Why doesn't NTFS need defragging?

macco wrote:
> Seems Microsoft said NTFS does not need defragging.
>

Really? When? I'vwe never heard such a thing.

> Anyone know exactly where this is stated.
>

Can't help there, as I've never heard/seen it stated anywhere by
Microsoft. Microsoft does include a defragmentation utility with all of
their NTFS using operating systems, so they clearly think just the
opposite of what you claim.
 >> Stay informed about: Why doesn't NTFS need defragging? 

"macco" wrote in message


> Seems Microsoft said NTFS does not need defragging.
> Anyone know exactly where this is stated?

Someone misinformed you. If you know who, you might
ask him why MS bundled a DEFRAG utility with XP.
 >> Stay informed about: Why doesn't NTFS need defragging? 

Philo wrote:

> macco wrote:
>>
>> Seems Microsoft said NTFS does not need defragging.
>> Anyone know exactly where this is stated.
>>
>
> NTFS *does* need defragging...
>
> XP defrag does a sufficient job assuming you have enough free space on
> the drive.
>
> I think that back in the days of NT4 it was stated that NTFS did not
> need defragging...but even then, 3rd party utilities were available

There is a myth that NTFS is not subject to fragmentation. I'm interested
in its origin. I guessed it was MS.
 >> Stay informed about: Why doesn't NTFS need defragging? 

macco wrote:
> Philo wrote:
>
>> macco wrote:
>>> Seems Microsoft said NTFS does not need defragging.
>>> Anyone know exactly where this is stated.
>>>
>> NTFS *does* need defragging...
>>
>> XP defrag does a sufficient job assuming you have enough free space on
>> the drive.
>>
>> I think that back in the days of NT4 it was stated that NTFS did not
>> need defragging...but even then, 3rd party utilities were available
>
> There is a myth that NTFS is not subject to fragmentation. I'm interested
> in its origin. I guessed it was MS.
>
>



Win2k was the first NT version that shipped with a defrag utility

NT3.1 NT3.5 and NT4 had no defrag...

so I assume MS did not think it was needed.


Though there were 3rd party defrag tools avail for NT4

I believe that there was a total lack of defrag API in NT3.1 and NT3.5
 >> Stay informed about: Why doesn't NTFS need defragging? 

it was with the release
of vista, that issue to
defrag arose.

the vista engineers stated
that the ntfs under vista
did not need defrag and
because drives were very
large.

the above is in my words
of their technical mumbo.

you'll have to research
the technical blogs on
vista to find the above.

in any case, they included
a defrag utility in vista
anyways.

what vista is able to do
that xp cannot, is to defrag
the boot files and move
them near the boot sector.

in xp you can use a freeware
called "pagedefrag" to do
the above.

defragging the boot files
does improve the time
to boot up
..
I still defrag vista because
the problem with heavily
fragmented files is that if
one itty bitty fragment becomes
corrupted,

then the entire file it belongs
to crashes.

if if a tiny fragment did become
corrupted, then it is likely other
fragments belonging to other
files will follow suit.


hope this helps.
 >> Stay informed about: Why doesn't NTFS need defragging? 

db wrote:
> it was with the release
> of vista, that issue to
> defrag arose.
>


Really? Then it must be a very new issue.


> the vista engineers stated
> that the ntfs under vista
> did not need defrag and
> because drives were very
> large.
>


Please provide a reference for this absurd claim. Where, precisely, is
this stated? If Vista's NTFS doesn't need to be defragmented, please
explain why Vista -- like WinNT, Win2K, and WinXP before it -- has a
built-in drefragmentation utility that, by default, is automatically
scheduled to run once a week?



> the above is in my words
> of their technical mumbo.
>

Making something up out of the whole cloth does make it your words, indeed.

> you'll have to research
> the technical blogs on
> vista to find the above.
>

Translation: I doubt you'll take the time to bother proving me wrong.
(And that's true, since, given your posting history, pretty much
everyone already presumes that you're wrong; why waste more time when
the odds are in that direction?)


