Hi David,
You're misinterpreting the statement. There are plenty of third party
defraggers that work better, and there's nothing wrong with recommending or
using one. The point of my statement is that recommending using one simply
because a user wants to see a graphical representation of it is silly. Does
anyone really want to sit and watch blocks move instead of using the
machine?
Most casual users (email, surfing, and maybe the family photos or occasional
game) will never experience a heavily fragmented drive, and the improvement
they may gain from any defragging utility will be marginal at best. Too
often it's recommended to improve performance when the real cause of poor
performance is ten tons of background process that they've allowed into the
startup axis.
--
Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help -
www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts
http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com
"David" <> wrote in message
news:. ..
> Rick Rogers wrote:
>> My point was that many use a third party defrag program so that they can
>> "see" what is happening, not because the program is better. To me, that's
>> pointless. I want to use my systems, not watch them defrag. Plus, for the
>> vast majority, defragging's affect on performance is way overrated.
>>
> what a stupid comment! Just how did u arrive at the bizarre notion that
> anyone using a 3rd party defragger does so just to watch it run? Prove
> your point with a cite. You stretch the bounds of being BS artist. A
> heavily fragmented drive does impact performance while one barely
> fragmented shouldn't make any noticeable difference to the user.
>
> Dave