-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Monday 2008-02-18 at 14:27 -0500, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
I know. I also used pctools myself time ago. But I felt that it could work faster by saving larger chunks to memory than it did.
I would agree on that point. Both seem to be hard-coded to use minimal amounts of RAM during any block transfer (even though nobody in their right mind is going to try to do work during a defrag).
No; the moment you try to do something defragging stops. I don't know how XP handles it, but in "lesser" windozes even the screensaver could halt defragging making it restart. It pissed my that the OS could not block any new task from running on such a critical moment.
Yes, but, is the system _really_ faster after unfragmenting? The test would be to do the procedure for one third of the users, anoother third run a placebo, and nothing for the last hird; then measure the users reaction afterward.
My experience admining XP last year indicates that users do have some level of awareness of fragmentation-related loss of responsiveness.
I didn't... not much, really. I kept mine regularly unfragmented, but mostly because looking at the defragmenting program at work was quite entertaining, as I had no TV :-p - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHuel+tTMYHG2NR9URAqLEAKCUpqYJcJ6gNVN4h6ymfhstwdCJywCfWFOo 7BuZXULzFiHK8slpbGLg/DY= =YmxB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org