disk defragmentor

Gary S. Terhune · Feb 14, 2008

What you rely upon is called "anecdotal" evidence. I have lots of that stuff
regarding Defrag, and it all contradicts yours. Particularly older systems
with small drives, regular defragging almost always produces marked
improvement in performance. (If the machine isn't being used much, defrag
obviously won't help *much*, but then maintenance can be scheduled much less
frequently.) Only if the drive is already sketchy and if defrag is run WAY
TOO MUCH (daily), is there any risk of damage. The amount of work you put
the drive through is balanced by reducing the amount of excessive thrashing
that occurs on a fragmented disk.

My recommendation has always been to schedule maintenance once a month for a
well-used personal machine, less often for a lightly used machine, but much
more often for a heavy working machine, especially one that has constantly
used databases. How often becomes a question of how much you want the
machine down for maintenance.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:%VNsj.91$Ef1.63@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:O7S8DwqbIHA.4652@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>I see. It's obviously so, it must be so, therefore it is so.
>>
>> I asked you for real data and you give me pure speculation. I have no
>> wish to engage in speculation, though for your sake I hope an expert
>> comes along and gives you a good discussion.
>>
>
> I am 'expert' enough thank you.
>
> OK real data for you.
>
> 1. I have defragged before and I took the time to make a
> a note of the time taken for certain operations, boot up
> etc.... Result no noticable difference, infact it even took longer
> to boot up, there was no performance benefit whatsoever.
> *Infact* if anything my machine was slower.
>
> So there is one piece of real data.
>
> 2. Goto step 1.
>
> Quite remarkable, you won't find any facts or figure for the performance
> increase from a defrag from the sellers of defrag software.
> I did not one produce had a * after performance increase, eg
> performance increase*
>
> *performance increase may be unpredictable.
>
> Which is a nice way of covering it from being sued when it makes no
> difference
> or infact gets worse, I assume the 'unpredictability range' includes
> negative increases.
>
> http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles/2007/s1807/19s07/19s07.asp
> "However, a recent study by Diskeeper Corporation (www.diskeeper.com)
> found that a brand-new computer with a fresh installation of WinXP can
> boot about 27% faster after running a basic disk defragmentation."
>
> Hmmm...an 'independant' study by a company selling defrag software!!
>
> And what an interesting study it is, because a brand new computer will of
> course
> be already defragged in the first place!!
>
> Anyway defragging is a waste of time, I know that from experience as I
> have done
> it a few times myself on a different machine, performance is either worse
> or it makes
> no difference. And it's a big let down when you find you wasted all that
> time for no effect,
> it will seem slower even if it is the same because the performance
> increase you expected
> won't be there.
> Of course you computer will tend to get slower over time but that is
> generally because
> you have more stuff installed on it, and the only way to cure that is to
> uninstall it.
>
> So....it ain't broke so I ain't fixing it :O)
>
>
>
>
>
>> --
>> Gary S. Terhune
>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>> www.grystmill.com
>>
>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:9UKsj.46$Ef1.42@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>>>
>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>>> news:eQ0ngsobIHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:2Ivsj.7701$OU5.240@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:5bi1r3h832q6d313r2bb2i9igdfhqfvnh8@4ax.com...
>>>>>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Pepperoni" <Pepperoni@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:CE574FD5-CC58-4D0C-99B0-EECFFA1C7BC0@microsoft.com...
>>>>>>>> My disk defragmetor keeps running in a loop and I have tried
>>>>>>>> everything i
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> and nothing seems to be working. So, if you have any help to offer
>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>> tell me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Defragging is a waste of time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Balderdash.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fragmented files will be slower to load, and if they are badly
>>>>>> fragmented the slowdown can be crippling. Not too long ago I
>>>>>> encountered a system where their master database (inventory - file
>>>>>> size approximately 100 megabytes) was in over 10 thousand fragments
>>>>>> and the users were complaining about slow performance. One simple
>>>>>> defrag (took several hours) and the speedup was tremendous. They
>>>>>> now have a scheduled task to defrag the file weekly.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe that for a minute.
>>>>> Defragging actually slows a computer down.
>>>>
>>>> Balderdash.
>>>>
>>>>> Obviusly a system lacking in drive space and memory is going to be
>>>>> slow, but you need to upgrade not defrag.
>>>>
>>>> You're talking about an entirely different subject, there.
>>>>
>>>>> Another benefit of regular defragging is hard drive failure, how
>>>>> lovely,
>>>>> lost your entire database , yum yum.
>>>>
>>>> Got any references there? Actual tests?
>>>
>>> Wears out your hard drive.
>>> I mean that is pretty self evident isn't it?
>>> It's a bit lilke driving 5,000 miles in your car every week and
>>> expecting it
>>> to last 5 years - it's not going to happen.These are mechanical devices
>>> and hence wear out. I my self have never had a drive failure as I treat
>>> mine
>>> with respect. Several hours of hard thrashing takes it toll. The
>>> bearing don't
>>> get time to cool down and fail.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Tilly821 · Feb 14, 2008

The expert Lord Turkey is correct.

Here is a true independent whitepaper:
http://files.diskeeper.com/pdf/IDC_Defrag_WhitePaper_2003.pdf
Conducted by IDC (International Data Corporation) and sponsered by
American Business Research Corporation. Both are reputable companies.
(Its about Diskeeper, so of course they would want to include it on
their site.

Also, as a tech journalist (and because I'm a nerd), I have conducted a
few tests of my own. Its is true, you can see significant improvements
with defragmentation, especially with a third-party utility.

However, it may be true you have not seen these imrpovements if you do
not use your computer regularly (therefore there would not be as much
fragmentation to restore), or store and edit large files. You also may
have not seen these improvements on a computer with other issues or
damage.

Defragging will maintain your computer's health, speed and reliability.
The reason I suggest a third party, is because they are light years
quicker (compared to the built-in) and they do not interfere with your
work (meaning you don't have to log off to defrag).

With this maintence you should not have to upgrade your hardware as
often.
I don't know if this will change your mind, but (if you try it) I hope
it saves you some money in the long run.

--
Tilly821
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly821's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/member.php?userid=39315
View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=912810

http://forums.techarena.in

Bill in Co. · Feb 14, 2008

You meant incorrect.

Tilly821 wrote:
> The expert Lord Turkey is correct.
>
> Here is a true independent whitepaper:
> http://files.diskeeper.com/pdf/IDC_Defrag_WhitePaper_2003.pdf
> Conducted by IDC (International Data Corporation) and sponsered by
> American Business Research Corporation. Both are reputable companies.
> (Its about Diskeeper, so of course they would want to include it on
> their site.
>
> Also, as a tech journalist (and because I'm a nerd), I have conducted a
> few tests of my own. Its is true, you can see significant improvements
> with defragmentation, especially with a third-party utility.
>
> However, it may be true you have not seen these imrpovements if you do
> not use your computer regularly (therefore there would not be as much
> fragmentation to restore), or store and edit large files. You also may
> have not seen these improvements on a computer with other issues or
> damage.
>
> Defragging will maintain your computer's health, speed and reliability.
> The reason I suggest a third party, is because they are light years
> quicker (compared to the built-in) and they do not interfere with your
> work (meaning you don't have to log off to defrag).
>
> With this maintence you should not have to upgrade your hardware as
> often.
> I don't know if this will change your mind, but (if you try it) I hope
> it saves you some money in the long run.
>
>
> --
> Tilly821
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tilly821's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/member.php?userid=39315
> View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=912810
>
> http://forums.techarena.in

Lord Turkey Cough · Feb 14, 2008

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:%23rFbzOzbIHA.4344@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> What you rely upon is called "anecdotal" evidence. I have lots of that
> stuff regarding Defrag,

Yes so much you are unable to produce any as evidence.

>and it all contradicts yours. Particularly older systems with small drives,
>regular defragging almost always produces marked improvement in
>performance. (If the machine isn't being used much, defrag obviously won't
>help *much*, but then maintenance can be scheduled much less frequently.)
>Only if the drive is already sketchy and if defrag is run WAY TOO MUCH
>(daily), is there any risk of damage. The amount of work you put the drive
>through is balanced by reducing the amount of excessive thrashing that
>occurs on a fragmented disk.
>
> My recommendation has always been to schedule maintenance once a month for
> a well-used personal machine, less often for a lightly used machine, but
> much more often for a heavy working machine, especially one that has
> constantly used databases. How often becomes a question of how much you
> want the machine down for maintenance.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> www.grystmill.com
>
> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:%VNsj.91$Ef1.63@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>> news:O7S8DwqbIHA.4652@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>I see. It's obviously so, it must be so, therefore it is so.
>>>
>>> I asked you for real data and you give me pure speculation. I have no
>>> wish to engage in speculation, though for your sake I hope an expert
>>> comes along and gives you a good discussion.
>>>
>>
>> I am 'expert' enough thank you.
>>
>> OK real data for you.
>>
>> 1. I have defragged before and I took the time to make a
>> a note of the time taken for certain operations, boot up
>> etc.... Result no noticable difference, infact it even took longer
>> to boot up, there was no performance benefit whatsoever.
>> *Infact* if anything my machine was slower.
>>
>> So there is one piece of real data.
>>
>> 2. Goto step 1.
>>
>> Quite remarkable, you won't find any facts or figure for the performance
>> increase from a defrag from the sellers of defrag software.
>> I did not one produce had a * after performance increase, eg
>> performance increase*
>>
>> *performance increase may be unpredictable.
>>
>> Which is a nice way of covering it from being sued when it makes no
>> difference
>> or infact gets worse, I assume the 'unpredictability range' includes
>> negative increases.
>>
>> http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles/2007/s1807/19s07/19s07.asp
>> "However, a recent study by Diskeeper Corporation (www.diskeeper.com)
>> found that a brand-new computer with a fresh installation of WinXP can
>> boot about 27% faster after running a basic disk defragmentation."
>>
>> Hmmm...an 'independant' study by a company selling defrag software!!
>>
>> And what an interesting study it is, because a brand new computer will of
>> course
>> be already defragged in the first place!!
>>
>> Anyway defragging is a waste of time, I know that from experience as I
>> have done
>> it a few times myself on a different machine, performance is either worse
>> or it makes
>> no difference. And it's a big let down when you find you wasted all that
>> time for no effect,
>> it will seem slower even if it is the same because the performance
>> increase you expected
>> won't be there.
>> Of course you computer will tend to get slower over time but that is
>> generally because
>> you have more stuff installed on it, and the only way to cure that is to
>> uninstall it.
>>
>> So....it ain't broke so I ain't fixing it :O)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>
>>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>> news:9UKsj.46$Ef1.42@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>>>> news:eQ0ngsobIHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2Ivsj.7701$OU5.240@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:5bi1r3h832q6d313r2bb2i9igdfhqfvnh8@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Pepperoni" <Pepperoni@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:CE574FD5-CC58-4D0C-99B0-EECFFA1C7BC0@microsoft.com...
>>>>>>>>> My disk defragmetor keeps running in a loop and I have tried
>>>>>>>>> everything i
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> and nothing seems to be working. So, if you have any help to offer
>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>> tell me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Defragging is a waste of time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Balderdash.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fragmented files will be slower to load, and if they are badly
>>>>>>> fragmented the slowdown can be crippling. Not too long ago I
>>>>>>> encountered a system where their master database (inventory - file
>>>>>>> size approximately 100 megabytes) was in over 10 thousand fragments
>>>>>>> and the users were complaining about slow performance. One simple
>>>>>>> defrag (took several hours) and the speedup was tremendous. They
>>>>>>> now have a scheduled task to defrag the file weekly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't believe that for a minute.
>>>>>> Defragging actually slows a computer down.
>>>>>
>>>>> Balderdash.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviusly a system lacking in drive space and memory is going to be
>>>>>> slow, but you need to upgrade not defrag.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're talking about an entirely different subject, there.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Another benefit of regular defragging is hard drive failure, how
>>>>>> lovely,
>>>>>> lost your entire database , yum yum.
>>>>>
>>>>> Got any references there? Actual tests?
>>>>
>>>> Wears out your hard drive.
>>>> I mean that is pretty self evident isn't it?
>>>> It's a bit lilke driving 5,000 miles in your car every week and
>>>> expecting it
>>>> to last 5 years - it's not going to happen.These are mechanical devices
>>>> and hence wear out. I my self have never had a drive failure as I treat
>>>> mine
>>>> with respect. Several hours of hard thrashing takes it toll. The
>>>> bearing don't
>>>> get time to cool down and fail.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Lord Turkey Cough · Feb 14, 2008

