which PC

On Jun 23, 3:18 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message

...

the problem is some people are focused on being pedantic, where 'does
not fragment' means 'absolutely everything must be contiguous' and not
'very minor fragmentation with no noticable effects.'

I think you will find that it is you and floyd being pedantic...

way back in the beginning of the thread, 'macs are secure' was taken to
mean absolute 100% security, and not 'more secure than alternatives.'

It wasn't claimed they were /more secure/ it was claimed they were
/secure/.. the thread started because the mac users wouldn't accept that
they were /more secure/ and not /secure/ (as they still claim).

How ironic it is that Dennis can point at others for being penantic
(first paragraph) and yet cannot see where he himself is being guilty
of it (second paragraph).


Why some people still want to lie and pretend they are right against
all the evidence is the real question.

Simply because no one likes to admit when they made a mistake, or were
wrong.

The real tragedy is that many such disputes are precipitated from a
simple miscommunication on some part ("This medium is fraught with the
potential for miscommunication"), which snowballs when one party is
utterly intolerance to another's attempts to honestly articulate real
clarification instead of CYA backpeddaling.



-hh

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

"nospam" wrote in message
...

the problem is some people are focused on being pedantic, where 'does
not fragment' means 'absolutely everything must be contiguous' and not
'very minor fragmentation with no noticable effects.'

I think you will find that it is you and floyd being pedantic.. it has
been
proven that it defragments files but you and especially Floyd won't
accept
that you were wrong.

it defragments *some* files in *some* situations, however, the sheer
majority of files (over 99%) are unaffected by either hot clustering or
on-the-fly defragmenting. furthermore, hot clustering only occurs on
the boot volume, yet fragmentation is not a problem with any volume.

in other words, the defragmenting you describe is very specific and
affects very few files. the fact that fragmentation is not a big
problem is mostly due to *other* factors, such as the design of the
filesystem itself.

If you read what apple say then they claim it is because "most files are not
read" so do not need to be defragged.
This has nothing to do with the file system and is common to most OSes (but
maybe not to data partitions which is probably why some database engines for
mac/unix come with a defrag option).


your complete lack of understanding about hfs and hfs+ is blatantly
obvious, and reading a brief technote and searching for occurences of a
few keywords contained within does not make you an expert.

I think it is more apparant that you don't understand filesystem or disks at
all.
Floyd understands even less.
While I have only designed one "filesystem" in my life (which didn't suffer
from *any* fragmentation performance issues BTW) that will be more than you.
If you continue with your "the mac is perfect" attitude and change the goal
posts each time you are shown to be wrong I don't think we will ever agree.


once again (not that it matters), in normal operation, fragmentation is
simply a non-issue, and not for the reasons you claim.

You are yet again adding information that I have not said..
I have never said that you need to defrag it was you and Floyd that said
defragging is essential for windows systems when macs never need to do it.
I did say that defragging can speed things up which is obvious.

-hh wrote:
On Jun 23, 3:18 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message

...

the problem is some people are focused on being pedantic, where 'does
not fragment' means 'absolutely everything must be contiguous' and not
'very minor fragmentation with no noticable effects.'
I think you will find that it is you and floyd being pedantic...

way back in the beginning of the thread, 'macs are secure' was taken to
mean absolute 100% security, and not 'more secure than alternatives.'
It wasn't claimed they were /more secure/ it was claimed they were
/secure/.. the thread started because the mac users wouldn't accept that
they were /more secure/ and not /secure/ (as they still claim).

How ironic it is that Dennis can point at others for being penantic
(first paragraph) and yet cannot see where he himself is being guilty
of it (second paragraph).


Why some people still want to lie and pretend they are right against
all the evidence is the real question.

Simply because no one likes to admit when they made a mistake, or were
wrong.

The real tragedy is that many such disputes are precipitated from a
simple miscommunication on some part ("This medium is fraught with the
potential for miscommunication"), which snowballs when one party is
utterly intolerance to another's attempts to honestly articulate real
clarification instead of CYA backpeddaling.

I will have to note that I've never seen a new person here (unless
"@home") is some morph (are you, "Dennis"?) argue with such vehemence
and tenacity, and all alone, too. (I discount Ron because he'll just
post on anything vaguely anti-Mac, or to any discussion at all.)

--
john mcwilliams

On 6/23/07 2:18 AM, in article , "dennis@home"
wrote:


Why some people still want to lie and pretend they are right against all the
evidence is the real question.


Good question. Just why do you do it?

On 6/23/07 2:18 AM, in article , "dennis@home"
wrote:



Why some people still want to lie and pretend they are right against all the
evidence is the real question.


Why do some people hit the 'send' key multiple times?

"George Kerby" wrote in message
...



