Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index

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 <>
To: Tom Davies <> 
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.


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.

"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 

Regards from
Tom :)

     *From:* Andrew Brown <>
     *To:* Tom Davies <>
     *Cc:* Virgil Arrington <>;
     *Sent:* Wednesday, 31 July 2013, 8:48
     *Subject:* Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3

     Hi Tom

     Interesting post. Agree, sometimes these software wars becomes
     as my late mother and father used to say and raised us with this
     "how do you know you don't like it if you have not tried it". This
     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
     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,
     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
     to FOSS, which allows me to plow the monies recovered from ongoing
     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
     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
     as I type this.


     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 <
     >> To: Amit Choudhary <
     <>>; <>
     >> 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:
     >> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3
     >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Amit Choudhary
     >> <
     <>> wrote:
     >>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Andrew Brown
     < <>> 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
     >>>> 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
     >>> 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:
     >> Problems?
     >> Posting guidelines + more:
     >> List archive:
     >> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and
     cannot be
     >> deleted
     >> --
     >> To unsubscribe e-mail to:
     >> Problems?
     >> Posting guidelines + more:
     >> List archive:
     >> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and
     cannot be deleted

     --     To unsubscribe e-mail to:
     Posting guidelines + more:
     List archive:
     All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and
     cannot be deleted

-- To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.