On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:01:42 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
[color=blue]
> "bamboozle" <bamb@oozle.com> wrote in message
> news:47d5dc5f@newsgate.x-privat.org...[color=green]
>> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
>> news:63l3dqF26tf91U5@mid.individual.net...[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Or one could move to a modern filesystem which does not need
>>> defragmenting and obviate the entire process.[/color]
>>
>>
>> modern as in linux that is 20 years old? lol
>>
>>
>>[/color]
> You have to remember that the linux guys still use FAT32 (note 1) when
> they use windows and that did need defragging. NTFS does not need to be
> defragged but like all disk based systems, including the latest linux
> ones, benefit from optimisation which is what the vista defragger does
> in the background.[/color]

Why is that? I use, and most other folks I know use, ntfs-3g to read and
write NTFS systems with no difficulty - which, according to many recent
discussions still needs to be regularly defragmented - or else why would
everyone still be doing it?
[color=blue]
>
> Note 1: most linux users use FAT32 for windows support because Linux
> can't reliably handle NTFS and they get problems using NTFS. This suits
> them anyway as it perpetuates their *erroneous* belief that you have to
> defrag windows but not linux.[/color]

That my friend, is B.S. Linux has been properly reading and writing NTFS
for some time now - despite the fact that MS has never released proper
docomentation. Indeed a marvel of reverse engineering.
[color=blue]
>
> Anyway to the OP and anyone that wants to defrag Vista, just let Vista
> do its work in the background and forget about all the fancy displays,
> etc. it works fine. The add on utils will show fragmentation but that is
> because vista doesn't move stuff if it is not going to see an
> improvement in performance so it still leaves some files in "fragments"
> just like the linux file systems do.[/color]

I thought you just told us it didn't need that!!