Patrick Elliott wrote:
> You want me to what? Find a web page written by someone even more 
> annoyed by the behavior than I am to give a jaded statement to the same 
> effect?

I rest my case.

> Seriously though, I don't dispute that it "does" move things 
> around. What it doesn't do is "move them if it doesn't see any reason 
> to, and consolidating free space isn't always, apparently, a 'reason'".

The XP defragger usually consolodated much free space for me. Not 100%, but 
certainly some.

> And it flat out refuses to move things that it "could", if the bothered 
> to put in some way to copy a block of an "in use" file, 

I'm glad you know better than Microsoft how easy it is to do that sort of thing.

> and.. well do 
> the stuff that defraggers do to every other file anyway. I mean, can you 
> seriously tell me that they couldn't come up with "some" way to be able 
> to, I don't know, write a block of memory to some other part of the 
> virtual file, then invalidate the part being moved, then revert again 
> when done, or "something"?

I don't even know what you're talking about there.

> And, the idea that DOS based defraggers where the only ones in 3.11 
> isn't "entirely" accurate. The Norton one came up during 3.11, and it 
> "did" defrag "everything", at that time, including the virtual memory 
> file, and just about anything and everything else "except" for a small 
> handful of active files in the OS. Say, 90% of all the stuff that no 
> defragger today will even touch, for the most part.

FAT is a lot easier to defrag than NTFS, yes. But feel free to continue 
ranting while cackling gleefully. ;-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message