Best XP HD Defragmenter?

[Mindstar]

I've been using Diskkeeper 8 today to try defragment my drives.. Its ran
about 20 times now and my drives are still 20% fragmented.. am I doing
something wrong? is there a better alternative? (I'm sure Norton was
better.. but that was a long time ago)..

[Jack]

XP......your welcome..


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004

[JAX]

The best one I have found is the native defrag function.

JAX

"Mindstar" > wrote in message
...
> I've been using Diskkeeper 8 today to try defragment my drives.. Its ran
> about 20 times now and my drives are still 20% fragmented.. am I doing
> something wrong? is there a better alternative? (I'm sure Norton was
> better.. but that was a long time ago)..
>
>
>

[Parish]

Mindstar wrote:

> I've been using Diskkeeper 8 today to try defragment my drives.. Its ran
> about 20 times now and my drives are still 20% fragmented.. am I doing
> something wrong? is there a better alternative? (I'm sure Norton was
> better.. but that was a long time ago)..
>
>
>

What exactly do you mean by "still 20% fragmented"? If you mean that all
the directories aren't together at the start of the disk, and all the
files aren't together at the start of the disk then that isn't
fragmentation it's just that all the free space isn't _consolidated_
into one block which isn't the same thing (and neither does it
compromise performance).

When DK has finished a run it displays a report whic will tell you how
many fragmented files remain on the disk, how many excess fragments
remain, and how many there were when the run started.

Look in the Help in DK, under Frequently Asked Questions, the 8th
question is "Why doesn't Diskeeper completely consolidate the free space
on my volume?"

HTH

Regards,

Parish

[Parish]

JAX wrote:

> The best one I have found is the native defrag function.
>

Which is a cut down version of Diskeeper.

> JAX
>
> "Mindstar" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I've been using Diskkeeper 8 today to try defragment my drives.. Its ran
>> about 20 times now and my drives are still 20% fragmented.. am I doing
>> something wrong? is there a better alternative? (I'm sure Norton was
>> better.. but that was a long time ago)..
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[noone@nowhere.com]

Diskeeper will NOT make the driver perfect, it is not designed to do so.
It mearly cleans it up as best it can, and when run regularly (set and
forget) it will keep it fairly well defrag'd. Only if you run its
boot-time defrag w/ all the options set will it make the drive perfect,
and as soon as it's done and XP comes back up the drive will be fragged
again. Don't worry about it.

Norton Speed Disk (for XP) is not as thourough as it used to be under
Win98, it too can only do so much w/ an XP harddrive. [Under W98 w/ FAT32
it was super fast and very complete; too bad it's not like that anymore].

PerfectDisk and OODefrag are the other options, and they too are about
the same. Under XP you really can't get a perfect defrag, and you really
don't need it.

BTW, most reviews seem to conclude that DisKeeper is "the Best".

[Jym]

Try booting into safe mode and then defragging. Jym



"Mindstar" > wrote in message
...
> I've been using Diskkeeper 8 today to try defragment my drives.. Its ran
> about 20 times now and my drives are still 20% fragmented.. am I doing
> something wrong? is there a better alternative? (I'm sure Norton was
> better.. but that was a long time ago)..
>
>
>

[johnf]

There's two functions I particularly like with Diskeeper.
I have 2 drives, both partitioned, with an OS on the first partition of
each.

1. By booting up in OS1, from there I can defrag the other 3 partitions.

2. If I boot to OS2, I can defrag OS1 from there, which moves everything
after the Paging file to before it, this gives a much better defrag for
those who think their PC really won't run properly without it.

Wouldn't be without Diskeeper.
--
johnf

> Diskeeper will NOT make the driver perfect, it is not designed to do so.
> It mearly cleans it up as best it can, and when run regularly (set and
> forget) it will keep it fairly well defrag'd. Only if you run its
> boot-time defrag w/ all the options set will it make the drive perfect,
> and as soon as it's done and XP comes back up the drive will be fragged
> again. Don't worry about it.
>
> Norton Speed Disk (for XP) is not as thourough as it used to be under
> Win98, it too can only do so much w/ an XP harddrive. [Under W98 w/
> FAT32 it was super fast and very complete; too bad it's not like that
> anymore].
>
> PerfectDisk and OODefrag are the other options, and they too are about
> the same. Under XP you really can't get a perfect defrag, and you really
> don't need it.
>
> BTW, most reviews seem to conclude that DisKeeper is "the Best".

[Charlie]

I have used DK also and currently use O&O. Back in the Amiga 500/2000 days
after a defrag I could notice a real speedup especially at boot time. I have
yet (in the past 20 yrs) ever seen any "noticeable" performance gain with a
freshly defragged hd.

IMHO it is much less critical these days with powerful cpu's and fast hd's
to defrag at all.

--

- Charlie


"johnf" > wrote in message
...
> There's two functions I particularly like with Diskeeper.
> I have 2 drives, both partitioned, with an OS on the first partition of
> each.
>
> 1. By booting up in OS1, from there I can defrag the other 3 partitions.
>
> 2. If I boot to OS2, I can defrag OS1 from there, which moves everything
> after the Paging file to before it, this gives a much better defrag for
> those who think their PC really won't run properly without it.
>
> Wouldn't be without Diskeeper.
> --
> johnf
>
> > Diskeeper will NOT make the driver perfect, it is not designed to do so.
> > It mearly cleans it up as best it can, and when run regularly (set and
> > forget) it will keep it fairly well defrag'd. Only if you run its
> > boot-time defrag w/ all the options set will it make the drive perfect,
> > and as soon as it's done and XP comes back up the drive will be fragged
> > again. Don't worry about it.
> >
> > Norton Speed Disk (for XP) is not as thourough as it used to be under
> > Win98, it too can only do so much w/ an XP harddrive. [Under W98 w/
> > FAT32 it was super fast and very complete; too bad it's not like that
> > anymore].
> >
> > PerfectDisk and OODefrag are the other options, and they too are about
> > the same. Under XP you really can't get a perfect defrag, and you really
> > don't need it.
> >
> > BTW, most reviews seem to conclude that DisKeeper is "the Best".
>
>

[Parish]

wrote:

> Diskeeper will NOT make the driver perfect, it is not designed to do so.
> It mearly cleans it up as best it can, and when run regularly (set and
> forget) it will keep it fairly well defrag'd. Only if you run its
> boot-time defrag w/ all the options set will it make the drive perfect,
> and as soon as it's done and XP comes back up the drive will be fragged
> again. Don't worry about it.
>
> Norton Speed Disk (for XP) is not as thourough as it used to be under
> Win98, it too can only do so much w/ an XP harddrive. [Under W98 w/ FAT32
> it was super fast and very complete; too bad it's not like that anymore].
>
> PerfectDisk and OODefrag are the other options, and they too are about
> the same. Under XP you really can't get a perfect defrag, and you really
> don't need it.
>

The question of a "perfect" defrag is irrelevant when comparing Win98
and XP 'coz you're comparing two totally different filesystems; FAT32 is
an ugly hack on a 20 year old FS originally designed for 360K floppies
whereas NTFS is a modern FS that can support Terabyte sized disks. They
are totally different.

