I would venture to say there is much more wear and tear on a fragmented file
if you don't defrag.
"Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:B9923CBE-E339-46D2-9071-6849C82831F8@microsoft.com...
> It is not so much that you're running defrag as it is disk usage.
> Anything that heavily accesses the disk can eventually cause wear and tear
> on the mechanisms sufficiently to shorten disk drive life (even if
> slightly) when run excessively. You can get the same effect by constantly
> running chkdks or other disk utilities far more often than needed. But
> don't let that slight concern prevent you from running defrag
> appropriately (when the defrag analyser says you should defrag). These
> are reasons why folks should maintain a good backup plan. Hard drives do
> eventually just wear out even when using best practices. I have some that
> have lasted many years and I have had some that only made it a year.
>
> "rick s" <ricks@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4C4390A7-08CB-4E70-9695-FF9880DA1801@microsoft.com...
>> Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of
>> destroying your hard drive. Is this true?
>