Vista Defragmenter

"EndUser" <my@add.res> wrote in message
news:u34HMjpCKHA.3732@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> If the computer is turned off before Vista's native defrag
> complete its task, what happens?
><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Nothing AFAIK - it just resumes then next time the machine is switched on
and is idle....

 

Precisely.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help -
Vote for my shoe:

"Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8AB4085E-4534-47B0-8467-991B8C75A431@microsoft.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> "EndUser" <my@add.res> wrote in message
> news:u34HMjpCKHA.3732@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> If the computer is turned off before Vista's native defrag
>> complete its task, what happens?
>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Nothing AFAIK - it just resumes then next time the machine is switched on
> and is idle.... <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:48 -0400, "ColTom2"
<noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>Hi:
>
> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever seen. It
>does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>
> Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or suggestion?
>
>Thanks,
>
>ColTom2
><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Defraggler .

 

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:48 -0400, ColTom2 wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Hi:
>
> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever seen.
> It
> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>
> Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or suggestion?
>
> Thanks,
>
> ColTom2<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

One option - convert to Linux and forget defragmenting. A properly
designed, modern file system should not require constant defragmentaion.

 

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:43:32 -0700, Frank wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> ray wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:48 -0400, ColTom2 wrote:
>> <!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever seen.
>>> It
>>> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or suggestion?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> ColTom2<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> One option - convert to Linux and forget defragmenting. A properly
>> designed, modern file system should not require constant
>> defragmentaion.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Of course that explains why there are dozens of defragmenters for
> linux!...LOL!<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

There are a couple. I've never known anyone to use them.

 

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:50:23 -0700, Montague Nathanal Hollingsworth wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> ray wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:48 -0400, ColTom2 wrote:
>> <!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever seen.
>>> It
>>> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or suggestion?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> ColTom2<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> One option - convert to Linux and forget defragmenting. A properly
>> designed, modern file system should not require constant
>> defragmentaion.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Of course you don't need to defrag your Linux system. Since you can't
> do any real work, there is no need to defrag.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

What an absurd comment. Of course you can do "real work" on Linux.

 

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:42:14 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> ray wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:50:23 -0700, Montague Nathanal Hollingsworth
>> wrote:
>> <!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:48 -0400, ColTom2 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi:
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever
>>>>> seen. It
>>>>> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or suggestion?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> ColTom2
>>>> One option - convert to Linux and forget defragmenting. A properly
>>>> designed, modern file system should not require constant
>>>> defragmentaion.
>>> Of course you don't need to defrag your Linux system. Since you can't
>>> do any real work, there is no need to defrag.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> What an absurd comment. Of course you can do "real work" on Linux.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> I've never known anyone to do real work on Linux.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Well, meet one. I did scientific software support and development for 30
years for Dept. of Army. Started with IBM/DCS system, moved to Univac,
moved to DEC RSX-11; moved to DEC Ultrix thence to Tru64 Unix on DEC
Alpha and finally RedHat Linux on a DELL dual Xeon. The entire realtime
system at White Sands Missile Range is based on Unix and Linux. The post
flight processing we did (I primarily worked with digital signal
processing of coherant radar signals) was done on Linux. If that ain't
"real work", I don't know what is. The bulk of the internet runs on
Apache on Linux platforms. I happen to know several small businesses
running on Linux. Several major international auto companies do their
development on Linux.