What you see/saw with Norton SD on a FAT FS was all the directories
placed contiguously at the start of the disk, followed by all the files
contiguously, followed by all the free space contiguously at the end.
That is not necessarily the most efficient layout, it just looks neat.

> BTW, most reviews seem to conclude that DisKeeper is "the Best".

[Parish]

Charlie wrote:

> I have yet (in the past 20 yrs) ever seen any "noticeable"
> performance gain with a freshly defragged hd.
>

Oh, I have. A '386 with a 20MB HD. I defragged it with Norton SD (took
about 5 hours IIRC :-O ) and the was a very noticable improvement.

> IMHO it is much less critical these days with powerful cpu's and fast
> hd's to defrag at all.
>

[johnf]

Agree totally with one exception?
If you run 'boot-time defrag' on Diskeeper, then open ANY app., close it and
then re-open it, it's abt. 4 times faster. That's great, but if you check
the amount of fragmentation after boot-time has run, it's a mess.
Haven't worked that one out yet.

--
johnf

> I have used DK also and currently use O&O. Back in the Amiga 500/2000
> days after a defrag I could notice a real speedup especially at boot
> time. I have yet (in the past 20 yrs) ever seen any "noticeable"
> performance gain with a freshly defragged hd.
>
> IMHO it is much less critical these days with powerful cpu's and fast
> hd's to defrag at all.
>
> --
>
> - Charlie
>
>
> "johnf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> There's two functions I particularly like with Diskeeper.
>> I have 2 drives, both partitioned, with an OS on the first partition of
>> each.
>>
>> 1. By booting up in OS1, from there I can defrag the other 3
>> partitions.
>>
>> 2. If I boot to OS2, I can defrag OS1 from there, which moves
>> everything after the Paging file to before it, this gives a much
>> better defrag for those who think their PC really won't run properly
>> without it.
>>
>> Wouldn't be without Diskeeper.
>> --
>> johnf
>>
>>> Diskeeper will NOT make the driver perfect, it is not designed to do
>>> so. It mearly cleans it up as best it can, and when run regularly
>>> (set and forget) it will keep it fairly well defrag'd. Only if you
>>> run its boot-time defrag w/ all the options set will it make the
>>> drive perfect, and as soon as it's done and XP comes back up the
>>> drive will be fragged again. Don't worry about it.
>>>
>>> Norton Speed Disk (for XP) is not as thourough as it used to be under
>>> Win98, it too can only do so much w/ an XP harddrive. [Under W98 w/
>>> FAT32 it was super fast and very complete; too bad it's not like that
>>> anymore].
>>>
>>> PerfectDisk and OODefrag are the other options, and they too are about
>>> the same. Under XP you really can't get a perfect defrag, and you
>>> really don't need it.
>>>
>>> BTW, most reviews seem to conclude that DisKeeper is "the Best".

[Peter]

My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!

A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere in
Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the speed,
it's sometimes even better!

Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows server and
is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!

[Jason]

Back then defragged helped a little - now with such fast hard drives with so
much free space it's even smaller improvement. I ran O&O by date - tooks
days per partition. Now I run space (most partitions) or stealth mode (for
%systemdrive%) (most of the old files are at the begginning of the drive).
It appears to be better than native / diskeeper in that I can 'see' what's
happening. Very rarely defrag now. Also have fixed size paging file(S).

"Parish" > wrote in message
...
> Charlie wrote:
>
> > I have yet (in the past 20 yrs) ever seen any "noticeable"
> > performance gain with a freshly defragged hd.
> >
>
> Oh, I have. A '386 with a 20MB HD. I defragged it with Norton SD (took
> about 5 hours IIRC :-O ) and the was a very noticable improvement.
>
> > IMHO it is much less critical these days with powerful cpu's and fast
> > hd's to defrag at all.
> >

[Jason]

NTFS 5 and 5.1 format works - folders then files then free (in date mode).
FAT defrags still have files and folder info all over the drive.
"Parish" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> > Diskeeper will NOT make the driver perfect, it is not designed to do so.
> > It mearly cleans it up as best it can, and when run regularly (set and
> > forget) it will keep it fairly well defrag'd. Only if you run its
> > boot-time defrag w/ all the options set will it make the drive perfect,
> > and as soon as it's done and XP comes back up the drive will be fragged
> > again. Don't worry about it.
> >
> > Norton Speed Disk (for XP) is not as thourough as it used to be under
> > Win98, it too can only do so much w/ an XP harddrive. [Under W98 w/
FAT32
> > it was super fast and very complete; too bad it's not like that
anymore].
> >
> > PerfectDisk and OODefrag are the other options, and they too are about
> > the same. Under XP you really can't get a perfect defrag, and you really
> > don't need it.
> >
>
> The question of a "perfect" defrag is irrelevant when comparing Win98
> and XP 'coz you're comparing two totally different filesystems; FAT32 is
> an ugly hack on a 20 year old FS originally designed for 360K floppies
> whereas NTFS is a modern FS that can support Terabyte sized disks. They
> are totally different.
>
> What you see/saw with Norton SD on a FAT FS was all the directories
> placed contiguously at the start of the disk, followed by all the files
> contiguously, followed by all the free space contiguously at the end.
> That is not necessarily the most efficient layout, it just looks neat.
>
> > BTW, most reviews seem to conclude that DisKeeper is "the Best".

[Jason]

Would agree that fragment free space doesn't hinder performance - a small
file might get saved next to a currently open file. It's when large files
are fragmented all over the drive that you might notice a drop in speed.
What defraggers don't do is put similar files together (e.g. a program and
it's dlls). O&O in date mode might if they have the same date and time and
you use date mode which I initially found slow since the files were all over
the drive.

