Defragmenter
in [Computers]
|
Prev: IExplorer open minimised
Next: Cheese
From: Rod Speed on 27 Apr 2010 19:17 SG1 wrote: > Is there a free alternative to M$ defragmenter as per XP. It is soooo slow. Only fools defrag often enough to matter. You qualify.
From: z1 on 27 Apr 2010 19:37 Rod Speed wrote: > SG1 wrote: > >> Is there a free alternative to M$ defragmenter as per XP. It is soooo slow. > > Only fools defrag often enough to matter. You qualify. > > There is a load of differing opinion on this Rod. Maybe you could share your rationale on the matter mate on the technical reasons you hold the view you do? Otherwise how you been? :)
From: idgat on 27 Apr 2010 20:12 On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 06:12:13 +1000, "SG1" <lostitall(a)the.races> wrote: >Is there a free alternative to M$ defragmenter as per XP. It is soooo slow. >Comments about not needing to defragment are not encouraged Roddles. > > Defraggler - from the same people who brought you ccleaner. (Ignore Rod - or the clone pretending to be. The occasional defrag never hurt any machine) Defraggler is the closest in compatibility to Windows buit-in defrag process. -- idgat Compuglobalhypermeganet Inc.
From: . on 27 Apr 2010 21:43 "idgat" <anon(a)anon.com> wrote in message news:t6vet5tfu3dk7cdulhod8d1i5fh45jp13o(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 06:12:13 +1000, "SG1" <lostitall(a)the.races> wrote: > >>Is there a free alternative to M$ defragmenter as per XP. It is soooo >>slow. >>Comments about not needing to defragment are not encouraged Roddles. >> >> > > Defraggler - from the same people who brought you ccleaner. > http://download.piriform.com/dfsetup118.exe > (Ignore Rod - or the clone pretending to be. The occasional defrag > never hurt any machine) > That`s roddles...why would anyone want to clone that? > Defraggler is the closest in compatibility to Windows buit-in defrag > process. > -- > idgat > Compuglobalhypermeganet Inc. Very good proggy...so far.. Don`t even notice it running in the background! But will it improve system performance...? Looks much like the old msdos defrag.
From: Rod Speed on 28 Apr 2010 00:32
z1 wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> SG1 wrote >>> Is there a free alternative to M$ defragmenter as per XP. It is soooo slow. >> Only fools defrag often enough to matter. You qualify. > There is a load of differing opinion on this Rod. Yes, but all that proves is that there are lots of fools around. > Maybe you could share your rationale on the matter mate on the technical reasons you hold the view you do? Basically there isnt much that does serial access to large files anymore that isnt a media player. With media files, the rate of access to them is entirely determined by the media play speed, so extra seeks due to the extra fragments is completely invisible and cant even be detected at all. Certainly the speed of copying very large files around is a little faster if the files are not fragmented, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense to not move them around than it does to furiously defrag them so the speed of moving them is minimised. And you'll find with those that the time you save when moving the files is a lot less than the time it takes to defrag anyway. Certainly backups can be a bit faster with a fragmented drive in theory, but in practice the total time is normally limited by the media speed in practice. Certainly recovery of FAT32 files which are not fragmented is easier than with fragmented files, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense to have proper backups than to furiously defrag and defragging makes any system do a lot more work than it would otherwise do, so increases the chances of failure anyway. So all in all, there are very few situations with modern fast seeking hard drives where there is any measurable benefit in defragging, and you are normally just wasting your time defragging. > Otherwise how you been? :) Very decent thanks. |