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 17 Dec 2009 19:10 Cronos wrote > David Brown wrote >> First off, everything is /never/ equal. Secondly, even if everything >> else /were/ equal, who would notice or care? Unless you are in a car >> race, a few percent longer or shorter on the journey is irrelevant. >> I am not claiming that defragmenting has no effect - just that in the >> great majority of cases, it has no /relevant/ or /noticeable/ effect. > Then I take it you never upgrade your PC because it is always fast enough for you. More fool you. That does produce a noticeable effect if you dont do it very often.
From: Rod Speed on 17 Dec 2009 19:11 Cronos wrote > David Brown wrote >> I suppose you are implying that I am parroting from Rod's posts? I >> /do/ happen to agree with him in this matter - he is not wrong /all/ >> the time. > Anyone who spends all day posting in this forum No one does that.
From: Rod Speed on 17 Dec 2009 19:13 Cronos wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> Cronos wrote: >>> Bob Willard wrote: >>>> I can imagine nasty combinations of workloads and platforms that >>>> would make defragging helpful, but they must be really rare now. >>>> In a former life (~15 years ago), doing backup from HD=>tape, it was >>>> obvious that defragging before starting a backup kept the tape mostly >>>> streaming, while skipping the defrag step led to a lot of >>>> shoe-shining. That system was a 486/33 with 4MB of RAM, running Win >>>> 3.1, with a 3600 RPM non-DMA FAT16 HD, and a QIC (definitely not >>>> quick) tape connected over a shared parallel port; and, the >>>> (Colorado) backup software was very primitive. >>>> In that era, I used to say that any mag.tape had only two speeds: >>>> "It streams or it sucks". >>>> Over the past dozen or so years, I've never been able to notice any >>>> performance gain due to defragging, which is why I always recommend >>>> using a defragger which is free: either none, or whatever is bundled >>>> with the OS. >>> Just because your eyes don't visually detect the difference does not >>> mean there is no difference. Can you visually tell the dif between a >>> 2.4ghz cpu and a 2.6ghz cpu? No! >> So there isnt any point in upgrading from one to the other, stupid. > But there is a measurable difference so one is faster than the other, And only a fool upgrades from one to the other, fuckwit.
From: Bilky White on 18 Dec 2009 04:07 "Cronos" <cronos(a)sphere.invalid> wrote in message news:hgff3m$l97$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > David Brown wrote: > >Rod Speed is always good for a chuckle or two. No argument there!
From: Rod Speed on 18 Dec 2009 04:22
Cronos wrote: > Rod Speed wrote: > >> And only a fool upgrades from one to the other, fuckwit. > > That is besides the point I was making but I guess the point was way over your head. Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag. |