That as bad as being told not to turn the pc off because it will break it
"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?
>

That's as bad as being told that turning the pc on and off will wreck
it(wear it out).
IF that is so then why have power buttons on computers?
"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?
>
>

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?
>>>
>>
>>
>

Fiddler wrote:
> That as bad as being told not to turn the pc off because it will break it
> "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?
>>
>
>
Defrag only when necessary.
Now define "necessary." <g>

One solution is to use the command line:
defrag <drive> -a -v (-a for analyze only, -v for verbose)
which will quickly tell you how defragmented your drive is and the MS
suggestion as to whether defragging is recommended or not.

Bill

Bill

You can have two different scenarios. A preponderance of greatly
fragmented files that you never access and greatly fragmented files that
you frequently access. In generall you are more likely to see the second
scenario. The numbers game is not a good guide on the need to defragment
as it fails to distinguish between important files and those which do
not matter.


~~~~


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bill Sharpe wrote:
> Fiddler wrote:
>> That as bad as being told not to turn the pc off because it will
>> break it "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?
>>>
>>
>>
> Defrag only when necessary.
> Now define "necessary." <g>
>
> One solution is to use the command line:
> defrag <drive> -a -v (-a for analyze only, -v for verbose)
> which will quickly tell you how defragmented your drive is and the MS
> suggestion as to whether defragging is recommended or not.
>
> Bill

That is one of the nice things about some of the third-party defraggers like
Diskeeper and PerfectDisk. They give you choices between defragmentation
strategies based on things like frequency of access or high performance,
etc.

"Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uvmFDKTuIHA.6096@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Bill
>
> You can have two different scenarios. A preponderance of greatly
> fragmented files that you never access and greatly fragmented files that
> you frequently access. In generall you are more likely to see the second
> scenario. The numbers game is not a good guide on the need to defragment
> as it fails to distinguish between important files and those which do not
> matter.
>
>
> ~~~~
>
>
> Gerry
> ~~~~
> FCA
> Stourport, England
> Enquire, plan and execute
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Bill Sharpe wrote:
>> Fiddler wrote:
>>> That as bad as being told not to turn the pc off because it will
>>> break it "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?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Defrag only when necessary.
>> Now define "necessary." <g>
>>
>> One solution is to use the command line:
>> defrag <drive> -a -v (-a for analyze only, -v for verbose)
>> which will quickly tell you how defragmented your drive is and the MS
>> suggestion as to whether defragging is recommended or not.
>>
>> Bill
>
>

> That is one of the nice things about some of the third-party
> defraggers like Diskeeper and PerfectDisk. They give you choices
> between defragmentation strategies based on things like frequency of
> access or high performance, etc.
>
> "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:uvmFDKTuIHA.6096@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Bill
>>
>> You can have two different scenarios. A preponderance of greatly
>> fragmented files that you never access and greatly fragmented files
>> that you frequently access. In generall you are more likely to see
>> the second scenario. The numbers game is not a good guide on the
>> need to defragment as it fails to distinguish between important
>> files and those which do not matter.

From what I've read, so does MS. That's why apps like NOrton can report
say 33% fragmented and tell you to defrag, but MS's defrag will tell you
it's not needed. Supposedly it looks at the how often accessed flags.
I've never heard of anything that determines how "important" a file
is to anything; not sure I'd trust that sort of a judgement to software.

My 2 ¢


>>
>>
>> ~~~~
>>
>>
>> Gerry
>> ~~~~
>> FCA
>> Stourport, England
>> Enquire, plan and execute
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Bill Sharpe wrote:
>>> Fiddler wrote:
>>>> That as bad as being told not to turn the pc off because it will
>>>> break it "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?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Defrag only when necessary.
>>> Now define "necessary." <g>
>>>
>>> One solution is to use the command line:
>>> defrag <drive> -a -v (-a for analyze only, -v for verbose)
>>> which will quickly tell you how defragmented your drive is and the
>>> MS suggestion as to whether defragging is recommended or not.
>>>
>>> Bill

The MS XP defragger actually tells you to defrag if the MFT and PF are
fragmented, but there's nothing it can do to defragment those regardless
of number of passes it makes. But it recognizes that those files are
'important' and their fragmentation will reduce performance. That's
where Diskeeper steps in- it has the ability to defrag both the files,
among a host of other features.

Twayne;768749 Wrote:
> > That is one of the nice things about some of the third-party
> > defraggers like Diskeeper and PerfectDisk. They give you choices
> > between defragmentation strategies based on things like frequency of
> > access or high performance, etc.