 

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:07:12 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> ray wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:42:14 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth
>> wrote:
>> <!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:50:23 -0700, Montague Nathanal Hollingsworth
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:48 -0400, ColTom2 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever
>>>>>>> seen. It
>>>>>>> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or
>>>>>>> suggestion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ColTom2
>>>>>> One option - convert to Linux and forget defragmenting. A properly
>>>>>> designed, modern file system should not require constant
>>>>>> defragmentaion.
>>>>> Of course you don't need to defrag your Linux system. Since you
>>>>> can't do any real work, there is no need to defrag.
>>>> What an absurd comment. Of course you can do "real work" on Linux.
>>> I've never known anyone to do real work on Linux.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> Well, meet one. I did scientific software support and development for
>> 30 years for Dept. of Army. Started with IBM/DCS system, moved to
>> Univac, moved to DEC RSX-11; moved to DEC Ultrix thence to Tru64 Unix
>> on DEC Alpha and finally RedHat Linux on a DELL dual Xeon. The entire
>> realtime system at White Sands Missile Range is based on Unix and
>> Linux. The post flight processing we did (I primarily worked with
>> digital signal processing of coherant radar signals) was done on Linux.
>> If that ain't "real work", I don't know what is. The bulk of the
>> internet runs on Apache on Linux platforms. I happen to know several
>> small businesses running on Linux. Several major international auto
>> companies do their development on Linux.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> We are not talking specialty applications with the armed forces. Take a
> look around at regular businesses and at home users. Almost
> non-existent.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

That's the way out, isn't it? Redefine 'real work' so that nothing I say
fits. Except that you stopped reading too soon.

BTW - if it's 'almost non-exestent' then why are you sweating it?

 

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:7cp4npF25h7a5U67@mid.individual.net...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:50:23 -0700, Montague Nathanal Hollingsworth wrote:
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> ray wrote:<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:48 -0400, ColTom2 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi:
>>>>
>>>> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever seen.
>>>> It
>>>> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or suggestion?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> ColTom2
>>>
>>> One option - convert to Linux and forget defragmenting. A properly
>>> designed, modern file system should not require constant
>>> defragmentaion.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> Of course you don't need to defrag your Linux system. Since you can't
>> do any real work, there is no need to defrag.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> What an absurd comment. Of course you can do "real work" on Linux.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I, like many other ppls, do "real work" on my computer (3D modelling). I
use Daz 3D advanced studio, Carrara 7 pro and Vue xStream 7 pro. Could you
please tell me which Linux programs I could use to replace these.

JimF

 

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:37:20 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> ray wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:07:12 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth
>> wrote:
>> <!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:42:14 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:50:23 -0700, Montague Nathanal Hollingsworth
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:48 -0400, ColTom2 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever
>>>>>>>>> seen. It
>>>>>>>>> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or
>>>>>>>>> suggestion?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ColTom2
>>>>>>>> One option - convert to Linux and forget defragmenting. A
>>>>>>>> properly designed, modern file system should not require constant
>>>>>>>> defragmentaion.
>>>>>>> Of course you don't need to defrag your Linux system. Since you
>>>>>>> can't do any real work, there is no need to defrag.
>>>>>> What an absurd comment. Of course you can do "real work" on Linux.
>>>>> I've never known anyone to do real work on Linux.
>>>> Well, meet one. I did scientific software support and development for
>>>> 30 years for Dept. of Army. Started with IBM/DCS system, moved to
>>>> Univac, moved to DEC RSX-11; moved to DEC Ultrix thence to Tru64 Unix
>>>> on DEC Alpha and finally RedHat Linux on a DELL dual Xeon. The entire
>>>> realtime system at White Sands Missile Range is based on Unix and
>>>> Linux. The post flight processing we did (I primarily worked with
>>>> digital signal processing of coherant radar signals) was done on
>>>> Linux. If that ain't "real work", I don't know what is. The bulk of
>>>> the internet runs on Apache on Linux platforms. I happen to know
>>>> several small businesses running on Linux. Several major
>>>> international auto companies do their development on Linux.
>>> We are not talking specialty applications with the armed forces. Take
>>> a look around at regular businesses and at home users. Almost
>>> non-existent.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> That's the way out, isn't it? Redefine 'real work' so that nothing I
>> say fits. Except that you stopped reading too soon.
>>
>> BTW - if it's 'almost non-exestent' then why are you sweating it?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Who said anything about "sweating it"?
>
> I just think that people posting about Ubuntu in the vista forum is a
> complete waste of time and effort.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Please point out where I mentioned Ubuntu. I did not! Please at least
attempt to keep your posts accurate.

