At 09:16 PM 03/08/2013, Joshua MacCraw wrote:
>
> Because it's a waste of time and power? :)
WRONG
>
> Have you ever seen a performance bump after you defragged?
YES
Been down this argument path before Thane...
Heh heh. Unfortunately, using the standard defragger in Windows, you
are incorrect. After a year of solid testing on literally hundreds
of computers, the different in normal file access before and after
defragging was less than 5%, an never went about 7%. At worst,
that's statistical noise, and at best is such a small change that it
wouldn't be noticeable by a human during normal use.
The I did was test was done as follows: I ran a copy of all files on
the hard drive to nul to test file and timed it to get the read time
. Then I defragged and then re-ran the original test.
My caveat: Using a good defragger (such as MyDefrag) which also
optimizes the drive properly can make a difference, and there are
some applications (such as databases) which will show a significant
improvement by defragging.
But for the vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time,
the speed up using the MS defragging program will never give a speed
bump of any noticable amount.
Don't agree? Then give me a benchmark that proves your point. When
this was discussed (probably six or seven years ago), the above test
I mentioned was explained and no one came up with a better one.
T
