that most
> defraggers just won't do. I have only found *one* product that will
> relocate directories - Ultimate Defrag.
>
Fragmentation on directories is almost non-existent - the directory
itself seldom takes up enough space to be fragmented (the size is
dependent on the number of files or directories contained, not the sizes
of these files or directories). Fragmentation of files is totally
irrelevant to calculating the file space, since the files themselves are
not used.
What /may/ make some difference in this case is fragmentation of the MFT
on an NTFS drive. And collecting all the directories at the beginning
of the drive will definitely speed up such directory scans. But that's
not defragmentation as such, and defragmenting the files themselves is
useless here.
David Brown
First off, everything is /never/ equal. Secondly, even if everything
else /were/ equal, who would notice or care? Unless you are in a car
race, a few percent longer or shorter on the journey is irrelevant.
I am not claiming that defragmenting has no effect - just that in the
great majority of cases, it has no /relevant/ or /noticeable/ effect.
David Brown
> David Brown wrote:
>
>> I am /not/ saying that they are always wrong. But you must be very
>> na�ve to assume that what they say is right, without looking for
>> independent confirmation or proof.
>>
>> It is generally true that defragging will be faster if the last time
>> you ran it was a week ago rather than two months ago. But the total
>> time wasted on weekly defrags over those two months is much more than
>> the time wasted for a single defrag once every two months. But
>> whether you do it once a week or every second month, it is still
>> wasted time.
>
> On Vista and Win7 it does it in the background so there is no lost time!
So it is a good idea to slow down the system with background
defragmenting while you are using it, so that it will run faster when
you are using it due to being defragmented? And if you ever save
another file or write to the disk, you can start the merry-go-round again?
> Looks like you are the gullible one that needs to do some research and
> not me. Stop parroting what you read in this forum from long time trolls
> and you might learn something.
I suppose you are implying that I am parroting from Rod's posts? I /do/
happen to agree with him in this matter - he is not wrong /all/ the time.
Bilky White
>
> Why did you bring up age?
>
>
Because you come across like a big kid that sulks and shouts when it doesn't
get its own way?
Cronos
> Smart people make poor decisions all the time, look at Bill Clinton,
> or Tiger Woods, or even more apropos, Windows Vista.
> Your very smart people at MS *really* blew it with Vista.
People who feel the need to brag that they are smarter than others are
dumb fucks with an inferiority complex.
Cronos
> Doesnt happen with defragging, because the absolute vast bulk of linear
> access to very large files is with media files where it takes EXACTLY
> the same time to play the file whether its fragmented or not.
>
>
Not to open or move the file though. That's were defrag comes into play
and not FPS.
Cronos
> First off, everything is /never/ equal. Secondly, even if everything
> else /were/ equal, who would notice or care? Unless you are in a car
> race, a few percent longer or shorter on the journey is irrelevant.
>
> I am not claiming that defragmenting has no effect - just that in the
> great majority of cases, it has no /relevant/ or /noticeable/ effect.
Then I take it you never upgrade your PC because it is always fast
enough for you.
Cronos
> I suppose you are implying that I am parroting from Rod's posts? I /do/
> happen to agree with him in this matter - he is not wrong /all/ the time.
Anyone who spends all day posting in this forum has a few loose screws
so if that is who you choose as your hero then I guess you have a few
loose screws upstairs also.
Cronos
> So there isnt any point in upgrading from one to the other, stupid.
>
>
But there is a measurable difference so one is faster than the other,
dumbass.
Cronos
> And for most people's workloads would there be enough of a difference
> to actually make a difference? If I can't tell there's a difference it
> doesn't matter for any practical purposes.
People can't tell if their underwear needs changing one day from the
other either but they change them anyway because they know that there
are shit stains on them even if they can't see them.
Memnoch
Sounds to me like you need to stop posting here and learn to wipe your arse
properly! ;-)
Rod Speed
So what are fools that lie about their killfiles ?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> Doesnt happen with defragging, because the absolute vast bulk of
>> linear access to very large files is with media files where it takes
>> EXACTLY the same time to play the file whether its fragmented or not.
> Not to open or move the file though.
Yes, to open a file too. And a move which just changes the directory entry too.
> That's were defrag comes into play
Like hell it is.
> and not FPS.
Rod Speed
> David Brown wrote
More fool you. That does produce a noticeable effect if you dont do it very often.
Rod Speed
> David Brown wrote
>> I suppose you are implying that I am parroting from Rod's posts? I
>> /do/ happen to agree with him in this matter - he is not wrong /all/
>> the time.
> Anyone who spends all day posting in this forum
No one does that.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> So there isnt any point in upgrading from one to the other, stupid.
> But there is a measurable difference so one is faster than the other,
And only a fool upgrades from one to the other, fuckwit.
David Brown
In theory, yes - in practice, no.
This is really a difficult concept for you to grasp, isn't it? It is
/correct/ that it is faster to read an unfragmented file than a
fragmented one. But the difference is so small that it is /irrelevant/
in almost all situations.