> >
> > "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:uvmFDKTuIHA.6096@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >> Bill
> >>
> >> You can have two different scenarios. A preponderance of greatly
> >> fragmented files that you never access and greatly fragmented files
> >> that you frequently access. In generall you are more likely to see
> >> the second scenario. The numbers game is not a good guide on the
> >> need to defragment as it fails to distinguish between important
> >> files and those which do not matter.
>
> From what I've read, so does MS. That's why apps like NOrton can report
>
> say 33% fragmented and tell you to defrag, but MS's defrag will tell
> you
> it's not needed. Supposedly it looks at the how often accessed flags.
> I've never heard of anything that determines how "important" a file
>
> is to anything; not sure I'd trust that sort of a judgement to
> software.
>
> My 2 ¢
>
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> ~~~~
> >>
> >>
> >> Gerry
> >> ~~~~
> >> FCA
> >> Stourport, England
> >> Enquire, plan and execute
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >> Bill Sharpe wrote:
> >>> Fiddler wrote:
> >>>> That as bad as being told not to turn the pc off because it will
> >>>> break it "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?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Defrag only when necessary.
> >>> Now define "necessary." <g>
> >>>
> >>> One solution is to use the command line:
> >>> defrag <drive> -a -v (-a for analyze only, -v for verbose)
> >>> which will quickly tell you how defragmented your drive is and the
> >>> MS suggestion as to whether defragging is recommended or not.
> >>>
> >>> Bill


--
Aevin
Posted via http://ms-os.com Forum to Usenet gateway

Twayne

That's why you should ignore "MS's defrag will tell you it's not
needed." You should select View Report and look at the real situation.
However, it's not just a matter of frequently accessed files. You will
normally not need to access System Restore restore points but if left
fragmented their size, will on a disk with limited free disk space,
cause fragmentation of other files, which are in active use.

It's questionable whether you want any Norton product on your computer.
Perfect Disk is I suspect more highly rated but there is really no need
to pay for a third party defragmenter.

--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Twayne wrote:
>> That is one of the nice things about some of the third-party
>> defraggers like Diskeeper and PerfectDisk. They give you choices
>> between defragmentation strategies based on things like frequency of
>> access or high performance, etc.
>>
>> "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:uvmFDKTuIHA.6096@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> You can have two different scenarios. A preponderance of greatly
>>> fragmented files that you never access and greatly fragmented files
>>> that you frequently access. In generall you are more likely to see
>>> the second scenario. The numbers game is not a good guide on the
>>> need to defragment as it fails to distinguish between important
>>> files and those which do not matter.
>
> From what I've read, so does MS. That's why apps like NOrton can
> report say 33% fragmented and tell you to defrag, but MS's defrag
> will tell you it's not needed. Supposedly it looks at the how often
> accessed flags. I've never heard of anything that determines how
> "important" a file is to anything; not sure I'd trust that sort of a
> judgement to
> software.
> My 2 ¢
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> ~~~~
>>>
>>>
>>> Gerry
>>> ~~~~
>>> FCA
>>> Stourport, England
>>> Enquire, plan and execute
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>

> Twayne

I am Twayne: I did not write what's below. It is misquoted by someone
apparently ignorant of such things.

Since the dummy trying to pose as me knows so much, I wonder why he
didn't post a solution? 3rd party apps are the easiest, but it CAN be
done without them by basically turning off/moving the PF, starting in
Safe Mode, and defrag the hard drive, then turn the page file back on
and set it up. Once the files are defragged and contiguous, then the PF
will have to be the same and will be the same; contiguous. Caveat: If
you're not familiar with how to do this effectively and moving the swap
file around, don't do it; you'll have less than satisfactory results.
Better to use a trusted 3rd party app.

HTH

Twayne, the real one.

>
> That's why you should ignore "MS's defrag will tell you it's not
> needed."

Untrue: MS's defrag will indeed tell you a defrag is needed, when it is
needed and is causing too many waits during accesses.

You should select View Report and look at the real situation.

Yes, assuming you're talking about Defrag's report. BUT, you will still
need to be experienced enough to know whether the fragmented files are a
problem yet or not.

Depding on what I'm doing, I defrag monthly. But, if I'm doing
something that creates zillions of temporary files such as design work,
or especially video editing and rendering, I do so more often. Video
work in fact requires a defrag every day, sometimes more often,
depending on what's going on with any particular drive. Those are good
reasons to keep a separate working partition for design/video etc. types
of work; they defrag faster and don't mess with the boot drive much.
It's a matter of learning your machine and experience, mostly.