"Peter" > wrote in message
.. .
> My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
> conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
>
> A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere in
> Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the speed,
> it's sometimes even better!
>
> Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows server
and
> is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
> I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
>
>
>

[DILIP]

Hi

Where did you get the idea that NTFS is something new. It been around from
NT4 days. Also, note that a crash on an NTFS volume can be as unrecoverable
as FAT32, depending on how serious it is.

"Parish" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> > Diskeeper will NOT make the driver perfect, it is not designed to do so.
> > It mearly cleans it up as best it can, and when run regularly (set and
> > forget) it will keep it fairly well defrag'd. Only if you run its
> > boot-time defrag w/ all the options set will it make the drive perfect,
> > and as soon as it's done and XP comes back up the drive will be fragged
> > again. Don't worry about it.
> >
> > Norton Speed Disk (for XP) is not as thourough as it used to be under
> > Win98, it too can only do so much w/ an XP harddrive. [Under W98 w/
FAT32
> > it was super fast and very complete; too bad it's not like that
anymore].
> >
> > PerfectDisk and OODefrag are the other options, and they too are about
> > the same. Under XP you really can't get a perfect defrag, and you really
> > don't need it.
> >
>
> The question of a "perfect" defrag is irrelevant when comparing Win98
> and XP 'coz you're comparing two totally different filesystems; FAT32 is
> an ugly hack on a 20 year old FS originally designed for 360K floppies
> whereas NTFS is a modern FS that can support Terabyte sized disks. They
> are totally different.
>
> What you see/saw with Norton SD on a FAT FS was all the directories
> placed contiguously at the start of the disk, followed by all the files
> contiguously, followed by all the free space contiguously at the end.
> That is not necessarily the most efficient layout, it just looks neat.
>
> > BTW, most reviews seem to conclude that DisKeeper is "the Best".

[Edward W. Thompson]

Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used by the
majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."? I would have thought the
defragmenter included in the WINXP package is the best selling in the world
:-).

It sounds as if you are in the business of marketing Diskeeper!

My experience suggests that all defragmenter products I have tried are very
similar in performance albeit they approach the task in different ways. Most
if not all of the claims of one product being "better" than the other are
based on non objective experience.


"Peter" > wrote in message
.. .
> My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
> conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
>
> A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere in
> Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the speed,
> it's sometimes even better!
>
> Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows server
and
> is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
> I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
>
>
>

[Parish]

Edward W. Thompson wrote:

> Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used by the
> majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."? I would have thought the
> defragmenter included in the WINXP package is the best selling in the world

Which _is_ Diskeeper.

> :-).
>
> It sounds as if you are in the business of marketing Diskeeper!
>
> My experience suggests that all defragmenter products I have tried are very
> similar in performance albeit they approach the task in different ways. Most
> if not all of the claims of one product being "better" than the other are
> based on non objective experience.
>
>
> "Peter" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
>> conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
>>
>> A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere in
>> Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the speed,
>> it's sometimes even better!
>>
>> Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows server
> and
>> is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
>> I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[johnf]

XP's defrag IS Diskeeper - a basic version designed by Executive Software
under contract to MS, so I guess that definitely makes it the best seller.

--
johnf

> Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used
> by the majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."? I would have
> thought the defragmenter included in the WINXP package is the best
> selling in the world :-).
>
> It sounds as if you are in the business of marketing Diskeeper!
>
> My experience suggests that all defragmenter products I have tried are
> very similar in performance albeit they approach the task in different
> ways. Most if not all of the claims of one product being "better" than
> the other are based on non objective experience.
>
>
> "Peter" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
>> conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
>>
>> A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere
>> in Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the
>> speed, it's sometimes even better!
>>
>> Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows
>> server and is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
>> I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!

[Alex Nichol]

Peter wrote:

>
>Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows server and
>is the best selling defragmenter in the world.

That sounds suspiciously like a company's own publicity. I can think of
several other products for Windows which could make the same claim and
which I would not allow anywhere near my machine. Not that Diskeeper is
such, but after buying and using both, I prefer Perfect Disk
(www.raxco.com) myself


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)

[Parish]

Alex Nichol wrote:

> Peter wrote:
>
>>
>>Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows server and
>>is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
>
> That sounds suspiciously like a company's own publicity. I can think of
> several other products for Windows which could make the same claim and
> which I would not allow anywhere near my machine. Not that Diskeeper is
> such, but after buying and using both, I prefer Perfect Disk
> (www.raxco.com) myself
>
>

Care to give your reasons? I tried it once and stopped it running when
it had done hardly anything after a couple of hours. I guess Raxco would
say that it "had to clean up the mess left by Diskeeper", which I'd been
using ;-) )

[Parish]

Edward W. Thompson wrote:

> Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used by the
> majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."? I would have thought the
> defragmenter included in the WINXP package is the best selling in the world

Which _is_ Diskeeper.

> :-).
>
> It sounds as if you are in the business of marketing Diskeeper!
>
> My experience suggests that all defragmenter products I have tried are very
> similar in performance albeit they approach the task in different ways. Most
> if not all of the claims of one product being "better" than the other are
> based on non objective experience.
>
>
> "Peter" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
>> conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
>>
>> A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere in
>> Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the speed,
>> it's sometimes even better!
>>
>> Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows server
> and
>> is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
>> I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[johnf]

XP's defrag IS Diskeeper - a basic version designed by Executive Software
under contract to MS, so I guess that definitely makes it the best seller.

--
johnf

> Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used
> by the majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."? I would have
> thought the defragmenter included in the WINXP package is the best
> selling in the world :-).
>
> It sounds as if you are in the business of marketing Diskeeper!
>
> My experience suggests that all defragmenter products I have tried are
> very similar in performance albeit they approach the task in different
> ways. Most if not all of the claims of one product being "better" than
> the other are based on non objective experience.
>
>
> "Peter" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
>> conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
>>
>> A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere
>> in Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the
>> speed, it's sometimes even better!
>>
>> Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows
>> server and is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
>> I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

" open ANY app., close it and then re-open it, it's abt. 4 times faster. "

That's because once you open it, Windows caches (memory) it and the next
time you open, WIndows reads from cache (memory) instead of from the drive.

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.




