or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Good defrag program
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Good defrag program

post #1 of 63
Thread Starter 
I used Notron Speed Disk once a month while I was in OS 9. Now, I''m wondering if that's the best thing to do with an OS X system. Should I shell out for the OS X-compatible Norton Utilites or can I get a freeware defragmneter?
post #2 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by cdhostage:
<strong>I used Notron Speed Disk once a month while I was in OS 9. Now, I''m wondering if that's the best thing to do with an OS X system. Should I shell out for the OS X-compatible Norton Utilites or can I get a freeware defragmneter?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'd shell out for Diskwarrior, personally. It's a kick ass tool.
post #3 of 63
Thread Starter 
DiskWarrior optimizes directories, not the whole drive. I dunno whether it works for OS X as well as 9.
post #4 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by cdhostage:
<strong>DiskWarrior optimizes directories, not the whole drive. I dunno whether it works for OS X as well as 9.</strong><hr></blockquote>

When you order the DiskWarrior CD, you also get PlusOptimizer, which defrags and optimizes files. Both work well on all disks (9 or X, but not UFS) when booted from the CD (9.x). The OS X native version is expected in Feb.
post #5 of 63
Thread Starter 
Hmm. So directories aren't different from OS 9 to X? Surprising.

So can I run Norton Utilities from disk as well? I won't be running the latest version though.... I think I'll install it on my Pismo, upgrade, then run Speed Disk on my FireWire targeted iMac HD.

I've never tried Plus Optimizer. does it make a graphical representation of your HD like Speed Disk does? I'll haveto try it.
post #6 of 63
Why do you need to defrag X? I believe that that is unneccessary. Unxi files never move, there isn't reshuffling so I don't think you need to worry about defragging X ever again.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #7 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by cdhostage:
<strong>Hmm. So directories aren't different from OS 9 to X? Surprising.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nah. They're both the same format (HFS+) so they both have the same file layout and formats. Norton should work fine (depending on what version it is, of course.) I think 4 or later will work, but I haven't tried it myself. In any case, make a backup before trying it.
post #8 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>Why do you need to defrag X? I believe that that is unneccessary. Unxi files never move, there isn't reshuffling so I don't think you need to worry about defragging X ever again.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Eeeh, i didn't realize that there wasn't need to delete or create new files under Unix. I'll stop doing it right away!
"I've learned there's more to life than being really, really, really, really, really, really, ridiculously good-looking. :-x" - Zoolander
~:My scraps:~
Reply
"I've learned there's more to life than being really, really, really, really, really, really, ridiculously good-looking. :-x" - Zoolander
~:My scraps:~
Reply
post #9 of 63
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>Why do you need to defrag X? I believe that that is unneccessary. Unxi files never move, there isn't reshuffling so I don't think you need to worry about defragging X ever again.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Really? I looked at the Speed Disk graphical representation of my HD on OS X and t was most certainly fragmented.
post #10 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by cdhostage:
<strong>

Really? I looked at the Speed Disk graphical representation of my HD on OS X and t was most certainly fragmented.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, that's what all the techie people were saying when people whined that Drive 10 didn't defrag. Quite a few people said X wouldn't defrag at least no where near the level that pre-X or 9 and under did because of the unix file stuctures.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #11 of 63
I'm actually kinda curious about this.

What in the "unix file structure" makes it not easily fragmented?
i know that the various file systems makes fragmentation occur less (such as freebsd's fs, which i forget it's name right now) but since it still uses HFS+, i don't see how that would help.
Anyhow, i was just wondering what people thought (or why HFS+ didn't need to be defragmented)

Ted
post #12 of 63
Just partition your drive into two equal partitions. Then move all your files from one partition to the other and then back again.

You'll need to boot from a different drive or system CD to do this.

But, best of all, it's free.