"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
news:%23bhKVXsbIHA.5768@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> How effective defragmentation will be for a home user depends in part on
> how full the hard drive is, and what type of file creation and usage
> occurs on a particular system. Programs that create or modify files and
> databases intensively will create fragmentation more quickly, and those
> systems will benefit most from defragmentation. Heavy use of programs
> such as Outlook Express (or any other newsreader or mail client) is but
> one example.
>
> For those readers here who want to understand the effects of
> fragmentation, these links may prove educational:
>
> The Adverse Effects of File Fragmentation on Video Editing
> http://www.raxco.co.uk/file.asp?FileID=509

Please understand that the above is merely work of the sales/marketing
department
of a disk defragmenter software retailer.

>
> Identifying Common Reliability/Stability Problems Caused by File
> Fragmentation
> http://files.diskeeper.com/pdf/Stability_WhitePaper.pdf

Please understand that the above is merely work of the sales/marketing
department
of a disk defragmenter software retailer.

Infact the one which claims that is can improve the performance of an
already
defragmented system (brand new system) by 27% IIRC.

Thats pure bullsh*t of course and no doubt the rest of their stuff is the
same.

>
> The Effects of Age and Fragmentation on File System Performance
> http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~keith/research/tr94.html

Largly a load of rubbish some of that stuff is over 20 years old,
pre-internet efectively.

>
> There are plenty of other studies that have been done both by makers of
> defragmentation products and by independent researchers, over the past
> decade or two, if anyone cares to search them out.
>
> The "expert" analysis of Turkey Cough is in fact not an analysis at all,
> but rather anecdotal reporting with no scientifically controlled data for
> comparison ("my computer didn't FEEL like it was faster after
> defragmenting"....very scientific).

It didn't feel any faster because it was not any faster
I timed the boot up time and it infact took longer after defragging. FACT
not anecdote.

However if you want to waste you time and mone defraging it is no skin off
my nose.

>
> The one partially true statement made by Turkey Cough is that
> defragmentation can shorten hard drive life.....but ONLY if it is done
> excessively, and by that I mean on a daily basis. Also, defragmentation
> should not be done on a drive that is not healthy.....IOW one that does
> not pass at least the rudimentary checks done by standard scandisk, or
> that does not pass a diagnostic by the hard drive maker's disk diagnostic
> utility, or that fails a S.M.A.R.T. test.
> --
> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+
> http://dts-l.net/
> http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
>
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:O7S8DwqbIHA.4652@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>I see. It's obviously so, it must be so, therefore it is so.
>>
>> I asked you for real data and you give me pure speculation. I have no
>> wish to engage in speculation, though for your sake I hope an expert
>> comes along and gives you a good discussion.
>>
>> --
>> Gary S. Terhune
>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>> www.grystmill.com
>>
>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:9UKsj.46$Ef1.42@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>>>
>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>>> news:eQ0ngsobIHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:2Ivsj.7701$OU5.240@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:5bi1r3h832q6d313r2bb2i9igdfhqfvnh8@4ax.com...
>>>>>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Pepperoni" <Pepperoni@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:CE574FD5-CC58-4D0C-99B0-EECFFA1C7BC0@microsoft.com...
>>>>>>>> My disk defragmetor keeps running in a loop and I have tried
>>>>>>>> everything i
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> and nothing seems to be working. So, if you have any help to offer
>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>> tell me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Defragging is a waste of time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Balderdash.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fragmented files will be slower to load, and if they are badly
>>>>>> fragmented the slowdown can be crippling. Not too long ago I
>>>>>> encountered a system where their master database (inventory - file
>>>>>> size approximately 100 megabytes) was in over 10 thousand fragments
>>>>>> and the users were complaining about slow performance. One simple
>>>>>> defrag (took several hours) and the speedup was tremendous. They
>>>>>> now have a scheduled task to defrag the file weekly.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe that for a minute.
>>>>> Defragging actually slows a computer down.
>>>>
>>>> Balderdash.
>>>>
>>>>> Obviusly a system lacking in drive space and memory is going to be
>>>>> slow, but you need to upgrade not defrag.
>>>>
>>>> You're talking about an entirely different subject, there.
>>>>
>>>>> Another benefit of regular defragging is hard drive failure, how
>>>>> lovely,
>>>>> lost your entire database , yum yum.
>>>>
>>>> Got any references there? Actual tests?
>>>
>>> Wears out your hard drive.
>>> I mean that is pretty self evident isn't it?
>>> It's a bit lilke driving 5,000 miles in your car every week and
>>> expecting it
>>> to last 5 years - it's not going to happen.These are mechanical devices
>>> and hence wear out. I my self have never had a drive failure as I treat
>>> mine
>>> with respect. Several hours of hard thrashing takes it toll. The
>>> bearing don't
>>> get time to cool down and fail.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Lord Turkey Cough · Feb 14, 2008

"Tilly821" <Tilly821.34s9bc@DoNotSpam.com> wrote in message
news:Tilly821.34s9bc@DoNotSpam.com...
>
> The expert Lord Turkey is correct.
>
> Here is a true independent whitepaper:
> http://files.diskeeper.com/pdf/IDC_Defrag_WhitePaper_2003.pdf
> Conducted by IDC (International Data Corporation) and sponsered by
> American Business Research Corporation. Both are reputable companies.
> (Its about Diskeeper, so of course they would want to include it on
> their site.

The are buisnesses who's only reason de etre is to make money any
which way they can.
http://www.idg.com/www/HomeNew.nsf/docs/corporate_profile

Their 'research' is about as reliable as the nutritional information on
a packe of sausasges.

>
> Also, as a tech journalist (and because I'm a nerd), I have conducted a
> few tests of my own. Its is true, you can see significant improvements
> with defragmentation, especially with a third-party utility.
>
> However, it may be true you have not seen these imrpovements if you do
> not use your computer regularly (therefore there would not be as much
> fragmentation to restore), or store and edit large files. You also may
> have not seen these improvements on a computer with other issues or
> damage.
>
> Defragging will maintain your computer's health, speed and reliability.
> The reason I suggest a third party, is because they are light years
> quicker (compared to the built-in) and they do not interfere with your
> work (meaning you don't have to log off to defrag).
>
> With this maintence you should not have to upgrade your hardware as
> often.
> I don't know if this will change your mind, but (if you try it) I hope
> it saves you some money in the long run.

If you do buy a defragger time you boot up, then time it after you have
defraged. Then see if you can get your monry back from the company
who conned you.

>
>
> --
> Tilly821
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tilly821's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/member.php?userid=39315
> View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=912810
>
> http://forums.techarena.in
>

Lord Turkey Cough · Feb 14, 2008

It was a fraudian slip.
His subconcious mind typed in the keys, and inadvertently revealed the
truth.
Typing is a subconcious activity.