"johnf" > wrote in message
...
> Agree totally with one exception?
> If you run 'boot-time defrag' on Diskeeper, then open ANY app., close it
and
> then re-open it, it's abt. 4 times faster. That's great, but if you check
> the amount of fragmentation after boot-time has run, it's a mess.
> Haven't worked that one out yet.
>
> --
> johnf
>
> > I have used DK also and currently use O&O. Back in the Amiga 500/2000
> > days after a defrag I could notice a real speedup especially at boot
> > time. I have yet (in the past 20 yrs) ever seen any "noticeable"
> > performance gain with a freshly defragged hd.
> >
> > IMHO it is much less critical these days with powerful cpu's and fast
> > hd's to defrag at all.
> >
> > --
> >
> > - Charlie
> >
> >
> > "johnf" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> There's two functions I particularly like with Diskeeper.
> >> I have 2 drives, both partitioned, with an OS on the first partition of
> >> each.
> >>
> >> 1. By booting up in OS1, from there I can defrag the other 3
> >> partitions.
> >>
> >> 2. If I boot to OS2, I can defrag OS1 from there, which moves
> >> everything after the Paging file to before it, this gives a much
> >> better defrag for those who think their PC really won't run properly
> >> without it.
> >>
> >> Wouldn't be without Diskeeper.
> >> --
> >> johnf
> >>
> >>> Diskeeper will NOT make the driver perfect, it is not designed to do
> >>> so. It mearly cleans it up as best it can, and when run regularly
> >>> (set and forget) it will keep it fairly well defrag'd. Only if you
> >>> run its boot-time defrag w/ all the options set will it make the
> >>> drive perfect, and as soon as it's done and XP comes back up the
> >>> drive will be fragged again. Don't worry about it.
> >>>
> >>> Norton Speed Disk (for XP) is not as thourough as it used to be under
> >>> Win98, it too can only do so much w/ an XP harddrive. [Under W98 w/
> >>> FAT32 it was super fast and very complete; too bad it's not like that
> >>> anymore].
> >>>
> >>> PerfectDisk and OODefrag are the other options, and they too are about
> >>> the same. Under XP you really can't get a perfect defrag, and you
> >>> really don't need it.
> >>>
> >>> BTW, most reviews seem to conclude that DisKeeper is "the Best".
>
>

[Alex Nichol]

Peter wrote:

>
>Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows server and
>is the best selling defragmenter in the world.

That sounds suspiciously like a company's own publicity. I can think of
several other products for Windows which could make the same claim and
which I would not allow anywhere near my machine. Not that Diskeeper is
such, but after buying and using both, I prefer Perfect Disk
(www.raxco.com) myself


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

"XP's defrag IS Diskeeper"

This is incorrect.

With Windows 2000, the built-in defragmenter was a joint development effort
between Executive Software and Microsoft. With Windows XP, the built-in
defragmenter is strictly Microsoft. Because it was originally based on
joint code, it still has Executive Software listed. Kinda like Internet
Explorer says "Based on NCSA Mosaic.".

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.


"johnf" > wrote in message
...
> XP's defrag IS Diskeeper - a basic version designed by Executive Software
> under contract to MS, so I guess that definitely makes it the best seller.
>
> --
> johnf
>
> > Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used
> > by the majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."? I would have
> > thought the defragmenter included in the WINXP package is the best
> > selling in the world :-).
> >
> > It sounds as if you are in the business of marketing Diskeeper!
> >
> > My experience suggests that all defragmenter products I have tried are
> > very similar in performance albeit they approach the task in different
> > ways. Most if not all of the claims of one product being "better" than
> > the other are based on non objective experience.
> >
> >
> > "Peter" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> >> My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
> >> conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
> >>
> >> A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere
> >> in Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the
> >> speed, it's sometimes even better!
> >>
> >> Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows
> >> server and is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
> >> I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
>
>

[Parish]

Alex Nichol wrote:

> Peter wrote:
>
>>
>>Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows server and
>>is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
>
> That sounds suspiciously like a company's own publicity. I can think of
> several other products for Windows which could make the same claim and
> which I would not allow anywhere near my machine. Not that Diskeeper is
> such, but after buying and using both, I prefer Perfect Disk
> (www.raxco.com) myself
>
>

Care to give your reasons? I tried it once and stopped it running when
it had done hardly anything after a couple of hours. I guess Raxco would
say that it "had to clean up the mess left by Diskeeper", which I'd been
using ;-) )

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

However, in the Diskeeper manuel, it also talks about how important free
space consolidation is. If there isn't a large enough piece of contiguous
free space, Diskeeper will not be able to defragment the pagefile.
Diskeeper also has an Improved Free Space defrag method - if it wasn't
important, they would not provide this ability.

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.


"Peter" > wrote in message
.. .
> My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
> conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
>
> A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere in
> Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the speed,
> it's sometimes even better!
>
> Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows server
and
> is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
> I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
>
>
>

[Parish]

Greg Hayes/Raxco Software wrote:

> "XP's defrag IS Diskeeper"
>
> This is incorrect.
>
> With Windows 2000, the built-in defragmenter was a joint development effort
> between Executive Software and Microsoft. With Windows XP, the built-in
> defragmenter is strictly Microsoft. Because it was originally based on
> joint code, it still has Executive Software listed. Kinda like Internet
> Explorer says "Based on NCSA Mosaic.".
>

Microsoft describe it thus, "Disk Defragmenter MMC is based on the full
retail version of Executive Software Diskeeper."

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314848&Product=winxp

> - Greg/Raxco Software
> Microsoft MVP - Windows File System
>
> Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
> commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.
>
> Want to email me? Delete ntloader.
>
>
> "johnf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> XP's defrag IS Diskeeper - a basic version designed by Executive Software
>> under contract to MS, so I guess that definitely makes it the best seller.
>>
>> --
>> johnf
>>
>> > Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used
>> > by the majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."? I would have
>> > thought the defragmenter included in the WINXP package is the best
>> > selling in the world :-).
>> >
>> > It sounds as if you are in the business of marketing Diskeeper!
>> >
>> > My experience suggests that all defragmenter products I have tried are
>> > very similar in performance albeit they approach the task in different
>> > ways. Most if not all of the claims of one product being "better" than
>> > the other are based on non objective experience.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Peter" > wrote in message
>> > .. .
>> >> My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
>> >> conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
>> >>
>> >> A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere
>> >> in Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the
>> >> speed, it's sometimes even better!
>> >>
>> >> Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows
>> >> server and is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
>> >> I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
>>
>>
>
>

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

"Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used by
the majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."?

It says so on the Executive Software web site. If they say it, then it must
be true - right :)

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.


