There has been a sub-discussion of this in the "Macro substitution..." thread in the VFP forum, but I thought I would ask the general question here.

The more that I think about this issue, the more I come to the conclusion that fragmentation, especially in database applications, is a GOOD thing.

Especially keeping in mind:
1) Modern Windows systems are multi-tasking systems.
2) Windows itself (and its components, like IE) make significant 'quiet' use of your HD space for all manner of files, large and small.
3) Other applications (MS Word for example) can use HD space 'quietly' too.
4) Modern HDs are fast, processors are faster yet, and RAM is plentiful.
... could it not be that contiguous files are detrimental to fastest possible processing?

What hard facts are there to back up the axiom (it is essentially an axiom today) that fragmentation is bad?

I have read that the NTFS file system takes measures to keep fragmentation minimized on a volume. IF this is true, is this helping us or hurting us?

Should good reasoning FOR contiguous files not be forthcoming, would it not be a good idea to push Microsoft to give us some direct control for purposeful fragmentation, specifying groups of files that we wish to deliberately fragment amongst themselves and to give us direct control over NTFS' designed fragmentation minimization capability?

That fragmentation is bad is so prevalent a concept that I must be missing something obvious. What is it?

Thanks for any/all input on this issue.
Jim Nelson