Prev: Update - Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Community
Next: Spread sheet numbering
From: Tim Meddick on 10 May 2010 15:19
Sorry Twayne,
I don't know what "the right way" (as you call it)
is, in regard to someone who wants to defragment their paging file (for
whatever reason) as far as I know there's only one way available to do
that.

And as for the statement "still adding a very considerable amount of
code" - the file responsible for executing at boot is all of 25kb (is that
large?) and never takes more than a few seconds to complete just after
chkdsk.exe has finished....

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)




"Twayne" <nobody(a)spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:eIsGAUG8KHA.1316(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> In news:uWzINd77KHA.5808(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
> Tim Meddick <timmeddick(a)o2.co.uk> typed:
>> Twayne,
>> Again, you keep talking about 3rd-part
>> applications but you yourself have stated in correcting me,
>> that Sysinternals ARE Microsoft!!
>> Even if this particular piece of software was originally
>> created before the 2006 acquisition [of Sysinternals] it is
>> still being offered on the website so is still classed as
>> supported software, ultimately by Microsoft.
>> So, you can hardly keep calling it 3rd-party software!
>
> Let's see; it was written by SysInternals. Microsoft purchased the code
> so now the rights belong to MS. MS has not rewritten it, nor have they
> done anything to it other than quash competition, so it's still
> SysInternals in origin. It remains 3rd party software in that sense.
> lol, still, you did do a good nit-pick there! So did I. But the fact
> remains, it is still adding a very considerable amount of code for the
> workings of the OS from a maintenance and repair view. Added code, more
> parts in other words, is more opportunity for failure in a system
> overall. Compare it to the tiny amount of code a batch file can often do
> and accomplish identical results. The simplest solution is always the
> best solution and w/r to an OS, letting the OS do what it can do natively
> is a lot more efficient than using external code to accomplish it.
>
> It sort of amuses me that people will even sometimes even pay money for
> the "privilege" of getting more code to add to their systems when it's
> simply a couple of one-time setting changes in the OS.
> I'm going to concede this arguement to you though, because, from a user
> viewpoint, the "easiest| thing for them to do is add a program than have
> to figure out how to do it the "right" way. That's born out by the fact
> that folks will often seek out an automated way to do what they want and
> they don't consider having to tweak a setting in their OS as worth their
> time. Instead they look for things like tweak-ui et al. That's not
> something that will change very soon.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Twayne`
>
>>
>> ==
>>
>> Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Twayne" <nobody(a)spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:uA8hYBx7KHA.5848(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> < clipped >
>>> You completely miss my point, though I really didn't want
>>> to dwell on it. 3rd party software adds another layer of
>>> things that can go wrong...... < clipped >
>
>
>

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Update - Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Community
Next: Spread sheet numbering