Well said ! ...as I read down through this thread, I was poised to make
exactly this point, and found that you already have !
This would also have been my contention i.e. a regularly defragmented hd
results in significantly reduced hard-disk "voice coil type" actuator
activity across the next few weeks.

regards, Richard


"Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8B797C42-0FBE-4144-B8D1-76E40283F17F@microsoft.com...
> 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?
>>>
>>
>>
>