<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> You might as well go to a Ford dealer, talk to people waiting to get
> their vehicles serviced and speak to them about discount Chevy parts!<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

As a matter of fact I recently bought a Chevy program car from the local
Dodge dealer.

 

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:02:42 +0200, JimF wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:7cp4npF25h7a5U67@mid.individual.net...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:50:23 -0700, Montague Nathanal Hollingsworth
>> wrote:
>><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:48 -0400, ColTom2 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi:
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever
>>>>> seen. It
>>>>> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or suggestion?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> ColTom2
>>>>
>>>> One option - convert to Linux and forget defragmenting. A properly
>>>> designed, modern file system should not require constant
>>>> defragmentaion.
>>>
>>> Of course you don't need to defrag your Linux system. Since you can't
>>> do any real work, there is no need to defrag.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> What an absurd comment. Of course you can do "real work" on Linux.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> I, like many other ppls, do "real work" on my computer (3D modelling).
> I use Daz 3D advanced studio, Carrara 7 pro and Vue xStream 7 pro. Could
> you please tell me which Linux programs I could use to replace these.
>
> JimF<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Since I'm not 'into' 3D modelling, no I won't. That is outside my area of
expertise. If you're really interested though, you could pose that
question on some of the Linux newsgroups - I would not be surprised to
find roughly equivalent Open Source Linux programs to do that work.

 

Defrag diagnostics tells me I don't need to defrag but it takes over 2 hours
to complete the task
when I tell it to defrag anyway??!

"Dave Warren" <dave-usenet@djwcomputers.com> wrote in message
news:fqgc65lfm9osilr9qqdlbhbt6ipqk61k0m@4ax.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> In message <B1DE01A6-1E9E-48E9-B358-8193549F3529@microsoft.com> "Gordon"
> <gordonbparker@yahoo.com> was claimed to have wrote:
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>
>>"ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>news:eTlTj8iCKHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever seen. It
>>> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>>If there's no progression status how do you KNOW "it takes forever"?
>>In fact the Vista defragmenter is set by default to work when the computer
>>is idle so you don't actually need to launch it at all.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> He's right, it does take longer then most defrag tools, if only because
> it does a better job of deferring to actual user activity. <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

"JamesJ" <jjy@darwin_roadrunner.com> wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>Defrag diagnostics tells me I don't need to defrag but it takes over 2 hours
>to complete the task when I tell it to defrag anyway??!<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Leave well enough alone and let Vista's defrag do its thing on its own
in the background. It does all that's needed.

Defragging used to be important "back in the day" but with today's
fast processors and disks, it's not worth worrying about.

 

Gordon wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:#891hfkCKHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> Hi:
>>
>> This would appear to me to be one of the systemic problems that causes
>> Vista to run so slow. However, I by no means am a Vista expert or one
>> that
>> has used Vista extensively.
>>
>> I have been trying to help a friend with a Vista laptop that originally
>> ran extremely slow. I feel that I have made a great deal of head way, but
>> certainly am not yet to where I want to be with it. One might say that
>> I am
>> still searching....
>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> A fragmented HDD is one of the least likely causes of a slow machine....<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

True enough, but if defrag will slow down the machine while it's
running. Since defrag seems to work in the background it's not always
easy to tell that it is running.

I like jkdefrag, whatever the name has been changed to.

Bill

 

there are benefits gained
by defragging the disk.

however the larger the disk
and the more free space
it has,

fragmentation is minimal
and virtually not necessary.

but as the disk space shrinks,
then defragging can improve
system performance.