> However, it's not just a matter of frequently accessed files. You will
> normally not need to access System Restore restore points but if left
> fragmented their size, will on a disk with limited free disk space,
> cause fragmentation of other files, which are in active use.

Existing Restore Points will have zero impact on fragmentation.
Fragmentation only happens when data is written TO the drive. The total
space used for restore points, although excessive IMO, is limited and
they do not grow uncontrollably.
>
> It's questionable whether you want any Norton product on your
> computer. Perfect Disk is I suspect more highly rated but there is
> really no need to pay for a third party defragmenter.

It's none of your business to comment on what anyone else had decided to
use on their computers. I'm sure I could say the same about some of the
apps you use too, but even if the opportunity arose and you asked for
assistance, I wouldn't tell you to trash it unless it was actually rogue
or malicious somehow.
Norton, BTW, has an excellent ability to open up the area where a PF
wants to live, and makes it easy to create a continguous PF. Norton's
defrag app is also far form the only feature provided by their software
package; in fact, it's a small part of it. Symantec's Norton Ghost is
pretty decent as is their firewall app. But you don't know that because
you allowed Norton to slow down your computer by bad setups and probably
have no idea what it's capable of. That's fine with me. The only app
I'm using right now is Ghost, but it's a great app with True Image
running a very close second. But you won't know that either because of
your parrot/misattribution mentality.

Learn to quote properly. Flame away; I won't be wasting ether on you
for awhile to come.
>
>
> Twayne wrote:
>>> That is one of the nice things about some of the third-party
>>> defraggers like Diskeeper and PerfectDisk. They give you choices
>>> between defragmentation strategies based on things like frequency of
>>> access or high performance, etc.
>>>
>>> "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uvmFDKTuIHA.6096@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>> You can have two different scenarios. A preponderance of greatly
>>>> fragmented files that you never access and greatly fragmented files
>>>> that you frequently access. In generall you are more likely to see
>>>> the second scenario. The numbers game is not a good guide on the
>>>> need to defragment as it fails to distinguish between important
>>>> files and those which do not matter.
>>
>> From what I've read, so does MS. That's why apps like NOrton can
>> report say 33% fragmented and tell you to defrag, but MS's defrag
>> will tell you it's not needed. Supposedly it looks at the how often
>> accessed flags. I've never heard of anything that determines how
>> "important" a file is to anything; not sure I'd trust that sort of a
>> judgement to
>> software.
>> My 2 ¢
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ~~~~
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gerry
>>>> ~~~~
>>>> FCA
>>>> Stourport, England
>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:

>> Twayne
>
>I am Twayne: I did not write what's below. It is misquoted by someone
>apparently ignorant of such things.
>
>Since the dummy trying to pose as me knows so much, I wonder why he
>didn't post a solution?

BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That "dummy" wasn't attributing what you quote to YOU... it was Gerry
ADDRESSING what you quoted TO you.

You are the apparent "ignorant" one here.

On 17 May, 19:40, rick s <ri...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> Someone told me that the more you run disk defrg the better chance of
> destroying your hard drive. Is this true?

The more fragmented a drive is, the more new or changed files will be
written fragmented, so fragmentation breeds fragmentation.

Defragging all of the seldom-accessed files only has to be done once,
then they are not going to cause further fragmentation and are not
going to inflate the % files fragmented in the report, and do not
themselves require defragging again.

Let the defrag utility decide when to defrag -- when fragmentation is
low it won't defrag and so will cause no wear on the drive, when it is
needed it will do it's stuff but only on the fragmented files, and
thus reduce unnecessary wear on the drive.

Neglected fragmentation is probably the main cause of computers
getting slower and slower until intolerable.

Twayne or Whoever

Twayne wrote:
>> Twayne
>
> I am Twayne: I did not write what's below. It is misquoted by
> someone apparently ignorant of such things.

That's irrelevant so far as I am concened.

>
> Since the dummy trying to pose as me knows so much, I wonder why he
> didn't post a solution? 3rd party apps are the easiest, but it CAN be
> done without them by basically turning off/moving the PF, starting in
> Safe Mode, and defrag the hard drive, then turn the page file back on
> and set it up. Once the files are defragged and contiguous, then the
> PF will have to be the same and will be the same; contiguous.

Not necessarily true. It depends on the way the pagefile is managed. If
managed by Windows it will not stay contiguous. A fixed ie.
minimum=maximum pagefile will be immovable and if contiguous it will
stay contiguous, unless or until you change the pagefile setting.


> Caveat: If you're not familiar with how to do this effectively and
> moving the swap file around, don't do it; you'll have less than
> satisfactory results.

