Jaunty
-
Posts
14 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Jaunty
-
-
Haha, epic fail, no files exist on my windows partition ^^!
-
NTFS is faster. ext3 defrags itself every time there'll be fragments => slower.
I thought only ext4 defrags itself. I also thought that ext3 does NOT fragmantate o.O.
-
Still no fixes after two new versions.
-
Well I know pretty much about computers and it in fact was confusing me (until I realized what it means).
There's however is no explanation for that. There just reads "1 fragments" and then you have to understand what it means.
Sigh, why can't Microsoft change their annoying NTFS formats to ext3.. ^^?
ps. M_Lyons10, could you please clarify your post a little bit
? I mean that kinda message is pretty difficult to read. - E: Thanks 
-
0 fragments means the file doesn't exist.
1 fragment means that the file is in 1 piece.
2 or more fragments means that the file is in 2 or more pieces.
yeah, but it's confusing noobs because they always think there is one fragment.
-
I just clicked randomly on "Internet Explorer" section stuff and look what happened:
lolololol
-
Yeah, but then the program would have to be called De-piece-ler. Anyway, in how many pieces is the file? None, it's whole.
Following years of computing convention one could talk of extents. In how many extents? One, two, etc. Makes sense. If we're deconstructing fragments, in the gramatical sense, then something that is whole cannot be a fragment, but once it is split into two it is composed of two fragments. So you would have no fragments, or two, three, etc. There would never be one fragment.
Or one could keep to even more years of convention and continue to call them fragments, just like all the other defraggers, and number them one, two, etc, or zero, two, three, etc. To number them in any other way would cause confusion and be untrue.
You and your NTFS modules. I give up, you know the best
.I'll edit the first post to have these things.
-
There always will be 1 fragment but I've never seen 0 fragment.
Yeah, this needs to be fixed! Files that have 0 fragments do not have 1 fragment..
It should really say something like "Pieces", not fragments.
even with windows you can make the whole drive's files to one piece - so fix these things
! -
Wiping
in Defraggler
You know, why that option isn't there?
Because that has nothing to do with defragging..
-
Defraggle won't defrag any MFT's, if the drive isn't on defraggler's drive list. What is MFT? Will it even fragmentate?
-
Have a look: Piriform Defraggler documentation: Windows Vista and Volume Shadow Copies.
..There is a known issue with volume shadow copies and third-party defragmentation tools such as Defraggler. If there isn't enough room set aside on the hard drive for the volume shadow copies, the defrag process can cause one or more of them to be deleted... -
Lolololol, Windows is quit nice little OS..
I would suggest doing system restore or updating to sp3.
When did this start?
-
Hi,
There are (as the title promises) 3 things that I would rather not want to see in Defraggler.
(1.) The first one is: "1 files are in the block. Click to view the file list."
This means that, when you first Analyze your drive, you then move your cursor over a block and it says how many files there are on the selected block.
So it says "<amount> files are in the bl...". There should be separate info for blocks that have only 1 file: 1 file in the block. Click to view the file list. or <amount> file(s) (are) in the block. Click to view the file list..
(2.) The second thing is an actual bug. When you have defragged your driver completely, moved the files and stuff around nicely and even placed the files very smartly to maximize performance, what happens when you click *Defrag* again..? It does the same again!
Why an earth would the large files need to be moved from the perfect position to another place and then back?? It really makes no sense to me ?.?.
Defraggler should realize, when there is no point to start moving the file parts around..
(3.) The thiird one happens also when selecting a file, but after a defrag too. I mean the files that have no fragments show "1 Fragments" on their info. This is also an exception, that should also be separated from the others, because those files seriously have no fragments.
Therefore it should show 0 fragments, not 1 (the fragmentation starts from 0, not from 1!).
? I mean that kinda message is pretty difficult to read. - E: Thanks 
.
3 bugs/things to be wiped out from Defraggler
in Defraggler
Posted
It
says
0
fragmentations