Hi :) Is Disktrix UltimateDefrag free? FOSS? Lol, somehow i doubt it but i keep an ear out jic.
I tend to use the inbuilt Windows one. I don't really care enough anymore to go beyond that. When i did used to care i used PerfectDisk. it usually has a 1 month free trial and that was usually enough for me. Nowadays i just really prefer to just do a reasonably good job and since that is far, far ahead of the way most systems are set-up i just settle for that. I've even found a tendency for ones in England to be set to US localisation and such. If i want a fast system i just reboot into Gnu&Linux. Windows has other advantages but speed and security are not top of the list! Eskimos have a lot of words for snow and ice because they see a lot of it all. Windows has a lot of words for different security issues because it suffers from tons of different things. [shrugs] I still use Windows quite a bit though because when you know a thing's flaws it's usually easier to cope. Like going round to see a cat owner who insists their cat is always free of fleas, you just know you are going to get bitten so you just deal with it. Regards from Tom :) >________________________________ > From: Andrew Brown <andre...@icon.co.za> >To: Tom Davies <tomdavie...@yahoo.co.uk> >Cc: users@global.libreoffice.org >Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2013, 23:01 >Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 > > >Hi Tom > >Ah Ok, I see, this is the same methodology I'm using. I generally turn off the >swap file for a badly defragged drive, including any hibernation files etc if >active or used on a laptop, then defrag (Disktrix UltimateDefrag, possibly the >best I've used to date). After a good clean-up I then set the pagefile and any >hibernation files if necessary. > >With UD's FragProtect, this only has to be done every few months, and they are >one of the few defraggers that can defrag and place the MFT at the beginning >of the drive along with the folders entries, ahead of any data. But this has >to be done with a reboot and MS pre-install mode (UD does it all >automatically) to complete this task. And I've benched my drives on all of my >systems, it certainly makes for very fast boot and shutdown times, and better >stability. > >Regards > >Andrew Brown > >On 31/07/2013 10:52 PM, Tom Davies wrote: >> Hi :) >> wrt Virtual Memory/pagefile.sys/Swap on Windows the trick seems to be to set >> it as a fixed value. >> >> Find >> "System Properties" - Advanced tab - Performance (top 3rd) Settings - >> Performance Settings - Advanced tab here too - Virtual Memory (bottom >> section) Change >> There will be about 3 pop-ups open around now. >> >> Use the radio buttons there to change to a "Custom size". This really needs >> to be greater than Ram but not more than 2xRam (else it gets confused and >> may even reduce performance while tripping over it's own shoelaces). It has >> to be greater than Ram because when hibernating (perhaps sleeping too?) the >> contents of Ram gets written to Virtual Memory. But giving it too much just >> confuses space just confuses things so just under 2xRam is good but over >> that might get annoying. Make sure the same number is in both the top and >> bottom boxes. Often there is a recommendation for how much to set it too >> and it's usually not a bad idea to follow that advice. I've only seen it >> give a crazy suggestion once or twice out of hundreds of machines. >> >> Ok, now it gets a bit fiddly. You have to click on the "Set" button before >> clicking on "Ok" otherwise it forgets and you have to re-type the numbers >> again. Then you click "Ok" on each of the pop-ups in turn. Again if you >> don't it's not harmful, just annoying because it forgets. >> >> >> Of course if you have already been using your machine for a while then >> Virtual Memory is already quite fragmented so this will only 'stop' it >> getting worse. It wont improve things. Also when i say 'stop' it will >> continue to suffer normal system rot and there are other factors such as >> registry fragmentation that will continue. So, it fixes just 1 problem out >> of many. >> >> When trying to resurrect an ancient and much used machine i would initially >> set Virtual Memory to 0. Then defrag quite a lot and then plonk a fairly >> huge file onto the system. Then reset the Virtual Memory to a respectable >> size and get rid of the huge file. In theory i hoped that would force all >> the Virtual Memory file to be contiguous and out of the way. >> >> >> Gnu&Linux does NOT SUFFER from fragmentation until the drive is something >> like 96% full, not sure of the exact figure but definitely over 90% (it's >> always that extra just 1 episode/movie of Star Trek). Files might well be >> fragmented much lower than that despite the elegant way that files are >> carefully placed in Ext2,3,4 with plenty of room all around them to allow >> them to grow. There is a limit to how much that policy can really work of >> course. However even when files are fragmented there seems to be a better >> system for tracking where all the bits are so the read/write head can >> anticipate and plan ahead a bit better. >> >> So what i find odd is that despite that Gnu&Linux doesn't use a Swap file by >> default! One of the main rules in Gnu&Linux is that for any 'rule' there is >> always at least 1 version or distro or something that deliberately breaks >> that rule but in the case of Swap i haven't found one yet. They all seem to >> follow it! They all seem to use a separate Swap partition or don't use Swap >> at all. >> >> >> In Windows, which can't cope with