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</p>
post #13 of 63
Thread Starter 
Nostradamus, you are a genius. I won't have to buy Norton Utilities immediately.
post #14 of 63
[quote]Why do you need to defrag X? I believe that that is unneccessary. Unxi files never move, there isn't reshuffling so I don't think you need to worry about defragging X ever again. <hr></blockquote>

Really, KidRed? I've read stories of how the swap file (if not on a dedicated partition) can hack your HD to pieces. Also, I've run Norton Speed Disk a number of times on my X partition. It's fragged, so I fix it. Some months later, fragged again. So I fix it (fragged-- not unoptimized). How did that happen if things never get fragged? I have a fragged Help App that won't even launch because it's so damnaged-- Norton and even ResEdit can't fix it. I never used the dang thing up to the time I realized it was broken. How might it have gotten damaged?
post #15 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by Arakageeta:
<strong>

Really, KidRed? I've read stories of how the swap file (if not on a dedicated partition) can hack your HD to pieces. Also, I've run Norton Speed Disk a number of times on my X partition. It's fragged, so I fix it. Some months later, fragged again. So I fix it (fragged-- not unoptimized). How did that happen if things never get fragged? I have a fragged Help App that won't even launch because it's so damnaged-- Norton and even ResEdit can't fix it. I never used the dang thing up to the time I realized it was broken. How might it have gotten damaged?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ah gee, I'm not sure smart ass, let's see, maybe because you ran NU on it? I've read where that has killed some drives before. Read my ****ing post again, I am going by what I read and relaying that info. I never claimed that X doesn't get defragged, just that I read that X doesn't get fragged the same way previous OS's did.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #16 of 63
Educate yourself-

[quote] Just a guess but when you defrag you may get rid of the optimizations done by installers(I.E. prebinding). <hr></blockquote>

[quote]Unfortunately, none of the profiles currently shipped with Norton work very well with OSX. They won't break the disk, of course, but they'll slow things down. Someone apparently made a very good one several months ago, but I don't know where to find it now. <hr></blockquote>

[quote] Two questions:

1) Why do you feel the need to defrag your hard drive when you don't even know how OSX prebinding works?

2) Why do you need to make a boot disk? If you had a retail version of Diskwarrior or Norton you would not have to make one.

Mac's are simple as hell to defrag. Things get complicated when you don't know how OSX works and when you use pirated software.

You do not need to defrag your drive for OSX. I would love to know why you feel the need to. <hr></blockquote>

[quote] When you install an OSX update it prebinds so without getting fancy is is pretty much doing the same thing as diskwarrior.

Apple does not say that optimizing your drive is necessary, the only native OSX disk utility "Drive X" does not have an optimizer. And even when people still optimize things get SLOWER. <hr></blockquote>

[quote] Ok- good! This above and Mal's post clear this up for me. It seems obvious that defragging will undo the prebinding (assuming that "location" means physical location on the drive...) <hr></blockquote>

[quote]If you run your disk with any modern filesystem and a great deal of free space, you may find that you never have to worry about defragmenting. <hr></blockquote>

[quote] - I'm sure that some people go overboard with their use of disk utilities, but that isn't to say they don't have their place. Actual defragging probably won't affect drive performance unless the disk is severely fragmented (which, unfortunately, isn't uncommon running OS X with minimal memory and no dedicated swap partition); however, defragging any disk carries with it the risk of badly messing said disk up. Doesn't happen often. But it does happen. <hr></blockquote>

and finally-

[quote] Posts: 732
From: Rochester, NY
Registered: Sep 2000

\t posted 11-23-2001 01:42 PM Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â* Â*Â* Â*Â*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep in mind that files are placed where they are on disk only when they are written out. If the OS writes out an 80mb swap file, which never gets bigger or smaller, it will *never* get any more fragmented than it was when it was initially created.

The best thing to do, then, is just to leave your swap files alone. Your swap files created when your install is new will likely be entirely contiguous -- and nothing will change that unless the files are deleted, and the OS needs to recreate them later when your file system is a tad more fragmented.

Honestly, the best thing you can do is let the OS create its swap files, and the leave 'em alone. They won't become fragemented over time -- when a file is created, it "locks in" its place on the disk drive, and unless the file is made larger, it will never become any more fragmented than it initially was.

This is one reason why Mac OS X uses fixed-sized swap files -- I also wouldn't be too surprised if it tried *really* hard to create swap files on a contiguous area of the disk when they *do* need to be created.

The best thing you can do to speed up Mac OS X is bitchin' to Apple to get on the stick and speed it up and/or purchase new hardware (which are slightly conflicting goals for Apple ). Sure, defragging might help a little bit, and it is nice to feel empowered, but the difference shouldn't be all that huge for most things.