I presently have a contiguous pagefile created without using a third
party utility.

>Better to use a trusted 3rd party app.

If you have money to burn.

>
> HTH
>
> Twayne, the real one.
>
>>
>> That's why you should ignore "MS's defrag will tell you it's not
>> needed."
>
> Untrue: MS's defrag will indeed tell you a defrag is needed, when it
> is needed and is causing too many waits during accesses.
>

My statement was true just as your one is; because we are referring to
opposite sides of the same coin.


> You should select View Report and look at the real situation.
>
> Yes, assuming you're talking about Defrag's report. BUT, you will
> still need to be experienced enough to know whether the fragmented
> files are a problem yet or not.

It really does not matter if you run Disk Defragmenter more often than
might be absolutely necessary. Besides it's running Disk CleanUp or the
like before running Disk Deframenter, which when carried out together,
combine to bring benefits..

>
> Depding on what I'm doing, I defrag monthly. But, if I'm doing
> something that creates zillions of temporary files such as design
> work, or especially video editing and rendering, I do so more often.
> Video work in fact requires a defrag every day, sometimes more often,
> depending on what's going on with any particular drive. Those are
> good reasons to keep a separate working partition for design/video
> etc. types of work; they defrag faster and don't mess with the boot
> drive much.

I would agree with this line of thought. Benefits can accrue if you
remove files that fragment rapidly from the windows partition.

>It's a matter of learning your machine and experience,
> mostly.
>> However, it's not just a matter of frequently accessed files. You
>> will normally not need to access System Restore restore points but
>> if left fragmented their size, will on a disk with limited free disk
>> space, cause fragmentation of other files, which are in active use.
>
> Existing Restore Points will have zero impact on fragmentation.

Incorrect.

> Fragmentation only happens when data is written TO the drive.

True.

> The
> total space used for restore points, although excessive IMO, is
> limited and they do not grow uncontrollably.

Restore points can be of some size. They are created automatically daily
and if you install Windows Update. Their impact on fragmentation will be
more significant when there is limited free disk space.

>>
>> It's questionable whether you want any Norton product on your
>> computer. Perfect Disk is I suspect more highly rated but there is
>> really no need to pay for a third party defragmenter.
>
> It's none of your business to comment on what anyone else had decided
> to use on their computers.

Irrelevant.

>I'm sure I could say the same about some
> of the apps you use too, but even if the opportunity arose and you
> asked for assistance, I wouldn't tell you to trash it unless it was
> actually rogue or malicious somehow.

I did not suggest trashing Diskeeper.

> Norton, BTW, has an excellent ability to open up the area where a PF
> wants to live, and makes it easy to create a continguous PF. Norton's
> defrag app is also far form the only feature provided by their
> software package; in fact, it's a small part of it. Symantec's
> Norton Ghost is pretty decent as is their firewall app. But you
> don't know that because you allowed Norton to slow down your computer
> by bad setups and probably have no idea what it's capable of.

A lot of users have dumped Norton when they realised the way it
adversely impacts on system performance.

>That's
> fine with me. The only app I'm using right now is Ghost, but it's a
> great app with True Image running a very close second. But you won't
> know that either because of your parrot/misattribution mentality.
>
> Learn to quote properly. Flame away; I won't be wasting ether on you
> for awhile to come.

I am only interested in correcting what I see as incorect statements
made in the last post. I am not interested in trading personal abuse.


--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've spent more time than I care to remember - fighting with pagefile.sys's.
Specifically getting, and keeping, the ****ed things contigous, (offline
defrags' etc), and trying to keep them that way, ...i.e. tinkering with
"fixed size" pagefile.sys's. I think it was on aumha.org where one
described strategy was to set a fixed 60mb swap-file on the XP boot drive,
(because XP does not like there to be no swap-file at all on its'
boot-drive), and the larger, (1.5 x's the amount of memory in the box / XP
default size), (2nd) main swapfile on the 1st drive on 2nd hard disk.

Across the years, I've found this strategy does "smooth" things out a
little, and under some conditions there is a small but noticeable
performance benefit e.g. XP can be skittering around doing what it want's
with its' swap-file on 2nd hd, whilst the boot-drive is simultaneosly doing
other things - .... - depending of course on what you're doing on your PC !

regards, Richard


"Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OpyVNDguIHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Twayne or Whoever
>
> Twayne wrote:
>>> Twayne
>>
>> I am Twayne: I did not write what's below. It is misquoted by
>> someone apparently ignorant of such things.
>
> That's irrelevant so far as I am concened.