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23Zgrun0bIHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> You meant incorrect.
>
> Tilly821 wrote:
>> The expert Lord Turkey is correct.
>>
>> Here is a true independent whitepaper:
>> http://files.diskeeper.com/pdf/IDC_Defrag_WhitePaper_2003.pdf
>> Conducted by IDC (International Data Corporation) and sponsered by
>> American Business Research Corporation. Both are reputable companies.
>> (Its about Diskeeper, so of course they would want to include it on
>> their site.
>>
>> Also, as a tech journalist (and because I'm a nerd), I have conducted a
>> few tests of my own. Its is true, you can see significant improvements
>> with defragmentation, especially with a third-party utility.
>>
>> However, it may be true you have not seen these imrpovements if you do
>> not use your computer regularly (therefore there would not be as much
>> fragmentation to restore), or store and edit large files. You also may
>> have not seen these improvements on a computer with other issues or
>> damage.
>>
>> Defragging will maintain your computer's health, speed and reliability.
>> The reason I suggest a third party, is because they are light years
>> quicker (compared to the built-in) and they do not interfere with your
>> work (meaning you don't have to log off to defrag).
>>
>> With this maintence you should not have to upgrade your hardware as
>> often.
>> I don't know if this will change your mind, but (if you try it) I hope
>> it saves you some money in the long run.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Tilly821
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Tilly821's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/member.php?userid=39315
>> View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=912810
>>
>> http://forums.techarena.in
>
>

Gary S. Terhune · Feb 14, 2008

As I said, I won't argue based upon pure speculation. The studies are out
there, as suggested by Glee, for instance. If you want answers, that's your
path. I guarantee you that I have plenty of experience with defrag, it's
effects on performance and it's potential damage to the disk. So much that I
can't really pick one off the top of my head and would have to go searching.
So, yes, I could spend another few days tossing balderdash back and forth,
but I choose to cease participating as of now. Your entire argument,
attitude and even your name are more than a little disgusting. Sorry, just
can't do it any more.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:K%1tj.552$d62.229@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:%23rFbzOzbIHA.4344@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> What you rely upon is called "anecdotal" evidence. I have lots of that
>> stuff regarding Defrag,
>
> Yes so much you are unable to produce any as evidence.
>
>>and it all contradicts yours. Particularly older systems with small
>>drives, regular defragging almost always produces marked improvement in
>>performance. (If the machine isn't being used much, defrag obviously won't
>>help *much*, but then maintenance can be scheduled much less frequently.)
>>Only if the drive is already sketchy and if defrag is run WAY TOO MUCH
>>(daily), is there any risk of damage. The amount of work you put the drive
>>through is balanced by reducing the amount of excessive thrashing that
>>occurs on a fragmented disk.
>>
>> My recommendation has always been to schedule maintenance once a month
>> for a well-used personal machine, less often for a lightly used machine,
>> but much more often for a heavy working machine, especially one that has
>> constantly used databases. How often becomes a question of how much you
>> want the machine down for maintenance.
>>
>> --
>> Gary S. Terhune
>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>> www.grystmill.com
>>
>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:%VNsj.91$Ef1.63@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>>>
>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>>> news:O7S8DwqbIHA.4652@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>I see. It's obviously so, it must be so, therefore it is so.
>>>>
>>>> I asked you for real data and you give me pure speculation. I have no
>>>> wish to engage in speculation, though for your sake I hope an expert
>>>> comes along and gives you a good discussion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am 'expert' enough thank you.
>>>
>>> OK real data for you.
>>>
>>> 1. I have defragged before and I took the time to make a
>>> a note of the time taken for certain operations, boot up
>>> etc.... Result no noticable difference, infact it even took longer
>>> to boot up, there was no performance benefit whatsoever.
>>> *Infact* if anything my machine was slower.
>>>
>>> So there is one piece of real data.
>>>
>>> 2. Goto step 1.
>>>
>>> Quite remarkable, you won't find any facts or figure for the performance
>>> increase from a defrag from the sellers of defrag software.
>>> I did not one produce had a * after performance increase, eg
>>> performance increase*
>>>
>>> *performance increase may be unpredictable.
>>>
>>> Which is a nice way of covering it from being sued when it makes no
>>> difference
>>> or infact gets worse, I assume the 'unpredictability range' includes
>>> negative increases.
>>>
>>> http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles/2007/s1807/19s07/19s07.asp
>>> "However, a recent study by Diskeeper Corporation (www.diskeeper.com)
>>> found that a brand-new computer with a fresh installation of WinXP can
>>> boot about 27% faster after running a basic disk defragmentation."
>>>
>>> Hmmm...an 'independant' study by a company selling defrag software!!
>>>
>>> And what an interesting study it is, because a brand new computer will
>>> of course
>>> be already defragged in the first place!!
>>>
>>> Anyway defragging is a waste of time, I know that from experience as I
>>> have done
>>> it a few times myself on a different machine, performance is either
>>> worse or it makes
>>> no difference. And it's a big let down when you find you wasted all that
>>> time for no effect,
>>> it will seem slower even if it is the same because the performance
>>> increase you expected
>>> won't be there.
>>> Of course you computer will tend to get slower over time but that is
>>> generally because
>>> you have more stuff installed on it, and the only way to cure that is to
>>> uninstall it.
>>>
>>> So....it ain't broke so I ain't fixing it :O)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>
>>>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:9UKsj.46$Ef1.42@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>>>>> news:eQ0ngsobIHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:2Ivsj.7701$OU5.240@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:5bi1r3h832q6d313r2bb2i9igdfhqfvnh8@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Pepperoni" <Pepperoni@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:CE574FD5-CC58-4D0C-99B0-EECFFA1C7BC0@microsoft.com...
>>>>>>>>>> My disk defragmetor keeps running in a loop and I have tried
>>>>>>>>>> everything i
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> and nothing seems to be working. So, if you have any help to
>>>>>>>>>> offer please
>>>>>>>>>> tell me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Defragging is a waste of time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Balderdash.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fragmented files will be slower to load, and if they are badly
>>>>>>>> fragmented the slowdown can be crippling. Not too long ago I
>>>>>>>> encountered a system where their master database (inventory - file
>>>>>>>> size approximately 100 megabytes) was in over 10 thousand fragments
>>>>>>>> and the users were complaining about slow performance. One
>>>>>>>> simple
>>>>>>>> defrag (took several hours) and the speedup was tremendous. They
>>>>>>>> now have a scheduled task to defrag the file weekly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't believe that for a minute.
>>>>>>> Defragging actually slows a computer down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Balderdash.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviusly a system lacking in drive space and memory is going to be
>>>>>>> slow, but you need to upgrade not defrag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're talking about an entirely different subject, there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another benefit of regular defragging is hard drive failure, how
>>>>>>> lovely,
>>>>>>> lost your entire database , yum yum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Got any references there? Actual tests?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wears out your hard drive.
>>>>> I mean that is pretty self evident isn't it?
>>>>> It's a bit lilke driving 5,000 miles in your car every week and
>>>>> expecting it
>>>>> to last 5 years - it's not going to happen.These are mechanical
>>>>> devices
>>>>> and hence wear out. I my self have never had a drive failure as I
>>>>> treat mine
>>>>> with respect. Several hours of hard thrashing takes it toll. The
>>>>> bearing don't
>>>>> get time to cool down and fail.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Gary S. Terhune · Feb 14, 2008

That's like Psych 100, right? How you makin' out with that?

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:%m2tj.299$St5.138@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> It was a fraudian slip.
> His subconcious mind typed in the keys, and inadvertently revealed the
> truth.
> Typing is a subconcious activity.
>
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%23Zgrun0bIHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> You meant incorrect.
>>
>> Tilly821 wrote:
>>> The expert Lord Turkey is correct.
>>>
>>> Here is a true independent whitepaper:
>>> http://files.diskeeper.com/pdf/IDC_Defrag_WhitePaper_2003.pdf
>>> Conducted by IDC (International Data Corporation) and sponsered by
>>> American Business Research Corporation. Both are reputable companies.
>>> (Its about Diskeeper, so of course they would want to include it on
>>> their site.
>>>
>>> Also, as a tech journalist (and because I'm a nerd), I have conducted a
>>> few tests of my own. Its is true, you can see significant improvements
>>> with defragmentation, especially with a third-party utility.
>>>
>>> However, it may be true you have not seen these imrpovements if you do
>>> not use your computer regularly (therefore there would not be as much
>>> fragmentation to restore), or store and edit large files. You also may
>>> have not seen these improvements on a computer with other issues or
>>> damage.
>>>
>>> Defragging will maintain your computer's health, speed and reliability.
>>> The reason I suggest a third party, is because they are light years
>>> quicker (compared to the built-in) and they do not interfere with your
>>> work (meaning you don't have to log off to defrag).
>>>
>>> With this maintence you should not have to upgrade your hardware as
>>> often.
>>> I don't know if this will change your mind, but (if you try it) I hope
>>> it saves you some money in the long run.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tilly821
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Tilly821's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/member.php?userid=39315
>>> View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=912810
>>>
>>> http://forums.techarena.in
>>
>>
>
>

Lord Turkey Cough · Feb 14, 2008

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:O9yKkI2bIHA.5900@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> As I said, I won't argue based upon pure speculation. The studies are out
> there, as suggested by Glee, for instance. If you want answers, that's
> your path. I guarantee you that I have plenty of experience with defrag,
> it's effects on performance and it's potential damage to the disk. So much
> that I can't really pick one off the top of my head and would have to go
> searching. So, yes, I could spend another few days tossing balderdash back
> and forth, but I choose to cease participating as of now. Your entire
> argument, attitude and even your name are more than a little disgusting.
> Sorry, just can't do it any more.

Well you have not been 'doing it at all' just links to software retailers
sites.
Not one ounce of independant evidence.
No proof no nothing.
Just an air of pomposity.
So as you can't put up it is gracious, at least, of you, to shut up.

