A better way to defrag your hard disk

"bamboozle" <bamb@oozle.com> wrote in message
news:47d70f2c$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...
> 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

I see you have nothing to back up the FUD you spread and are resorting to
insults just like alias and none stop. I take it you are also a troll like
them.

"NoStop" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fr754802837@news4.newsguy.com...
> dennis@home wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "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.
>
> Unlike Francis, I don't associate with Bill.

No and you never give sensible answers either.

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:63opgkF28fue1U3@mid.individual.net...
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:04:51 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
>
>> "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.
>
> It's not a "copy of a much older OS kernel". Linus was inspired to start
> on it by minix. But it is a complete, original work.

It is a copy of unix at the time.. it has the same API's. Some say it has
stolen the code ( I had both sets of code so I know the answer to that BTW).

> It has also changed
> much since it's inception.

Linux hasn't changed in advance of unix until the likes of SGI and IBM
started rewriting bits of it to sort out the kernel and filesystems. It has
always followed unix.. because it copies unix.

Don't bother trying to confuse everyone by throwing in gnome and cr@p like
that as they have nothing to do with Linus or Linux.

"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:#n0V3n8gIHA.5296@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>
> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:#l$Zdk2gIHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> I know, however you don't need to defrag it, it doesn't stop working like
> FAT did.

FAT doesn't stop working if not defragged. Where did you get that idea?

Tom Lake

I think alexB and Denis is the same idiot...

They have the same tendency to say completely wrong things, with a pompous
manner as if they are the authority on the subject in hand.. lol

Nothing could be further than the truth...


"Tom Lake" <toml_12953@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23J2TSvChIHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
> news:#n0V3n8gIHA.5296@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>
>>
>> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:#l$Zdk2gIHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>> I know, however you don't need to defrag it, it doesn't stop working like
>> FAT did.
>
> FAT doesn't stop working if not defragged. Where did you get that idea?
>
> Tom Lake

so apple also has stolen code for macosx? because it is based on BSD that is
also a form of unix?

LOL you are full of crap...

An idiot of frank & alexB caliber...

welcome to a small but select group of MORONS!



"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:eOnJCYChIHA.4396@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>
> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:63opgkF28fue1U3@mid.individual.net...
>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:04:51 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>> "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.
>>
>> It's not a "copy of a much older OS kernel". Linus was inspired to start
>> on it by minix. But it is a complete, original work.
>
> It is a copy of unix at the time.. it has the same API's. Some say it has
> stolen the code ( I had both sets of code so I know the answer to that
> BTW).
>
>> It has also changed
>> much since it's inception.
>
> Linux hasn't changed in advance of unix until the likes of SGI and IBM
> started rewriting bits of it to sort out the kernel and filesystems. It
> has always followed unix.. because it copies unix.
>
> Don't bother trying to confuse everyone by throwing in gnome and cr@p like
> that as they have nothing to do with Linus or Linux.
>
>
>

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:46:47 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:63opgkF28fue1U3@mid.individual.net...
>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:04:51 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>> "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.
>>
>> It's not a "copy of a much older OS kernel". Linus was inspired to
>> start on it by minix. But it is a complete, original work.
>
> It is a copy of unix at the time.. it has the same API's. Some say it
> has stolen the code ( I had both sets of code so I know the answer to
> that BTW).
>
>> It has also changed
>> much since it's inception.
>
> Linux hasn't changed in advance of unix until the likes of SGI and IBM
> started rewriting bits of it to sort out the kernel and filesystems. It
> has always followed unix.. because it copies unix.
>
> Don't bother trying to confuse everyone by throwing in gnome and cr@p
> like that as they have nothing to do with Linus or Linux.

And similarly, vista is a copy of dos which is a copy of CP/M.

ray wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:46:47 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
>
>> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
>> news:63opgkF28fue1U3@mid.individual.net...
>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:04:51 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>> "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.
>>>
>>> It's not a "copy of a much older OS kernel". Linus was inspired to
>>> start on it by minix. But it is a complete, original work.
>>
>> It is a copy of unix at the time.. it has the same API's. Some say it
>> has stolen the code ( I had both sets of code so I know the answer to
>> that BTW).
>>
>>> It has also changed
>>> much since it's inception.
>>
>> Linux hasn't changed in advance of unix until the likes of SGI and IBM
>> started rewriting bits of it to sort out the kernel and filesystems. It
>> has always followed unix.. because it copies unix.
>>
>> Don't bother trying to confuse everyone by throwing in gnome and cr@p
>> like that as they have nothing to do with Linus or Linux.
>
> And similarly, vista is a copy of dos which is a copy of CP/M.

dennis has little understanding of the evolution of operating systems. Goes
with his "understanding" of everything else it seems - little!

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

"bamboozle" <bamb@oozle.com> wrote in message
news:47d7cc41@newsgate.x-privat.org...
> so apple also has stolen code for macosx? because it is based on BSD that
> is also a form of unix?
>
> LOL you are full of crap...

Its you who spouts crap.
What has BSD got to do with this argument other than the fact you can't
think of anything sensible to say.

>
> An idiot of frank & alexB caliber...
>
> welcome to a small but select group of MORONS!

Its you that is a moron and you have proven it here.

For those that care BSD unix was developed independently of SVR4 which is
the kernel interfaces Linus copied.
BSD became opensource later so anyone can use it including Apple so they
didn't steal anything.
The reason Apple choose BSD is because its better written than Linux.
However BSD has less hardware support than linux so it may not work on your
machine.
If it does then I recommend using it rather than linux.

"NoStop" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fr90pe015pk@news4.newsguy.com...
> ray wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:46:47 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:63opgkF28fue1U3@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:04:51 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "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.
>>>>
>>>> It's not a "copy of a much older OS kernel". Linus was inspired to
>>>> start on it by minix. But it is a complete, original work.
>>>
>>> It is a copy of unix at the time.. it has the same API's. Some say it
>>> has stolen the code ( I had both sets of code so I know the answer to
>>> that BTW).
>>>
>>>> It has also changed
>>>> much since it's inception.
>>>
>>> Linux hasn't changed in advance of unix until the likes of SGI and IBM
>>> started rewriting bits of it to sort out the kernel and filesystems. It
>>> has always followed unix.. because it copies unix.
>>>
>>> Don't bother trying to confuse everyone by throwing in gnome and cr@p
>>> like that as they have nothing to do with Linus or Linux.
>>
>> And similarly, vista is a copy of dos which is a copy of CP/M.
>
> dennis has little understanding of the evolution of operating systems.
> Goes
> with his "understanding" of everything else it seems - little!

none stop knows nothing useful so its safe to assume he is wrong as usual.