>
>>
>> Since the dummy trying to pose as me knows so much, I wonder why he
>> didn't post a solution? 3rd party apps are the easiest, but it CAN be
>> done without them by basically turning off/moving the PF, starting in
>> Safe Mode, and defrag the hard drive, then turn the page file back on
>> and set it up. Once the files are defragged and contiguous, then the
>> PF will have to be the same and will be the same; contiguous.
>
> Not necessarily true. It depends on the way the pagefile is managed. If
> managed by Windows it will not stay contiguous. A fixed ie.
> minimum=maximum pagefile will be immovable and if contiguous it will stay
> contiguous, unless or until you change the pagefile setting.
>
>
>> Caveat: If you're not familiar with how to do this effectively and
>> moving the swap file around, don't do it; you'll have less than
>> satisfactory results.
>
> I presently have a contiguous pagefile created without using a third party
> utility.
>
>>Better to use a trusted 3rd party app.
>
> If you have money to burn.
>
>>
>> HTH
>>
>> Twayne, the real one.
>>
>>>
>>> That's why you should ignore "MS's defrag will tell you it's not
>>> needed."
>>
>> Untrue: MS's defrag will indeed tell you a defrag is needed, when it
>> is needed and is causing too many waits during accesses.
>>
>
> My statement was true just as your one is; because we are referring to
> opposite sides of the same coin.
>
>
>> You should select View Report and look at the real situation.
>>
>> Yes, assuming you're talking about Defrag's report. BUT, you will
>> still need to be experienced enough to know whether the fragmented
>> files are a problem yet or not.
>
> It really does not matter if you run Disk Defragmenter more often than
> might be absolutely necessary. Besides it's running Disk CleanUp or the
> like before running Disk Deframenter, which when carried out together,
> combine to bring benefits..
>
>>
>> Depding on what I'm doing, I defrag monthly. But, if I'm doing
>> something that creates zillions of temporary files such as design
>> work, or especially video editing and rendering, I do so more often.
>> Video work in fact requires a defrag every day, sometimes more often,
>> depending on what's going on with any particular drive. Those are
>> good reasons to keep a separate working partition for design/video
>> etc. types of work; they defrag faster and don't mess with the boot
>> drive much.
>
> I would agree with this line of thought. Benefits can accrue if you remove
> files that fragment rapidly from the windows partition.
>
>>It's a matter of learning your machine and experience,
>> mostly.
>>> However, it's not just a matter of frequently accessed files. You
>>> will normally not need to access System Restore restore points but
>>> if left fragmented their size, will on a disk with limited free disk
>>> space, cause fragmentation of other files, which are in active use.
>>
>> Existing Restore Points will have zero impact on fragmentation.
>
> Incorrect.
>
>> Fragmentation only happens when data is written TO the drive.
>
> True.
>
>> The
>> total space used for restore points, although excessive IMO, is
>> limited and they do not grow uncontrollably.
>
> Restore points can be of some size. They are created automatically daily
> and if you install Windows Update. Their impact on fragmentation will be
> more significant when there is limited free disk space.
>
>>>
>>> It's questionable whether you want any Norton product on your
>>> computer. Perfect Disk is I suspect more highly rated but there is
>>> really no need to pay for a third party defragmenter.
>>
>> It's none of your business to comment on what anyone else had decided
>> to use on their computers.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>>I'm sure I could say the same about some
>> of the apps you use too, but even if the opportunity arose and you
>> asked for assistance, I wouldn't tell you to trash it unless it was
>> actually rogue or malicious somehow.
>
> I did not suggest trashing Diskeeper.
>
>> Norton, BTW, has an excellent ability to open up the area where a PF
>> wants to live, and makes it easy to create a continguous PF. Norton's
>> defrag app is also far form the only feature provided by their
>> software package; in fact, it's a small part of it. Symantec's
>> Norton Ghost is pretty decent as is their firewall app. But you
>> don't know that because you allowed Norton to slow down your computer
>> by bad setups and probably have no idea what it's capable of.
>
> A lot of users have dumped Norton when they realised the way it adversely
> impacts on system performance.
>
>>That's
>> fine with me. The only app I'm using right now is Ghost, but it's a
>> great app with True Image running a very close second. But you won't
>> know that either because of your parrot/misattribution mentality.
>>
>> Learn to quote properly. Flame away; I won't be wasting ether on you
>> for awhile to come.
>
> I am only interested in correcting what I see as incorect statements made
> in the last post. I am not interested in trading personal abuse.
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Gerry
> ~~~~
> FCA
> Stourport, England
> Enquire, plan and execute
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>