What's the best free disk defragger, not in Windows, for NTFSand FAT drives/partitions?
in [Storage]
|
Prev: What's the best free disk defragger, not in Windows, for NTFS and FAT drives/partitions?
Next: Fishface recommends Macrium Reflect for making backup copies of Windows
From: Cronos on 17 Dec 2009 16:54 Jerry Peters wrote: > Smart people make poor decisions all the time, look at Bill Clinton, > or Tiger Woods, or even more apropos, Windows Vista. > Your very smart people at MS *really* blew it with Vista. People who feel the need to brag that they are smarter than others are dumb fucks with an inferiority complex.
From: Cronos on 17 Dec 2009 16:55 Rod Speed wrote: > Doesnt happen with defragging, because the absolute vast bulk of linear > access to very large files is with media files where it takes EXACTLY > the same time to play the file whether its fragmented or not. > > Not to open or move the file though. That's were defrag comes into play and not FPS.
From: Cronos on 17 Dec 2009 16:57 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.
From: Cronos on 17 Dec 2009 16:59 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 has a few loose screws so if that is who you choose as your hero then I guess you have a few loose screws upstairs also.
From: Cronos on 17 Dec 2009 17:00
Rod Speed wrote: > 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, dumbass. |