Yes. The heads have to move all over the place to link together a
fragmented file and the system has to do this all the time whereas a defrag
operation may take an hour and result in much reduced head movement for
weeks.

"Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message
news:4uHXj.3774$ah4.3227@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>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?
>>
>
>