nice to see a comparison between those HDDs!
Mission "Defragmentation"
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Quote:
Quote:
They are exactly the same data on every hard drive...
Originally Posted by JohnRogers  Yeah, but it depends how much they are defragmented. This isn't really a benchmark as some drives may be more fragmented than others, no matter what you have on them, how long the data's been there etc. |
Quote:
They are exactly the same data on every hard drive...
Quote:
In any OS its always good to have optimized Hdd's
Originally Posted by thiru Um... off-topic. Do you still have to defragment your hard drives in vista? |
Quote:
Oh really. Thats a little fact I didnt know about OSX
Originally Posted by Sideburns That's true, but OS X usually doesn't need defragmenting, because it doesn't fragment your data, and uses more of the disk space instead of trying to fit everything in the empty spaces |
Quote:
Quote:
Yeah that's why I asked. I asked my friend, who has the same laptop as Sideburns, what he uses to defragment his hard drive and he thought for a second then said "um... I don't know I never defragmented it..."
![]()
There isn't a defragmenter in Ubuntu either... unless I missed it...
Originally Posted by Sideburns That's true, but OS X usually doesn't need defragmenting, because it doesn't fragment your data, and uses more of the disk space instead of trying to fit everything in the empty spaces |
Quote:
Originally Posted by ENTERPRISE Oh really. Thats a little fact I didnt know about OSX |
There isn't a defragmenter in Ubuntu either... unless I missed it...
3
Quote:
I'm pretty sure you can get a defragmenter for OS X, but it's basically useless...kinda like ram defragmenters...
Considering most people have 100GB or more hard drives, why don't more OSs simply use the space instead of trying to split up files to fit them in the nooks and crannies of your gigantic drive with masses of empty space? lol.
For Windows XP, I just use the one that came with it...works well enough for me.
Originally Posted by thiru Yeah that's why I asked. I asked my friend, who has the same laptop as Sideburns, what he uses to defragment his hard drive and he thought for a second then said "um... I don't know I never defragmented it..."
There isn't a defragmenter in Ubuntu either... unless I missed it... |
Considering most people have 100GB or more hard drives, why don't more OSs simply use the space instead of trying to split up files to fit them in the nooks and crannies of your gigantic drive with masses of empty space? lol.
For Windows XP, I just use the one that came with it...works well enough for me.
2
Quote:
What are RAM defragmenters?? Never knew those existed...
If the files aren't split up, I imagine that it would be pretty inefficient usage of the disk since all of the little nooks and crannies do add up, especially once the HD is approaching full capacity. Or maybe, it seems to make more sense to not defragment files and once the HD is close to capacity, then we should defrag the drive.
Originally Posted by Sideburns I'm pretty sure you can get a defragmenter for OS X, but it's basically useless...kinda like ram defragmenters... Considering most people have 100GB or more hard drives, why don't more OSs simply use the space instead of trying to split up files to fit them in the nooks and crannies of your gigantic drive with masses of empty space? lol. For Windows XP, I just use the one that came with it...works well enough for me. |
If the files aren't split up, I imagine that it would be pretty inefficient usage of the disk since all of the little nooks and crannies do add up, especially once the HD is approaching full capacity. Or maybe, it seems to make more sense to not defragment files and once the HD is close to capacity, then we should defrag the drive.
Quote:
Yeah but it doesn't take as long although i do prefer the XP defragmenter.
Originally Posted by thiru Um... off-topic. Do you still have to defragment your hard drives in vista? |
Quote:
ram is cleared when you restart.
Originally Posted by pang786 FRESH RAM is a ram defrager if im not misaken and it optimises your ram.or so it says. |
Quote:
NCQ would have an effect if you were copying tons of files around while running the defragmenter. Oh, and don't copy tons of files around while defragging with the standard windows one.
![]()
Quote:
Heathen! Download this immediately!
Quote:
They force all your system files to be paged to disk, so that the next time you do something, they all get to be loaded off the HD.
Originally Posted by Burn Yeah, the testing was identical across all the hard drives. It's strange that NCQ doesn't have any effect on an application that it was in all honesty designed to make faster :\\ |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sideburns For Windows XP, I just use the one that came with it...works well enough for me. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetos316 What are RAM defragmenters?? Never knew those existed... |
4
Quote:
I think that was in response to thiru and not the article
Quote:
OSX (I forget its FS's name) and linux (which generally uses ext3 - although you can use whatever you want) do not fragment as much as NTFS does. They also defragment themselves automatically so that the fragmentation does not build up to the levels you see in windows systems. IIRC WinFS is supposed behave similarly - if we ever see if
![]()
Originally Posted by Turnoz They are exactly the same data on every hard drive... |
Quote:
Originally Posted by thiru Yeah that's why I asked. I asked my friend, who has the same laptop as Sideburns, what he uses to defragment his hard drive and he thought for a second then said "um... I don't know I never defragmented it..."
There isn't a defragmenter in Ubuntu either... unless I missed it... |
4
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
