What's the best free disk defragger, not in Windows, for NTFS and FAT drives/partitions?
in [Storage]
|
Prev: My 128 GB flash drive is not working
Next: What's the best free disk defragger, not in Windows, for NTFSand FAT drives/partitions?
From: Rod Speed on 14 Dec 2009 13:44 Cronos wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> Nope, the other fundamental question is whether the measured >> difference is noticeable. If it isnt, its not worth worrying about. > Whether you notice or not is beside the point Like hell if is. If you cant see any difference, there isnt any point in defragging. > because the benefit is there and is measurable regardless of if you notice it or not. Mindlessly silly. > I can't tell if my game is running at 24fps or 30fps but knowing it is running at 30fps is preferable. Even sillier.
From: Jerry Peters on 14 Dec 2009 17:19 David Brown <david(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: > Don Lope de Aguirre wrote: >> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:7n6eooF3ibh58U1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> There is no point in furiously defragging anymore. >> >> How about defragging once a month at least? If it is now useless then >> why does both Vista and Win7 have tasks auto set to defrag once per >> week? It seems that Microsoft disagrees with you. > > "Microsoft disagrees with you" is as good an argument as "Kermit the > Frog disagrees with you". There are so many bad choices for defaults in > Windows that this is absolutely no indication that defragging is useful > in general, or useful on a regular basis. They seem to have taken over from IBM in this regard. IBM's defaults were very often the least usable alternative. MS's seem to be the most annoying alternative. Jerry
From: Jerry Peters on 14 Dec 2009 17:21 Cronos <cronos(a)sphere.invalid> wrote: > David Brown wrote: > >> "Microsoft disagrees with you" is as good an argument as "Kermit the >> Frog disagrees with you". There are so many bad choices for defaults in >> Windows that this is absolutely no indication that defragging is useful >> in general, or useful on a regular basis. > > But Microsoft is not Kermit the frog and have many very smart people > working for them so I think it might be prudent to give them some > credibility instead of discounting them without understanding why they > have it set to auto defrag once per week. My guess is they do that > because to do it once a week means it is far quicker to keep the HDDs > defragged than doing it once every few months. Smart people? You certainly wouldn't know it looking at Windows. Sorry, but appeals to authority will only get you so far. Evidence would be a lot better. Jerry
From: Rod Speed on 15 Dec 2009 03:57 David Brown wrote: > Cronos wrote: >> David Brown wrote: >> >>> "Microsoft disagrees with you" is as good an argument as "Kermit the >>> Frog disagrees with you". There are so many bad choices for >>> defaults in Windows that this is absolutely no indication that >>> defragging is useful in general, or useful on a regular basis. >> >> But Microsoft is not Kermit the frog and have many very smart people >> working for them so I think it might be prudent to give them some >> credibility instead of discounting them without understanding why >> they have it set to auto defrag once per week. My guess is they do >> that because to do it once a week means it is far quicker to keep >> the HDDs defragged than doing it once every few months. > > Respect and credibility is something a person or company must work > hard to earn, and can quickly loose. MS has worked long and hard to > ensure they have as little credibility with technically knowledgeable > people as they possibly can. > > I am /not/ saying that they are always wrong. But you must be very > na�ve to assume that what they say is right, without looking for > independent confirmation or proof. > > It is generally true that defragging will be faster if the last time > you ran it was a week ago rather than two months ago. But the total > time wasted on weekly defrags over those two months is much more than > the time wasted for a single defrag once every two months. But > whether you do it once a week or every second month, it is still > wasted time. > You wanted to know the reason newer Windows defaults to auto > defragging once a week? It's because lots of people, such as > yourself, assume that this is a "new feature" - another "reason" for > "upgrading" to Vista / Windows 7. Companies like DiskKeeper have > done a great false advertising job persuading people that they need > scheduled defragmenters - MS is simply cashing in on their marketing. Nope, the fools that decide the defaults cant grasp the basics, that unless the user can detect the difference that defragging makes, there isnt any point in doing it.
From: mscotgrove on 15 Dec 2009 04:37
On Dec 15, 8:57 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > David Brown wrote: > > Cronos wrote: > >> David Brown wrote: > > >>> "Microsoft disagrees with you" is as good an argument as "Kermit the > >>> Frog disagrees with you". There are so many bad choices for > >>> defaults in Windows that this is absolutely no indication that > >>> defragging is useful in general, or useful on a regular basis. > > >> But Microsoft is not Kermit the frog and have many very smart people > >> working for them so I think it might be prudent to give them some > >> credibility instead of discounting them without understanding why > >> they have it set to auto defrag once per week. My guess is they do > >> that because to do it once a week means it is far quicker to keep > >> the HDDs defragged than doing it once every few months. > > > Respect and credibility is something a person or company must work > > hard to earn, and can quickly loose. MS has worked long and hard to > > ensure they have as little credibility with technically knowledgeable > > people as they possibly can. > > > I am /not/ saying that they are always wrong. But you must be very > > naïve to assume that what they say is right, without looking for > > independent confirmation or proof. > > > It is generally true that defragging will be faster if the last time > > you ran it was a week ago rather than two months ago. But the total > > time wasted on weekly defrags over those two months is much more than > > the time wasted for a single defrag once every two months. But > > whether you do it once a week or every second month, it is still > > wasted time. > > You wanted to know the reason newer Windows defaults to auto > > defragging once a week? It's because lots of people, such as > > yourself, assume that this is a "new feature" - another "reason" for > > "upgrading" to Vista / Windows 7. Companies like DiskKeeper have > > done a great false advertising job persuading people that they need > > scheduled defragmenters - MS is simply cashing in on their marketing. > > Nope, the fools that decide the defaults cant grasp the basics, that unless the user > can detect the difference that defragging makes, there isnt any point in doing it.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - It is no excuse not to backup a drive, but recovery of a corrupted or damaged drive can often be easier if the files are not fragmented. The files that often get very fragmented are ones that grow, such as e- mail inboxes, and documents/spread sheets that have been worked on a lot. These are often viewed as very importat files to recover. Do an occasional defrag, and a very regular backup. Michael |