"Deleting all the 'junk' on my hard drive made my computer run faster"

[Raymond J. Johnson Jr.]

Simple Analogy - One sheet of paper on a windy day is dropped,
you reach down pick it up once and your done. Same sheet of
paper cut into 25 pieces, you bend down and pick up 25 pieces.
Which one requires less effort ? Less effort equates to greater
performance - does it not ?

You should take a moment and think real hard and try and come to an
understanding of just how pointless and nonsensical your analogy is.

 

[Raymond J. Johnson Jr.]

And resorting to an obsenity is?

Admittedly, anecdotal "evidence" is of no value in arguments of pure
logic, but that's irrelevant to my point. I never claimed to be report
the data resulting from a scientific experiment; I was mentioning the
real world. I, and many others, have personally observed the
performance difference that defraging can make on computers used by real
people, performing real tasks, in the field. I've never seen the point
of using a stop-watch to measure obvious changes. Nor do I really care
how little difference it makes to benchmarking software in a labortory
environment.

What would be more interesting would be to see these testing labs
explain why their results are so at varience with everyday field
experience and observation.

Now, if you don't want to defrag your hard drives, don't. I'll
continue to do so, when warranted,

My mother firmly believes that the common cold can be caused by
inclement weather. No amount of logic or data can convince her
otherwise, regardless of the fact that there is no sense in the idea
that standing outside in the rain can cause a viral infection. She
believes it because of faulty reasoning; at one time she had a cold that
followed being outside in bad weather. "B" followed "A" therefore "A"
must have caused "B." No data? No argument.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

You should take a moment and think real hard and try and come to an
understanding of just how pointless and nonsensical your analogy is.

Oh? Didn't _you_ understand it? While not perfect, it's quite a good
analogy, actually. (Remember, analogies are used to _explain_ a process
or object in simpler or more familiar terms, not to be taken literally.)

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Raymond J. Johnson Jr.]

I have tons of evidence that defragmenting a system benefits all users
of the system, I've been seeing it for many years.

Even defragging a RAID 5 Array can benefit the users of the data.

How about that MS Access database file that is 2GB in size that's spread
all over a drive - if you don't think that defragging it will make a
difference then I have nothing more I can say that will help you
understand.

Please point me to the place where I said that defragging should *never*
be done. Your arguments are lame, so you're changing the subject. For
everyday users in home and office situations, defragging is almost
always a waste of time.

 

[Raymond J. Johnson Jr.]

Ok, in general, removing files off a computer does not really impact
performance, except as follows:

New files being added to the system after deletion of the old ones, or
expansion of files that are adjacent to the blocks deleted, may take
space that is no longer fragmented, this would make access to those
types of files more efficient, and that means a performance increase. It
would not impact performance of any existing files unless those files
were modified as in above.

So, in general, deleting content, while the act of deleting will not
impact performance, if it provides space to files added/modified to not
be fragmented, then you should see some benefit.

What?? The OS will use the first available space, which is what causes
fragmentation to begin with. Deletion of files will inevitably lead to
*more* fragmentation as new files are added, or old ones are changed.
Now you've given substantial evidence that you don't know what you're
talking about.

 

[Leythos]

What?? The OS will use the first available space, which is what causes
fragmentation to begin with. Deletion of files will inevitably lead to
*more* fragmentation as new files are added, or old ones are changed.

You just stated exactly what I said. And any drive use will lead to
fragmentation.

Now you've given substantial evidence that you don't know what you're
talking about.

Since you said the same thing that I said, one of us clearly has a
comprehension problem, or you are just being a troll.

 

[Leythos]

Please point me to the place where I said that defragging should *never*
be done. Your arguments are lame, so you're changing the subject. For
everyday users in home and office situations, defragging is almost
always a waste of time.

You have clearly said that defragmentation holds "negligible benefits"
and a number of us, people with experience, have call you our and said
you are completely wrong in most cases.

I never said you said anything (except what I quoted this time) and you
are acting like a troll, refusing the directly address the subject once
you are proven wrong. I have not changed any part of this thread.

Home users, being a very diverse group, may just a likely benefit from
defragmentation as any other user. Since you can't possibly know what
anyone is doing in their home computer you could not possibly state with
any reasonable expectation of being right, that home users would not see
any more that a small benefit.

