Chuck wrote>
> Can anyone prove that their defragger makes an actual significant
> difference in performance? Aha, I thought not. As long as your drive has
> plenty of free space it should never get fragmented in the first place.
> Fragmentation was a problem of small FAT16/FAT32 drives and inefficient
> space allocation logic of very early DOS versions that history has passed
> by. Even an old FAT drive will not get fragmented if you have lots of
> space.
The one that my computer technician uses definitely does. He used in on my
machine about 3 years ago and the results were amazing.
More recently I had him "do" the "Ferrari Acer" laptop of my partner, and it
made a huge difference with it as well.
I wish I knew the name of it; I did see it in his workshop 3 years ago but
never wrote it down.
Among the things it does to speed the comp. up is to string related data
together in logical order so that the head doesn't have to hunt so much.
Mine is due to be done again.
On a related note, I have been disturbed by the huge amount of disk writing
that Google Chrome does on my machine; and it's not only when it is on
facebook. Even when on a site with known simple code (eg my photography
site) it takes forever and makes a lot of noise about it.
Tonight I installed Mozilla Firefox for the first time ever. It displayed my
photo site pages in a flash even though they could not have been in cache.
And there was no over-working of the HD.
I have since uninstalled it as I do not like the large amount of real estate at
the top of the screen with menus. But I might use it again.
I am seriously worried that Chrome will shorten the life of my HD.
Brian Swale.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|