>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> www.grystmill.com
>
> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:K%1tj.552$d62.229@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>> news:%23rFbzOzbIHA.4344@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> What you rely upon is called "anecdotal" evidence. I have lots of that
>>> stuff regarding Defrag,
>>
>> Yes so much you are unable to produce any as evidence.
>>
>>>and it all contradicts yours. Particularly older systems with small
>>>drives, regular defragging almost always produces marked improvement in
>>>performance. (If the machine isn't being used much, defrag obviously
>>>won't help *much*, but then maintenance can be scheduled much less
>>>frequently.) Only if the drive is already sketchy and if defrag is run
>>>WAY TOO MUCH (daily), is there any risk of damage. The amount of work you
>>>put the drive through is balanced by reducing the amount of excessive
>>>thrashing that occurs on a fragmented disk.
>>>
>>> My recommendation has always been to schedule maintenance once a month
>>> for a well-used personal machine, less often for a lightly used machine,
>>> but much more often for a heavy working machine, especially one that has
>>> constantly used databases. How often becomes a question of how much you
>>> want the machine down for maintenance.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>
>>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%VNsj.91$Ef1.63@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>>>> news:O7S8DwqbIHA.4652@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>I see. It's obviously so, it must be so, therefore it is so.
>>>>>
>>>>> I asked you for real data and you give me pure speculation. I have no
>>>>> wish to engage in speculation, though for your sake I hope an expert
>>>>> comes along and gives you a good discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am 'expert' enough thank you.
>>>>
>>>> OK real data for you.
>>>>
>>>> 1. I have defragged before and I took the time to make a
>>>> a note of the time taken for certain operations, boot up
>>>> etc.... Result no noticable difference, infact it even took longer
>>>> to boot up, there was no performance benefit whatsoever.
>>>> *Infact* if anything my machine was slower.
>>>>
>>>> So there is one piece of real data.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Goto step 1.
>>>>
>>>> Quite remarkable, you won't find any facts or figure for the
>>>> performance
>>>> increase from a defrag from the sellers of defrag software.
>>>> I did not one produce had a * after performance increase, eg
>>>> performance increase*
>>>>
>>>> *performance increase may be unpredictable.
>>>>
>>>> Which is a nice way of covering it from being sued when it makes no
>>>> difference
>>>> or infact gets worse, I assume the 'unpredictability range' includes
>>>> negative increases.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles/2007/s1807/19s07/19s07.asp
>>>> "However, a recent study by Diskeeper Corporation (www.diskeeper.com)
>>>> found that a brand-new computer with a fresh installation of WinXP can
>>>> boot about 27% faster after running a basic disk defragmentation."
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm...an 'independant' study by a company selling defrag software!!
>>>>
>>>> And what an interesting study it is, because a brand new computer will
>>>> of course
>>>> be already defragged in the first place!!
>>>>
>>>> Anyway defragging is a waste of time, I know that from experience as I
>>>> have done
>>>> it a few times myself on a different machine, performance is either
>>>> worse or it makes
>>>> no difference. And it's a big let down when you find you wasted all
>>>> that time for no effect,
>>>> it will seem slower even if it is the same because the performance
>>>> increase you expected
>>>> won't be there.
>>>> Of course you computer will tend to get slower over time but that is
>>>> generally because
>>>> you have more stuff installed on it, and the only way to cure that is
>>>> to uninstall it.
>>>>
>>>> So....it ain't broke so I ain't fixing it :O)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:9UKsj.46$Ef1.42@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:eQ0ngsobIHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:2Ivsj.7701$OU5.240@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:5bi1r3h832q6d313r2bb2i9igdfhqfvnh8@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Pepperoni" <Pepperoni@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:CE574FD5-CC58-4D0C-99B0-EECFFA1C7BC0@microsoft.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> My disk defragmetor keeps running in a loop and I have tried
>>>>>>>>>>> everything i
>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>> and nothing seems to be working. So, if you have any help to
>>>>>>>>>>> offer please
>>>>>>>>>>> tell me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Defragging is a waste of time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Balderdash.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fragmented files will be slower to load, and if they are badly
>>>>>>>>> fragmented the slowdown can be crippling. Not too long ago I
>>>>>>>>> encountered a system where their master database (inventory - file
>>>>>>>>> size approximately 100 megabytes) was in over 10 thousand
>>>>>>>>> fragments
>>>>>>>>> and the users were complaining about slow performance. One
>>>>>>>>> simple
>>>>>>>>> defrag (took several hours) and the speedup was tremendous.
>>>>>>>>> They
>>>>>>>>> now have a scheduled task to defrag the file weekly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't believe that for a minute.
>>>>>>>> Defragging actually slows a computer down.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Balderdash.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obviusly a system lacking in drive space and memory is going to be
>>>>>>>> slow, but you need to upgrade not defrag.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're talking about an entirely different subject, there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another benefit of regular defragging is hard drive failure, how
>>>>>>>> lovely,
>>>>>>>> lost your entire database , yum yum.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Got any references there? Actual tests?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wears out your hard drive.
>>>>>> I mean that is pretty self evident isn't it?
>>>>>> It's a bit lilke driving 5,000 miles in your car every week and
>>>>>> expecting it
>>>>>> to last 5 years - it's not going to happen.These are mechanical
>>>>>> devices
>>>>>> and hence wear out. I my self have never had a drive failure as I
>>>>>> treat mine
>>>>>> with respect. Several hours of hard thrashing takes it toll. The
>>>>>> bearing don't
>>>>>> get time to cool down and fail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>>>> www.grystmill.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Buffalo · Feb 14, 2008

Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
[snip]
>> It didn't feel any faster because it was not any faster
> I timed the boot up time and it infact took longer after defragging.
> FACT not anecdote.
[snip]

So, just because the boot up time was longer, that proves your point?
I guess you think that because the boot up time was slower, all the computer
functions and programs were also slower.
Pretty flawed thinking. Jumping to conclusions.
I also don't believe the 'miraculous' speed increases promoted by Diskeeper,
but I do listen to Glee and Gary , not blindly, but open-mindidly(I probably
mispelled it). They are very informative and accurate 99.9% of the time.

Being bullheaded and argumentive can be a way of life, but there are more
fun approaches which can be more productive and enjoyable.

Buffalo

MEB · Feb 14, 2008

Debated upon whether I would get into this ridiculous argument, but:
I'll just add this comment, which happens to coincide with most of the
material on the subject. [Oh boy another web page]

Fragmentation happens to cause significant impact upon hard drives,
particularly in the NT/XP environment as files are not stored in the fashion
one would [non-informed] generally think off.

Ponder upon these overly simplified explanations:

Many files are created or modified each time their application is run or
accessed, and the system does not use the next available hard drive space to
place those file segments/additions, but may place them in any unused space
on the disk. This creates files which might extend from the base address
[fat address or MFT] to anywhere else on the partition handled by jump
instructions or other, which indicates the location of the next segment
needed. These may once again be jumped to the next segment that may actually
be at the opposite end of the disk/partition. Picture that happening several
dozen times during the access of that one file. During this time, the hard
drive controller, OS, and the algorithms used, may place other segments
elsewhere on the disk, either temporarily or permanently.
Think of a large file and picture the number of additional head movements
needed to access JUST that one file and the extra time [additional
nanoseconds] needed, then consider that there are likely a dozen or more
additional files [dlls and other exes, etc.] needed for that one application
which are also fragmented taking that same whipping head motion picking up a
fragment here and there...
Now let's picture that application has a data base of information, new
information is added to that base but is stored wherever it was created.
After running that same application and saving those new bits of data, that
data base now exists in several thousand non-contiguous sectors of the hard
drive. To view or access that data base ALL those segments must be found and
brought together for the visual display, so these scattered bits are
temporarily collected in the swap file and/or memory.
All of this, of course, takes more head movement and time than if the files
were contiguous and the application's other needed files were also closer
together.

A good indication is when intermittent Windows errors begin to show up for
some reason or hard drive access times become excessive. If one goes to Safe
Mode, shuts off Windows handling of virtual memory [swap] then deletes the
win386.swp file after a restart in DOS, restarts to Safe mode and defrags,
then turns ON Windows management when done restarting to Windows Normal
Mode and behavior will be noticeably improved. Part of the reason is that
the SWAP file is no longer scattered all over the disk, and is contiguous
[Fat systems]. NT's defragmentation is of course different as are the
results..

Regarding new installations and defragging:

A major misconception is that a newly installed OS is defragmented and
arraigned closely on the disk. As the files are expanded areas of the disk,
various areas are used to hold temporary copies of those files in any
available area of the disk. Each file may first be copied, then expanded,
then added to the proper directory or may be placed in temporary storage
pending installation order, then placed with some directory [listed as part
of].
Each time the file is written, it takes up space on the drive, which may or
may not be the next contiguous area, and may be some scattered areas upon
the disk [other segments of files may already be using an area which might
have been used].
The directories themselves [via the table] assign the "base" area then list
the various temporary and permanent locations of the files listed under the
various directories. Nothing at this stage requires these files are actually
assigned an area of the disk in which all the directory's files are located
within a specific segment of the disk, e.g., one file after the other or one
sector after the other. Continuing to use a newly installed disk without
ever defragmenting it, will eventually cause errors and at minimum, slower
loading times noticeable after extended usage.

The first defragmentation done on a disk attempts to align the various
individual segments of the files into contiguous areas/segments. If one has
used something like "Align for faster Windows Loading" [MSDeFrag - not a
recommended setting}, then the files are arraigned according to the
monitored access, space required while running, and other factors held
[created by taskmon] in C:\WINDOWS\APPLOG\ and using Logitec Mouse as
example LOGI_MWX.LGC to supposedly place the file in an area conducive to
its loading and any additional space it might require while loading/running
[some exe files temporarily expand on disk and become fragmented in the
process]. IF this is a fairly new system or taskmon has been disabled then
the files will NOT be arraigned properly as there is not enough saved
details.
Successive deframentations generally take less time, and decrease file
movement.. Watch a defragment tool: it checks the fats, then folders then
files, and only adjusts what has or is fragmented [unless one uses the Align
for Faster Windows which WILL constantly move files around based upon the
logic files {which is why its not recommended}]

Now, should any wish to complain this provides no conclusive proof, then
they should get off their dead behinds and actually look at a fragmemented
disk and defragmented disk with a hex/disk editor. THEN come back and post,
maybe someone will listen, though I doubt it ...
Or if you like visuals displays, then run MS Defrag and look at the
details,, and watch it move files around trying to place all the file
segments together.

The short answer is: defragmentation can decrease OS access times and
reduce wear and tear on your hard disk. Load times ARE NOT a definitive
display of problems with defragmentation, but with the routines used, and
INCLUDING a fragmented swap file.

--

MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
_________

glee · Feb 14, 2008

Lord Turkey Breath, who defragged a hard drive once and now thinks he is an expert
on disk defragmenters, wrote in message
news:8l2tj.297$St5.134@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Tilly821" wrote in message news:Tilly821.34s9bc@DoNotSpam.com...
>>
>> snip
>> Here is a true independent whitepaper:
>> http://files.diskeeper.com/pdf/IDC_Defrag_WhitePaper_2003.pdf
>> Conducted by IDC (International Data Corporation) and sponsered by
>> American Business Research Corporation. Both are reputable companies.
>> (Its about Diskeeper, so of course they would want to include it on
>> their site.
>
> The are buisnesses who's only reason de etre is to make money any
> which way they can.
> http://www.idg.com/www/HomeNew.nsf/docs/corporate_profile
>
> Their 'research' is about as reliable as the nutritional information on
> a packe of sausasges.
> snip

Your bad spelling aside, you now reveal to the readers here your desperation to make
yourself appear correct. What you hope to prove by linking the corporate profile of
IDG in fact proves the opposite. IDG is a respected publisher and promoter of IT
conferences. Among their IT related publications are: Australian Macworld,
Australian PC World, CIO Magazine, Computer Dealer News, Computerworld, PC World,
and a couple hundred more similar publications and associated websites.
http://www.idg.com/www/HomeNew.nsf/docs/Brands
http://www.idg.com/www/idgproducts.nsf/typeform?readform&type=publication

Similarly, American Business Research Corporation has sponsored a large number of
surveys, polls, and reports used by IT departments, among others.

Your ridiculous contention throughout this thread that we should disregard any
reports by companies that make defragmenters because they are in the business of
selling disk defragmenters, is as asinine as saying we should disregard all
information about viruses from anti-virus software companies because they are in the
business of selling anti-virus software.

