Dedicated to the idiot, racist, nazi-like ALEXB who insists that the vista
defrag is the best thing
since sliced bread and irreplaceable.. what an idiot...

http://www.cnet.com/8301-13880_1-988...=2547-1_3-0-20

it just so happens that they are recommending the same defrag free program,
and for the SAME reason as I did.... great minds think alike... and alexB
thinks like an idiot... (third time I called him that in one post... oh boy
he deserves it!)

"Windows' own Disk Defragmenter is a slug compared to Auslogics'
alternative. At least in XP, you got some feedback while the Windows
defragger was working; Vista doesn't give you a clue what's happening after
you click the Defragment Now button, other than to let you know that the
process could take from a few minutes to a few hours (my bet's on the
latter). I know many people scoff at the dancing colored blocks on the map
as pointless, but I kinda like 'em. "


--
What people are REALLY saying about Vista:
http://www.microsplot.com/news/2007/..._windows_vista

50 Ways to leave your Vista....

CHORUS:

You just format the drive , Clive
Get a New Mac , Jack
Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Boot from a *nix, Jix
You don't need to discuss much
Install XP, Lee
And get yourself free

ahh...

I just remember.. that idiot (forth time) naziluving, racist, ALEXB, called
me a crook and a malware writer because I recomended this free defrag
program... what an idiot (fifth time).

I guess that makes CNET also a crook and malware writer that is out to get
to his PC...

lol what an idiot... (sixth time)




"On the Bridge!" <On@the,Bridge> wrote in message
news:47d4f7bd$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...
> Dedicated to the idiot, racist, nazi-like ALEXB who insists that the vista
> defrag is the best thing
> since sliced bread and irreplaceable.. what an idiot...
>
> http://www.cnet.com/8301-13880_1-988...=2547-1_3-0-20
>
> it just so happens that they are recommending the same defrag free
> program, and for the SAME reason as I did.... great minds think alike...
> and alexB thinks like an idiot... (third time I called him that in one
> post... oh boy he deserves it!)
>
> "Windows' own Disk Defragmenter is a slug compared to Auslogics'
> alternative. At least in XP, you got some feedback while the Windows
> defragger was working; Vista doesn't give you a clue what's happening
> after you click the Defragment Now button, other than to let you know that
> the process could take from a few minutes to a few hours (my bet's on the
> latter). I know many people scoff at the dancing colored blocks on the map
> as pointless, but I kinda like 'em. "
>
>
> --
> What people are REALLY saying about Vista:
> http://www.microsplot.com/news/2007/..._windows_vista
>
> 50 Ways to leave your Vista....
>
> CHORUS:
>
> You just format the drive , Clive
> Get a New Mac , Jack
> Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
> Just get yourself free
> Boot from a *nix, Jix
> You don't need to discuss much
> Install XP, Lee
> And get yourself free
>
>
>
>

the poster of that article is:

Posts by Dennis O'Reilly
Dennis O'Reilly has covered PCs and other technologies in print and online
since 1985. Along with more than a decade as editor for Ziff-Davis's
Computer Select, Dennis edited PC World's award-winning Here's How section
for more than seven years. He is a member of the CNET blog Network, and is
not an employee of CNET.


so he has been in the computer arena for at least 23 years... thats more
that AlexBs total age..

what a smuck... and what a creep that alexb


"On the Bridge!" <On@the,Bridge> wrote in message
news:47d4f7bd$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...
> Dedicated to the idiot, racist, nazi-like ALEXB who insists that the vista
> defrag is the best thing
> since sliced bread and irreplaceable.. what an idiot...
>
> http://www.cnet.com/8301-13880_1-988...=2547-1_3-0-20
>
> it just so happens that they are recommending the same defrag free
> program, and for the SAME reason as I did.... great minds think alike...
> and alexB thinks like an idiot... (third time I called him that in one
> post... oh boy he deserves it!)
>
> "Windows' own Disk Defragmenter is a slug compared to Auslogics'
> alternative. At least in XP, you got some feedback while the Windows
> defragger was working; Vista doesn't give you a clue what's happening
> after you click the Defragment Now button, other than to let you know that
> the process could take from a few minutes to a few hours (my bet's on the
> latter). I know many people scoff at the dancing colored blocks on the map
> as pointless, but I kinda like 'em. "
>
>
> --
> What people are REALLY saying about Vista:
> http://www.microsplot.com/news/2007/..._windows_vista
>
> 50 Ways to leave your Vista....
>
> CHORUS:
>
> You just format the drive , Clive
> Get a New Mac , Jack
> Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
> Just get yourself free
> Boot from a *nix, Jix
> You don't need to discuss much
> Install XP, Lee
> And get yourself free
>
>
>
>

