"R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:#l$Zdk2gIHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> You CAN run an NTFS system for years without defrag. However,
> it will be fragmented. Just yesterday I worked on a system that was
> 4+ years old and had never been defragmented. The fragmentation
> level was severe. You cannot get around the physics of a hard drive.[/color]

I know, however you don't need to defrag it, it doesn't stop working like
FAT did.
All the linux file systems would have been fragmented after 4 years of real
use too.

"occam" <occam@razor.dot.com> wrote in message
news:OQTR2E3gIHA.4140@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> dennis@home wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Its like *all* disk based file systems.. you can make it faster by
>> optimisation.. commonly referred to as defrag by those that don't
>> understand.[/color]
>
> I know this is a vista nG. But if you go into your (NTFS) XP
>
> Start>> All Programs >> Accessories >> System Tools >> Disk Defragmenter
>
> and click the 'Analyse' button, you will get many indices of disk
> fragmentation, as provided by the built-in MS defragmenter.
>
> I guess they do not understand the difference between 'fragmentation' and
> 'optimisation'. Silly them![/color]

Well obviously not as fragmentation was a byproduct of the Berkeley
filesystem where the odd bits left over at the end of a file, the fragments,
could be put into a shared block. ;-)

stop spreading crap...

do some serious research.. WARNING what you are saying is STUPID and
compleatly WRONG!!!!

I will not take the time to search for the information for you.. no.. its
out there.. use google you moron


"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:%23n0V3n8gIHA.5296@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
>
> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:#l$Zdk2gIHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> You CAN run an NTFS system for years without defrag. However,
>> it will be fragmented. Just yesterday I worked on a system that was
>> 4+ years old and had never been defragmented. The fragmentation
>> level was severe. You cannot get around the physics of a hard drive.[/color]
>
> I know, however you don't need to defrag it, it doesn't stop working like
> FAT did.
> All the linux file systems would have been fragmented after 4 years of
> real use too.
>
>
>[/color]

"NoStop" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fr66vf018i0@news5.newsguy.com...[color=blue]
> dennis@home wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>>
>> "bamboozle" <bamb@oozle.com> wrote in message
>> news:47d65707$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...[color=darkred]
>>> hello, you are believing in a myth postulated by microsoft when they
>>> made
>>> NT, but was fast to backpedal it very fast because the whole world was
>>> laughing...
>>>
>>> NTFS needs defrag... you can do some serious reasearch although the web
>>> is contaminated by misinformation still floating around from back
>>> then...[/color]
>>
>> You are just spreading FUD.
>> Name one occasion where NTFS has had to be defragged.[/color]
>
> Duh! So MickeyMouse has introduced silent background defragging in Vista
> of
> NTFS volumes for no reason at all, other than to create wear and tear on
> your hard drive? Either Microsoft is just doing it to fuk the end-user or
> it believes that defragging is NECESSARY with the NTFS filesystem. Which
> is
> it oh smart one?[/color]

Ask Bill, while you are at it ask him why it isn't enabled by default if its
essential as you don't appear to be able to think for yourself.

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:63no6fF284nq0U4@mid.individual.net...[color=blue]
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:58:54 +0200, bamboozle wrote:
>[color=green]
>> modern as in linux that is 20 years old? lol[/color]
>
> I'm afraid you are wrong there. Linus Torvalds did not even start work on
> Linux until 1991. Unless my math skills have completely deteriorated,
> 1991 + 20 = 2011 - and it's only 2008 now!
>[/color]

Don't forget that Linux is a copy of a much older OS kernel than that. Its
not as though Linus invented something new.

