Re: Do You Defrag?

Randella <randyprine@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
Randella <randyprine@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Really what is sad here is that you all think that you have proven
something.

Odd that every single individual who has commented
has rubbed YOUR nose in YOUR terminal stupiditys.

I don't get paid enough for this...

You aint worth a cent, child. You cant even manage to work
out that there aint no FAT in an MBR, even with that very clear
explanation of what an MBR and FAT involves from wikipedia.

First, the OP's question... Yes Defragmenting on an NTFS system
is recommended by the manufacturer/developer of the system.

That wasnt even the OP's question. Here it is again.

I am working on a friend's laptop that had a hard drive failure
right after her monthly Spybot-AdAware-Clean-Defrag routine. On
her
old FAT32 machine this saved her ass, since almost all of the
files were contiguous so when a diagnostic had her use here
restore disk, loosing all of her old stuf, I was able to recover
most of her data.

She is now on a NTFS system. How important is defraging under
NTFS. My knowledge of the structure of the disk under NTFS is
almost ZERO. Does defraging make it easier to recover files?

He's clearly asking whether DEFRAGGING
MAKES IT EASIER TO RECOVER FILES.

Why are you trying to fault Microsoft?

MS doesnt say a damned thing about DEFRAGGING TO MAKE IT EASIER
TO RECOVER FILES IN ANYTHING YOU EVER QUOTED FROM MS.

AND what you did quote from MS hasnt actually gotta damned thing to
with A LAPTOP WHICH HAPPENS TO BE NTFS FORMATTED ANYWAY.

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

We dont need to prove a thing, you have proven time after
time after time that you havent actually gotta clue about file
systems, or what FAT involves, or what an MBR actually
contains, or how the MBR is used, etc etc etc.

You cant even manage the simplest concepts like MS never ever says
that its ESSENTIAL to defrag a LAPTOP THATS NTFS FORMATTED.

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.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

MS never ever says that its ESSENTIAL to
defrag a LAPTOP THATS NTFS FORMATTED.

OR that NTFS IS FAT BASED EITHER.

And even MS isnt actually stupid enough
to claim that there is any FAT in the MBR.

So like I said before READ the artcles

You can chant that pathetic little mantra till the cows come home,
child. I must have read it to have been able to rub your silly
little pig ignorant nose in the FACT that MS ONLY says that that
fragmentation CAN
impact performance IN A SERVER and that it never ever says that
its ESSENTIAL to defrag A LAPTOP WHICH IS NTFS FORMATTED.

and stop assuming just because your old that you have experience.

Taint an assumption, its a fact, child.

In response to what was said above, again I have
provided reliable sources and documentation.

Like hell you never did with the OP's original question, or your
stupid pig ignorant assertion that NTFS is FAT based, or that
the MBR has any FAT in it, or that MS ever says anywhere that
defragging A LAPTOP THAT IS NTFS FORMATTED IS ESSENTIAL.

You have provided nothing but denial.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you are a
pathological liar. I provided you with a source that even you
admit is reliable, wikipedia, on the bit you managed to miss,
what an MBR is about. It doesnt say a thing about any FAT in there.

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.

No one ever said they dont, cretin.

I am done with this post,

Great, there is only so much pathetic excuse for lying
pig ignorant bullshit anyone should have to put up with.

goodluck.

Dont need luck, knowledge is all we need thanks.


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.

I am done with this post,

Clearly a liar.

Great, there is only so much pathetic excuse for lying
pig ignorant bullshit anyone should have to put up with.

goodluck.

Dont need luck, knowledge is all we need thanks.

Sticks and stones but where is the proof?

You got that in spades, child.

That's right, you don't have any...

Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.

But you say nothing at all...

Lying, as always.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Do You Defrag?
    ... stuff like the difference between an MBR and a file system. ... Fragmentation didnt show up first with FAT either. ... NTFS is a File system not an OS. ... There is no FAT in the MBR. ...
    (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?
    ... 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: Do You Defrag?
    ... explanation of what an MBR and FAT involves from wikipedia. ... My knowledge of the structure of the disk under NTFS is almost ZERO. ... stuff like the difference between an MBR and a file system. ...
    (alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt)