Do You Defrag?

[Rod Speed]

PS... FAT16 wasn't released until 1987...

Irrelevant, fragmentation didnt show up first with FAT16.

So unless you know how to code or program FAT12 then I am
sorry your crediblity along with your pride just went out the window...

Its your thats blown up in your face and cover you with black stuff.

You havent even managed to work out even the most basic
stuff like the difference between an MBR and a file system.

Good Luck explaining how you used FAT12...

Fragmentation didnt show up first with FAT12 either.


Fragmentation didnt show up first with FAT either.

Fragmentation didnt show up first with FAT either.

Pathetic, really.

No one ever said it was.

There is no FAT in the MBR. There is JUST
a partition table and some boot code.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont
actually have a clue about the difference between an MBR
and a file system.

Hint for the terminally pig ignorant:

ON A PC WHICH HAS JUST GOT LINUX INSTALLED ON IT,
THERE WILL BE AN MBR, BECAUSE THE BIOS NEES THAT
TO BOOT THE OS. THERE WONT BE ANY FAT ANYWHERE,
BECAUSE THE LINUX FILE SYSTEMS ARENT FAT BASED.

NEITHER IS NTFS.

Everyone has done that in spaces.

Been there, done that, with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBR

It is indeed.

Because that is a limitation of the MBR and that
has absolutely NOTHING to do with FAT at all.

Yes, but NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY FAT
BECAUSE THERE AINT NO FAT IN THE MBR.

On the PC, unix has precisely the same limit with the MBR.

Wrong again with the linux support for NTFS.

Nope, they know already, someone outside MS wrote it.

Pathetic, really.

And made a VERY spectacular fool of yourself when you did.

Irrelevant to whether defragging is essential.

DOESNT MEAN THAT ITS ESSENTIAL TO DO THAT.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

Another lie. 2000 server aint current.

Same place as yours, wikipedia.

 

[Randella]

Really what is sad here is that you all think that you have proven
something. I don't get paid enough for this...

First, the OP's question... Yes Defragmenting on an NTFS system is
recommended by the manufacturer/developer of the system. Why are you
trying to fault Microsoft?

Second, saying "No" repeatedly and trying to insult me has proven
nothing.

Third, If you read the articles which is where I got my information,
along with agreement from microsoft development team members that I
work with, you would understand what is being talked about above.

So like I said before READ the artcles and stop assuming just because
your old that you have experience.

In response to what was said above, again I have provided reliable
sources and documentation. You have provided nothing but denial.

In response to your insane plea that you worked with or know anything
about FAT12 or FAT16... All FAT systems fragment. You should know
this.

I am done with this post, goodluck.

-Randy

 

[Rod Speed]

Really what is sad here is that you all think that you have proven something.

Odd that every single individual who has commented
has rubbed YOUR nose in YOUR terminal stupiditys.

I don't get paid enough for this...

You aint worth a cent, child. You cant even manage to work
out that there aint no FAT in an MBR, even with that very clear
explanation of what an MBR and FAT involves from wikipedia.

First, the OP's question... Yes Defragmenting on an NTFS system
is recommended by the manufacturer/developer of the system.

That wasnt even the OP's question. Here it is again.

He's clearly asking whether DEFRAGGING
MAKES IT EASIER TO RECOVER FILES.

Why are you trying to fault Microsoft?

MS doesnt say a damned thing about DEFRAGGING TO MAKE IT EASIER
TO RECOVER FILES IN ANYTHING YOU EVER QUOTED FROM MS.

AND what you did quote from MS hasnt actually gotta damned thing to
with A LAPTOP WHICH HAPPENS TO BE NTFS FORMATTED ANYWAY.

Second, saying "No" repeatedly and trying to insult me has proven nothing.

We dont need to prove a thing, you have proven time after
time after time that you havent actually gotta clue about file
systems, or what FAT involves, or what an MBR actually
contains, or how the MBR is used, etc etc etc.

You cant even manage the simplest concepts like MS never ever says
that its ESSENTIAL to defrag a LAPTOP THATS NTFS FORMATTED.

Third, If you read the articles which is where I got my information,
along with agreement from microsoft development team members that
I work with, you would understand what is being talked about above.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

MS never ever says that its ESSENTIAL to
defrag a LAPTOP THATS NTFS FORMATTED.

OR that NTFS IS FAT BASED EITHER.

And even MS isnt actually stupid enough
to claim that there is any FAT in the MBR.

So like I said before READ the artcles

You can chant that pathetic little mantra till the cows come home, child.
I must have read it to have been able to rub your silly little pig ignorant
nose in the FACT that MS ONLY says that that fragmentation CAN
impact performance IN A SERVER and that it never ever says that
its ESSENTIAL to defrag A LAPTOP WHICH IS NTFS FORMATTED.

and stop assuming just because your old that you have experience.

Taint an assumption, its a fact, child.

In response to what was said above, again I have
provided reliable sources and documentation.

Like hell you never did with the OP's original question, or your
stupid pig ignorant assertion that NTFS is FAT based, or that
the MBR has any FAT in it, or that MS ever says anywhere that
defragging A LAPTOP THAT IS NTFS FORMATTED IS ESSENTIAL.

You have provided nothing but denial.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you are a
pathological liar. I provided you with a source that even you
admit is reliable, wikipedia, on the bit you managed to miss,
what an MBR is about. It doesnt say a thing about any FAT in there.

In response to your insane plea that you worked with
or know anything about FAT12 or FAT16... All FAT
systems fragment. You should know this.

No one ever said they dont, cretin.

I am done with this post,

Great, there is only so much pathetic excuse for lying
pig ignorant bullshit anyone should have to put up with.

goodluck.

Dont need luck, knowledge is all we need thanks.

 

[Randella]

Odd that every single individual who has commented
has rubbed YOUR nose in YOUR terminal stupiditys.


You aint worth a cent, child. You cant even manage to work
out that there aint no FAT in an MBR, even with that very clear
explanation of what an MBR and FAT involves from wikipedia.


That wasnt even the OP's question. Here it is again.


He's clearly asking whether DEFRAGGING
MAKES IT EASIER TO RECOVER FILES.


MS doesnt say a damned thing about DEFRAGGING TO MAKE IT EASIER
TO RECOVER FILES IN ANYTHING YOU EVER QUOTED FROM MS.

AND what you did quote from MS hasnt actually gotta damned thing to
with A LAPTOP WHICH HAPPENS TO BE NTFS FORMATTED ANYWAY.


We dont need to prove a thing, you have proven time after
time after time that you havent actually gotta clue about file
systems, or what FAT involves, or what an MBR actually
contains, or how the MBR is used, etc etc etc.

You cant even manage the simplest concepts like MS never ever says
that its ESSENTIAL to defrag a LAPTOP THATS NTFS FORMATTED.


Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

MS never ever says that its ESSENTIAL to
defrag a LAPTOP THATS NTFS FORMATTED.

OR that NTFS IS FAT BASED EITHER.

And even MS isnt actually stupid enough
to claim that there is any FAT in the MBR.


You can chant that pathetic little mantra till the cows come home, child.
I must have read it to have been able to rub your silly little pig ignorant
nose in the FACT that MS ONLY says that that fragmentation CAN
impact performance IN A SERVER and that it never ever says that
its ESSENTIAL to defrag A LAPTOP WHICH IS NTFS FORMATTED.


Taint an assumption, its a fact, child.


Like hell you never did with the OP's original question, or your
stupid pig ignorant assertion that NTFS is FAT based, or that
the MBR has any FAT in it, or that MS ever says anywhere that
defragging A LAPTOP THAT IS NTFS FORMATTED IS ESSENTIAL.


Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you are a
pathological liar. I provided you with a source that even you
admit is reliable, wikipedia, on the bit you managed to miss,
what an MBR is about. It doesnt say a thing about any FAT in there.


No one ever said they dont, cretin.


Great, there is only so much pathetic excuse for lying
pig ignorant bullshit anyone should have to put up with.


Dont need luck, knowledge is all we need thanks.

Sticks and stones but where is the proof?

That's right, you don't have any...

But you say nothing at all...

-Randy

 

[Randella]

Sticks and stones but where is the proof?

That's right, you don't have any...

You talk alot but you say nothing at all...

-Randy

 

[John Doe]

"Randella" <randyprine cox.net> wrote:

<Snipped 275 lines of unnecessarily quoted text>

Sticks and stones but where is the proof?

That's right, you don't have any...

But you say nothing at all...

You can post in context now. Very good. The next lesson will be
removing unnecessary text in your reply.

 

[Rod Speed]

Clearly a liar.

Sticks and stones but where is the proof?

You got that in spades, child.

That's right, you don't have any...

Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.

But you say nothing at all...

Lying, as always.

 

[Randella]

Thanks!

For my next trick I am developing idiot repellant... We'll see how
that one goes.

-Randy

 

[Rod Speed]

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

 

[Randella]

You still have yet to prove anything Rod.

And you're right, I can't bullshit my way out of wet paper bag. I
prefer the truth.

-Randy