"Edward W. Thompson" > wrote in message
...
> Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used by
the
> majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."? I would have thought
the
> defragmenter included in the WINXP package is the best selling in the
world
> :-).
>
> It sounds as if you are in the business of marketing Diskeeper!
>
> My experience suggests that all defragmenter products I have tried are
very
> similar in performance albeit they approach the task in different ways.
Most
> if not all of the claims of one product being "better" than the other are
> based on non objective experience.
>
>
> "Peter" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
> > conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
> >
> > A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere in
> > Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the speed,
> > it's sometimes even better!
> >
> > Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows server
> and
> > is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
> > I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Parish]

Edward W. Thompson wrote:

> Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used by the
> majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."? I would have thought the
> defragmenter included in the WINXP package is the best selling in the world

Which _is_ Diskeeper.

> :-).
>
> It sounds as if you are in the business of marketing Diskeeper!
>
> My experience suggests that all defragmenter products I have tried are very
> similar in performance albeit they approach the task in different ways. Most
> if not all of the claims of one product being "better" than the other are
> based on non objective experience.
>
>
> "Peter" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
>> conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
>>
>> A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere in
>> Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the speed,
>> it's sometimes even better!
>>
>> Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows server
> and
>> is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
>> I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[johnf]

XP's defrag IS Diskeeper - a basic version designed by Executive Software
under contract to MS, so I guess that definitely makes it the best seller.

--
johnf

> Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used
> by the majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."? I would have
> thought the defragmenter included in the WINXP package is the best
> selling in the world :-).
>
> It sounds as if you are in the business of marketing Diskeeper!
>
> My experience suggests that all defragmenter products I have tried are
> very similar in performance albeit they approach the task in different
> ways. Most if not all of the claims of one product being "better" than
> the other are based on non objective experience.
>
>
> "Peter" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
>> conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
>>
>> A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere
>> in Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the
>> speed, it's sometimes even better!
>>
>> Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows
>> server and is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
>> I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!

[Alex Nichol]

Peter wrote:

>
>Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows server and
>is the best selling defragmenter in the world.

That sounds suspiciously like a company's own publicity. I can think of
several other products for Windows which could make the same claim and
which I would not allow anywhere near my machine. Not that Diskeeper is
such, but after buying and using both, I prefer Perfect Disk
(www.raxco.com) myself


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

" open ANY app., close it and then re-open it, it's abt. 4 times faster. "

That's because once you open it, Windows caches (memory) it and the next
time you open, WIndows reads from cache (memory) instead of from the drive.

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.




"johnf" > wrote in message
...
> Agree totally with one exception?
> If you run 'boot-time defrag' on Diskeeper, then open ANY app., close it
and
> then re-open it, it's abt. 4 times faster. That's great, but if you check
> the amount of fragmentation after boot-time has run, it's a mess.
> Haven't worked that one out yet.
>
> --
> johnf
>
> > I have used DK also and currently use O&O. Back in the Amiga 500/2000
> > days after a defrag I could notice a real speedup especially at boot
> > time. I have yet (in the past 20 yrs) ever seen any "noticeable"
> > performance gain with a freshly defragged hd.
> >
> > IMHO it is much less critical these days with powerful cpu's and fast
> > hd's to defrag at all.
> >
> > --
> >
> > - Charlie
> >
> >
> > "johnf" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> There's two functions I particularly like with Diskeeper.
> >> I have 2 drives, both partitioned, with an OS on the first partition of
> >> each.
> >>
> >> 1. By booting up in OS1, from there I can defrag the other 3
> >> partitions.
> >>
> >> 2. If I boot to OS2, I can defrag OS1 from there, which moves
> >> everything after the Paging file to before it, this gives a much
> >> better defrag for those who think their PC really won't run properly
> >> without it.
> >>
> >> Wouldn't be without Diskeeper.
> >> --
> >> johnf
> >>
> >>> Diskeeper will NOT make the driver perfect, it is not designed to do
> >>> so. It mearly cleans it up as best it can, and when run regularly
> >>> (set and forget) it will keep it fairly well defrag'd. Only if you
> >>> run its boot-time defrag w/ all the options set will it make the
> >>> drive perfect, and as soon as it's done and XP comes back up the
> >>> drive will be fragged again. Don't worry about it.
> >>>
> >>> Norton Speed Disk (for XP) is not as thourough as it used to be under
> >>> Win98, it too can only do so much w/ an XP harddrive. [Under W98 w/
> >>> FAT32 it was super fast and very complete; too bad it's not like that
> >>> anymore].
> >>>
> >>> PerfectDisk and OODefrag are the other options, and they too are about
> >>> the same. Under XP you really can't get a perfect defrag, and you
> >>> really don't need it.
> >>>
> >>> BTW, most reviews seem to conclude that DisKeeper is "the Best".
>
>

[Parish]

Alex Nichol wrote:

> Peter wrote:
>
>>
>>Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows server and
>>is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
>
> That sounds suspiciously like a company's own publicity. I can think of
> several other products for Windows which could make the same claim and
> which I would not allow anywhere near my machine. Not that Diskeeper is
> such, but after buying and using both, I prefer Perfect Disk
> (www.raxco.com) myself
>
>

Care to give your reasons? I tried it once and stopped it running when
it had done hardly anything after a couple of hours. I guess Raxco would
say that it "had to clean up the mess left by Diskeeper", which I'd been
using ;-) )

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

"XP's defrag IS Diskeeper"

This is incorrect.

With Windows 2000, the built-in defragmenter was a joint development effort
between Executive Software and Microsoft. With Windows XP, the built-in
defragmenter is strictly Microsoft. Because it was originally based on
joint code, it still has Executive Software listed. Kinda like Internet
Explorer says "Based on NCSA Mosaic.".

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.


"johnf" > wrote in message
...
> XP's defrag IS Diskeeper - a basic version designed by Executive Software
> under contract to MS, so I guess that definitely makes it the best seller.
>
> --
> johnf
>
> > Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used
> > by the majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."? I would have
> > thought the defragmenter included in the WINXP package is the best
> > selling in the world :-).
> >
> > It sounds as if you are in the business of marketing Diskeeper!
> >
> > My experience suggests that all defragmenter products I have tried are
> > very similar in performance albeit they approach the task in different
> > ways. Most if not all of the claims of one product being "better" than
> > the other are based on non objective experience.
> >
> >
> > "Peter" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> >> My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
> >> conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
> >>
> >> A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere
> >> in Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the
> >> speed, it's sometimes even better!
> >>
> >> Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows
> >> server and is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
> >> I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
>
>

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

However, in the Diskeeper manuel, it also talks about how important free
space consolidation is. If there isn't a large enough piece of contiguous
free space, Diskeeper will not be able to defragment the pagefile.
Diskeeper also has an Improved Free Space defrag method - if it wasn't
important, they would not provide this ability.

