NoStop wrote:
[color=blue]
> I guess you never wondered why our XP box had slowed down after 6 years of
> use without a defrag?[/color]

It did? Says who? You? You're a known idiot...besides, you don't have
accesss to that computer.
Are you really that fukkin stupid? Don't you still work at the deep
fryer at that burger-doodle joint as you keep asking..."will you have
fires with that order"? Or did they fire your stupid incompetent POS
lying ass already, huh?

Then again, if you are a typical Windoze user, you[color=blue]
> probably had to reinstall that OS at least a couple times a year.[/color]

Are you jealous of the fact that your butt-buddy alias is in love with a
sheep?
It must be heart-breaking for you right?
Frank

Cheers and please, don't take your anger out on the sheep. He/she is
just an innocent victim of you guys.

"NoStop" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fr2blv32o9j@news5.newsguy.com...[color=blue][color=green]
>> Been running 2000/XP/Vista for nearly 10 years now. Haven't needed one
>> yet![/color]
>
> I guess you never wondered why our XP box had slowed down after 6 years of
> use without a defrag? Then again, if you are a typical Windoze user, you
> probably had to reinstall that OS at least a couple times a year.[/color]

1995 called - they want their Windows bashing arguments back.

Then again, if you are a typical Linux Luser, you are stuck in 1995.

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 20:32:45 -0700, Frank wrote:
[color=blue]
> ray wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 13:05:49 -0700, Frank wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>ray wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:15:10 -0500, brummyfan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Try Auslogic disk defragment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Or try a modern file system which does not need it. Oh, I forgot you
>>>>don't have that option.
>>>
>>>Or like you, just "pretend" you don't need a disk defragger...LOL!
>>>Frank[/color]
>>
>>
>> Been running Linux for seven years now. Haven't needed one yet![/color]
>
> How wonderful!
> I can't remember the last time I derfag any HDD. I've never done it with
> Vista on the 17 installs that I have. But I've noticed that touting
> "no-defrag and no re-boot" are big claims (lies) with linux users.
> I installed ubuntu...did the 150+ updates and stared in disbelief at the
> "it is recommended that you re-boot after installing these updates"
> dialogue.[/color]

Well it's rather difficult to replace a running kernel. When you install
a new kernel, you need to reboot to use the new kernel - otherwise don't
sweat it - nothing is going to break.

[color=blue]
> Huh? Where did that come from?
> Being a zealot and a fanatic seems to make convincing liars out of
> usually honest people.
> Linux is not near the os those fanatics and zealots claim it is. Far
> from it!
> Otherwise linux would be gaining market share instead of losing it. The
> truth is in the pudding, as they say. Frank[/color]

ray wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 20:32:45 -0700, Frank wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>ray wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 13:05:49 -0700, Frank wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>ray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:15:10 -0500, brummyfan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Try Auslogic disk defragment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Or try a modern file system which does not need it. Oh, I forgot you
>>>>>don't have that option.
>>>>
>>>>Or like you, just "pretend" you don't need a disk defragger...LOL!
>>>>Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>Been running Linux for seven years now. Haven't needed one yet![/color]
>>
>>How wonderful!
>>I can't remember the last time I derfag any HDD. I've never done it with
>>Vista on the 17 installs that I have. But I've noticed that touting
>>"no-defrag and no re-boot" are big claims (lies) with linux users.
>>I installed ubuntu...did the 150+ updates and stared in disbelief at the
>>"it is recommended that you re-boot after installing these updates"
>>dialogue.[/color]
>
>
> Well it's rather difficult to replace a running kernel.[/color]

If you're referring to" re-compiling" the linux kernel, I've never done
that.
Re-booting was "recommended" after installing the updates. I find many
inconsistencies in the "stories" about linux.
But actually, I no longer care. For now, I'm through with trying lux
distros as they're all very disappointing.
Frank

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:04:20 -0700, Frank wrote:
[color=blue]
> ray wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 20:32:45 -0700, Frank wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>ray wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 13:05:49 -0700, Frank wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>ray wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:15:10 -0500, brummyfan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Try Auslogic disk defragment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Or try a modern file system which does not need it. Oh, I forgot you
>>>>>>don't have that option.
>>>>>
>>>>>Or like you, just "pretend" you don't need a disk defragger...LOL!
>>>>>Frank
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Been running Linux for seven years now. Haven't needed one yet!
>>>
>>>How wonderful!
>>>I can't remember the last time I derfag any HDD. I've never done it
>>>with Vista on the 17 installs that I have. But I've noticed that
>>>touting "no-defrag and no re-boot" are big claims (lies) with linux
>>>users. I installed ubuntu...did the 150+ updates and stared in
>>>disbelief at the "it is recommended that you re-boot after installing
>>>these updates" dialogue.[/color]
>>
>>
>> Well it's rather difficult to replace a running kernel.[/color]
>
> If you're referring to" re-compiling" the linux kernel, I've never done
> that.
> Re-booting was "recommended" after installing the updates. I find many
> inconsistencies in the "stories" about linux. But actually, I no longer
> care. For now, I'm through with trying lux distros as they're all very
> disappointing. Frank[/color]

My God I feel like I'm trying to explain calculus to the janitor's cat.
It has nothing to do with re-compiling the linx kernel. It has to do with
installing a kernel update - to, basically, a new kernel. You can't
replace the running kernel while it is running. The only way to utilize
the new kernel is to do a reboot. Other than that - which does not happen
that often - there is no reason to reboot a Linux system - certainly not
every time you install anything, like with MS.

ray wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:04:20 -0700, Frank wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>ray wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 20:32:45 -0700, Frank wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>ray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 13:05:49 -0700, Frank wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>ray wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:15:10 -0500, brummyfan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Try Auslogic disk defragment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Or try a modern file system which does not need it. Oh, I forgot you
>>>>>>>don't have that option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Or like you, just "pretend" you don't need a disk defragger...LOL!
>>>>>>Frank
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Been running Linux for seven years now. Haven't needed one yet!
>>>>
>>>>How wonderful!
>>>>I can't remember the last time I derfag any HDD. I've never done it
>>>>with Vista on the 17 installs that I have. But I've noticed that
>>>>touting "no-defrag and no re-boot" are big claims (lies) with linux
>>>>users. I installed ubuntu...did the 150+ updates and stared in
>>>>disbelief at the "it is recommended that you re-boot after installing
>>>>these updates" dialogue.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well it's rather difficult to replace a running kernel.[/color]
>>
>>If you're referring to" re-compiling" the linux kernel, I've never done
>>that.
>>Re-booting was "recommended" after installing the updates. I find many
>>inconsistencies in the "stories" about linux. But actually, I no longer
>>care. For now, I'm through with trying lux distros as they're all very
>>disappointing. Frank[/color]
>
>
> My God I feel like I'm trying to explain calculus to the janitor's cat.
> It has nothing to do with re-compiling the linx kernel. It has to do with
> installing a kernel update - to, basically, a new kernel. You can't
> replace the running kernel while it is running. The only way to utilize
> the new kernel is to do a reboot. Other than that - which does not happen
> that often - there is no reason to reboot a Linux system - certainly not
> every time you install anything, like with MS.[/color]

And I feel like I talking to a brick wall!
Grow up ray. You're so full of sh*t I can almost smell you thru the
Internet! You and the rest of your loony fanatical zealot linux buddies
have been saying all along that linux "never" needs to be rebooted when
updates are installed like you sometimes have to reboot after Windows
updates are installed.
Get it?
Frank