Re: beating a dead horse - was "Disk defragmentation - is it worth it?"

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 04:19:44 GMT, "Jonny" <spamyourself@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Well, just gotta say from the outset, this appears to be a farce. I've
owned all but version 5.0 of DI.

& in that time did you ever perform the "defrag test" in question?

The link is a joke and link to brokenware
(Symantec).

Symantec is dumping DI 7 & V2i in favor of Ghost 10 (big surprise).
There are broken links or links to DI leading you instead to Ghost 10
everywhere you look. However there is absolutely no doubt what
product I'm talking about- which is the sole purpose of all the links
I provided in that post.

Gotta agree with Rod if he's talking XP regarding any need of defragmenting.
Other OSes not sure about. Prior MS OSes, depends. Which leads the
question, which OS are you speaking of, and which of 3 versions of NTFS are
you referring to?

There were some old tests on 3.0 but all results posted here were done
originally or redone using 3.1 (with an XP SP2 workstation).

But if these were file-level utilities, that by default defragmented
on restore - these results shouldn't occur regardless. But you're
suggesting that I've skewed the results by using an incompatible
filesystem that forces a raw sector-reading troubleshooting mode - but
I haven't, & even if I did I would likely have lost some functionality
- which I didn't.

The best way to tell if I'm bullshitting is to try it. You have most
of the PQDI releases and many of the other apps mentioned have free
trials where you can test restores.
.

Quantcast