What about all those people with the default setting in IE for temp
files, thousands of small files all over their disk - and they get
deleted a lot - and I would imagine there would be lots of fragmentation
caused by that alone.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

My mother firmly believes that the common cold can be caused by
inclement weather. No amount of logic or data can convince her
otherwise, regardless of the fact that there is no sense in the idea
that standing outside in the rain can cause a viral infection. She
believes it because of faulty reasoning; at one time she had a cold that
followed being outside in bad weather. "B" followed "A" therefore "A"
must have caused "B." No data? No argument.

Oh, come on. Is that the best you can do: holding your mother up to
public ridicule? (Oh, by the way, whilst standing in the rain obviously
can't _cause_ a viral infection, the deleterious affects of exposure can
certainly lower the body's ability to resist viral infections, thus
increasing the likelihood of one's becoming ill when exposed to a
disease vector.) "Old wives' tales" do not become such because there's
_nothing_ to them, you know.

But I'll play your silly game for a bit. If one has an unstable and
poorly performing computer, and one takes *no* other corrective action
beyond cleaning up and defragging the hard drive, and the computer then
immediate shows improved performance and a further reduction in
stability problems over time, what then caused the improvement, if not
the defragmentation? Do you posit the existence of magic, instead?

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Raymond J. Johnson Jr.]

Oh? Didn't _you_ understand it? While not perfect, it's quite a
good analogy, actually. (Remember, analogies are used to _explain_ a
process or object in simpler or more familiar terms, not to be taken
literally.)

You're actually a bit dumber than I thought. One of the things I do for
a living is writing; I don't need a nitwit like you to explain what an
analogy is. The analogy makes no sense, although there was a time when
it might have. If I take a file and cut it up into 25 pieces and
scatter them across a disk, of course there is more energy and motion
required in reading the file than if the file were contiguous. Even you,
apparently, are smart enough to recognize that. It does not necessarily
or logically follow, however, that the extra time it takes to read that
file will ever be perceptible, or cause a user to think there's
something wrong. If reading a contiguous file takes x amount of time
(with x equaling an imperceptible interval) and if the same read
operation takes x times five for a fragmented file, but x times five is
*still* imperceptible or negligible, where's the gain?

 

[Leythos]

It does not necessarily
or logically follow, however, that the extra time it takes to read that
file will ever be perceptible, or cause a user to think there's
something wrong. If reading a contiguous file takes x amount of time
(with x equaling an imperceptible interval) and if the same read
operation takes x times five for a fragmented file, but x times five is
*still* imperceptible or negligible, where's the gain?

Ah, now I clearly see how you don't understand the issue of
fragmentation and performance. While the user of a single fragmented
file might not "perceive" the delay, in reality there are thousands of
fragmented files on a average computer. While not every file you access
may be fragmented, it does add a delay, and after enough files are
fragmented it is very easy to notice the difference - even to the lay
user.

Since you must have never done any serious computer maintenance on
systems in your time as a "Writer", you would not be expected to
understand how fragmentation impacts performance, but I take issue you
being ignorant and assuming that we are too.

I've been doing this longer than you've owned a computer, and I can
assure you that you should spend more time learning about computers
before you start being such as smart-ass with those of us that do this
for a living.

You might also be interested to know that most computers access more
than one file during a typical users session with a given application.

Here is a link from Microsoft that might help you understand:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/administration/fileandprin
t/defrag.asp

 

[Raymond J. Johnson Jr.]

Oh, come on. Is that the best you can do: holding your mother up to
public ridicule? (Oh, by the way, whilst standing in the rain obviously
can't _cause_ a viral infection, the deleterious affects of exposure can
certainly lower the body's ability to resist viral infections, thus
increasing the likelihood of one's becoming ill when exposed to a
disease vector.) "Old wives' tales" do not become such because there's
_nothing_ to them, you know.

But I'll play your silly game for a bit. If one has an unstable and
poorly performing computer, and one takes *no* other corrective action
beyond cleaning up and defragging the hard drive, and the computer then
immediate shows improved performance and a further reduction in
stability problems over time, what then caused the improvement, if not
the defragmentation? Do you posit the existence of magic, instead?

Silly game? And you believe that bad weather can *facilitate* viral
infections? Your argument is still indefensibly lame; your question is
like the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" trap. Given the
scenario you present, the answer is obvious, but that doesn't prove that
the foundational contention is valid. Or can't you see that? Look at it
this way: I can say, "I can fly by flapping my arms." You disagree and
ask me to prove it, and I respond by saying, "Well, if I stand on top of
that building, then jump off and flap my wings and fly, that would prove
it." Of course, like your argument, it proves nothing.

