Hmmm...
Let me see if I'm catching what you're saying...
/dev/hda1 = fat32 (/win98)(obvious)
/dev/hdb1 = swap
/dev/hdb2 = ext2 (/)
/dev/hdc1 = fat32 (/misc)(mp3's and stuff)
/dev/hdc2 = fat16 (/backup)(obvious)
You're saying that even though I'm not running windows at the time, the
fact that the partitions are fatx makes them defrag, or just the fact
that stuff was originally put there by windows?
'Cuz when I first boot into Linux-X-Enlightenment, top says I'm using
like 75MB RAM and no swap. Then, after a day of MP3's and RPM's and
tar's and web browsing and programs and such, top says that I'm using
like 250MB RAM and like 5-10MB swap. Now, this isn't in windows,
although MP3's are running from a fat32 partition for interoperability
between Win and Lin.
I would use Linux solely, but there are some things that just don't run
with Win4Lin, although I guess I could use VMWare for other things that
are necessary, but that just seems pointless to have 2 seperate Linux
installs of Win98 when I could actually have Win98.
JJ
Leon Brooks wrote:
>
> No, that's another Windowsism called ``fragmentation,'' in which Windows' (well,
> MS-DOS' if you want true honesty) crazy semi-linear allocation scheme results in
> bitmap ``holes'' all over a FAT partition, to be followed sooner or later by
> files scattered around the disk like spaghetti on an epileptic's plate. The
> temporary solution (on DOS/Windows - as if there were any permanent ones...) is
> to run defrag.exe to straighten the disk out again. Like ironing clothes, it's a
> perennial task.
>
> Ext2FS is much better at keeping its house in order, and I have never even come
> close to wanting to defrag a Linux drive. Linux even surpasses Windows/DOS in
> allocating stuff (notably short-names) within FAT partitions.
