How to defrag our hard drives?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does OS X really need to be defragged? If it did, then Apple would include a rudimentary defragging utility with the OS. HD seek times are so low nowadays that defragging doesn't result in a speed increase. Try it and see, I guarantee that you will not be able to perceive any speed difference.
 
interesting - because in the other thread about defragging, i just guaranteed you that you will see increases. i know i do. Seems like a good thing for people to check for themselves:D
 
Defreg HD will definitely increase speed. Apple also did not include a defreg program in the classic Mac OS, but it doesn't mean the program isn't important. I'm looking for a defreg tool for UFS, and this is why this thread exist.

Regards,
George Lien
 
From Apple's Knowledge Base about whether to choose UFS or HFS+... "Unless you have a specific reason to use UFS, you should use the Mac OS Extended format..."

Apple clearly stated that they do *not* recommend using UFS. You can be as firm about this as you want Georgelien, but only because there's UNIX in the name UFS doesn't mean it's the better choice for Mac OS X. And performance really, really sucks when using UFS compared to HFS+. Most importantly, this is no matter of opinion, it's a fact.

Read up on http://kbase.info.apple.com/cgi-bin.../query?searchMode=Expert&type=id&val=KC.25316 for more information from the source (Apple).
 
Just like my opinion is not backed up by any scientific evidence, you too deliver no evidence, but an old article from ACKB, fryke. Yes, it's more than what I could deliver. But still, no scientific evidence.

It's your word against mine, even though more people on this board might agree with you, especially the ones who never liked me.

Once again, I don't care for being right.
I just want to know the truth.

Regards,
George Lien

PS: My OS X runs wonderfully in UFS.
 
*sigh*

Yet another thread to add to my "completely ignore" list.

Why is it that threads with George tend to become flame wars? Don't bother responding, I won't be in here again.
 
I can't imagine why, must of us aren't like you (blaming others for problems that are a direct result of making bad assumption). We have tried to point out what is wrong with you configuration, and you seem to not want to be wrong about this.

You started threads flaming Apple when you are not even installing Mac OS X as they recommend. You really need consider the fact that you are the heart of most of your problems here. If you don't want to hear that you install your system on the wrong type of file system, I'm sorry. But you have tried to blame Apple for you own mistakes, and I am calling you. We have tried to help, but you refuse to let help you.

You really do give Mac users (and people in general) a bad name.
 
Originally posted by nkuvu
*sigh*
Why is it that threads with George tend to become flame wars? Don't bother responding, I won't be in here again.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Perhaps it has something to do with me flaming Apple in the first two threads I posted on this board?

Again, I'm more interested in the truth than whether I'm right.

Still, I wonder why Apple would include the option of clearing the disk space and formating it into UFS (Unix File System) just before the OS installation if the company didn't recommend UFS for OS X?

Regards,
George Lien
 
well george, several reasons have been given in this thread - for running a server from, for a seperate drive from your system drive to hold unix apps that require or just run better on ufs, etc. It's not like there aren't any uses for it. it just isn't the best choice to run your osx off of. sorry.

I think apple has caused an awful lot of confusion with 'nix convertees with this whole mess. I think some of this is so new, putting the 2 systems together, that people from both sides are just using what they already know and ignoring the other. I know i still try my best to ignore as much of the unix side as possible. I can't believe that anyone actually prefers to type commands in a terminal instead of pointing and clicking:p

but the secrets to getting this beast to run its best race is using tricks from both sides.

Apple should have provided a nice thick bound paper manual with osx that explains it in more depth. I think this is one corner that companies are now cutting that is a sad thing. If we all had a real, detailed guide to how this is supposed to work, we wouldn't be guessing or relying on what we used to know. However, this site and the combined knowledge of mac and 'nix users helps bridge that gap when we start listening to each other instead of assuming we know it all because we know one part of the system.

of course the worst ones are the windows convertees who think everything should work like their old system and scream that apple does a poor job of copying windows.:rolleyes:

maybe you should start a thread called "I was wrong - apple doesn't suck", now that you realize your misunderstandings played a part in your past experiences.;)
 
Ed Spruiell,

I like your last post very much. You sound very calm and logical.

However, I still think Apple sucks.

And these are the reasons:

1. Apple delivered MacOS X a little too late. Yes, before Windows XP, but OS X should have come out the same time Microsoft introduced Windows 2000 Professional or even Windows ME.

2. Improvements on MacOS X are too slow. Fine, OS X came out a little late, I can deal with that. But in order to make it up, Apple needed to speed it up, pun included.

