Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
Name: aegis
"Don't waste your money or time"
"Disk defragmentation did nothing to improve the performance of our machine."
PC Magazine, June 2008 issue, page 62
I disagree... it will speed up your PC.. but I don't thing the average user will notice the difference
0 
Defrag is not exactly the same as norton's speed disk. What MS used to say was every week you would use backup and restore. When you backed the disk the files were put in contiguous blocks. Then the restore would put them at the front of the drive. The front of the drive worked better for old fat drives. Not sure it is as useful now on ntfs formats and defrag doesn't move all the files or even puts them in order of possible use.
"Best Practices", Event viewer, host file, perfmon, are in my top 10
0
If ntfs don't defrag and see what happens. You will end up with a machine you can't fix so your only option is wipe and reload.
I fixed a womans server that a tech said needed to be replaced at $5000 and all it needed was a defrag.
Look on the web for ntldr not found. MOST are due to not defragging and ntldr ended up past the 1024 boot limit.
That same mag had an article where the author said raid 0+1 was the same as raid 10. Anyone who knows raid knows better.
Moral of the story is don't believe everything you see in print, the TV, Billboards or on the web.
Imagine the power of knowing how to internet search
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/Teachin...
0
an interesting read......
http://books.google.com/books?id=i0...
.
Central Coast NSW AussieThere are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
0
Even the average user will notice the difference if the disk is severely fragmented. I question PC Magazine's overall recommendation.
0
Could it be that PC Magazine was referring to third Party Defrag not being worth the time or Cost?
"Don't waste your Money or time"Makes sense when you consider XP comes with a perfectly good Defrag tool.
No, I don't have the Mag to read the article.
There is nothing to learn from someone who already agrees with you.
0
It's hard to comment on a couple of quotes from an article, without knowing the context in which the remarks were made.
As pointed out above, this article may have been referring to a third-party defrag tool.
Just how fragmented were the files, in the first place?
In my opinion, giving us just a couple quotes is irresponsible. If these quotes are taken out of context, the reputation of the magazine in question may be damaged.
Please let us know if you found someone's advice to be helpful.
0
It doesn't appear the current issue can be accessed online. The latest issue is April 2008.
0
I didn't get to read the whole article and I neglected to mention that the tests were done on Vista. But I don't know why that should make a difference.
Anyway, they tested four defraggers (Vista's, Auslogic's, Diskeeper's and Perfect Disk 2008). The before and after benchmarks (PCMark) showed that Vista's was the only one that showed any improvement at all on the benchmark test. I do remember that they all showed a pretty good improvement in the boot up time, which was the other test they made.
0
My habit of defragmenting the OS partition is, after OS installs, after SP installs, after large program installs ( such as 500 MB programs ), etc..
Other than this, I usually do not defrag.
Regards
SuatCINI
0
Just a clarification on Aegis' post: The article appeared in Maximum PC Magazine, June 2008 issue. It also says, on page, page 62, that "we must note that our test drive was not terribly fragmented to begin with due to Vista's auto-defragger running on our test bed."
0  |
 Keyboard Inoperable In Wi...
|
net speed slow to 1/kb do...
|
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
