Microsoft Security Essentials
in [Spyware]
|
From: Dustin Cook on 5 Jan 2010 13:29 ASCII <me2(a)privacy.net> wrote in news:4b4305bb.2908015(a)EDCBIC: > Dustin Cook wrote: >> If you need something that will make dummy 2.1 >>gig files by allocating free space; I'm willing to provide it. > > Maybe a copy of [42.zip]? > That'll fill up your drive quite handily! > Sorry, I don't know the app? I was just going to write something up real quick; and of course provide source code as well. Nothing fancy; hence the 2.1gig limitation per run.. shrug. Anyways, it's pointless to do it. If an individual doesn't wish to defrag; who am I to complain? heh. -- .... Those are my thoughts anyways...
From: Dustin Cook on 5 Jan 2010 13:29 ASCII <me2(a)privacy.net> wrote in news:4b440f7f.5408515(a)EDCBIC: > Dustin Cook wrote: >>I have diskeeper actually; I've been using it for years. > > How would you compare it to Raxco's PerfectDisk? I've never used perfectdisk. -- .... Those are my thoughts anyways...
From: Cronos on 5 Jan 2010 23:13 Dustin Cook wrote: > Sorry, I don't know the app? I was just going to write something up real > quick; and of course provide source code as well. Nothing fancy; hence the > 2.1gig limitation per run.. shrug. > > Anyways, it's pointless to do it. If an individual doesn't wish to defrag; > who am I to complain? heh. I defrag, but not every week like Microsoft set it to. That scheduler doesn't work properly anyway. It's supposed to defrag at next idle time if the defrag task didn't run at the scheduled time and it never does that I can see.
From: Cronos on 5 Jan 2010 23:19 Dustin Cook wrote: > I've never used perfectdisk. > > It's the one that gets the most praise. I do have a copy of Diskeeper that a friend gave me so have used the full version too. Perfectdisk has more options than Diskeeper but that was a some years back and don't know how they compare now. For example, Perfectdisk has what they call Smart defrag which is just using their own disk map for layout instead of the Microsoft one. It moves most often used files to the fastest area of the HDD.
From: Cronos on 5 Jan 2010 23:31
Dustin Cook wrote: > It's all about that access time my friend. How long is it going to take > to seek out file a, and then how much longer will it take to pull record > #34746 out of it. If it's fragmented, your computer's hard disk is going > to be spending time it could otherwise have not wasted hunting for > invididual pieces. > > > > > Below is not me: I'd place as much faith in that anonymous poster's comments as I would in someone claiming that their music system sounds much better with their new gazillion dollar speaker cables than it did with the old bazillion dollar cables. I am not claiming he is lying - he may truly believe what he writes (though he may also be an astroturfer). But it is still nonsense. To take two specific points - to my knowledge, not even MS has managed to make file system drivers that are so poor that the cause errors with fragmented files. I can't rule out that there are corner cases that cause failures, but they will be very rare. Secondly, it may well be the case that a particular database server has very low timeout settings. But these will /never/ be so low that fragmentation will cause a timeout. There are all sorts of variable delays in a system, especially windows, and timeouts will be large enough to take those into account. There was a time when fragmentation was a big issue in DOS and early Windows, mainly because the disk head had to move back and forth so much between the FAT blocks and the data blocks. DOS and windows had pretty much nothing in the way of disk caching at the time, so everything was read directly from the disk and thus fragments were very costly. With more "modern" systems, such as windows NT (or any form of *nix), you have caching of the block allocation data structures, better file systems, read-ahead, on-drive caches, etc., which hugely reduce the impact. |