As I stated earlier in the thread, the effects of defragmenting on performance will
vary depending upon the size and free space of the drive as well as the type of
files frequently created or modified. Your blanket contention that defragmenters
are of no use is, like most generalizations and blanket proclamations, absurd
because it does not consider any disk usage pattern other than your own.

I think the readers here can easily see how little such a generalization is worth.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+
http://dts-l.net/
http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm

Lord Turkey Cough · Feb 16, 2008

"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
news:us8pEk4bIHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Lord Turkey Breath, who defragged a hard drive once and now thinks he is
> an expert on disk defragmenters, wrote in message
> news:8l2tj.297$St5.134@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Tilly821" wrote in message news:Tilly821.34s9bc@DoNotSpam.com...
>>>
>>> snip
>>> Here is a true independent whitepaper:
>>> http://files.diskeeper.com/pdf/IDC_Defrag_WhitePaper_2003.pdf
>>> Conducted by IDC (International Data Corporation) and sponsered by
>>> American Business Research Corporation. Both are reputable companies.
>>> (Its about Diskeeper, so of course they would want to include it on
>>> their site.
>>
>> The are buisnesses who's only reason de etre is to make money any
>> which way they can.
>> http://www.idg.com/www/HomeNew.nsf/docs/corporate_profile
>>
>> Their 'research' is about as reliable as the nutritional information on
>> a packe of sausasges.
>> snip
>
> Your bad spelling aside, you now reveal to the readers here your
> desperation to make yourself appear correct. What you hope to prove by
> linking the corporate profile of IDG in fact proves the opposite. IDG is
> a respected publisher and promoter of IT conferences. Among their IT
> related publications are: Australian Macworld, Australian PC World, CIO
> Magazine, Computer Dealer News, Computerworld, PC World, and a couple
> hundred more similar publications and associated websites.

All of whom are saphrasites of the parasetic software/PC industry

> http://www.idg.com/www/HomeNew.nsf/docs/Brands
> http://www.idg.com/www/idgproducts.nsf/typeform?readform&type=publication
>
> Similarly, American Business Research Corporation has sponsored a large
> number of surveys, polls, and reports used by IT departments, among
> others.
>
> Your ridiculous contention throughout this thread that we should disregard
> any reports by companies that make defragmenters because they are in the
> business of selling disk defragmenters, is as asinine as saying we should
> disregard all information about viruses from anti-virus software companies
> because they are in the business of selling anti-virus software.

(Or the report from tobacco companies that cigarettes don't cause cancer.)

You are not far off the mark there!
Actually did a virus scan today for laugh, it reported soomething which
returned nothing in google.
Looked like it was part of some DVD package.

Anyway here it is!! The file was called ultradvdchcker02.ver

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html
charset=iso-8859-1" /><title>
dvd player software free pc at dvd-player-software.com
</title>
<meta name="keywords"
content="dvd,player,software,free,pc,morph,copy,players,players,players" />
<meta name="description" content="Experience Blu-Ray & HD bDVD/b Playback
Excellence w/ PowerDVD 7." />
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE='Javascript'
SRC='/dvd-player-software.com.js?f302=1&rrm=3'></SCRIPT>
<link
href='/css/w01/t101.css?def=Akamai%3aHostingURL%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fi.nuseek.com%7cBdyStyl%3aPageBackgroundColor%3d%23fff%7cBdyStyl%3aFont%3darial%7cBdyStyl%3aFontSize%3d12%7cBdyStyl%3aFontColor%3d%230e5fd8%7cBdyStyl%3aPrimaryColor%3d%231b5709%7cBdyStyl%3aPrimaryColorComplement%3d%23fff%7cBdyStyl%3aSecondaryColor%3d%23c44242%7cBdyStyl%3aSecondaryColorComplement%3d%23fff%7cBdyStyl%3aTertiaryColor%3d%23f3f3f3%7cBdyStyl%3aTertiaryColorComplement%3d%23476ec7%7cPgHdr%3aFontSize%3d18%7cPgHdr%3aFont%3dVerdana%7cRelLink%3aFont%3darial%7cRelLink%3aFontSize%3d14%7cRelLink%3aFontColor%3d%23476ec7%7cRelLink%3aHoverFontColor%3d%23c03625%7cRelLink%3aBackgroundColor%3d%23fafad9%7cRelLink%3aDividerColor%3d%23e2dfb8%7cRelLink%3aHoverBackgroundColor%3d%23fbfbf5%7cRelLink%3aImagePath%3d%2fimages%2fmisc%2fbullets%2f0006.gif%7cRelLink%3aImageWidth%3d10%7cRelLink%3aImageHeight%3d10%7cResult%3aImagePath%3d%2fimages%2fmisc%2fbullets%2f0006.gif%7cResult%3aHeaderFont%3darial%7cResult%3aHeaderFontSize%3d12%7cResult%3aHeaderFontColor%3d%23000%7cResult%3aTitleFont%3darial%7cResult%3aTitleFontSize%3d16%7cResult%3aTitleFontColor%3d%2300c%7cResult%3aAbstractFont%3darial%7cResult%3aAbstractFontSize%3d12%7cResult%3aAbstractFontColor%3d%23000%7cResult%3aURLFont%3darial%7cResult%3aURLFontSize%3d12%7cResult%3aURLFontColor%3d%23008000%7cResult%3aSidebarBorderColor%3d%23ccc%7cSrchBox%3aTextboxWidth%3d200%7cSrchBox%3aImagePath%3d%2fimages%2fmisc%2fbuttons%2f0006.gif%7cSrchBox%3aImageWidth%3d60%7cSrchBox%3aImageHeight%3d22%7cSrchBox%3aAlign%3dright%7cSearchLinkGroup%3aHoverLinkColor%3d%23ff9%7cUsrCust%3aFontType%3dverdana%7cUsrCust%3aFontSize%3d11%7cUsrCust%3aFontColor%3d%23666%7cUsrCust%3aLinkColor%3d%230e5fd8'
rel='stylesheet' title='default' type='text/css' />

<script language="javascript" type="Text/Javascript">

</script>

<style type="text/css">

</style>

</head>

<body id="wf01" class="pg2">
<form name="parking_form" method="get" action="/default.pk"
id="parking_form">
<div>

</div>


<table cellspacing="0">
<tr>

<td> </td>
</tr>
</table>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" id="container">
<tr>

<td class="col1">

</td>

<td class="col2">

<table cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<td>
<table cellspacing="0">
<tr>

<td> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
<td>
<table cellspacing="0">
<tr>

<td> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</table>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="hdr">
<tr>
<td class="hdrL">

<div class="header"><h1><a href="http://dvd-player-software.com">Welcome
to <b>dvd-player-software.com</b></a></h1></div>

</td>
<td class="hdrR">

</td>
</tr>
</table>

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
id="oneColLayout">
<tr>
<td class="oneCol">

</td>
</tr>
</table>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" id="twoColLayout">
<tr>
<td class="twoColL">
<div class="resMain"><h2>Sponsored listings for DVD Player
Software:</h2><ul><li
onclick="javascript

cNav('?tu=http%3a%2f%2frc10.overture.com%2fd%2fsr%2f%3fxargs%3d15KPjg151SkZamwretdb3PSueKwl4axca59c9rD5R8HtZIoS5gVed8a6vHksV5W7064w%255FVyfeU%255FaEUK%255Fvymf2IFAiKTFuID7Kh0Y3DzY00M6YZb%252DQYirEvwevrl9J7D3wQMy68fJKErvqNLdL%252DP2g4pswOzByc%252DPNnwMe1xeMIQevVig0sskqFc5Zxm9EsgbqxKOwOS7UjfqvrhXfFfZwQ%252D%252DxtkeysPyRkLl2h5m0a9VeHIC55v6zJfZEIu7Xny9uVPaWpjJkCOg3GtuQgt0jSji%255FfnJwyY3f278dJ8Nc2KLyVUH%255FZDDsfiPjSjOSKftE24G%255FyJpjbVR6jNAA7ahQ1X6HtKgSGKGAqs0TXR6wFfMm4q2GzAKfXACEGUmM%252E&du=www.CyberLink.com%2fpowerdvd&rs=946611020&r=1&dn=dvd-player-software.com&st=&ac=0&tmid=101&thid=107&anid=57&rlsid=1&wid=1&pn=YahooDM&ref=&rst=&rpn=0&dw=0&rlt=0&sc=-1%3d1%2c0%3d1&sid=b402c3dc-8833-41dc-987b-5f0bb6a1fcdc&vip=10.5.2.108&adt=0&vid=64527c65-53da-410f-8047-f81c1c395ea2&ici=0&rlrt=1&rllt=related&di=&spc=5&su=http%3a%2f%2fwww.dvd-player-software.com%3a80%2fultradvd.ver')"
onmouseover="status='www.CyberLink.com/powerdvd' return true"
onmouseout="status='' return true"><span class="titleJS">Cyberlink
Powerdvd 7</span><br /><span class="abstract">Experience Blu-Ray & HD
<b>DVD</b> Playback Excellence w/ PowerDVD 7.</span><br /><span
class="url">www.CyberLink.com/powerdvd</span></li><li
onclick="javascript

cNav('?tu=http%3a%2f%2frc10.overture.com%2fd%2fsr%2f%3fxargs%3d15KPjg155SjJamwr2sfLTJTuOEw14axca588NtBpNwH9df5iMxXOZ4bKDIk8F4RPo2swPSy%255FSX%255FaIfK%255Ff%252DkfiNEAyJRg%252D9L73y347DxIk%255FMxuXYY5KhrMoxOnqnoZLfEw2fi68eNG3nvidYdvwOX5djddAwByb%252DfFpx863xO8bBuuJ1QAnrxXCcMkJmNZYhMy1W5t%255FTbNSCdjr4TDHI5FAm%252DxFpeylNiEWXi3U520OvAWNIzRhp7DPeI4X0ZDBpJnJPe6p2o1OKxjCvaEh%252DF3JnzramMg2ICvXhMc%255F5E5kwpmfd1PtzQ%252DrmJ7%255F2v%255FbP400s2XxFpG2Q3O1DhYuPgVnA%252DfkPlHIdDkx4AjWKcVySIqj%252DjXvQryGG3EqY3Ix3w%252E%252E&du=www.prosoft3d.com&rs=946611020&r=2&dn=dvd-player-software.com&st=&ac=0&tmid=101&thid=107&anid=57&rlsid=1&wid=1&pn=YahooDM&ref=&rst=&rpn=0&dw=0&rlt=0&sc=-1%3d1%2c0%3d1&sid=b402c3dc-8833-41dc-987b-5f0bb6a1fcdc&vip=10.5.2.108&adt=0&vid=64527c65-53da-410f-8047-f81c1c395ea2&ici=0&rlrt=1&rllt=related&di=&spc=5&su=http%3a%2f%2fwww.dvd-player-software.com%3a80%2fultradvd.ver')"
onmouseover="status='www.prosoft3d.com' return true"
onmouseout="status='' return true"><span class="titleJS">NEW - <b>DVD</b>
<b>Player</b> 5.0 <b>Software</b> - $9.95</span><br /><span
class="abstract">Play all your <b>DVDs</b> on your computer with <b>DVD</b>
<b>Player</b> 5.0. Download.</span><br /><span
class="url">www.prosoft3d.com</span></li><li
onclick="javascript

