XP Defrag vs. Norton Speed Disk

[Arnold]

Several questions:
1. XP Defrag analyze shows 2% frag, Speed Disk analyze shows 5% - why the
difference ???
2. At what %frag should defrag or speed disk be run ???
3. I understand it is not a good idea to use both XP defrag and speed
disk - why not ???
4. Which one should be used ???

Thanks in advance for replies.

[Vaughn McMillan - Executive Software]

On Wed, 21 May 2003 10:43:57 -0700, "Arnold" >
wrote:

>Several questions:
> 1. XP Defrag analyze shows 2% frag, Speed Disk analyze shows 5% - why the
>difference ???

1. The fragmentation "percentages" are likely calculated differently
between the two products. These numbers are pretty meaningless anyway
without more context. The more important question for you to ask is
what files are actually fragmented, and into how many pieces. If a
file is fragmented into hundreds (or thousands) of pieces, but you
never access it, there is virtually no impact to your computer's
performance. On the other hand, if a file you use a lot is badly
fragmented (i.e., Word.exe), then you can expect to see a bigger
performance hit than indicated by the "fragmentation percentage"
number displayed by the defragger.

> 2. At what %frag should defrag or speed disk be run ???

2. There is no hard and fast number value. See #1 above.

> 3. I understand it is not a good idea to use both XP defrag and speed
>disk - why not ???

3. They both have a different idea about what's "optimum", so one will
undo the work of the other. It's generally not harmful, but it is a
waste of your time and your computer's resources to use both. (And of
course, don't run them both at the same time.)

> 4. Which one should be used ???

4. Neither, in my somewhat biased opinion. There are better
defraggers available. Do a Google search on "defrag" to see a few of
the others. Most, if not all of them have trial versions. I
recommend Diskeeper, but as I said, I'm biased. So are more than 98%
of the folks who buy defraggers. ;-)

>Thanks in advance for replies.
>

I hope this helps -

Vaughn McMillan
Executive Software

[johnf]

Agreed, I wouldn't be without Diskeeper (which is the Company MS contracted
to write their bare-bones defrag prog. for XP).
AND it always says "only 1% defragged, so it must be better :-)

johnf

> On Wed, 21 May 2003 10:43:57 -0700, "Arnold" >
> wrote:
>
>> Several questions:
>> 1. XP Defrag analyze shows 2% frag, Speed Disk analyze shows 5% -
>> why the difference ???
>
> 1. The fragmentation "percentages" are likely calculated differently
> between the two products. These numbers are pretty meaningless anyway
> without more context. The more important question for you to ask is
> what files are actually fragmented, and into how many pieces. If a
> file is fragmented into hundreds (or thousands) of pieces, but you
> never access it, there is virtually no impact to your computer's
> performance. On the other hand, if a file you use a lot is badly
> fragmented (i.e., Word.exe), then you can expect to see a bigger
> performance hit than indicated by the "fragmentation percentage"
> number displayed by the defragger.
>
>> 2. At what %frag should defrag or speed disk be run ???
>
> 2. There is no hard and fast number value. See #1 above.
>
>> 3. I understand it is not a good idea to use both XP defrag and
>> speed disk - why not ???
>
> 3. They both have a different idea about what's "optimum", so one will
> undo the work of the other. It's generally not harmful, but it is a
> waste of your time and your computer's resources to use both. (And of
> course, don't run them both at the same time.)
>
>> 4. Which one should be used ???
>
> 4. Neither, in my somewhat biased opinion. There are better
> defraggers available. Do a Google search on "defrag" to see a few of
> the others. Most, if not all of them have trial versions. I
> recommend Diskeeper, but as I said, I'm biased. So are more than 98%
> of the folks who buy defraggers. ;-)
>
>> Thanks in advance for replies.
>>
>
> I hope this helps -
>
> Vaughn McMillan
> Executive Software