If your computer is *really* thrashing VM so much that fragmentation makes a difference, you'd be a lot better off grabbing another 512mb of RAM for $50 or so ( <a href="http://www.ramjet.com/" target="_blank">http://www.ramjet.com/</a> ) than defragging your hard drive constantly. <hr></blockquote>

Now, what were you saying?
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #17 of 63
Kid Red,

What you are saying about his swap file is true however, from what I've read that no fragmentation thing in unix only works if you are using UFS. If you are using HFS+ it fragments just the same because it's the same file system. Maybe someone who's more knowlegable could chime in here ( like Applenut ). I could be mistaken but I believe that's what I've read on the subject.

As far Norton Speed Disk I've always used it. When I first installed OS X Norton showed severe fragmentation and you could see it in the pattern window. When I optimized OS X got faster not slower. I generally use it once a month ( booting from the CD in X ) depending on how much stuff I've thrown away or added.

Can you use this too much? Yes most definitely. You can over use any utility that moves files around and can cause damage.

Incidently Symantic just released a downloadable free beta copy of NUM for X. It doesn't include speed disk just yet however. I've tried it and it seems to work fine so far.

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #18 of 63
Notice: the public beta of NUM sucks bad.

My experience has been a little different than Jim's. It's slow, there's no speed disk app, and in addition to finding a bunch of "errors" (I've had zero problems with my system) it can't repair without the "CD", the stuffit archive is in Classic format so you have to launch Classic just to get the damn installer on your OS X hard disk. Typical Norton sloppiness. They suck hairy rhino nuts.

I'm waiting for TechTool X, which should be released this summer according to some friendly e-mails I've received from reputable, non-rumor-site sources.

Fu*k Norton.

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #19 of 63
Thread Starter 
That's unfortunate, Moogs. In any case, I want to see what the final productr looks like to a bunch of people before I go an buy it. What did you suggest - TechTool? I'll think about that too. Does it defragment drives?
post #20 of 63
Moogs,

I'm sorry that you are having trouble with the beta but, it is beta. I saw errors also but they were modification date errors and bundle bit errors ( small stuff ). After using it my computer still works fine. I didn't say everyone should try it ( it is beta after all ) but for the most part it works like most betas I've seen from Symantic. Slow with the first release faster as time goes on. Kind of like another piece of software I use. The only thing I've been dissapointed about is that it's taken them so long to come out with this. But, I blamed that on OS X settling down.

I did note already that it didn't include Speed Disk.

The point of my post was that Speed Disk from my copy of System Works has worked fine for almost a year now.

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #21 of 63
With today's hard drives, degfragging isn't even very important, since seek times are so low. I've even read that defragging can slow some things down, for example, if the HD needs to read info from an app, and then the heads have to haul ass over to where a document is, and the back to the app, in a fragmented drive this may actually require less head movement.

I'm ignorant about this technical matter, so I might have botched up relaying what I previously read. But I do know this: using OS 8.6 through 9.2, I have NEVER detected any change in performance after defragging a disk, even if the disk was fragmented as much as 30%.

If anyone has experienced a performance boost from defraggin', I'd love to hear about it. But I don't think anyone has, at least not on a modern computer. People defrag because of the warm fuzzy feeling they get afterwards, not because of any performance gains.

Also, if your directory structure is fu[ked up when you defrag, then you risk losing serious amounts of data. Yes you can run a disk utility to fix the directories, but what if it doesn't fix them 100%? Thus, you've always got to back up before defragging. That's an awful lot of work for something that doesn't even really do much of anything.

If defragging a disk was vitally important, wouldn't it follow that Apple would incorporate a defragging utility into the OS?

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</p>
post #22 of 63
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>
If defragging a disk was vitally important, wouldn't it follow that Apple would incorporate a defragging utility into the OS?
]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Good point. But it would make sense for Apple to include it in the OS even if it were only of circumspect importance. Windows has included backup and defrag utilities for a long time; for Macs , you've always ha to buy them third party. It;s not a bad system, seeing as Windows OSes are always many times moe expensive than Mac OSes alone, and buying the software for OS X that equals the functionality of a Windows install (including Heart and Minesweeper ) is much lower than buying the Windows package. his is especially true since OS X is Unix and a whole lot of software is available free.
post #23 of 63
Yes, but Windows systems become far more fragmented than Mac OS (at least prior to OS X). Some IT dude once told me that the original reason for defragging programs was that the fragmentation in Windows was so bad, it was considered a "bug" of sorts. So people had to buy extra software to patch their crap OS. I don't know if this is true or not, but it would go a ways towards explaining why Windows includes defraggers, while Mac OS does not.

