On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:16:58 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, AZ Nomad
><aznomad.2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote
>on Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:45:42 GMT
><slrnfk6hrp.vlb.aznomad.2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:46:17 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:26:44 -0800, alt wrote:
>>>
>>>>> http://www.cnet.com.au/laptops/laptops/0,239035649,339276024,00.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> For a laptop, those are darned good specifications.
>>>>> And yet Vista Aero -- or is it just regular old Vista? --
>>>>> runs "really quite awful", apparently.
>>>>
>>>> No Aero (as far as I could tell). It was just constant though. Open up
>>>> anything and you got the "hourglass". Lots of UAC interruptions it would
>>>> seem, but I was also doing admin operations.
>>>>
>>>> But it just felt slow. Like something else was more important than the
>>>> user.
>>
>>>Vista takes a few days to "settle down". It has to index search the drive,
>>>it does a full disk defrag, and a number o f other disk intensive
>>
>> disk defrag on a new instalation? What the fuck are you running, windows
>> 3.0?
>>
>Well, can't be too careful; there might be something else
>on that machine, after all, like a virus or a worm or ...
>wait for it ... Linux.
>Oh, the horror.
></sarcasm>
>Does it just defragment? Or does it attempt to seek out
>and destroy? How can we tell? At least with Linux I can
>conceptually pull up the source code for fsck.ext2 and
>peruse it -- and if necessary rebuild it.
Better yet, run a file system that doesn't need defragmentation.
|
|