fragmented files and couldn't (until >> fairly recently) defrag system files people insist on setting Virtual Memory >> to fragment as quickly as possible. Sometimes they set it to have a fixed >> lower amount and only vary the top-off but that still means the file gets >> read and re-written elsewhere and fragmented. >> >> Normally by default it's set to keep changing size according to how much of >> it is needed. That sounds good in theory. When you need more memory it >> just expands to fill up more hard-drive space when you need less it releases >> some of it. You can get Gnu&Linux to use a swap-file just the same instead >> (or as well as) having a separate fixed swap partition. Unfortunately >> Windows file-systems such as the various Fats (vFat, Fat32 etc) and Ntfs are >> carefully designed to make sure files fragment quite quickly and end up with >> bits scattered all over the place. >> >> Say you have file A that is 20units long and the next file B is 10. Then >> you delete A and write a file C that is 30 units. Now you have 20units of C >> followed by 10 units of B followed by the remaining 10 of C. If you now >> delete B and copy A back then you get 20 of C, followed by 10 of A followed >> by the 10 remaining of C and then the last 10 of A. So when you try reading >> a file the read/write head lurches around the drive trying to find the >> various shopped up parts of the file. If that file is a frequently accessed >> system file such as Virtual Memory then it can significantly reduce >> performance. >> >> In Gnu&Linux it is reckoned that you can significantly increase performance >> by putting your system files, particularly your log files, on a different >> hard-drive from your data. i mean a proper hard-drive not just a different >> partition on the same physical device. The main reason for putting your >> data (all in /home) on a separate partition is not to do with routine >> performance. it's more about making the system more robust. it allows you >> to install a completely new OS without any risk to your data (but still >> back-up anyway of course). In theory you can have several different OSes >> all using the same /home although that gets a bit messy if they have the >> same DE. it works a bit better if you have 1 KDE one, 1 Gnome(ish), and >> maybe 1 of any of the rarer ones (does Unity count as 1 of the rarer ones? >> i'd say it does but i'm sure others disagree). Otherwise you find all your >> different OSes use the same wallpaper and look the same (big yawn that is) and you don't get the benefit of the different design teams interesting work. >> >> >> Something i haven't really tried much, or at least can't remember the >> result, is putting all the Virtual Memory on a separate physical hard-drive. >> There is an option to split Virtual Memory across several different >> hard-drives/partitions some of which might be physically different drives >> but i'm not sure whether doing that is good or bad. >> >> >> Errr, i haven't mentioned Bsd or Apple because i just haven't played around >> with them that much. They don't seem to slow down as much as Windows so i >> guess they have a similar set-up to Gnu&Linux or have some neat work-around >> that might not translate well to Gnu&Linux let alone Windows. >> >> Regards from >> Tom :) >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Andrew Brown <andre...@icon.co.za> >> *To:* Tom Davies <tomdavie...@yahoo.co.uk> >> *Cc:* Virgil Arrington <cuyfa...@hotmail.com>; >> users@global.libreoffice.org >> *Sent:* Wednesday, 31 July 2013, 8:48 >> *Subject:* Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 >> >> Hi Tom >> >> Interesting post. Agree, sometimes these software wars becomes >> irksome, >> as my late mother and father used to say and raised us with this >> motto >> "how do you know you don't like it if you have not tried it". This >> was >> from our young years with foodstuffs that traditionally many young >> children don't / have never tried, up to the real things in life. >> But I >> am in a similiar vein in what MS charge for their O/S and Office >> suites >> when they are riddled with known and unknown bugs. >> >> At least I have always tried to keep an open mind, and thankfully was >> raised on other O/S's (not necessarily desktop/workstation >> friendly) and >> systems pre-dating MS. I cut my teeth on IBM VAX, Pick, LISP, >> FORTRAN, >> COBOL, AT&T and SCO Unix, CP/M, BASIC and Xerox GEM, before the >> adventure into IBM and MS systems with the very first and crude >> DOS, and >> then Apple O/S starting some 36 years ago. >> >> I can with experience say I have tried them all, and why my entire >> business and home office is OSS and FOSS, even to desktop. I give my >> staff the choice of MS or FOSS, thankfully they all eventually >> migrate >> to FOSS, which allows me to plow the monies recovered from ongoing >> and >> unnecessary licensing fees into better, faster and more up to date >> hardware. Even to the level of my servers. >> >> To end off, the major difference I have between MS software and FOSS, >> and you covered briefly in your reply, is that when one discovers >> a bug, >> or has a problem, one can get a solution or have it fixed promptly >> without waiting for a major release or service pack, unlike >> proprietory >> and closed code. This is the same for malware, it takes so long >> for the >> commercial software to produce a fix and prevention compared to it >> almost being a non-entity in FOSS. >> >> I would be intrigued and grateful, if you could email me >> privately, your >> tweaks you do for the virtual memory slowdown