A better way to defrag your hard disk

dennis@home wrote:

>
>
> "bamboozle" <bamb@oozle.com> wrote in message
> news:47d65707$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...
>> hello, you are believing in a myth postulated by microsoft when they made
>> NT, but was fast to backpedal it very fast because the whole world was
>> laughing...
>>
>> NTFS needs defrag... you can do some serious reasearch although the web
>> is contaminated by misinformation still floating around from back then...
>
> You are just spreading FUD.
> Name one occasion where NTFS has had to be defragged.

Duh! So MickeyMouse has introduced silent background defragging in Vista of
NTFS volumes for no reason at all, other than to create wear and tear on
your hard drive? Either Microsoft is just doing it to fuk the end-user or
it believes that defragging is NECESSARY with the NTFS filesystem. Which is
it oh smart one?

Cheers.

--
What does Bill Gates use?
http://tinyurl.com/2zxhdl

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Be Afraid ... Be Very Afraid ... of Francis' RELATIVES!

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...tm/compost.htm

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:58:54 +0200, bamboozle wrote:

> modern as in linux that is 20 years old? lol

I'm afraid you are wrong there. Linus Torvalds did not even start work on
Linux until 1991. Unless my math skills have completely deteriorated,
1991 + 20 = 2011 - and it's only 2008 now!

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:01:42 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

> "bamboozle" <bamb@oozle.com> wrote in message
> news:47d5dc5f@newsgate.x-privat.org...
>> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
>> news:63l3dqF26tf91U5@mid.individual.net...
>
>>> Or one could move to a modern filesystem which does not need
>>> defragmenting and obviate the entire process.
>>
>>
>> modern as in linux that is 20 years old? lol
>>
>>
>>
> You have to remember that the linux guys still use FAT32 (note 1) when
> they use windows and that did need defragging. NTFS does not need to be
> defragged but like all disk based systems, including the latest linux
> ones, benefit from optimisation which is what the vista defragger does
> in the background.

Why is that? I use, and most other folks I know use, ntfs-3g to read and
write NTFS systems with no difficulty - which, according to many recent
discussions still needs to be regularly defragmented - or else why would
everyone still be doing it?

>
> Note 1: most linux users use FAT32 for windows support because Linux
> can't reliably handle NTFS and they get problems using NTFS. This suits
> them anyway as it perpetuates their *erroneous* belief that you have to
> defrag windows but not linux.

That my friend, is B.S. Linux has been properly reading and writing NTFS
for some time now - despite the fact that MS has never released proper
docomentation. Indeed a marvel of reverse engineering.

>
> Anyway to the OP and anyone that wants to defrag Vista, just let Vista
> do its work in the background and forget about all the fancy displays,
> etc. it works fine. The add on utils will show fragmentation but that is
> because vista doesn't move stuff if it is not going to see an
> improvement in performance so it still leaves some files in "fragments"
> just like the linux file systems do.

I thought you just told us it didn't need that!!

i meant *nix

sorry


"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:63no6fF284nq0U4@mid.individual.net...
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:58:54 +0200, bamboozle wrote:
>
>> modern as in linux that is 20 years old? lol
>
> I'm afraid you are wrong there. Linus Torvalds did not even start work on
> Linux until 1991. Unless my math skills have completely deteriorated,
> 1991 + 20 = 2011 - and it's only 2008 now!
>

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:22:06 +0200, bamboozle wrote:

> i meant *nix

That's fine except that modern Linux systems do not use the file systems
that were around 20 years ago.


>
> sorry
>
>
> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:63no6fF284nq0U4@mid.individual.net...
>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:58:54 +0200, bamboozle wrote:
>>
>>> modern as in linux that is 20 years old? lol
>>
>> I'm afraid you are wrong there. Linus Torvalds did not even start work
>> on Linux until 1991. Unless my math skills have completely
>> deteriorated, 1991 + 20 = 2011 - and it's only 2008 now!
>>

"R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:#l$Zdk2gIHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> You CAN run an NTFS system for years without defrag. However,
> it will be fragmented. Just yesterday I worked on a system that was
> 4+ years old and had never been defragmented. The fragmentation
> level was severe. You cannot get around the physics of a hard drive.

I know, however you don't need to defrag it, it doesn't stop working like
FAT did.
All the linux file systems would have been fragmented after 4 years of real
use too.

stop spreading crap...

do some serious research.. WARNING what you are saying is STUPID and
compleatly WRONG!!!!

I will not take the time to search for the information for you.. no.. its
out there.. use google you moron


"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:%23n0V3n8gIHA.5296@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>
> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:#l$Zdk2gIHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> You CAN run an NTFS system for years without defrag. However,
>> it will be fragmented. Just yesterday I worked on a system that was
>> 4+ years old and had never been defragmented. The fragmentation
>> level was severe. You cannot get around the physics of a hard drive.
>
> I know, however you don't need to defrag it, it doesn't stop working like
> FAT did.
> All the linux file systems would have been fragmented after 4 years of
> real use too.
>
>
>

"occam" <occam@razor.dot.com> wrote in message
news:OQTR2E3gIHA.4140@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> dennis@home wrote:
>
>> Its like *all* disk based file systems.. you can make it faster by
>> optimisation.. commonly referred to as defrag by those that don't
>> understand.
>
> I know this is a vista nG. But if you go into your (NTFS) XP
>
> Start>> All Programs >> Accessories >> System Tools >> Disk Defragmenter
>
> and click the 'Analyse' button, you will get many indices of disk
> fragmentation, as provided by the built-in MS defragmenter.
>
> I guess they do not understand the difference between 'fragmentation' and
> 'optimisation'. Silly them!

Well obviously not as fragmentation was a byproduct of the Berkeley
filesystem where the odd bits left over at the end of a file, the fragments,
could be put into a shared block. ;-)

"NoStop" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fr66vf018i0@news5.newsguy.com...
> dennis@home wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "bamboozle" <bamb@oozle.com> wrote in message
>> news:47d65707$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...
>>> hello, you are believing in a myth postulated by microsoft when they
>>> made
>>> NT, but was fast to backpedal it very fast because the whole world was
>>> laughing...
>>>
>>> NTFS needs defrag... you can do some serious reasearch although the web
>>> is contaminated by misinformation still floating around from back
>>> then...
>>
>> You are just spreading FUD.
>> Name one occasion where NTFS has had to be defragged.
>
> Duh! So MickeyMouse has introduced silent background defragging in Vista
> of
> NTFS volumes for no reason at all, other than to create wear and tear on
> your hard drive? Either Microsoft is just doing it to fuk the end-user or
> it believes that defragging is NECESSARY with the NTFS filesystem. Which
> is
> it oh smart one?

Ask Bill, while you are at it ask him why it isn't enabled by default if its
essential as you don't appear to be able to think for yourself.

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:63no6fF284nq0U4@mid.individual.net...
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:58:54 +0200, bamboozle wrote:
>
>> modern as in linux that is 20 years old? lol
>
> I'm afraid you are wrong there. Linus Torvalds did not even start work on
> Linux until 1991. Unless my math skills have completely deteriorated,
> 1991 + 20 = 2011 - and it's only 2008 now!
>

Don't forget that Linux is a copy of a much older OS kernel than that. Its
not as though Linus invented something new.