Stringing related data together is the meaning of defragmentation. What
version of Windows are you running, what is the file system type and
what percentage of your disk is in use? If defragmentation made a
significant performance difference I would say that your file system is
probably FAT32 (vs NTFS) and your disk must have been near full at some
point. If that's not correct I'd like to know.
Chuck Norcutt
On 8/14/2012 7:00 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
> Chuck wrote>
>> >Can anyone prove that their defragger makes an actual significant
>> >difference in performance? Aha, I thought not. As long as your drive has
>> >plenty of free space it should never get fragmented in the first place.
>> >Fragmentation was a problem of small FAT16/FAT32 drives and inefficient
>> >space allocation logic of very early DOS versions that history has passed
>> >by. Even an old FAT drive will not get fragmented if you have lots of
>> >space.
> The one that my computer technician uses definitely does. He used in on my
> machine about 3 years ago and the results were amazing.
> More recently I had him "do" the "Ferrari Acer" laptop of my partner, and it
> made a huge difference with it as well.
>
> I wish I knew the name of it; I did see it in his workshop 3 years ago but
> never wrote it down.
>
> Among the things it does to speed the comp. up is to string related data
> together in logical order so that the head doesn't have to hunt so much.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|