cNav('?tu=http%3a%2f%2frc10.overture.com%2fd%2fsr%2f%3fxargs%3d15KPjg15tSn5amwrercr3AS%252DGAw14axca58MtsDpJ7GtRc5iMxXOh4aafAm8x4Tfo2swPRyfST%255FKUUJfv%255Fm%255F%252DOEgeNQluAEfWugoHFy4w6Mq2hWYlxsOwhw%252D%255FpmY5INHytUy68epaErvqNLdX5P2g4pswOzB6Q%255FfBuxc%252D1xeYIQevVig0sskqFc5Zxm9EsgbqxKOwOS7UjfqvrhXfFfZwQ%252D%252DxtkeysPyRkLl2h5m0a9VeHIC55v6zJfZEIu7Xny9uVPaWpjJkCOg3GtuQgt0jSji%255FfnJwyY3f278dJ8Nc2KLyVUH%255FZDDsfiPjSjOSKftE24G%255FyJpjbVR6jNAA7ahQ1X6HtKgSGKGIqs0TXR6sFfMuo%252DCG%252DCKfXTy0ndAIM7vKECA%252E%252E&du=www.sonic.com&rs=946611020&r=3&dn=dvd-player-software.com&st=&ac=0&tmid=101&thid=107&anid=57&rlsid=1&wid=1&pn=YahooDM&ref=&rst=&rpn=0&dw=0&rlt=0&sc=-1%3d1%2c0%3d1&sid=b402c3dc-8833-41dc-987b-5f0bb6a1fcdc&vip=10.5.2.108&adt=0&vid=64527c65-53da-410f-8047-f81c1c395ea2&ici=0&rlrt=1&rllt=related&di=&spc=5&su=http%3a%2f%2fwww.dvd-player-software.com%3a80%2fultradvd.ver')"
onmouseover="status='www.sonic.com' return true" onmouseout="status=''
return true"><span class="titleJS">New <b>DVD</b> Decoder</span><br /><span
class="abstract">Sonic's powerful new <b>DVD</b> Decoder allows you to play
<b>DVDs</b> on your PC.</span><br /><span
class="url">www.sonic.com</span></li><li
onclick="javascript

cNav('?tu=http%3a%2f%2frc10.overture.com%2fd%2fsr%2f%3fxargs%3d15KPjg14FSmpamwr%252DjfbXISeKKwlsaxca588toDJd5HNVf8mQ8De19aqDHnMd4Sexn%252DF%252DNwPOX%255F6AeK%255Ff4m%255F%252DKEQ6JQ1GOHeT6yt2awIo7P6ijWNNPgvMa8bXkm4RMO3YOa20ZSOP%252Dk%252D3MZOHJKz9G%255FI8CzQvqpbJjwMe%255FxOMZFrPQ3UQpqlGGfs9N%252D%255FF7jLm1WJ8JPMBUCd6YlFCXAu5Wmo94kL2UDjgTKSOj4BkK3FmCJiYgrKnJYokXu7HwhI6aafWsyNQKLRCDtKgyoUvU2T3Cn84kZzjXn%252DIMnSpiP7uc6Qi%252Dn2If7bdbvML5P401szC5GJvUQi%252DoPC0vfgceBvarfEOPYWw%252D5gjWK5hCZ5j0qheHQ7yOG3Flb1AXvt61GfY2&du=www.ToshibaHDDVD.com&rs=946611020&r=4&dn=dvd-player-software.com&st=&ac=0&tmid=101&thid=107&anid=57&rlsid=1&wid=1&pn=YahooDM&ref=&rst=&rpn=0&dw=0&rlt=0&sc=-1%3d1%2c0%3d1&sid=b402c3dc-8833-41dc-987b-5f0bb6a1fcdc&vip=10.5.2.108&adt=0&vid=64527c65-53da-410f-8047-f81c1c395ea2&ici=0&rlrt=1&rllt=related&di=&spc=5&su=http%3a%2f%2fwww.dvd-player-software.com%3a80%2fultradvd.ver')"
onmouseover="status='www.ToshibaHDDVD.com' return true"
onmouseout="status='' return true"><span class="titleJS">Toshiba
HD-A30</span><br /><span class="abstract">Next-Generation HD-<b>DVD</b>
<b>Player</b> Available Now. Learn More Today.</span><br /><span
class="url">www.ToshibaHDDVD.com</span></li><li
onclick="javascript

cNav('?tu=http%3a%2f%2frc10.overture.com%2fd%2fsr%2f%3fxargs%3d15KPjg15RSnpamwryid7rLT%252DGAw14axca598trDph5H9Rf5iMxXOF7Z6DCnMZ7ROVxv1PdzvuS%255F6YVJPL5mfyPEw6LQFWJEfWugoHBy4I6P62n4OcYP4Uex%252DzhmoXiDU8dImOycNKoz6%255FBI9X5KQ0TvYICyR%252DR9fZswMeyx%255FFPQbeKhwYx7Q2GLO5ynKUp977CX50ITcRUDauPwnWbcMxw%252D8R0keWlOlYUXiig5nlTp12EOjZho6rMYo4LuaOgzoLML7ft3IUPIhHR5Lc8vlrRmDzI39s2Ow7k%255FaM5GWxnXMLMJT5ZuDsP%255FqPfmqOMJIk94W3AHc6beCWiIwJtLQF8UKf%255FbQ3TIHdtuE6zTdZLc8%252Ds%252DCO2FuDEACAxM14AzuOE&du=www.circuitcity.com&rs=946611020&r=5&dn=dvd-player-software.com&st=&ac=0&tmid=101&thid=107&anid=57&rlsid=1&wid=1&pn=YahooDM&ref=&rst=&rpn=0&dw=0&rlt=0&sc=-1%3d1%2c0%3d1&sid=b402c3dc-8833-41dc-987b-5f0bb6a1fcdc&vip=10.5.2.108&adt=0&vid=64527c65-53da-410f-8047-f81c1c395ea2&ici=0&rlrt=1&rllt=related&di=&spc=5&su=http%3a%2f%2fwww.dvd-player-software.com%3a80%2fultradvd.ver')"
onmouseover="status='www.circuitcity.com' return true"
onmouseout="status='' return true"><span class="titleJS"><b>DVD</b>
<b>Player</b> <b>Software</b>: Circuit City</span><br /><span
class="abstract">Circuit City - Official Site. Free Shipping on Orders $24
and Up.</span><br /><span
class="url">www.circuitcity.com</span></li></ul><span
class="prevDisable">prev</span><span class="next"><a
href="/jobs/dvd/player/software/dvd_player_software.htm"
onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56
PM|qs=06oENya4ZGM2uCjAyqVAoHdkSsb19c7JRwknfvJfVV0wGM6BLsNMELW-1Mr2dG0OY6Wf3ym50WLU7rnQ8nhxNmkWWFYT75Qz9TCy4jLaRFNOsoO8viJdPCUdOjXGTl058C1HH5y8dQvxTuv87h2HceejYGAqvbZncM4-tFcE16CPUF4r2AhQVSfGVLOWKkyNcf8jrrhTIau-TshkeJ_ajhgJDXAV9nt2O5R-6g1mEs69oRjjAWcJOZJsGVSOyjbzJeN6QTQRJJIj6p1eCYDyqmlJV00URCJCaJE5ZlPU45NwY6hNQk0yHDS6jfbpDfkgB_gj-siGjl-dohj3-egs_NwcbopqoUGwfP2u4Nwn_1dbsQ1NorGzcOmDQxSNy22E9_ztfUmPh2Dxyo1rFxDpAJ_uVaavQ6lKKMzFzg6akTNudgsCWWExLvh0eSqBKF0GqRFBlKK5UsNnOr|gifts',
null)">next</a></span></div>

