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

Hi Tom

No it's payware but well worth the $30.00, and only necessary for Windows. If you do want to care again, and want a very good free version then Piriform's Defraggler is a great product They've recently gone to a payware model, but still keep to their freeware versions, and they have three other great tools, CCleaner, Recuva and Speccy, also freeware or payware versions. I use them all in Windows (except Defraggler on my system as this is replaced with UD) as well as for friends and clients, and have never needed their payware versions. And they have never let me down, in trashing any systems I have used them on for the last five years.

Yep, my Ubuntu, with the pause at the login screen included and the fastest I can type my password, takes all of 20 seconds, shutdown about 10 seconds. Agreed Windows still has it's place, and I have to be familiar with it due to my business and support of my clients. I even have an old PowerMac to keep up to date with my few clients using Macs.


Andrew Brown

On 01/08/2013 12:25 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
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


    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.
    > Find
    > "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 Windows.
    > 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
    >    irksome,
    >    as my late mother and father used to say and raised us with this
    >    motto
    >    "how do you know you don't like it if you have not tried it".
    >    was
    >    from our young years with foodstuffs that traditionally many
    >    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
    >    suites
    >    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,
    >    FORTRAN,
    >    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
    >    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
    >    migrate
    >    to FOSS, which allows me to plow the monies recovered from
    >    and
    >    unnecessary licensing fees into better, faster and more up to
    >    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
    >    without waiting for a major release or service pack, unlike
    >    proprietory
    >    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
    >    memory
    >    as I type this.
    >    Regards
    >    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
    >    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
    >    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
    >    that can be
    >    >> used worldwide. Hatred usually doesn't provide a very
    >    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
    >    countryman
    >    >>>> 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
    >    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:
    >    <
    >    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


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.