When copying a large file, it is correct that an unfragmented file will
copy faster. But that difference will be drowned in other effects, such
as where on the disk the file is located, or what the machine is also
doing at the time. Wiggling the mouse will probably cause more effect.
I did a fragmentation analysis on one of my disks - I have a file that
is in regular use (it's a virtual box virtual harddrive) that has
850,000 fragments. If fragmentation was relevant, that would really
crawl - in reality, the virtual box works perfectly well.
The report also reveals how astoundingly bad Windows is at generating
fragmented files. I have one file on the disk that is 8 MB in size, and
1863 fragments. This file has never been opened (certainly not for
writing) since it was originally copied onto the disk. This makes it
clear to me how pointless defragging really is - any conceivable gains
will be quickly lost by Windows' hopeless allocator.
David Brown
It is in fact almost correct that I never upgrade a PC - though I have
occasionally added more memory or an extra disk. It is usually far more
effective to buy a new machine when the old one is no longer sufficient
for modern software.
But when I buy a new machine - typically after five years or so - I buy
one that is /significantly/ faster and more powerful than the old one.
That makes a real difference.
Defragging in the hope of speeding up a machine is like the people who
pay most of the price of a good PC to upgrade their 3.4 GHz processor to
3.6 GHz.
David Brown
Did you read that, Rod? Apparently, you are my hero!
Cronos
> And only a fool upgrades from one to the other, fuckwit.
That is besides the point I was making but I guess the point was way
over your head.
Cronos
> Sounds to me like you need to stop posting here and learn to wipe your arse
> properly! ;-)
Soon, I usually like to go a few days longer than the average before I
change me ginch though, after all, I can't see the shit stains anyway.
Cronos
> No one does that.
>
>
Oh, yes, I forgot that you like to troll the home build hardware group
on the rare occasion too. The fact remains though that you spend way
more time than is healthy in this specific group.
Cronos
> So what are fools that lie about their killfiles ?
>
>
Someone not foolish enough to actually care about using killfiles.
Cronos
> Defragging in the hope of speeding up a machine is like the people who
> pay most of the price of a good PC to upgrade their 3.4 GHz processor to
> 3.6 GHz.
No, I occasionally defrag just because it is good housekeeping and I
like playing program manager. I like to wind up overly serious self
important twats on Usenet too. Rod Speed is always good for a chuckle or
two.
Cronos
> That makes sense. Must be senility or Alzheimers, then.
Dementia.
Cronos
>Most people KF him
> but I personally find his rants hugely entertaining.
Same here, and I only posted in this thread to wind old Roddy up and
don't care how often or not other people defrag.
Bilky White
news:hgff3m$l97$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> David Brown wrote:
>
>Rod Speed is always good for a chuckle or two.
No argument there!
Rod Speed
Yep.
> Apparently, you are my hero!
Yeah, that silly little child never ever did have a fucking clue.
Rod Speed
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> No one does that.
>>
>>
>
> Oh, yes, I forgot that you like to troll the home build hardware group
> on the rare occasion too.
So stupid that it cant even work out what newsgroups I read.
> The fact remains though that you spend way
> more time than is healthy in this specific group.
Silly little fuckwit lying children get no say what so ever on that or anything else at all, ever.
David Brown
You play the troll well, then - some people really do think that regular
defragging makes a real difference, so it is difficult to tell. I
understand that some people like intentionally provoking Rod (I can't
deny having been a little impolite to him myself on occasion), but
remember there are people out there (the OP, for example) who might read
some of these posts and then think that defragging actually matters, and
hope to learn something here.
Cronos
>you never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>
I think the needle is stuck because you have been using that exact same
line for at least 15 years now. Time to find a new bag of twicks.
Cronos
> You play the troll well, then - some people really do think that regular
> defragging makes a real difference, so it is difficult to tell. I
> understand that some people like intentionally provoking Rod (I can't
> deny having been a little impolite to him myself on occasion), but
> remember there are people out there (the OP, for example) who might read
> some of these posts and then think that defragging actually matters, and
> hope to learn something here.
Well, I it doesn't hurt to defrag on occasion but I do disable the task
in Vista and Win7 from doing it once per week. I've used a few of the
commercial 3rd party defrag tools in the past and I have to admit I have
never noticed any benefit from them even thought they claim their appp
will turn my PC into a speed demon.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> you never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
> I think the needle is stuck because you have been using that exact same line for at least 15 years now.
Silly little children dont qualify for anything new, fuckwit child.
Cronos
> Silly little children dont qualify for anything new, fuckwit child.
>
>
Rod Speed is a bot and not a real person.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed is a bot and not a real person.
You cant even manage your own lines, or anything else at all, either.
David Brown
I have occasionally run defragging myself, but not for a long time. I
found that staring at the defragmenter very hypnotic!
Cronos
> I have occasionally run defragging myself, but not for a long time. I
> found that staring at the defragmenter very hypnotic!
I know. When a friend of mine got his first PC back in 1993 the first
thing he showed me was the defragmenter. We sat there and watched the
little blocks moving for at least 2 hours. :)