On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 09:51:23 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
> Hi Laurie!
> 07 Dec 2002, "Laurie L Proud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LP> Knowing that the standard defrag in dos or windoze does a half-hearted
> LP> job, would it be safe to use the same programs on this windows 95
> LP> machine as I use on the dos machines.
> no
> LP> The hard disk is NOT FAT 32 just split into a couple of logical drives
> LP> using FAT16. I don't think the long file name support is on eather.
> _every_ win95+ uses long filenames.
> LP> I have Nortons SD and PC-Tools version 6 Compress
> I don't think that defrag does a much worse job.
> Generally defragmentation is generally overestimated.
> LP> Thanks Laurie
> CU, Ricsi
> PS: numhandles is as necessary or not necessary under win95 as in DOS.
> --
> |~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
> |~\|(__\| -=> Mr Worf, scan that ship! - Aye, Captain. 300 dpi? <=-
Made me Laf ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hi Ricsi,
I was thinking more about the benefit of re-ordering the files, which
I understand the freebie de-frags do not do.
Yes Ok...just a de-frag on the files might not be a big improvement,
but you dont free the slack to the rear of the free space. Files
saved after defrag will then be highly fragmented. That's why
I was wondering about a full file sort and defrag. From what you say
I could not use the programs I have, as there is no long file name
support. It was just an idea...(cannot resist messing).
Thank's Laurie
-- Arachne V1.71;UE01, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