of it's >> fragmentation (by >> the way MS refers to it as the pagefile). And that's another >> feather in >> FOSS's cap, one never has fragmentation or needs to defragment it, >> unlike MS. I might know or remember them, but it's not coming to >> memory >> as I type this. >> >> Regards >> >> On 30/07/2013 03:27 PM, Tom Davies wrote: >> > Hi :) >> > I think disdain is possibly closer than hatred. I think bioth >> are quite far away from the reality though. I think it's simply >> that people would rather develop tools that are more robust and >> less susceptible to malware and slow-downs. >> > >> > >> > I think once you start using OpenSource tools you begin to >> realise that MS seem to have deliberately built-in vulnerabilities >> and their slow-downs. FOSS doesn't seem to suffer anything like >> as much, although a bit of "system rot" is inevitable in almost >> any system. >> > >> > I'm just installing Win7 on a handfull of machines and am able >> to make a couple of tweaks that prevent their "Virtual Memory" >> from getting so heavily fragmented. In previous versions of their >> OS i have found it significantly reduces the slow-downs if you can >> do this early on. On Win7 it takes an extra couple of clicks but >> it's still really easy. I always wonder why the default is to set >> it to fragment as quickly as possible. It's only with Win7 that >> their de-fragger tool can defrag system files such as the Virtual >> Memory (err that is Swap to Gnu&Linux geeks lol). >> > >> > Regards from >> > Tom :) >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Virgil Arrington <cuyfa...@hotmail.com >> <mailto:cuyfa...@hotmail.com>> >> >> To: Amit Choudhary <contact.amit.choudhary.in...@gmail.com >> <mailto:contact.amit.choudhary.in...@gmail.com>>; >> users@global.libreoffice.org <mailto:users@global.libreoffice.org> >> >> Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 20:30 >> >> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 >> >> >> >> >> >> I certainly hope the primary motive for FOSS such as LO is not >> a disdain for >> >> MS. I personally don't care how much money MS makes. I hope the LO >> >> developers are motivated by a desire to produce a great product >> that can be >> >> used worldwide. Hatred usually doesn't provide a very effective >> motive for >> >> productive action. >> >> >> >> Virgil >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Amit Choudhary >> >> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 10:47 AM >> >> To: users@global.libreoffice.org >> <mailto:users@global.libreoffice.org> >> >> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Amit Choudhary >> >> <contact.amit.choudhary.in...@gmail.com >> <mailto:contact.amit.choudhary.in...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Andrew Brown >> <andre...@icon.co.za <mailto:andre...@icon.co.za>> wrote: >> >>>> Hi Amit >> >>>> >> >>>> I understand where you are coming from, and the good news is, >> in your >> >>>> favour, that MS in both it's O/S and office suite are losing >> market share >> >>>> in a big way. Here's an article from Ubuntu founder and my >> countryman >> >>>> Mark Shuttelworth on his take on MS and Ubuntu. I like his >> statement that >> >>>> the no.1 bug in Linux has now been >> > fixed/closed, in that MS no longer >> >>>> dominates majority market share. >> >>> >> >>> But the numbers don't lie. I checked MS revenues and profits on >> >>> finance.yahoo.com and it doesn't look like MS is losing market >> share. MS >> >>> losing share might be an illusion. >> >>> >> >> Period Ending Jun 30, 2012 >> >> Jun 30, 2011 Jun 30, 2010 >> >> >> >> Net Income Applicable To Common Shares $16,978,000 $23,150,000 >> >> $18,760,000 (All numbers in thousands) >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Amit >> >> >> >> -- >> >> To unsubscribe e-mail to: >> users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org >> <mailto:unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org> >> >> Problems? >> >> >> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ >> >> Posting guidelines + more: >> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette >> >> List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ >> >> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and >> cannot be >> >> deleted >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> To unsubscribe e-mail to: >> users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org >> <mailto:unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org> >> >> Problems? >> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ >> >> Posting guidelines + more: >> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette >> >> List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ >> >> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and >> cannot be deleted >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org >> <mailto:unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org> >> Problems? >> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ >> Posting guidelines + more: >> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette >> List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ >> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and >> cannot be deleted >> >> > > >-- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org >Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ >Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette >List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ >All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted > > > > -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