3. Apple could lure the software developer a little better and more aggressive. Hello, Photoshop for OS X just came out?

4. Apple could focus more on the software-hardware intergration instead of putting so much resource on its hardware design.

5. Apple could have explore the alternative in making OS X multi-platform without losing its hardware business. AMD Athlon is a good start. I don't buy into the marketing crap of how superior G4 is when compared to other processors. They are in 2GHz range, and where are we?

All in all, Apple still sucks because it took too long to deliever OS X, too long to update it so software developer would jump on the bandwagon, too much faith on Motorola's PowerPC development team and ignored what the market really want.

Hey, this doesn't mean the company didn't do anything right.
It did many things right:

1. The latest PowerBook G4s are the best laptop on earth.

2. eMacs should help Apple regain some of its education market.

3. The latest iMacs are Art.

4. iPod, iPhoto, iMovie, iTune and iDisk are all valuable Mac assests.

5. The new retail stores are the best!

Still, ones who think that they are the best are not.
I never think that.
I only want to know our strengths and our weaknesses,
because only then, could we survive.

People can say anything they like about me,
but still won't change these facts about Apple.

Regards,
George Lien

PS: I'm a Mac user by choice, Windows user by my environment.
 
imaginary reason for being upset with Apple by George
1. Apple delivered MacOS X a little too late. Yes, before Windows XP, but OS X should have come out the same time Microsoft introduced Windows 2000 Professional or even Windows ME.
Click to expand...

Apple tried to, but developers (like Microsoft, Adobe, Quark and Macromedia) said flat out that they wouldn't convert their apps. That was the death of Rhapsody and the start of the development of Carbon (which was not a trivial matter). I don't see how Apple could have done better.

2. Improvements on MacOS X are too slow. Fine, OS X came out a little late, I can deal with that. But in order to make it up, Apple needed to speed it up, pun included.
Click to expand...

What would you have them do? Do you think that Apple is not working on all this? In the Window's world you have a company many times the size of Apple stealing innovative ideas from Apple to improve their software (which is the only thing they do) and a ton of other companies about the same size a Apple doing nothing but hardware. What you expect and what is truly possible are as far apart as they can get.

3. Apple could lure the software developer a little better and more aggressive. Hello, Photoshop for OS X just came out?
Click to expand...

Apple bent over backwards for developers by developing Carbon, how aggressive is that! And the Photoshop problem was sour grapes of Adobe's part for Apple not using Display Postscript (Adobe could have had Photoshop finished a long time ago if they wanted, they just wanted Apple to hurt a little).

4. Apple could focus more on the software-hardware intergration instead of putting so much resource on its hardware design.
Click to expand...

No Windows system I've ever seen does software-hardware integration better than Apple's systems. That is because Apple does both. Your point is totally grasping and completely unfounded.

5. Apple could have explore the alternative in making OS X multi-platform without losing its hardware business. AMD Athlon is a good start. I don't buy into the marketing crap of how superior G4 is when compared to other
Click to expand...

No, they couldn't. Developers had already started favoring Rhapsody for PPC long before it's release. If Apple had released Rhapsody for Intel, it would have been without Blue Box and would have had only a fraction of the Yellow Box apps that Rhapsody for PPC had. What makes you think that an Apple OS is going to do any better than the BeOS, OPENSTEP or Solaris on the Intel platform? Why should Apple weaken itself (like those other companies did) for a product that users wouldn't use because developers wouldn't write for it? This has been played out so many times that the idea is just dead.

As for processor speed, the G4 is right where it should be (in the same clock speed neighborhood as MIPS, Ultra SPARC and the Itanium), but as I said so many times in the past, maybe Windows is a better platform for you.

All of this has been brought to your attention before, but you continue to disregard this information. Lets face facts here, you want to be right even at the sake of the truth, no matter what you say.
 
Okay, okay.

I'm still most interested in how people defrag their hard drives whether its in HFS+ or UFS.

Anyone, anyone?

Regards,
George Lien
 
The point of this thread is to understand how people defrag their hard drives; hence, its titled "How to defrag our hard drives?"

Not whether I'm right or wrong, or what I think.

Perhaps the title should say, "How Do You Defrag Your Hard Drive?" instead?

Yes, in short, I really want to know how people defrag their hard drives.

Regards,
George Lien
 
umm... this was answered fairly clearly by Ed back on the first page of the thread, and he included a link to an older thread that you missed, that discussed defragging tools at length.

perhaps you should read it?

anyone, anyone?
 
I would point out that Mac OS X was designed to be running 24/7, and schedules maintenence for the file system during down time (on my systems this usually at about 3 in the morning, and with 8 unix system running maintenence at about the same time, you can hear it when you are in the room with them).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top