</td>
<td class="twoColR">
<div class="resRelLinks clearfix"><div
class="resRelLinks_Hdr"><span>Related Links</span></div><div
class="resRelLinks_Col1"><ul><li class="first"><a class="first"
href="/buy/dvd/player/software/dvd_player_software.htm"
onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56
PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9RFZEIFBsYXllciBTb2Z0d2FyZTtSPTE7Uz1NIw..|search',
null)"><span>DVD Player Software</span></a></li><li><a
href="/buy/dvd/player/software/dvd_copy.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk',
'2/13/2008 2:47:56
PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9RFZEIENvcHk7Uj0yO1M9ZCMtIzN0|search',
null)"><span>DVD Copy</span></a></li><li><a
href="/buy/dvd/player/software/dvd_copy_software.htm"
onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56
PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9RFZEIENvcHkgU29mdHdhcmU7Uj0zO1M9ZCMtIzN0|search',
null)"><span>DVD Copy Software</span></a></li><li><a
href="/buy/dvd/player/software/dvd_players.htm"
onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56
PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9RFZEIFBsYXllcnM7Uj00O1M9ZCMtIzN0|search',
null)"><span>DVD Players</span></a></li><li><a
href="/buy/dvd/player/software/region_free_dvd.htm"
onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56
PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9UmVnaW9uIEZyZWUgRFZEO1I9NTtTPWQjLSMzdA..|search',
null)"><span>Region Free DVD</span></a></li><li><a
href="/buy/dvd/player/software/media_player.htm"
onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56
PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9TWVkaWEgUGxheWVyO1I9NjtTPWQjLSMzdA..|search',
null)"><span>Media Player</span></a></li><li><a
href="/buy/dvd/player/software/dvd_duplication.htm"
onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56
PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9RFZEIER1cGxpY2F0aW9uO1I9NztTPWQjLSMzdA..|search',
null)"><span>DVD Duplication</span></a></li><li><a
href="/buy/dvd/player/software/cd_dvd_duplicator.htm"
onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56
PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9Q0QgRFZEIER1cGxpY2F0b3I7Uj04O1M9ZCMtIzN0|search',
null)"><span>CD DVD Duplicator</span></a></li><li><a
href="/buy/dvd/player/software/dvd_software.htm"
onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56
PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9RFZEIFNvZnR3YXJlO1I9OTtTPWQjLSMzdA..|search',
null)"><span>DVD Software</span></a></li><li><a
href="/buy/dvd/player/software/burn_dvd.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk',
'2/13/2008 2:47:56
PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9QnVybiBEVkQ7Uj0xMDtTPWQjLSMzdA..|search',
null)"><span>Burn DVD</span></a></li><li><a
href="/buy/dvd/player/software/dvd_copier.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk',
'2/13/2008 2:47:56
PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9RFZEIENvcGllcjtSPTExO1M9ZCMtIzN0|search',
null)"><span>DVD Copier</span></a></li><li><a
href="/buy/dvd/player/software/dvd_burning_software.htm"
onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56
PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9RFZEIEJ1cm5pbmcgU29mdHdhcmU7Uj0xMjtTPWQjLSMzdA..|search',
null)"><span>DVD Burning Software</span></a></li><li><a
href="/buy/dvd/player/software/dvd_copying.htm"
onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56
PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9RFZEIENvcHlpbmc7Uj0xMztTPWQjLSMzdA..|search',
null)"><span>DVD Copying</span></a></li><li><a
href="/buy/dvd/player/software/dvd_ripper.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk',
'2/13/2008 2:47:56
PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9RFZEIFJpcHBlcjtSPTE0O1M9ZCMtIzN0|search',
null)"><span>DVD Ripper</span></a></li><li class="last"><a class="last"
href="/buy/dvd/player/software/lightscribe.htm"
onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56
PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT0xO0w9TGlnaHRzY3JpYmU7Uj0xNTtTPWQjLSMzdA..|search',
null)"><span>Lightscribe</span></a></li></ul></div></div>
<span></span>
<div class="banner"></div>

</td>
</tr>
</table>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" id="threeColLayout">
<tr>
<td class="threeColL">

</td>
<td class="threeColM">

</td>
<td class="threeColR">

</td>
</tr>
</table>

<div class="searchBox"><table><tr><td><input type="text" name="tsearch"
id="tsearch" class="SearchBoxText" tabindex="1" /></td><td><input
type="image" src="http://i.nuseek.com/images/misc/blank.gif"
id="search_button" name="search_button" class="sb_btn" tabindex="2"
/></td></tr></table></div><div class="clear"></div>
<div class="searchLinkGroup clearfix"><div
class="searchLinkGroup_Col1"><ul><li class="first"><a class="first"
href="/get/dvd/player/software/insurance.htm" onClick="createCookie('SLTk',
'2/13/2008 2:47:56
PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT03|free',
null)"><span>Insurance</span></a></li><li><a
href="/get/dvd/player/software/credit_cards.htm"
onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56
PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT03|free',
null)"><span>Credit Cards</span></a></li><li><a
href="/get/dvd/player/software/education_online.htm"
onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56
PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT03|free',
null)"><span>Education Online</span></a></li><li><a
href="/get/dvd/player/software/hotel_reservation.htm"
onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56
PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT03|free',
null)"><span>Hotel Reservation</span></a></li><li><a
href="/get/dvd/player/software/dating_online.htm"
onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56
PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT03|free',
null)"><span>Dating Online</span></a></li><li class="last"><a class="last"
href="/get/dvd/player/software/debt_consolidation.htm"
onClick="createCookie('SLTk', '2/13/2008 2:47:56
PM|qs=06oENya4ZGheei1uuz_okYL5PGs50AQW24hr8SvQNHh7ZvYhFcx8M0MokLsdDuO76TeHFAUIk8R5XSWGurMNpaegg-s9HAT1qq6vrYRlErH8gJ_nmxLNY8M-hl-vb31T_Z-EJmAQYWm-4J5sDsaT_-3odJnE6e62FmB_EIcsr6JYZRvP5ZLop7RkNShXgMI_V6MToi59BkctUxvQ..,YT03|free',
null)"><span>Debt Consolidation</span></a></li></ul></div></div>

<div class="ftr">
<div class="userCustom"></div>

</div>

<table cellspacing="0">
<tr>

<td> </td>
</tr>
</table>

</td>

<td class="col3">

</td>

</tr>
</table>

<table cellspacing="0">
<tr>

<td> </td>
</tr>
</table>

<script language="JavaScript"
src="http://as.casalemedia.com/sd?s=91026&f=1"></script></form>

<script language='javascript' type='Text/Javascript'>
function GetIPPI(g) {
var xmlHttp = createXMLHttpRequest()
if (xmlHttp != null) {
xmlHttp.open('GET', '/'+g+'.ippi?g='+g, true)
xmlHttp.send(null)
}
}

function createXMLHttpRequest() {
try { return new ActiveXObject('Msxml2.XMLHTTP') } catch(e) {}
try { return new ActiveXObject('Microsoft.XMLHTTP') } catch(e) {}
try { return new XMLHttpRequest() } catch(e) {}
return null
}

GetIPPI('9a2d0df7-6109-4457-b7db-e494cb1fb465')
</script>

<img
src='http://i.nuseek.com/images/misc/trk.gif?category=&keywords=DVD+Player+Software'
/>

</body>
</html>

>
> As I stated earlier in the thread, the effects of defragmenting on
> performance will vary depending upon the size and free space of the drive
> as well as the type of files frequently created or modified. Your blanket
> contention that defragmenters are of no use is, like most generalizations
> and blanket proclamations, absurd because it does not consider any disk
> usage pattern other than your own.

I maintain defraging is a waste of time, I have had my PC over 2 years and
have never
defragged, my PC runs like a dream and nothing a Software salesman says will
convince me otherwise.

You have seen the riduclous claim that a brand hew PC, and hence already
defragged
PC, can have its performance increase by 27% and yet you are still not
willing
to accept that these people are little more than con artists.

>
> I think the readers here can easily see how little such a generalization
> is worth.
> --
> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+
> http://dts-l.net/
> http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
>

Lord Turkey Cough · Feb 16, 2008

"Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:e4idnVM1XIcYZinanZ2dnUVZ_t2inZ2d@comcast.com...
> Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
> [snip]
>>> It didn't feel any faster because it was not any faster
>> I timed the boot up time and it infact took longer after defragging.
>> FACT not anecdote.
> [snip]
>
> So, just because the boot up time was longer, that proves your point?
> I guess you think that because the boot up time was slower, all the
> computer
> functions and programs were also slower.
> Pretty flawed thinking. Jumping to conclusions.
> I also don't believe the 'miraculous' speed increases promoted by
> Diskeeper,
> but I do listen to Glee and Gary , not blindly, but open-mindidly(I
> probably
> mispelled it). They are very informative and accurate 99.9% of the time.
>
> Being bullheaded and argumentive can be a way of life, but there are more
> fun approaches which can be more productive and enjoyable.

I am being neither, your only 'evidence' that I am is that
"They are very informative and accurate 99.9% of the time",
Have you done any tests yourself?
I suspect not.
Blindly accepting people are right because 'they usually are'
may be beneficial at times but it can also be disasterous.

>
> Buffalo
>
>

Lord Turkey Cough · Feb 16, 2008

The proof of the puffing is in the eating.
All the detailed explantions in the world will not change
test results which contradict them.

It's a case of once bitten twice shy, and I have been bitten
2 or 3 times by the defragging myth. I don't intend getting bitten anymore.

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23Q8LId4bIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> Debated upon whether I would get into this ridiculous argument, but:
> I'll just add this comment, which happens to coincide with most of the
> material on the subject. [Oh boy another web page]
>
> Fragmentation happens to cause significant impact upon hard drives,
> particularly in the NT/XP environment as files are not stored in the
> fashion
> one would [non-informed] generally think off.
>
> Ponder upon these overly simplified explanations:
>
> Many files are created or modified each time their application is run or
> accessed, and the system does not use the next available hard drive space
> to
> place those file segments/additions, but may place them in any unused
> space
> on the disk. This creates files which might extend from the base address
> [fat address or MFT] to anywhere else on the partition handled by jump
> instructions or other, which indicates the location of the next segment
> needed. These may once again be jumped to the next segment that may
> actually
> be at the opposite end of the disk/partition. Picture that happening
> several
> dozen times during the access of that one file. During this time, the hard
> drive controller, OS, and the algorithms used, may place other segments
> elsewhere on the disk, either temporarily or permanently.
> Think of a large file and picture the number of additional head movements
> needed to access JUST that one file and the extra time [additional
> nanoseconds] needed, then consider that there are likely a dozen or more
> additional files [dlls and other exes, etc.] needed for that one
> application
> which are also fragmented taking that same whipping head motion picking up
> a
> fragment here and there...
> Now let's picture that application has a data base of information, new
> information is added to that base but is stored wherever it was created.
> After running that same application and saving those new bits of data,
> that
> data base now exists in several thousand non-contiguous sectors of the
> hard
> drive. To view or access that data base ALL those segments must be found
> and
> brought together for the visual display, so these scattered bits are
> temporarily collected in the swap file and/or memory.
> All of this, of course, takes more head movement and time than if the
> files
> were contiguous and the application's other needed files were also closer
> together.
>
> A good indication is when intermittent Windows errors begin to show up for
> some reason or hard drive access times become excessive. If one goes to
> Safe
> Mode, shuts off Windows handling of virtual memory [swap] then deletes the
> win386.swp file after a restart in DOS, restarts to Safe mode and defrags,
> then turns ON Windows management when done restarting to Windows Normal
> Mode and behavior will be noticeably improved. Part of the reason is that
> the SWAP file is no longer scattered all over the disk, and is contiguous
> [Fat systems]. NT's defragmentation is of course different as are the
> results..
>
> Regarding new installations and defragging:
>
> A major misconception is that a newly installed OS is defragmented and
> arraigned closely on the disk. As the files are expanded areas of the
> disk,
> various areas are used to hold temporary copies of those files in any
> available area of the disk. Each file may first be copied, then expanded,
> then added to the proper directory or may be placed in temporary storage
> pending installation order, then placed with some directory [listed as
> part
> of].
> Each time the file is written, it takes up space on the drive, which may
> or
> may not be the next contiguous area, and may be some scattered areas upon
> the disk [other segments of files may already be using an area which might
> have been used].
> The directories themselves [via the table] assign the "base" area then
> list
> the various temporary and permanent locations of the files listed under
> the
> various directories. Nothing at this stage requires these files are
> actually
> assigned an area of the disk in which all the directory's files are
> located
> within a specific segment of the disk, e.g., one file after the other or
> one
> sector after the other. Continuing to use a newly installed disk without
> ever defragmenting it, will eventually cause errors and at minimum, slower
> loading times noticeable after extended usage.
>
> The first defragmentation done on a disk attempts to align the various
> individual segments of the files into contiguous areas/segments. If one
> has
> used something like "Align for faster Windows Loading" [MSDeFrag - not a
> recommended setting}, then the files are arraigned according to the
> monitored access, space required while running, and other factors held
> [created by taskmon] in C:\WINDOWS\APPLOG\ and using Logitec Mouse as
> example LOGI_MWX.LGC to supposedly place the file in an area conducive to
> its loading and any additional space it might require while
> loading/running
> [some exe files temporarily expand on disk and become fragmented in the
> process]. IF this is a fairly new system or taskmon has been disabled then
> the files will NOT be arraigned properly as there is not enough saved
> details.
> Successive deframentations generally take less time, and decrease file
> movement.. Watch a defragment tool: it checks the fats, then folders then
> files, and only adjusts what has or is fragmented [unless one uses the
> Align
> for Faster Windows which WILL constantly move files around based upon the
> logic files {which is why its not recommended}]
>
> Now, should any wish to complain this provides no conclusive proof, then
> they should get off their dead behinds and actually look at a fragmemented
> disk and defragmented disk with a hex/disk editor. THEN come back and
> post,
> maybe someone will listen, though I doubt it ...
> Or if you like visuals displays, then run MS Defrag and look at the
> details,, and watch it move files around trying to place all the file
> segments together.
>
> The short answer is: defragmentation can decrease OS access times and
> reduce wear and tear on your hard disk. Load times ARE NOT a definitive
> display of problems with defragmentation, but with the routines used, and
> INCLUDING a fragmented swap file.
>
> --
>
> MEB
> http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> _________
>
>
>
>