On 6/23/07 2:18 AM, in article , "dennis@home"
wrote:



Why some people still want to lie and pretend they are right against all
the
evidence is the real question.


Why do some people hit the 'send' key multiple times?


They don't.. the server had a wobbly AFAICT.
It is very difficult to press the send key twice as the message is moved to
the outbox as soon as you press it..
I won't worry about it as its the first time it has happened to me in the
last 10 years.. although I have pressed the send button before I replied a
couple of times in the past. Such is life and nobody is perfect.

"George Kerby" wrote in message
...



On 6/23/07 2:18 AM, in article , "dennis@home"
wrote:


Why some people still want to lie and pretend they are right against all
the
evidence is the real question.


Good question. Just why do you do it?


You haven't seen me do that.
If you think you have then you are mistaken.

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
. ..

I will have to note that I've never seen a new person here (unless
"@home") is some morph (are you, "Dennis"?) argue with such vehemence and
tenacity, and all alone, too. (I discount Ron because he'll just post on
anything vaguely anti-Mac, or to any discussion at all.)

I am Dennis.
The @home was because I had two aliases at one time @home and @work.
As I can only post from home ATM the other one is unused for now.
I don't usually argue so much but there are some people around here that
just lie and expect to get away with it.
The really shouldn't try and mislead newbies with their lies it just wastes
peoples time and maybe cash.
Macs have enough applications to get new users without some bunch of idiots
spouting lies and making mac users look stupid.

AZ Nomad wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:32:27 -0500, John Turco wrote:

AZ Nomad wrote:

heavily edited, for brevity

Sounds like detroit and their deathtraps of the 50's and 60's. Turn
hard and the car flips over -- obviously it's operator error.

edited

Hello, AZ Nomad:

No, the most notorious example of such a "deathtrap," happened to
be a more modern product of Japan. The Suzuki "Samurai" (1985-1995,
U.S. market) was the culprit in question; due to its extremely short
wheelbase, tight turns could cause it to roll over.

Did suzuki blame the owners for the rollovers?

BTW: the Ford Explorer of the time period was a far worse offender. It had
a rollover problem too, but didn't rollover over so easily at low speeds. It
tended to rollover at highway speeds and that led to far more fatalities.
However I don't recall Ford blaming its users for those deaths. I kind of
recall massive tire recalls to try and correct some of the cause of the
rollover deaths. If microsoft were running Ford, they'd be taping weights
to the doors and installing a device to sound an alarm every time the
steering wheel is turned 1 degree from center.


Hello, AZ Nomad:

My real point was, U.S.-built cars of the "50's and 60's" weren't
prone to rolling over. Their makers subscribed to the "longer, lower"
philosophy of automotive design.

Among the benefits of this approach - the lone one, perhaps - was
resistance to flipping. Remember, also, that the "SUV" market was
virtually nonexistent, back then.

In fact, 4x4 vehicles, in general, were still relatively rare (the
Jeep being a notable exception).


Cordially,
John Turco

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 02:12:12 -0500, John Turco
wrote:

AZ Nomad wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:32:27 -0500, John Turco wrote:

AZ Nomad wrote:

heavily edited, for brevity

Sounds like detroit and their deathtraps of the 50's and 60's. Turn
hard and the car flips over -- obviously it's operator error.

edited

Hello, AZ Nomad:

No, the most notorious example of such a "deathtrap," happened to
be a more modern product of Japan. The Suzuki "Samurai" (1985-1995,
U.S. market) was the culprit in question; due to its extremely short
wheelbase, tight turns could cause it to roll over.

Did suzuki blame the owners for the rollovers?

BTW: the Ford Explorer of the time period was a far worse offender. It had
a rollover problem too, but didn't rollover over so easily at low speeds. It
tended to rollover at highway speeds and that led to far more fatalities.
However I don't recall Ford blaming its users for those deaths. I kind of
recall massive tire recalls to try and correct some of the cause of the
rollover deaths. If microsoft were running Ford, they'd be taping weights
to the doors and installing a device to sound an alarm every time the
steering wheel is turned 1 degree from center.


Hello, AZ Nomad:

My real point was, U.S.-built cars of the "50's and 60's" weren't
prone to rolling over. Their makers subscribed to the "longer, lower"
philosophy of automotive design.

Among the benefits of this approach - the lone one, perhaps - was
resistance to flipping. Remember, also, that the "SUV" market was
virtually nonexistent, back then.


Moving to more modern times, a friend had a Geo Tracker. They had
pulled out onto the 4-lane and were passed by a semi that was "really
haullin". It flipped the tracker right over on it's side. the
treacker was light, had a short and narrow wheel base, and a high
center of gravity.

In fact, 4x4 vehicles, in general, were still relatively rare (the
Jeep being a notable exception).


Cordially,
John Turco