--------------

the "real" benefit from
defragging is simply derived
by having less fragments.

you see if one itty bitty
fragment of the many
that comprises a file,
becomes corrupted.

then that entire file
becomes corrupted.

so by reducing the amount
of fragments, you are reducing
the chance of loosing files.

also, if fragments are becoming
corrupted, then it is a sign that
the master file table and the
file system are becoming
corrupted as well.

so running check disk and
defrag regularly is simply added
insurance for your peace of
mind and data.

the same logic above also
applies to the registry hive.

the dirtier it is because it
contains many obsolete and
orphaned keys,

the larger the registry hive is
and the more fragments it will
have.

so removing unnecessary keys
shrinks the registry file and
reduces the number of fragments
that comprises the registry.

again, if one itty bitty fragment
of the registry file becomes
corrupted and that particular
fragment contained data to
an obsolete key,

then the entire registry will
become corrupted.

and we all know what kind
of a headache that can be.

------------------

interestingly, the microsoft's
one care on-line scanner
is a quick way to fix all of
the above.

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- Microsoft Partner
- @hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~"share the nirvana" - dbZen
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

"JamesJ" <jjy@darwin_roadrunner.com> wrote in message news:Oa0zrhxCKHA.1540@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Defrag diagnostics tells me I don't need to defrag but it takes over 2 hours to complete the task
> when I tell it to defrag anyway??!
>
> "Dave Warren" <dave-usenet@djwcomputers.com> wrote in message news:fqgc65lfm9osilr9qqdlbhbt6ipqk61k0m@4ax.com...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> In message <B1DE01A6-1E9E-48E9-B358-8193549F3529@microsoft.com> "Gordon"
>> <gordonbparker@yahoo.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>>
>>>"ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:eTlTj8iCKHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> Hi:
>>>>
>>>> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever seen. It
>>>> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>>>
>>>If there's no progression status how do you KNOW "it takes forever"?
>>>In fact the Vista defragmenter is set by default to work when the computer
>>>is idle so you don't actually need to launch it at all.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> He's right, it does take longer then most defrag tools, if only because
>> it does a better job of deferring to actual user activity.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

Bill Sharpe <wfsnopam@adelphia.net> wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> A fragmented HDD is one of the least likely causes of a slow machine....<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
>True enough, but if defrag will slow down the machine while it's
>running. Since defrag seems to work in the background it's not always
>easy to tell that it is running.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Why worry about it? Defragging is over-rated anyway.

 

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:07:07 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> ray wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:37:20 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth
>> wrote:
>> <!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:07:12 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:42:14 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:50:23 -0700, Montague Nathanal
>>>>>>>> Hollingsworth wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:48 -0400, ColTom2 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have
>>>>>>>>>>> ever seen. It
>>>>>>>>>>> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or
>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ColTom2
>>>>>>>>>> One option - convert to Linux and forget defragmenting. A
>>>>>>>>>> properly designed, modern file system should not require
>>>>>>>>>> constant defragmentaion.
>>>>>>>>> Of course you don't need to defrag your Linux system. Since you
>>>>>>>>> can't do any real work, there is no need to defrag.
>>>>>>>> What an absurd comment. Of course you can do "real work" on
>>>>>>>> Linux.
>>>>>>> I've never known anyone to do real work on Linux.
>>>>>> Well, meet one. I did scientific software support and development
>>>>>> for 30 years for Dept. of Army. Started with IBM/DCS system, moved
>>>>>> to Univac, moved to DEC RSX-11; moved to DEC Ultrix thence to Tru64
>>>>>> Unix on DEC Alpha and finally RedHat Linux on a DELL dual Xeon. The
>>>>>> entire realtime system at White Sands Missile Range is based on
>>>>>> Unix and Linux. The post flight processing we did (I primarily
>>>>>> worked with digital signal processing of coherant radar signals)
>>>>>> was done on Linux. If that ain't "real work", I don't know what is.
>>>>>> The bulk of the internet runs on Apache on Linux platforms. I
>>>>>> happen to know several small businesses running on Linux. Several
>>>>>> major international auto companies do their development on Linux.
>>>>> We are not talking specialty applications with the armed forces.
>>>>> Take a look around at regular businesses and at home users. Almost
>>>>> non-existent.
>>>> That's the way out, isn't it? Redefine 'real work' so that nothing I
>>>> say fits. Except that you stopped reading too soon.
>>>>
>>>> BTW - if it's 'almost non-exestent' then why are you sweating it?
>>> Who said anything about "sweating it"?
>>>
>>> I just think that people posting about Ubuntu in the vista forum is a
>>> complete waste of time and effort.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> Please point out where I mentioned Ubuntu. I did not! Please at least
>> attempt to keep your posts accurate.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Ubuntu/Linux - Same thing.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Not at all. Ubuntu is a Linux distribution - not every Linux distribution
is Ubuntu. Every diamond is a gem - not every gem is a diamond.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> <!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> <!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> You might as well go to a Ford dealer, talk to people waiting to get
>>> their vehicles serviced and speak to them about discount Chevy parts!<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> As a matter of fact I recently bought a Chevy program car from the
>> local Dodge dealer.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Not what I was talking about. Re-read my statement.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

