What's the best free disk defragger, not in Windows, for NTFS andFAT drives/partitions?

On 12/22/2009 6:55 AM PT, typed:

I have occasionally run defragging myself, but not for a long time. I
found that staring at the defragmenter very hypnotic!

I know. When a friend of mine got his first PC back in 1993 the first
thing he showed me was the defragmenter. We sat there and watched the
little blocks moving for at least 2 hours.

I don't know which is worse. Watching it in 1993, or admitting doing
so in 2009

Windows7 and Vista don't have any pretty displays, what is the world
coming to?

This isn't Tetris.
--
"I don't understand them anymore, these people that travel the
commuter-trains to their dormitory towns. These people call themselves
human, but, by a pressure they do not feel, are forced to do their work
like ants. With what do they fill their time when they are free of work
on their silly little Sundays?" --Antoine de saint-Exupéry, 'Wind, Sand,
and Stars,' 1939
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil./Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: NT
( ) or
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.

Cronos wrote:
wrote:

I don't know which is worse. Watching it in 1993, or admitting doing
so in 2009

Windows7 and Vista don't have any pretty displays, what is the world
coming to?

Michael

Some of the 3rd party ones do so you will have to buy one of them if you
still want to see the pretty blocks. In 1993 it was just two colors, red
and blue blocks but that was enough for us back then.

There are at least a dozen free defragmenters that have nice interfaces.
There may be some differences in the features (such as point-and-drool
interfaces to configure scheduling - if anyone still thinks that's
relevant), but otherwise they all do pretty much the same job. I can't
think why anyone would /buy/ a defragmenter these days.

David Brown wrote:
I can't
think why anyone would /buy/ a defragmenter these days.

To watch the pretty blocks move around.

Cronos wrote:
David Brown wrote:
I can't
think why anyone would /buy/ a defragmenter these days.

To watch the pretty blocks move around.

Try:

http://www.mydefrag.com/
http://www.techmixer.com/ultradefrag-free-windows-disk-defragment-utility/

(or anything else from Google)


The point is, you don't have to pay to watch the pretty blocks - you can
get it for free.

Run Linux, an OS that does not cause disks to become fragmented in the
first place.

On Dec 23, 3:51*pm, JimR wrote:
Run Linux, an OS that does not cause disks to become fragmented in the
first place.

All file systems have some fragmentation, but FAT is probably the
worst as it is often implemented by low operating systems.

exFat is a better file system as it maintains a bitmap of clusters
used. This bit map makes it easier to allocate a contingous range of
clusters.

Michael

wrote
JimR wrote

Run Linux, an OS that does not cause disks to become fragmented in the first place.

All file systems have some fragmentation,

Nope, there are a few that never fragment at all. They just refuse to
write a file when there is no block big enough to write the file to and
only allow a file to be extended into the free space that follows it.

RT-11 is an example of that.

but FAT is probably the worst as it is often implemented by low operating systems.

That has nothing to do with the file system, everything to do with how its implemented.

exFat is a better file system as it maintains a bitmap of clusters used.
This bit map makes it easier to allocate a contingous range of clusters.

On Dec 23, 6:52*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
wrote

JimR wrote
Run Linux, an OS that does not cause disks to become fragmented in the first place.
All file systems have some fragmentation,

Nope, there are a few that never fragment at all. They just refuse to
write a file when there is no block big enough to write the file to and
only allow a file to be extended into the free space that follows it.

RT-11 is an example of that.

but FAT is probably the worst as it is often implemented by low operating systems.

That has nothing to do with the file system, everything to do with how its implemented.



exFat is a better file system as it maintains a bitmap of clusters used..
This bit map makes it easier to allocate a contingous range of clusters..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

DEC were probably just mean and didn't want to write a pretty
defragger!

No fragmentation means that disks are very hard to utilise fully -
unless files are moved (ie in effect defragged) on the fly

wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
JimR wrote

Run Linux, an OS that does not cause disks to become fragmented in the first place.

All file systems have some fragmentation,

Nope, there are a few that never fragment at all. They just refuse to
write a file when there is no block big enough to write the file to and
only allow a file to be extended into the free space that follows it.

RT-11 is an example of that.

but FAT is probably the worst as it is often implemented by low operating systems.

That has nothing to do with the file system, everything to do with how its implemented.

exFat is a better file system as it maintains a bitmap of clusters used.
This bit map makes it easier to allocate a contingous range of clusters.

DEC were probably just mean and didn't want to write a pretty defragger!

Nope, their other OSs for that hardware did allow files to fragment.

Not even possible to have a pretty defragger with an OS that uses a teletype as the terminal.

No fragmentation means that disks are very hard to utilise
fully - unless files are moved (ie in effect defragged) on the fly

There is no defragging if files cannot be fragmented in the first place.