thanatoid · Feb 16, 2008

"Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in
news:64Atj.541$%W6.439@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net:

> The proof of the puffing is in the eating.

No, the proof of the puffing is the whistling noise turkeys
squeezed by their throats and prodded in their gut sometimes
make.

> All the detailed explantions in the world will not change
> test results which contradict them.
>
> It's a case of once bitten twice shy, and I have been
> bitten 2 or 3 times by the defragging myth. I don't intend
> getting bitten anymore.

I recall reading an article 3 or 4 years ago which basically
claimed that defragmenting is no longer necessary due to HD
technology improvements and insane processing speeds. This may
well be true, but this is a 98 group and some of us do not buy
shiny toys with Disasta pre-installed in home appliances stores.
Also, a HD is a HD and no mechanical device 100% immune to "wear
and tear" has yet been invented.

I agree buying a defragger or even a partition tool is largely
pointless - if you are able to think ahead, even fdisk is more
than adequate. And scandisk and defrag always worked fine for me
- I installed the ME versions and saw no noticeable improvement.
But I also have 7 partitions on an 8.4 GB drive and 16 on a 40
GB drive.
Partitions probably do more for "no-need-to-defrag" than
anything else. My swap drive is also not on C and set to a fixed
size.

I haven't read the whole thread, but are you even running
98/98se?

The below describes the situation as it is, pretty much.

> "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23Q8LId4bIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>> Debated upon whether I would get into this ridiculous
>> argument, but: I'll just add this comment, which happens
>> to coincide with most of the material on the subject. [Oh
>> boy another web page]
>>
>> Fragmentation happens to cause significant impact upon
>> hard drives, particularly in the NT/XP environment as
>> files are not stored in the fashion
>> one would [non-informed] generally think off.
>>
>> Ponder upon these overly simplified explanations:
>>
>> Many files are created or modified each time their
>> application is run or accessed, and the system does not
>> use the next available hard drive space to
>> place those file segments/additions, but may place them in
>> any unused space
>> on the disk. This creates files which might extend from
>> the base address [fat address or MFT] to anywhere else on
>> the partition handled by jump instructions or other, which
>> indicates the location of the next segment needed. These
>> may once again be jumped to the next segment that may
>> actually be at the opposite end of the disk/partition.
>> Picture that happening several
>> dozen times during the access of that one file. During
>> this time, the hard drive controller, OS, and the
>> algorithms used, may place other segments elsewhere on the
>> disk, either temporarily or permanently. Think of a large
>> file and picture the number of additional head movements
>> needed to access JUST that one file and the extra time
>> [additional nanoseconds] needed, then consider that there
>> are likely a dozen or more additional files [dlls and
>> other exes, etc.] needed for that one application
>> which are also fragmented taking that same whipping head
>> motion picking up a
>> fragment here and there...
>> Now let's picture that application has a data base of
>> information, new information is added to that base but is
>> stored wherever it was created. After running that same
>> application and saving those new bits of data, that
>> data base now exists in several thousand non-contiguous
>> sectors of the hard
>> drive. To view or access that data base ALL those segments
>> must be found and
>> brought together for the visual display, so these
>> scattered bits are temporarily collected in the swap file
>> and/or memory. All of this, of course, takes more head
>> movement and time than if the files
>> were contiguous and the application's other needed files
>> were also closer together.
>>
>> A good indication is when intermittent Windows errors
>> begin to show up for some reason or hard drive access
>> times become excessive. If one goes to Safe
>> Mode, shuts off Windows handling of virtual memory [swap]
>> then deletes the win386.swp file after a restart in DOS,
>> restarts to Safe mode and defrags, then turns ON Windows
>> management when done restarting to Windows Normal Mode
>> and behavior will be noticeably improved. Part of the
>> reason is that the SWAP file is no longer scattered all
>> over the disk, and is contiguous [Fat systems]. NT's
>> defragmentation is of course different as are the
>> results..
>>
>> Regarding new installations and defragging:
>>
>> A major misconception is that a newly installed OS is
>> defragmented and arraigned closely on the disk. As the
>> files are expanded areas of the disk,
>> various areas are used to hold temporary copies of those
>> files in any available area of the disk. Each file may
>> first be copied, then expanded, then added to the proper
>> directory or may be placed in temporary storage pending
>> installation order, then placed with some directory
>> [listed as part
>> of].
>> Each time the file is written, it takes up space on the
>> drive, which may or
>> may not be the next contiguous area, and may be some
>> scattered areas upon the disk [other segments of files may
>> already be using an area which might have been used].
>> The directories themselves [via the table] assign the
>> "base" area then list
>> the various temporary and permanent locations of the files
>> listed under the
>> various directories. Nothing at this stage requires these
>> files are actually
>> assigned an area of the disk in which all the directory's
>> files are located
>> within a specific segment of the disk, e.g., one file
>> after the other or one
>> sector after the other. Continuing to use a newly
>> installed disk without ever defragmenting it, will
>> eventually cause errors and at minimum, slower loading
>> times noticeable after extended usage.
>>
>> The first defragmentation done on a disk attempts to align
>> the various individual segments of the files into
>> contiguous areas/segments. If one has
>> used something like "Align for faster Windows Loading"
>> [MSDeFrag - not a recommended setting}, then the files are
>> arraigned according to the monitored access, space
>> required while running, and other factors held [created by
>> taskmon] in C:\WINDOWS\APPLOG\ and using Logitec Mouse as
>> example LOGI_MWX.LGC to supposedly place the file in an
>> area conducive to its loading and any additional space it
>> might require while loading/running
>> [some exe files temporarily expand on disk and become
>> fragmented in the process]. IF this is a fairly new system
>> or taskmon has been disabled then the files will NOT be
>> arraigned properly as there is not enough saved details.
>> Successive deframentations generally take less time, and
>> decrease file movement.. Watch a defragment tool: it
>> checks the fats, then folders then files, and only
>> adjusts what has or is fragmented [unless one uses the
>> Align
>> for Faster Windows which WILL constantly move files around
>> based upon the logic files {which is why its not
>> recommended}]
>>
>> Now, should any wish to complain this provides no
>> conclusive proof, then they should get off their dead
>> behinds and actually look at a fragmemented disk and
>> defragmented disk with a hex/disk editor. THEN come back
>> and post,
>> maybe someone will listen, though I doubt it ...
>> Or if you like visuals displays, then run MS Defrag and
>> look at the
>> details,, and watch it move files around trying to place
>> all the file segments together.
>>
>> The short answer is: defragmentation can decrease OS
>> access times and reduce wear and tear on your hard disk.
>> Load times ARE NOT a definitive display of problems with
>> defragmentation, but with the routines used, and INCLUDING
>> a fragmented swap file.

--
"As you know, it is considered bad form to discuss the latest
news with persons from the beyond."
Karel Capek

Bill in Co. · Feb 16, 2008

Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
> The proof of the puffing is in the eating.
> All the detailed explantions in the world will not change
> test results which contradict them.

You haven't presented any, because there aren't any.

Lord Turkey Cough · Feb 16, 2008

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OxEwnvNcIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
>> The proof of the puffing is in the eating.
>> All the detailed explantions in the world will not change
>> test results which contradict them.
>
> You haven't presented any, because there aren't any.

I have.
Time your PC running normally then defrag and time it again.
Present you results here.

I am not doing it myself because I know it is a waste of time.
You don't so you show you results.

And NO LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>
>

Bill in Co. · Feb 16, 2008

Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:OxEwnvNcIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
>>> The proof of the puffing is in the eating.
>>> All the detailed explantions in the world will not change
>>> test results which contradict them.
>>
>> You haven't presented any, because there aren't any.
>
> I have.
> Time your PC running normally then defrag and time it again.
> Present you results here.
>
> I am not doing it myself because I know it is a waste of time.

Same here. Touche.

disk defragmentor

Gary S. Terhune

Tilly821

Bill in Co.

Lord Turkey Cough

Lord Turkey Cough

Lord Turkey Cough

Lord Turkey Cough

Gary S. Terhune

Gary S. Terhune

Lord Turkey Cough

Buffalo

MEB

glee

Lord Turkey Cough

Lord Turkey Cough

Lord Turkey Cough

thanatoid

Bill in Co.

Lord Turkey Cough

Bill in Co.

Similar threads