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.


"Peter" > wrote in message
.. .
> My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
> conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
>
> A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere in
> Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the speed,
> it's sometimes even better!
>
> Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows server
and
> is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
> I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
>
>
>

[Parish]

Greg Hayes/Raxco Software wrote:

> "XP's defrag IS Diskeeper"
>
> This is incorrect.
>
> With Windows 2000, the built-in defragmenter was a joint development effort
> between Executive Software and Microsoft. With Windows XP, the built-in
> defragmenter is strictly Microsoft. Because it was originally based on
> joint code, it still has Executive Software listed. Kinda like Internet
> Explorer says "Based on NCSA Mosaic.".
>

Microsoft describe it thus, "Disk Defragmenter MMC is based on the full
retail version of Executive Software Diskeeper."

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314848&Product=winxp

> - Greg/Raxco Software
> Microsoft MVP - Windows File System
>
> Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
> commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.
>
> Want to email me? Delete ntloader.
>
>
> "johnf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> XP's defrag IS Diskeeper - a basic version designed by Executive Software
>> under contract to MS, so I guess that definitely makes it the best seller.
>>
>> --
>> johnf
>>
>> > Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used
>> > by the majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."? I would have
>> > thought the defragmenter included in the WINXP package is the best
>> > selling in the world :-).
>> >
>> > It sounds as if you are in the business of marketing Diskeeper!
>> >
>> > My experience suggests that all defragmenter products I have tried are
>> > very similar in performance albeit they approach the task in different
>> > ways. Most if not all of the claims of one product being "better" than
>> > the other are based on non objective experience.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Peter" > wrote in message
>> > .. .
>> >> My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
>> >> conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
>> >>
>> >> A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere
>> >> in Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the
>> >> speed, it's sometimes even better!
>> >>
>> >> Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows
>> >> server and is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
>> >> I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
>>
>>
>
>

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

"Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used by
the majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."?

It says so on the Executive Software web site. If they say it, then it must
be true - right :)

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.


"Edward W. Thompson" > wrote in message
...
> Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used by
the
> majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."? I would have thought
the
> defragmenter included in the WINXP package is the best selling in the
world
> :-).
>
> It sounds as if you are in the business of marketing Diskeeper!
>
> My experience suggests that all defragmenter products I have tried are
very
> similar in performance albeit they approach the task in different ways.
Most
> if not all of the claims of one product being "better" than the other are
> based on non objective experience.
>
>
> "Peter" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
> > conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
> >
> > A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere in
> > Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the speed,
> > it's sometimes even better!
> >
> > Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows server
> and
> > is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
> > I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

" open ANY app., close it and then re-open it, it's abt. 4 times faster. "

That's because once you open it, Windows caches (memory) it and the next
time you open, WIndows reads from cache (memory) instead of from the drive.

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.




"johnf" > wrote in message
...
> Agree totally with one exception?
> If you run 'boot-time defrag' on Diskeeper, then open ANY app., close it
and
> then re-open it, it's abt. 4 times faster. That's great, but if you check
> the amount of fragmentation after boot-time has run, it's a mess.
> Haven't worked that one out yet.
>
> --
> johnf
>
> > I have used DK also and currently use O&O. Back in the Amiga 500/2000
> > days after a defrag I could notice a real speedup especially at boot
> > time. I have yet (in the past 20 yrs) ever seen any "noticeable"
> > performance gain with a freshly defragged hd.
> >
> > IMHO it is much less critical these days with powerful cpu's and fast
> > hd's to defrag at all.
> >
> > --
> >
> > - Charlie
> >
> >
> > "johnf" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> There's two functions I particularly like with Diskeeper.
> >> I have 2 drives, both partitioned, with an OS on the first partition of
> >> each.
> >>
> >> 1. By booting up in OS1, from there I can defrag the other 3
> >> partitions.
> >>
> >> 2. If I boot to OS2, I can defrag OS1 from there, which moves
> >> everything after the Paging file to before it, this gives a much
> >> better defrag for those who think their PC really won't run properly
> >> without it.
> >>
> >> Wouldn't be without Diskeeper.
> >> --
> >> johnf
> >>
> >>> Diskeeper will NOT make the driver perfect, it is not designed to do
> >>> so. It mearly cleans it up as best it can, and when run regularly
> >>> (set and forget) it will keep it fairly well defrag'd. Only if you
> >>> run its boot-time defrag w/ all the options set will it make the
> >>> drive perfect, and as soon as it's done and XP comes back up the
> >>> drive will be fragged again. Don't worry about it.
> >>>
> >>> Norton Speed Disk (for XP) is not as thourough as it used to be under
> >>> Win98, it too can only do so much w/ an XP harddrive. [Under W98 w/
> >>> FAT32 it was super fast and very complete; too bad it's not like that
> >>> anymore].
> >>>
> >>> PerfectDisk and OODefrag are the other options, and they too are about
> >>> the same. Under XP you really can't get a perfect defrag, and you
> >>> really don't need it.
> >>>
> >>> BTW, most reviews seem to conclude that DisKeeper is "the Best".
>
>

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

"XP's defrag IS Diskeeper"

This is incorrect.

With Windows 2000, the built-in defragmenter was a joint development effort
between Executive Software and Microsoft. With Windows XP, the built-in
defragmenter is strictly Microsoft. Because it was originally based on
joint code, it still has Executive Software listed. Kinda like Internet
Explorer says "Based on NCSA Mosaic.".

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.


"johnf" > wrote in message
...
> XP's defrag IS Diskeeper - a basic version designed by Executive Software
> under contract to MS, so I guess that definitely makes it the best seller.
>
> --
> johnf
>
> > Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used
> > by the majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."? I would have
> > thought the defragmenter included in the WINXP package is the best
> > selling in the world :-).
> >
> > It sounds as if you are in the business of marketing Diskeeper!
> >
> > My experience suggests that all defragmenter products I have tried are
> > very similar in performance albeit they approach the task in different
> > ways. Most if not all of the claims of one product being "better" than
> > the other are based on non objective experience.
> >
> >
> > "Peter" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> >> My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
> >> conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
> >>
> >> A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere
> >> in Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the
> >> speed, it's sometimes even better!
> >>
> >> Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows
> >> server and is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
> >> I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
>
>

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

However, in the Diskeeper manuel, it also talks about how important free
space consolidation is. If there isn't a large enough piece of contiguous
free space, Diskeeper will not be able to defragment the pagefile.
Diskeeper also has an Improved Free Space defrag method - if it wasn't
important, they would not provide this ability.