At least as relevant as what you said - it's not a very good analogy. I
would not walk into the Chevy dealer and state "you can't do real work on
a Chevy - you need a Ford" - I doubt you would either.

 

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:08:50 -0700, Manfred Nathanal Hollingsworth wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> ray wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:02:42 +0200, JimF wrote:
>> <!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7cp4npF25h7a5U67@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:50:23 -0700, Montague Nathanal Hollingsworth
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:48 -0400, ColTom2 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever
>>>>>>> seen. It
>>>>>>> does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or
>>>>>>> suggestion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ColTom2
>>>>>> One option - convert to Linux and forget defragmenting. A properly
>>>>>> designed, modern file system should not require constant
>>>>>> defragmentaion.
>>>>> Of course you don't need to defrag your Linux system. Since you
>>>>> can't do any real work, there is no need to defrag.
>>>> What an absurd comment. Of course you can do "real work" on Linux.
>>> I, like many other ppls, do "real work" on my computer (3D
>>> modelling). I use Daz 3D advanced studio, Carrara 7 pro and Vue
>>> xStream 7 pro. Could you please tell me which Linux programs I could
>>> use to replace these.
>>>
>>> JimF<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> Since I'm not 'into' 3D modelling, no I won't. That is outside my area
>> of expertise. If you're really interested though, you could pose that
>> question on some of the Linux newsgroups - I would not be surprised to
>> find roughly equivalent Open Source Linux programs to do that work.
>>
>> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> So what Linux program/programs can do with ADOBE Photoshop does? I am
> not talking about a stripped down EL_CHEAPO Free version, tell me what
> has the same features? I'll bet you can't.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

For the needs of most folks dealing with photo editing, ufraw and GIMP
are quite sufficient. It's all about what is sufficient - not what has a
bunch of features that most folks never use.

BTW - how, exactly does that relate to the need to defragment or not?

 

In message <Oa0zrhxCKHA.1540@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl> "JamesJ"
<jjy@darwin_roadrunner.com> was claimed to have wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>Defrag diagnostics tells me I don't need to defrag but it takes over 2 hours
>to complete the task
>when I tell it to defrag anyway??!<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Okay -- What is the question?

Assuming you're asking why the above happens, there is a difference
between not needing to defragment, and being completely defragmented.

The analysis tells you whether or not the defrag tool believes
fragmentation is impacting performance, but when you tell it to defrag,
it optimizes beyond the point of currently impacting performance.

 

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:14:48 -0400, "ColTom2"
<noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>Hi:
>
> Windows Vista Defragmenter is about the worst that I have ever seen. It
>does not show you any progression status and it takes forever.
>
> Does anyone have an alternate free defragmenter and/or suggestion?
>
>Thanks,
>
>ColTom2
><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I understand your desire to watch colors change on the screen but the
built in defrager works fine if you use it as defraging is intended to
be used - as an out of sight/out of mind background task. I set it up
that way 18 months ago and I have never even noticed it running since
then.