Prev: What's the best free disk defragger, not in Windows, for NTFS and FAT drives/partitions?
Next: Fishface recommends Macrium Reflect for making backup copies of Windows
From: Cronos on 16 Dec 2009 14:46
Jerry Peters wrote:
> 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.
Did you really need to respond to the same post twice? Let me guess. You
are a Linux zealot.
From: Cronos on 16 Dec 2009 14:52
Bob Willard wrote:
> 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!
From: Cronos on 16 Dec 2009 14:55
David Brown wrote:
> 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!
From: David Brown on 17 Dec 2009 03:33
> David Brown wrote:
>> 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!
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.
From: David Brown on 17 Dec 2009 03:39
> 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.