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.


"Peter" > wrote in message
.. .
> My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
> conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
>
> A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere in
> Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the speed,
> it's sometimes even better!
>
> Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows server
and
> is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
> I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
>
>
>

[Parish]

Greg Hayes/Raxco Software wrote:

> "XP's defrag IS Diskeeper"
>
> This is incorrect.
>
> With Windows 2000, the built-in defragmenter was a joint development effort
> between Executive Software and Microsoft. With Windows XP, the built-in
> defragmenter is strictly Microsoft. Because it was originally based on
> joint code, it still has Executive Software listed. Kinda like Internet
> Explorer says "Based on NCSA Mosaic.".
>

Microsoft describe it thus, "Disk Defragmenter MMC is based on the full
retail version of Executive Software Diskeeper."

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314848&Product=winxp

> - Greg/Raxco Software
> Microsoft MVP - Windows File System
>
> Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
> commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.
>
> Want to email me? Delete ntloader.
>
>
> "johnf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> XP's defrag IS Diskeeper - a basic version designed by Executive Software
>> under contract to MS, so I guess that definitely makes it the best seller.
>>
>> --
>> johnf
>>
>> > Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used
>> > by the majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."? I would have
>> > thought the defragmenter included in the WINXP package is the best
>> > selling in the world :-).
>> >
>> > It sounds as if you are in the business of marketing Diskeeper!
>> >
>> > My experience suggests that all defragmenter products I have tried are
>> > very similar in performance albeit they approach the task in different
>> > ways. Most if not all of the claims of one product being "better" than
>> > the other are based on non objective experience.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Peter" > wrote in message
>> > .. .
>> >> My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
>> >> conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
>> >>
>> >> A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere
>> >> in Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the
>> >> speed, it's sometimes even better!
>> >>
>> >> Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows
>> >> server and is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
>> >> I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
>>
>>
>
>

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

"Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used by
the majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."?

It says so on the Executive Software web site. If they say it, then it must
be true - right :)

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.


"Edward W. Thompson" > wrote in message
...
> Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used by
the
> majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."? I would have thought
the
> defragmenter included in the WINXP package is the best selling in the
world
> :-).
>
> It sounds as if you are in the business of marketing Diskeeper!
>
> My experience suggests that all defragmenter products I have tried are
very
> similar in performance albeit they approach the task in different ways.
Most
> if not all of the claims of one product being "better" than the other are
> based on non objective experience.
>
>
> "Peter" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
> > conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
> >
> > A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere in
> > Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the speed,
> > it's sometimes even better!
> >
> > Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows server
> and
> > is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
> > I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

Executive Software themselves will be the first one to tell you that the
built-in defragmenter is NOT based on Diskeeper.

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.


"Parish" > wrote in message
...
> Greg Hayes/Raxco Software wrote:
>
> > "XP's defrag IS Diskeeper"
> >
> > This is incorrect.
> >
> > With Windows 2000, the built-in defragmenter was a joint development
effort
> > between Executive Software and Microsoft. With Windows XP, the built-in
> > defragmenter is strictly Microsoft. Because it was originally based on
> > joint code, it still has Executive Software listed. Kinda like Internet
> > Explorer says "Based on NCSA Mosaic.".
> >
>
> Microsoft describe it thus, "Disk Defragmenter MMC is based on the full
> retail version of Executive Software Diskeeper."
>
>
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314848&Product=winxp
>
> > - Greg/Raxco Software
> > Microsoft MVP - Windows File System
> >
> > Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
> > commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support
department.
> >
> > Want to email me? Delete ntloader.
> >
> >
> > "johnf" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> XP's defrag IS Diskeeper - a basic version designed by Executive
Software
> >> under contract to MS, so I guess that definitely makes it the best
seller.
> >>
> >> --
> >> johnf
> >>
> >> > Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used
> >> > by the majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."? I would
have
> >> > thought the defragmenter included in the WINXP package is the best
> >> > selling in the world :-).
> >> >
> >> > It sounds as if you are in the business of marketing Diskeeper!
> >> >
> >> > My experience suggests that all defragmenter products I have tried
are
> >> > very similar in performance albeit they approach the task in
different
> >> > ways. Most if not all of the claims of one product being "better"
than
> >> > the other are based on non objective experience.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Peter" > wrote in message
> >> > .. .
> >> >> My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
> >> >> conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
> >> >>
> >> >> A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated
somewhere
> >> >> in Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the
> >> >> speed, it's sometimes even better!
> >> >>
> >> >> Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows
> >> >> server and is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
> >> >> I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >

[johnf]

Yes, and EVERY time anyone mentions DK on this NG you cannot resist coming
back with the same old egotistical Spam.
(Since when did you promote yourself to the title of MVP??)
--
johnf

<snip>

> - Greg/Raxco Software
> Microsoft MVP - Windows File System
>
> Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
> commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support
> department.
>
> Want to email me? Delete ntloader.
>
>
>
>
> "johnf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Agree totally with one exception?
>> If you run 'boot-time defrag' on Diskeeper, then open ANY app., close
>> it and then re-open it, it's abt. 4 times faster. That's great, but if
>> you check the amount of fragmentation after boot-time has run, it's a
>> mess.
>> Haven't worked that one out yet.
>>
>> --
>> johnf
>>
>>> I have used DK also and currently use O&O. Back in the Amiga 500/2000
>>> days after a defrag I could notice a real speedup especially at boot
>>> time. I have yet (in the past 20 yrs) ever seen any "noticeable"
>>> performance gain with a freshly defragged hd.
>>>
>>> IMHO it is much less critical these days with powerful cpu's and fast
>>> hd's to defrag at all.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> - Charlie
>>>
>>>
>>> "johnf" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> There's two functions I particularly like with Diskeeper.
>>>> I have 2 drives, both partitioned, with an OS on the first partition
>>>> of each.
>>>>
>>>> 1. By booting up in OS1, from there I can defrag the other 3
>>>> partitions.
>>>>
>>>> 2. If I boot to OS2, I can defrag OS1 from there, which moves
>>>> everything after the Paging file to before it, this gives a much
>>>> better defrag for those who think their PC really won't run properly
>>>> without it.
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't be without Diskeeper.
>>>> --
>>>> johnf
>>>>
>>>>> Diskeeper will NOT make the driver perfect, it is not designed to do
>>>>> so. It mearly cleans it up as best it can, and when run regularly
>>>>> (set and forget) it will keep it fairly well defrag'd. Only if you
>>>>> run its boot-time defrag w/ all the options set will it make the
>>>>> drive perfect, and as soon as it's done and XP comes back up the
>>>>> drive will be fragged again. Don't worry about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Norton Speed Disk (for XP) is not as thourough as it used to be
>>>>> under Win98, it too can only do so much w/ an XP harddrive. [Under
>>>>> W98 w/ FAT32 it was super fast and very complete; too bad it's not
>>>>> like that anymore].
>>>>>
>>>>> PerfectDisk and OODefrag are the other options, and they too are
>>>>> about the same. Under XP you really can't get a perfect defrag, and
>>>>> you really don't need it.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, most reviews seem to conclude that DisKeeper is "the Best".