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:63nocdF284nq0U5@mid.individual.net...[color=blue]
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:01:42 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "bamboozle" <bamb@oozle.com> wrote in message
>> news:47d5dc5f@newsgate.x-privat.org...[color=darkred]
>>> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:63l3dqF26tf91U5@mid.individual.net...[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>> Or one could move to a modern filesystem which does not need
>>>> defragmenting and obviate the entire process.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 -[/color]

Does it update the metadata and stuff like that?
I also read and write NTFS but the last time I read a readme it said it
could be unreliable.. maybe they are just covering themselves incase M$
changes something?
[color=blue]
> which, according to many recent
> discussions still needs to be regularly defragmented - or else why would
> everyone still be doing it?[/color]

Ask them, I bet they don't notice any difference.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> 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]

I remember seeing M$ documentation about NTFS a while back.. maybe it didn't
list all the detasils but it certainly showed what all the pointers and
stuff did.[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>>
>> 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!![/color]

Need and useful are confusing to you I take it.
Why not defrag one of your linux disks that has been full and in use for 12
months and see what optimising a disk file system can do and then you would
understand why you "defrag" disk based filesystems.
If you need help on how to defrag a linux filesystem feel free to ask.

dennis@home wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>
> "NoStop" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:fr66vf018i0@news5.newsguy.com...[color=green]
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>
>>> "bamboozle" <bamb@oozle.com> wrote in message
>>> news:47d65707$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...
>>>> hello, you are believing in a myth postulated by microsoft when they
>>>> made
>>>> NT, but was fast to backpedal it very fast because the whole world was
>>>> laughing...
>>>>
>>>> NTFS needs defrag... you can do some serious reasearch although the web
>>>> is contaminated by misinformation still floating around from back
>>>> then...
>>>
>>> You are just spreading FUD.
>>> Name one occasion where NTFS has had to be defragged.[/color]
>>
>> Duh! So MickeyMouse has introduced silent background defragging in Vista
>> of
>> NTFS volumes for no reason at all, other than to create wear and tear on
>> your hard drive? Either Microsoft is just doing it to fuk the end-user or
>> it believes that defragging is NECESSARY with the NTFS filesystem. Which
>> is
>> it oh smart one?[/color]
>
> Ask Bill, while you are at it ask him why it isn't enabled by default if
> its essential as you don't appear to be able to think for yourself.[/color]

Unlike Francis, I don't associate with Bill.

Cheers.

--
What does Bill Gates use?
[url]http://tinyurl.com/2zxhdl[/url]

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Be Afraid ... Be Very Afraid ... of Francis' RELATIVES!

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
[url]http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm[/url]

NoStop wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> Unlike Francis, I don't associate with Bill.
>
> Cheers.
>[/color]

Yeah, you got your butt-buddy alias and that sheep...LOL!
You're just about the most hate filled POS lying linux loser I have ever
come across.
Frank

Frank wrote:
[color=blue]
> NoStop wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>> Unlike Francis, I don't associate with Bill.
>>
>> Cheers.
>>[/color]
>
> Yeah, you got your butt-buddy alias and that sheep...LOL!
> You're just about the most hate filled POS lying linux loser I have ever
> come across.
> Frank[/color]

If you find me that upsetting, I know that all my work here is not in
vain. :-) Enjoy!

Cheers and LOL!

--
What does Bill Gates use?
[url]http://tinyurl.com/2zxhdl[/url]

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Be Afraid ... Be Very Afraid ... of Francis' RELATIVES!

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
[url]http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm[/url]

NoStop wrote:
[color=blue]
> Frank wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>NoStop wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Unlike Francis, I don't associate with Bill.
>>>
>>>Cheers.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>Yeah, you got your butt-buddy alias and that sheep...LOL!
>>You're just about the most hate filled POS lying linux loser I have ever
>>come across.
>>Frank[/color]
>
>
> If you find me that upsetting, I know that all my work here is not in
> vain. :-) Enjoy!
>
> Cheers and LOL!
>[/color]
Thanks for proving my point you imbecile...LOL!
Frank

Frank wrote:
[color=blue]
> NoStop wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>NoStop wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Unlike Francis, I don't associate with Bill.
>>>>
>>>>Cheers.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah, you got your butt-buddy alias and that sheep...LOL!
>>>You're just about the most hate filled POS lying linux loser I have ever
>>>come across.
>>>Frank[/color]
>>
>>
>> If you find me that upsetting, I know that all my work here is not in
>> vain. :-) Enjoy!
>>
>> Cheers and LOL!
>>[/color]
> Thanks for proving my point you imbecile...LOL!
> Frank[/color]

What point? That you are upset and a raving lunatic? We already knew that
Francis.

