>Well, after defragmenting, HD is burned much LESS because no file fragmenting. Did you thought about this?

Pure speculation on your part.

Which is better: defragmenting the same files every day, hour upon hour ... or once a month, on demand ?

>IMO, I do not think MS would trouble about such services if it is not worth in general. If MS does this, as you said, because some deal with disk manufacturers, MS would be quickly sued or burned by users.

The "disk manufactures" reference was a joke.

>Words like yours in many cases start flame wars against MS for no real reasons. Please, it is so old story, I'm tired by that...

I think a have a reason. I do not like these seldom documented "features". If I knew up front what they were, what they did, and how to turn them off, that would be a different matter.

In the case of WinME, it made the system unstable; I had to trawl the Web to find out how people were dealing with these configuration issues. A lot of time was spent dealing with "no real reasons". The number of running tasks that are actually needed vs what is loaded "by default" is surpisingly small; the rest just cripples your system.

I could now start in on how all this is about "more memory" upgrades ... but I won't.

For you the story might be "old"; for some of us, we have to deal with Users who still haven't heard the "story", and we have to figure out what is "wrong" with their system.