I know a few Mac users who have never defragged their HDs, and their computers run fine. One is a beige G3 and it's still humming along in OS 9, no problems.
post #24 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>Kid Red,

What you are saying about his swap file is true however, from what I've read that no fragmentation thing in unix only works if you are using UFS. If you are using HFS+ it fragments just the same because it's the same file system. Maybe someone who's more knowlegable could chime in here ( like Applenut ). I could be mistaken but I believe that's what I've read on the subject.

As far Norton Speed Disk I've always used it. When I first installed OS X Norton showed severe fragmentation and you could see it in the pattern window. When I optimized OS X got faster not slower. I generally use it once a month ( booting from the CD in X ) depending on how much stuff I've thrown away or added.

Can you use this too much? Yes most definitely. You can over use any utility that moves files around and can cause damage.

Incidently Symantic just released a downloadable free beta copy of NUM for X. It doesn't include speed disk just yet however. I've tried it and it seems to work fine so far.

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>


I did see that mentioned a few times, but I couldn't make sence of it, so I didn't know what to quote and what not to quote. But someone did mention it, but then someone followed up and made that point seem moot. Not sure, but my point was that the concensus seemd to be (to me anyway) that in X, defragged often hurt more then it helped and really wasn't totally necessary.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #25 of 63
Look Kid, before SpeedDisk my HD was fragged. Afterwards it was not. Over time, it became fragged again while running OS X. Therefore, fragging was happening upder OS X. It's that simple. Don't chew my ass off for making an observation.
post #26 of 63
post #27 of 63
[quote]Optimizing both de-frags (which is a HUGE speed hit) <hr></blockquote>

Do you have any evidence that this is a "huge" speed hit? I've never been able to detect ANY difference in speed after defragging, no matter how fragmented the drive (although I've never seen a Mac drive more than 15-20% fragmented).

If it's such a giant speed-hit, then evidence of this should abound. And for evidence, I mean recent evidence on modern hardware, not old 800 rpm, 100 MB HDs.
post #28 of 63
post #29 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>
With today's hard drives, degfragging isn't even very important, since seek times are so low.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

[quote]<strong>
Do you have any evidence that this is a "huge" speed hit? I've never been able to detect ANY difference in speed after defragging, no matter how fragmented the drive (although I've never seen a Mac drive more than 15-20% fragmented).

If it's such a giant speed-hit, then evidence of this should abound. And for evidence, I mean recent evidence on modern hardware, not old 800 rpm, 100 MB HDs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>


Hmmm...

In the past, researchers have repeatedly shown that fragmentation causes a large performance hit. If anyone wants, I can dig up, scan, and post some old articles which totally substantiate this point. (There are many.) One of my favorite papers ("A Fast File System For UNIX", McKusick et al, 1984) shows how Berkeley researchers substantially reduced fragmentation in UFS (aka FFS), thereby improving disk performance by an order of magnitude (factor of ten).

Granted, many of the research articles in my possession are old. However, because of this research, both the academic and the industrial world have believed for years that fragmentation has a major negative impact on hard disk performance. So... IMHO the onus should be on the other side to provide research showing otherwise (that modern hardware deals with fragmentation well). I'm not saying that this research does not exist. I am just very interested in seeing it myself.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: one way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no...
Reply
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: one way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no...
Reply
post #30 of 63
A quote from an older copy of a book that came with NUM : " Speed Disk improves overall performance by eliminating file fragmentation, consolidating free space and placing it at the end of the disk, and marking off bad blocks.

Speed Disk also optimizes the placement of files on a disk so that infrequently modified files, are moved to the beginning of the disk. Since you rarely modify system files, it makes sense to place them together in one contiguous chunk. Frequently modified files ( such as a Desktop file, which is constantly updated ) are best placed at the end of the disk, to give them room to grow and shrink without causing fragmentation to the other files. "

When you modify a file it changes in size. since the file already has space allocated to it the drive has no choice but to put the " new " part of the file where it can find free space. This is called fragmentation. Kind of like when a city plans out it's streets overtime part of a street can be here and the rest of it can be several blocks away ( much like some parts of Portland Oregon ). And when this causes you to go blocks out of your way to find the rest of it, the time to travel the entire length of the street is longer. It's the same with files, the head has to take more time to find the rest of the file.