> in any case, they included
> a defrag utility in vista
> anyways.
>


Again, why, if it doesn't need it?
 >> Stay informed about: Why doesn't NTFS need defragging? 

you really should take
a look at the garbage
in your response.

just because you hadn't
heard of it "or" anything
otherwise,

doesn't make it non
existent.

do you own god damn
homework.
 >> Stay informed about: Why doesn't NTFS need defragging? 

db wrote:
> you really should take
> a look at the garbage
> in your response.
>
> just because you hadn't
> heard of it "or" anything
> otherwise,
>
> doesn't make it non
> existent.
>
> do you own god damn
> homework.
>
>


I'll take this as your admission that there is no such documentation.
You're the one making the claims. If you want to be believed, you'll
need to provide the supporting evidence.
 >> Stay informed about: Why doesn't NTFS need defragging? 

db wrote:
> you really should take
> a look at the garbage
> in your response.
>
> just because you hadn't
> heard of it "or" anything
> otherwise,
>
> doesn't make it non
> existent.
>
> do you own god damn
> homework.

What a joke.
Now where's your nirvana and Zenism, bubba?

>
> db·´¯`·...¸>wrote in message

>> db wrote:
>>> it was with the release
>>> of vista, that issue to
>>> defrag arose.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Really? Then it must be a very new issue.
>>
>>
>>> the vista engineers stated
>>> that the ntfs under vista
>>> did not need defrag and
>>> because drives were very
>>> large.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Please provide a reference for this absurd claim. Where, precisely, is
>> this
>> stated? If Vista's NTFS doesn't need to be defragmented, please explain
>> why
>> Vista -- like WinNT, Win2K, and WinXP before it -- has a built-in
>> drefragmentation utility that, by default, is automatically scheduled to
>> run
>> once a week?
>>> the above is in my words
>>> of their technical mumbo.
>>>
>>
>> Making something up out of the whole cloth does make it your words,
>> indeed.
>>
>>> you'll have to research
>>> the technical blogs on
>>> vista to find the above.
>>>
>>
>> Translation: I doubt you'll take the time to bother proving me wrong.
>> (And
>> that's true, since, given your posting history, pretty much everyone
>> already
>> presumes that you're wrong; why waste more time when the odds are in that
>> direction?)
>>> in any case, they included
>>> a defrag utility in vista
>>> anyways.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Again, why, if it doesn't need it?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Bruce Chambers
>>
>> Help us help you:
>> [URL="http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html"]http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html[/URL]
>>
>> [URL="http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375"]http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375[/URL]
>>
>> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
>> safety
>> deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin Many people would
>> rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell
>>
>> The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
>> killed
>> a great many philosophers. ~ Denis Diderot
 >> Stay informed about: Why doesn't NTFS need defragging? 

trolls don't deserve
anything except being
treated like garbage.

so stop trolling,
bill in texas and
maybe you'll earn
some zen.
 >> Stay informed about: Why doesn't NTFS need defragging? 

Bruce Chambers wrote:
> db wrote:
>> you really should take
>> a look at the garbage
>> in your response.
>>
>> just because you hadn't
>> heard of it "or" anything
>> otherwise,
>>
>> doesn't make it non
>> existent.
>>
>> do you own god damn
>> homework.
>>
>>
>
>
> I'll take this as your admission that there is no such
> documentation. You're the one making the claims. If you want to be
> believed, you'll need to provide the supporting evidence.
>
>
Say Bruce, I've seen this "db" clown post before and he's either a troll
or a complete idiot...best to just killfile or ignore him.
 >> Stay informed about: Why doesn't NTFS need defragging? 

actually, you're the
moron who trolls on the
sub threads of others.

you also claim that
chkdsk /p is for "audits"
only.

so now it seems that you
have taken promoted
yourself as bruce's
advisor.

bruce and I and others
have locked horns b4
and go back a good while.

so he doesn't need your
your childish advice and
can decide what's best for
himself.

if "you" were smart,
"you" would follow your
own advice and

keep applying the switch
/p for your chkdsk "audits"
 >> Stay informed about: Why doesn't NTFS need defragging? 

philo wrote:
>
>>
>>
> Say Bruce, I've seen this "db" clown post before and he's either a troll
> or a complete idiot...best to just killfile or ignore him.


You're assessment is fairly accurate, and I've certainly been tempted
to ignore him, but he has a habit of deliberately posting wrong and
sometimes dangerous advice, so I feel it's better to monitor and warn
the less experienced users.
 >> Stay informed about: Why doesn't NTFS need defragging?