 

[Leythos]

Bruce, they've got to be trolls, I don't know anyone this completely
ignorant.

 

[Raymond J. Johnson Jr.]

You just stated exactly what I said. And any drive use will lead to
fragmentation.




Since you said the same thing that I said, one of us clearly has a
comprehension problem, or you are just being a troll.

You have a severe comprehension problem. *You're* the one who's saying
that fragmentation is inherently bad, but in the next breath you're
telling someone that there might be some benefit in doing something
(deleting files) that will lead to *more* fragmentation. I guess that in
your mind, a troll must be anyone who makes more sense than you can
understand.

 

[Leythos]

You have a severe comprehension problem. *You're* the one who's saying
that fragmentation is inherently bad, but in the next breath you're
telling someone that there might be some benefit in doing something
(deleting files) that will lead to *more* fragmentation. I guess that in
your mind, a troll must be anyone who makes more sense than you can
understand.

You really are a complete techno-ignoramus.

If deleting files on a drive increases the sizes of open spaces, then
files that are under those open sizes may not be fragmented when placed
in those open spaces - now do you understand.

Oh, and you don't make any sense.

If I delete a file, three fragments of 100MB each, and before that, the
only open spaces on my drive were 50MB each, when I add another file of
90MB each, the file MAY be placed in one of the 100MB segments in an
unfragmented state - if I had not deleted the 300MB file, it would take
2 segments to store that same 90MB file. So, as I clearly pointed out,
deleting files CAN help with fragmentation when files are
added/modified, but, it's better to defrag after making any serious
changes to file space on a drive.

Now, try and comprehend what you are reading before you reply this time.
It's been explained at lest 5 different ways to you. I can't really
believe you are really this stupid, so I'm giving you the benefit of
doubt and assuming you are just trolling.

 

[Richard Urban]

<snip>

Silly game? And you believe that bad weather can *facilitate* viral

infections? Your argument is still indefensibly lame; your question is
like the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" trap. Given the
scenario you present, the answer is obvious, but that doesn't prove that
the foundational contention is valid. Or can't you see that? Look at it
this way: I can say, "I can fly by flapping my arms." You disagree and ask
me to prove it, and I respond by saying, "Well, if I stand on top of that
building, then jump off and flap my wings and fly, that would prove it."
Of course, like your argument, it proves nothing.

Staying on the side line and reading this crap I would have to say that now
you are being an ass!

--

Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

If you knew half as much as you think you know,
You'd realize you didn't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Look at it
this way: I can say, "I can fly by flapping my arms." You disagree and
ask me to prove it, and I respond by saying, "Well, if I stand on top of
that building, then jump off and flap my wings and fly, that would prove
it." Of course, like your argument, it proves nothing.

Well, it would certainly prove that you don't understand the glaring
difference between "flying" and "plummeting."

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Leythos]

Well, it would certainly prove that you don't understand the glaring
difference between "flying" and "plummeting."

LOL, I actually cracked up out loud when I read that one

 

[Raymond J. Johnson Jr.]

<snip>

Silly game? And you believe that bad weather can *facilitate* viral




Staying on the side line and reading this crap I would have to say that now
you are being an ass!

Another county heard from...

 

[Leythos]

don't need further
help from a troll like me.

Ray, I never need any help from you in the first place, since you've not
offered any to anyone, at least not any that was correct. Keep taking
your medication and you have a happy Christmas too.

 

[Raymond J. Johnson Jr.]

You really are a complete techno-ignoramus.

If deleting files on a drive increases the sizes of open spaces, then
files that are under those open sizes may not be fragmented when placed
in those open spaces - now do you understand.

Oh, and you don't make any sense.

If I delete a file, three fragments of 100MB each, and before that, the
only open spaces on my drive were 50MB each, when I add another file of
90MB each, the file MAY be placed in one of the 100MB segments in an
unfragmented state - if I had not deleted the 300MB file, it would take
2 segments to store that same 90MB file. So, as I clearly pointed out,
deleting files CAN help with fragmentation when files are
added/modified, but, it's better to defrag after making any serious
changes to file space on a drive.

Now, try and comprehend what you are reading before you reply this time.
It's been explained at lest 5 different ways to you. I can't really
believe you are really this stupid, so I'm giving you the benefit of
doubt and assuming you are just trolling.

I think you've dug your hole deep enough that you don't need further
help from a troll like me. Good luck, happy holidays, and defrag to your
heart's content!