With optimization it places like files together for faster access. Files that are used together with other files aren't far apart and the head doesn't have to go searching all over the place for them.

Both discontiguous and fragmented files can slow your drive down over time.

NUM recomends ( like what I've been doing ) checking your drive with Speed Disk once a week for the user who is frequently editing or saving large files. Once a month for the casual user.

Sorry it took me so long to delve into this but, it's Sunday ( since I have to work on Saturdays ) and I have the time now.

I wish I could find the acticle about UFS vs HFS+ but I distinctly remember reading that HFS+ will fragment just like before ( because of the physical nature of the file system ) no matter what OS is on it.

Also I can vouch for the fact that the Windows system fragments more frequently because this is what happens to my computer at work.

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #31 of 63
Oh by the way, no matter how fast your modern HD is the seek time will always be less if it's less fragmented or more optimized. Given the size that some files are getting to be nowadays this is a serious consideration.

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #32 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>Why do you need to defrag X? I believe that that is unneccessary. Unxi files never move, there isn't reshuffling so I don't think you need to worry about defragging X ever again.</strong><hr></blockquote>

OS X fragments my hard drives more than OS 9. I don't see how you can say it doesn't fragment at all.

I also see a speed boost when I degrag the drives
post #33 of 63
Here's a question for someone in the know.
Is XP any better at fragmentation than previous versions? We still use 95 in our dept. at work (yuk ). <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #34 of 63
post #35 of 63
Didn't you read the quote from the NUM manual? It all depends on what ( or how much ) you are adding or deleting from the disk.

If Applenut is adding, deleting, or moving lots files around for what ever reason he would have to defrag or optimize ( and yes I know they are two different things as I have previously explained ) more often. It depends on the individual. Ether one could have an affect on the speed of his seek time.

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #36 of 63
If your disk looks like a " complete disaster area " I wonder what program or pattern you are using to optimize. I always use the " general use " pattern from Speed Disk in Norton System Works. It never looks messy.
As I said before Norton recomends once a week for the heavy user, once a month for the casual user.

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #37 of 63
First of all, there is no magic in OSX. just because it's a new os, it's still HFS+, and it becomes fragmented just like every other fs (except for something like ffs, which is nice when coupled with softupdates)

jimmac:

the problem with windows 95 and that file fragmentation was that the pagefile was very "busy", and that caused many file fragmentations. and i would say that page file fragmentations hurt performance the most...
also, during the defragmentation process of windows 9x, it has to restart every time the is a change on the disk. (that's why sometimes defrag takes forever it seems)

With windows 2000/xp, the file defragments in stages and it has built in hooks in the api to safely defragment. also, it doesn't have to restart every time while it's defragmenting and the swapfile's a lot more stable (meaning it doesn't change in size, i personally set the swapfile to a specific size). But it still gets fragmented, and i've seen it get terribly, terribly fragmented (but only once). It took multiple defrags to clear everything up.

anyhow, if you are always reinstalling the os, or if you don't install/uninstall apps a lot, then you'll probably never see a problem. but if you have your os installed for a while and are always upgrading software, well then perhaps you'll see the difference.

Ted

also, airsluf, i think you did the calculations wrong. with rpms of hard drives, first you divide by 60 seconds (so 120 rounds per second) then you divide that by 1000 (so it'll spin .12 rounds per ms, which is a pretty far cry from the 7.2 rounds that you had stated)
post #38 of 63
post #39 of 63
Where might I find these OS X Speed Disk profiles?
post #40 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by cdhostage:
<strong>What did you suggest - TechTool? I'll think about that too. Does it defragment drives?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yep. It does basically everything NUM and NAV do, does them better and has a few extras as well. Historically TechTool is a much more reliable and efficient way to tune up your Mac.

In the space of an hour (depending on your drive size and what's on it) you can run perhaps two dozen important hardware diagnostics, checking everything from RAM and HDs, to video cards and network ports. You can also check for software conflicts (like Conflict Catcher albeit it's done behind the scenes not with a GUI) and check for viruses as well.

It's an excellent, excellent application and the support is generally first rate. Puts anything Norton has released to date, to shame and worse.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Good defrag program