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:56:15 +0200, On the Bridge! wrote:

> Dedicated to the idiot, racist, nazi-like ALEXB who insists that the
> vista defrag is the best thing
> since sliced bread and irreplaceable.. what an idiot...
>
> http://www.cnet.com/8301-13880_1-9887297-68.html?
part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
>
> it just so happens that they are recommending the same defrag free
> program, and for the SAME reason as I did.... great minds think
> alike... and alexB thinks like an idiot... (third time I called him that
> in one post... oh boy he deserves it!)
>
> "Windows' own Disk Defragmenter is a slug compared to Auslogics'
> alternative. At least in XP, you got some feedback while the Windows
> defragger was working; Vista doesn't give you a clue what's happening
> after you click the Defragment Now button, other than to let you know
> that the process could take from a few minutes to a few hours (my bet's
> on the latter). I know many people scoff at the dancing colored blocks
> on the map as pointless, but I kinda like 'em. "

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


"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:63l3dqF26tf91U5@mid.individual.net...
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:56:15 +0200, On the Bridge! wrote:
>
>> Dedicated to the idiot, racist, nazi-like ALEXB who insists that the
>> vista defrag is the best thing
>> since sliced bread and irreplaceable.. what an idiot...
>>
>> http://www.cnet.com/8301-13880_1-9887297-68.html?
> part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
>>
>> it just so happens that they are recommending the same defrag free
>> program, and for the SAME reason as I did.... great minds think
>> alike... and alexB thinks like an idiot... (third time I called him that
>> in one post... oh boy he deserves it!)
>>
>> "Windows' own Disk Defragmenter is a slug compared to Auslogics'
>> alternative. At least in XP, you got some feedback while the Windows
>> defragger was working; Vista doesn't give you a clue what's happening
>> after you click the Defragment Now button, other than to let you know
>> that the process could take from a few minutes to a few hours (my bet's
>> on the latter). I know many people scoff at the dancing colored blocks
>> on the map as pointless, but I kinda like 'em. "
>
> Or one could move to a modern filesystem which does not need
> defragmenting and obviate the entire process.

"bamboozle" <bamb@oozle.com> wrote in message
news:47d5dc5f@newsgate.x-privat.org...
> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:63l3dqF26tf91U5@mid.individual.net...

>> 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
>
>

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.

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.

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.

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...



"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:Ob0tTa1gIHA.5280@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>
> "bamboozle" <bamb@oozle.com> wrote in message
> news:47d5dc5f@newsgate.x-privat.org...
>> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
>> news:63l3dqF26tf91U5@mid.individual.net...
>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

"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.
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.
FAT has problems allocating space if you let it fragment too much and does
need defragging, but it is a very old file system.
You can run NTFS systems for years without defragging just like you can run
Linux systems.

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.

"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:ODAyGV2gIHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>
> "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.
> 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.
> FAT has problems allocating space if you let it fragment too much and does
> need defragging, but it is a very old file system.
> You can run NTFS systems for years without defragging just like you can
> run Linux systems.
>
>
>

dennis@home wrote:

> 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.

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!

dennis@home wrote:

>
>
> "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.

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?

Cheers.

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

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:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...tm/compost.htm

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!

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:01:42 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

> "bamboozle" <bamb@oozle.com> wrote in message
> news:47d5dc5f@newsgate.x-privat.org...
>> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
>> news:63l3dqF26tf91U5@mid.individual.net...
>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
> 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.

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?

>
> 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.

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.

>
> 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.

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

i meant *nix

sorry


"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!
>

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:22:06 +0200, bamboozle wrote:

> i meant *nix

That's fine except that modern Linux systems do not use the file systems
that were around 20 years ago.


>
> sorry
>
>
> "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!
>>