At 06:35 AM 08/08/2013, Joshua MacCraw wrote:
No need to counter with stats, you partially debunked yourself! A linear copy test has no bearing on fragmentation's effects on real world random access. It wasn't 6 or 7 years ago, it was less than 4
Ok, so you say my test is invalid. Maybe so, but if it is, why didn't you bother to mention this back when initial discussion took place?
And you still can't offer a repeatable benchmark. Usenet? How many people use that? Accpac for DOS also benefits from defragging, but not many people run that either.
Steam? Ok, there are some gamers out there who haven't moved to SSD who might find an improvement, but once again, not a really common application for must PC users.
Hibernation? How often are you doing that? Is the savings in time from waking up and going to sleep twice a day worth the hours of defrag time?
And frankly, if you're using a netbook, you don't care about performance anyway.
Show me a significant, repeatable, measurable improvement in office applications/web surfing usage, and I'll be happy to run the tests to see what sort of improvements are possible. Heck, I'd even be interested in improvement in boot times (not hibernation).
Here's an interesting thing: It's virtually impossible to get two defraggers to agree on what is fragmented and what isn't. Even MyDefrag, if you run it repeatedly, will move files each time to you it, suggesting that there is no completely defragged drive.
T