Cheers.

--
What does Bill Gates use?
[url]http://tinyurl.com/2zxhdl[/url]

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Be Afraid ... Be Very Afraid ... of Francis' RELATIVES!

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
[url]http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm[/url]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:04:51 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
[color=blue]
> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:63no6fF284nq0U4@mid.individual.net...[color=green]
>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:58:54 +0200, bamboozle wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> modern as in linux that is 20 years old? lol[/color]
>>
>> I'm afraid you are wrong there. Linus Torvalds did not even start work
>> on Linux until 1991. Unless my math skills have completely
>> deteriorated, 1991 + 20 = 2011 - and it's only 2008 now!
>>
>>[/color]
> Don't forget that Linux is a copy of a much older OS kernel than that.
> Its not as though Linus invented something new.[/color]

It's not a "copy of a much older OS kernel". Linus was inspired to start
on it by minix. But it is a complete, original work. It has also changed
much since it's inception.

ray wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:04:51 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
>> news:63no6fF284nq0U4@mid.individual.net...[color=darkred]
>>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:58:54 +0200, bamboozle wrote:
>>>
>>>> modern as in linux that is 20 years old? lol
>>>
>>> I'm afraid you are wrong there. Linus Torvalds did not even start work
>>> on Linux until 1991. Unless my math skills have completely
>>> deteriorated, 1991 + 20 = 2011 - and it's only 2008 now!
>>>
>>>[/color]
>> Don't forget that Linux is a copy of a much older OS kernel than that.
>> Its not as though Linus invented something new.[/color]
>
> It's not a "copy of a much older OS kernel". Linus was inspired to start
> on it by minix. But it is a complete, original work. It has also changed
> much since it's inception.[/color]

Don't use facts with dennis, it'll only confuse him further.

Cheers.

--
What does Bill Gates use?
[url]http://tinyurl.com/2zxhdl[/url]

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Be Afraid ... Be Very Afraid ... of Francis' RELATIVES!

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
[url]http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm[/url]

NoStop wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> What point? That I am upset and a raving lunatic?
>[/color]
----------------------------------------------[color=blue]
>[/color]
Yep! Couldn't have said it any better myself...LOL!
Frank

> Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:[color=blue]
> [url]http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm[/url][/color]

|Compost| generally is ineffective against more powerful Warriors





"NoStop" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fr7eal22c7s@news5.newsguy.com...[color=blue]
> ray wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:04:51 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:63no6fF284nq0U4@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:58:54 +0200, bamboozle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> modern as in linux that is 20 years old? lol
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid you are wrong there. Linus Torvalds did not even start work
>>>> on Linux until 1991. Unless my math skills have completely
>>>> deteriorated, 1991 + 20 = 2011 - and it's only 2008 now!
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Don't forget that Linux is a copy of a much older OS kernel than that.
>>> Its not as though Linus invented something new.[/color]
>>
>> It's not a "copy of a much older OS kernel". Linus was inspired to start
>> on it by minix. But it is a complete, original work. It has also changed
>> much since it's inception.[/color]
>
> Don't use facts with dennis, it'll only confuse him further.
>
> Cheers.
>
> --
> What does Bill Gates use?
> [url]http://tinyurl.com/2zxhdl[/url]
>
> Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.
>
> Be Afraid ... Be Very Afraid ... of Francis' RELATIVES!
>
> Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
> [url]http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm[/url]
>[/color]