<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.smartphonemag.com/cms" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Smartphone &amp;amp;amp; Pocket PC magazine - Comments for &quot;Wizcode Storage Tools Review&quot;</title>
 <link>http://www.smartphonemag.com/cms/blog/414/wizcode-storage-tools-review</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Wizcode Storage Tools Review&quot;</description>
 <language>en-US</language>
<item>
 <title>Â Thanks Anton, and thanks</title>
 <link>http://www.smartphonemag.com/cms/blog/414/wizcode-storage-tools-review#comment-138685</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;Thanks Anton, and thanks for being responsive to tweaking the scanner. I&amp;nbsp;did re-test, and the defragment utility fully defragged my card, and the subsequent re-scan worked fine...&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <pubDate> <key>pubDate</key>
 <value>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:18:36 -0500</value>
</pubDate>
 <dc:creator> <key>dc:creator</key>
 <value>Nate Adcock</value>
</dc:creator>
 <guid> <key>guid</key>
 <attributes> <isPermaLink>false</isPermaLink>
</attributes>
 <value>comment 138685 at http://www.smartphonemag.com/cms</value>
</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Anton, thanks and sorry for</title>
 <link>http://www.smartphonemag.com/cms/blog/414/wizcode-storage-tools-review#comment-138651</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Anton, thanks and sorry for the confusion on my part. I&amp;nbsp;will update the post fully with new results. I&amp;nbsp;just tested the apps on my i-mate 8150 and they ran much more as you probably expected. The ScanDisk tool found and fixed the problems on my microSD card. Defragmenter also reported zero fragmentation (as should be the case, since the card was newly formatted). Now the question is figuring out why this occuring on my iPAQ. My first suspicion is the cooked ROM I&#039;m running, but can easily verify this by using one of my older iPAQs. I&amp;nbsp;need to refrain from testing any apps on this unit in the future until I&amp;nbsp;can be sure... Again, I&amp;nbsp;apologize for the confusion, and will update/amend this post fully when I&amp;nbsp;complete another round of tests.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <pubDate> <key>pubDate</key>
 <value>Mon, 25 May 2009 13:13:28 -0500</value>
</pubDate>
 <dc:creator> <key>dc:creator</key>
 <value>Nate Adcock</value>
</dc:creator>
 <guid> <key>guid</key>
 <attributes> <isPermaLink>false</isPermaLink>
</attributes>
 <value>comment 138651 at http://www.smartphonemag.com/cms</value>
</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>This is a good example where</title>
 <link>http://www.smartphonemag.com/cms/blog/414/wizcode-storage-tools-review#comment-138649</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;This is a good example where on-device help would have really helped. See developers comments below. I&amp;nbsp;evidently got the intention of some features wrong, and will re-test this:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;font face=&quot;Arial&quot; size=&quot;2&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;You mention that the defragmenter shows that the  card is fragmented while it isn&#039;t. What makes you think the defragmenter report  is not true? If you are comparing it with a 3rd party tool I must note that  other defragmenters calculate the fragmentation level by checking the number of  non contigous clusters in the chains. Wizcode Defragment also does that but also  includes a new mode called &amp;quot;FlashBoost&amp;quot; that when enabled attempts to place  small files in the beginning of flash blocks. As you probbaly know flash memory  is accessed in blocks, i.e. if you need to read 4 bytes from a file the OS will  have to load an entire block (normally about 64K) because that&#039;s how flash  memory works. If FlashBoost is enabled Wizcode Defragment will mark a file as  fragmented if it is not aligned with the flash memory block even if the file  clusters are contigous. This is a revolutionary new methodology for speeding up  flash access that is based on several researches found on the  Internet.&amp;quot;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;font face=&quot;Arial&quot; size=&quot;2&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;The FAT/cluster cache settings affect the  application&#039;s internal engines not the Windows CE OS. Turn off the cache and run  the defragmenter and you will experience a great slowdown. They have nothing to  do with the Windows CE caches which unfortunately are not as flexible and  powerful as our own ones.&amp;quot;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;font face=&quot;Arial&quot; size=&quot;2&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;Wizcode Defragment has another valuable feature  - it is called &amp;quot;DirBoost&amp;quot;. It is able to sort the directory entries (file names)  inside folders alphabetically. There are many applications that show the list of  files sorted like file explorer, picture viewers etc. These applications have to  sort the names after they scan the folders and that can take a lot of time  especially when you have a large number of files inside a folder. If you allow  Wizcode Defragment to sort them the applications won&#039;t experience the slow down  that occurs when they have to sort hundreds of files. You could check that for  yourself by instructing Defragment to sort a large folder in descending order  and then launch a file explorer and see how much time it will take for that  folder to load. Then sort the folder again in ascending ordrer and notice the  speedup.&amp;quot;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <pubDate> <key>pubDate</key>
 <value>Mon, 25 May 2009 08:27:01 -0500</value>
</pubDate>
 <dc:creator> <key>dc:creator</key>
 <value>Nate Adcock</value>
</dc:creator>
 <guid> <key>guid</key>
 <attributes> <isPermaLink>false</isPermaLink>
</attributes>
 <value>comment 138649 at http://www.smartphonemag.com/cms</value>
</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>


