Re: Do You Defrag?

Really what is sad here is that you all think that you have proven
something. I don't get paid enough for this...

First, the OP's question... Yes Defragmenting on an NTFS system is
recommended by the manufacturer/developer of the system. Why are you
trying to fault Microsoft?

Second, saying "No" repeatedly and trying to insult me has proven
nothing.

Third, If you read the articles which is where I got my information,
along with agreement from microsoft development team members that I
work with, you would understand what is being talked about above.

So like I said before READ the artcles and stop assuming just because
your old that you have experience.

In response to what was said above, again I have provided reliable
sources and documentation. You have provided nothing but denial.

In response to your insane plea that you worked with or know anything
about FAT12 or FAT16... All FAT systems fragment. You should know
this.

I am done with this post, goodluck.

-Randy

Rod Speed wrote:
Randella <randyprine@xxxxxxx> wrote

PS... FAT16 wasn't released until 1987...

Irrelevant, fragmentation didnt show up first with FAT16.

So unless you know how to code or program FAT12 then I am
sorry your crediblity along with your pride just went out the window...

Its your thats blown up in your face and cover you with black stuff.

You havent even managed to work out even the most basic
stuff like the difference between an MBR and a file system.

Good Luck explaining how you used FAT12...

Fragmentation didnt show up first with FAT12 either.


Randella wrote:
Ok so 2006 - 25 = 1981...

That is prior to FAT unless you had a computer
programmed by Bill Gates himself. Nice try...

Fragmentation didnt show up first with FAT either.

FYI, Yes FAT has been around since 1977, that is when Bill Gates
first started programming with it, but it wasn't released until 1980
and it only worked on particular systems... Try 1984/5 for a US
release date by IBM and still not widely used at that time either...

Fragmentation didnt show up first with FAT either.

And I agree with you that the MBR is outside the OS. But so is the
file system. You don't need an OS to have a file system in place.

Pathetic, really.

See where you are loosing grip is right
there, NTFS is a File system not an OS.

No one ever said it was.

NTFS writes it's own FAT in as the MBR.

There is no FAT in the MBR. There is JUST
a partition table and some boot code.

Thereby producing the NTFS file system and structure.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont
actually have a clue about the difference between an MBR
and a file system.

Hint for the terminally pig ignorant:

ON A PC WHICH HAS JUST GOT LINUX INSTALLED ON IT,
THERE WILL BE AN MBR, BECAUSE THE BIOS NEES THAT
TO BOOT THE OS. THERE WONT BE ANY FAT ANYWHERE,
BECAUSE THE LINUX FILE SYSTEMS ARENT FAT BASED.

NEITHER IS NTFS.

And if you don't believe me, try and prove me wrong...

Everyone has done that in spaces.

Where are your articles? Where is the proof?

Been there, done that, with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBR

This should be easy with your decades of experience.

It is indeed.

Also if NTFS is not FAT based then why does NTFS
have the 4 Primary Partition limitation that FAT has?

Because that is a limitation of the MBR and that
has absolutely NOTHING to do with FAT at all.

That is determined by the MBR.

Yes, but NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY FAT
BECAUSE THERE AINT NO FAT IN THE MBR.

Unix has no such limitation.

On the PC, unix has precisely the same limit with the MBR.

Source code? You have the source code for NTFS?
You my friend have something no one else in the world has...

Wrong again with the linux support for NTFS.

I'm sure Microsoft would be thrilled to hear about how you got it.

Nope, they know already, someone outside MS wrote it.

Your pulling on strings that aren't there with the Vista stuff...

Pathetic, really.

I was responding to your comment about
Disk Defragmenting being non-essential.

And made a VERY spectacular fool of yourself when you did.

How essential is gas in your car?

Irrelevant to whether defragging is essential.

Well you could always use 100% ethanol, or make your
own gas substitute, sure. But your car was built to run
on gas and as such The Windows operating systems
were built to be defragmented from time to time.

DOESNT MEAN THAT ITS ESSENTIAL TO DO THAT.

The proof is in the article and the source.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

Mine are all current

Another lie. 2000 server aint current.

and from Microsoft or other reliable sources, where are yours from again?

Same place as yours, wikipedia.


Mxsmanic wrote:
Randella writes:

So let me ask you a few questions Grandpa...(a few decades would
make you about 60-80 years old in compairison, if you have been
doing this since I was a child, as you claim).

What file system has been around for decades that you have been
backing-up?

FAT (25 years old), NTFS (11 years old), various proprietary file
systems.

Where is the Microsoft MBR in UNIX?

Neither UNIX nor Windows has the notion of an MBR. The MBR is
outside the OS. The master boot record, as its name implies, is
used independently of the OS, _before_ the OS is booted.

Also if NTFS uses a FAT or a File Allocation Table as I have
indicated above, how is it not FAT based?

Believe it or not, there are other ways of tracking allocated space
that have no connection at all to FAT.

NTFS doesn't have a FAT.

I gave you the articles above to show you side by side compairisons
direct from Microsoft of the 2 file systems. I also gave you
links to somewhat modern references to educate you on the file
systems and defragmenting.

I've generally relied on the source code, and on some documents that
are either out of print or not published.

Why would that be in a microsoft article about NTFS and Windows
2000 Server on microsoft's website if it wasn't essential?

Microsoft talks about Vista on its Web site, but that doesn't make
Vista essential.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Do You Defrag?
    ... as a MBR, that should look familiar as it is a FAT component. ... no matter what file system is used. ... with modern desktop systems which have decent fast drives. ...
    (alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt)
  • Re: Do You Defrag?
    ... as a MBR, that should look familiar as it is a FAT component. ... no matter what file system is used. ... with modern desktop systems which have decent fast drives. ...
    (alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt)
  • Re: Do You Defrag?
    ... That is prior to FAT unless you had a computer programmed by Bill Gates ... You don't need an OS to have a file system in place. ... NTFS writes it's own FAT in as the MBR. ... You have the source code for NTFS? ...
    (alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt)
  • Re: Mount problems
    ... case on file names, even on FAT. ... looking for "bill" will match files with names such as ... Windows in most cases prohibits creating a file if the ... If, on the contrary, you delete the short name entry, the file is gone and you end up with an orphan LFN, which would be considered as a file system error. ...
    (comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc)
  • Re: Do You Defrag?
    ... fragmentation didnt show up first with FAT16. ... stuff like the difference between an MBR and a file system. ... Fragmentation didnt show up first with FAT either. ... There is no FAT in the MBR. ...
    (alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt)
Loading