[johnf]

Funny, I thought that was what I said?
And who's talking about Windows2000 anyway?

--
johnf

> "XP's defrag IS Diskeeper"
>
> This is incorrect.
>
> With Windows 2000, the built-in defragmenter was a joint development
> effort between Executive Software and Microsoft.
> - Greg/>
>
> "johnf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> XP's defrag IS Diskeeper - a basic version designed by Executive
>> Software under contract to MS, so I guess that definitely makes it the
>> best seller.
>>
>> --
>> johnf
>>
>>> Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used
>>> by the majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."? I would
>>> have thought the defragmenter included in the WINXP package is the
>>> best selling in the world :-).
>>>
>>> It sounds as if you are in the business of marketing Diskeeper!
>>>
>>> My experience suggests that all defragmenter products I have tried are
>>> very similar in performance albeit they approach the task in different
>>> ways. Most if not all of the claims of one product being "better" than
>>> the other are based on non objective experience.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Peter" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
>>>> conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
>>>>
>>>> A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere
>>>> in Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the
>>>> speed, it's sometimes even better!
>>>>
>>>> Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows
>>>> server and is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
>>>> I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!

[Alex Nichol]

Parish wrote:

>Care to give your reasons? I tried it once and stopped it running when
>it had done hardly anything after a couple of hours. I guess Raxco would
>say that it "had to clean up the mess left by Diskeeper", which I'd been
>using

Two.

The important one is that Diskeeper, as a matter of policy, does not
consolidate free space. To me that is one of the main purposes.

Second DK and the inbuilt one require 15% free space before they will
work. PD does not have this restriction

And as a minor point I got irritated by DK always saying 'you need to
defrag' even when I had only just done so.

And as a general point - yes, different tools tend to work to different
strategies, and this can lead to problems when you move from one to
another; the biggest rule is to decide on a product and stick to it -
don't mix and match


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

I didn't. Microsoft did.

MVP and proud of it!

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.



"johnf" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, and EVERY time anyone mentions DK on this NG you cannot resist coming
> back with the same old egotistical Spam.
> (Since when did you promote yourself to the title of MVP??)
> --
> johnf
>
> <snip>
>
> > - Greg/Raxco Software
> > Microsoft MVP - Windows File System
> >
> > Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
> > commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support
> > department.
> >
> > Want to email me? Delete ntloader.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "johnf" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Agree totally with one exception?
> >> If you run 'boot-time defrag' on Diskeeper, then open ANY app., close
> >> it and then re-open it, it's abt. 4 times faster. That's great, but if
> >> you check the amount of fragmentation after boot-time has run, it's a
> >> mess.
> >> Haven't worked that one out yet.
> >>
> >> --
> >> johnf
> >>
> >>> I have used DK also and currently use O&O. Back in the Amiga 500/2000
> >>> days after a defrag I could notice a real speedup especially at boot
> >>> time. I have yet (in the past 20 yrs) ever seen any "noticeable"
> >>> performance gain with a freshly defragged hd.
> >>>
> >>> IMHO it is much less critical these days with powerful cpu's and fast
> >>> hd's to defrag at all.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> - Charlie
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "johnf" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> There's two functions I particularly like with Diskeeper.
> >>>> I have 2 drives, both partitioned, with an OS on the first partition
> >>>> of each.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. By booting up in OS1, from there I can defrag the other 3
> >>>> partitions.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. If I boot to OS2, I can defrag OS1 from there, which moves
> >>>> everything after the Paging file to before it, this gives a much
> >>>> better defrag for those who think their PC really won't run properly
> >>>> without it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Wouldn't be without Diskeeper.
> >>>> --
> >>>> johnf
> >>>>
> >>>>> Diskeeper will NOT make the driver perfect, it is not designed to do
> >>>>> so. It mearly cleans it up as best it can, and when run regularly
> >>>>> (set and forget) it will keep it fairly well defrag'd. Only if you
> >>>>> run its boot-time defrag w/ all the options set will it make the
> >>>>> drive perfect, and as soon as it's done and XP comes back up the
> >>>>> drive will be fragged again. Don't worry about it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Norton Speed Disk (for XP) is not as thourough as it used to be
> >>>>> under Win98, it too can only do so much w/ an XP harddrive. [Under
> >>>>> W98 w/ FAT32 it was super fast and very complete; too bad it's not
> >>>>> like that anymore].
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PerfectDisk and OODefrag are the other options, and they too are
> >>>>> about the same. Under XP you really can't get a perfect defrag, and
> >>>>> you really don't need it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> BTW, most reviews seem to conclude that DisKeeper is "the Best".
>
>

[johnf]

Use of blatant Spam as a permanent footer in all your posts for as long as I
can remember, which incidently (as I mentioned before), are almost always
replies to posts recommending Diskeeper.
Frankly, I can't see any point in you having your 'self-promoting' Discaimer
there at all.

--
johnf

> And what information have I provided has been not responsible and/or
> incorrect?
>
> - Greg/Raxco Software
> Microsoft MVP - Windows File System
>
> Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
> commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support
> department.
>
> Want to email me? Delete ntloader.
>
> "johnf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Well try and act a bit more responsibly.
>>
>> --
>> johnf
>>
>>> I didn't. Microsoft did.
>>>
>>> MVP and proud of it!
>>>
>>> - Greg/Raxco Software
>>> Microsoft MVP - Windows File System
>>>
>>> Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
>>> commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support
>>> department.
>>>
>>> Want to email me? Delete ntloader.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "johnf" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and EVERY time anyone mentions DK on this NG you cannot resist
>>>> coming back with the same old egotistical Spam.
>>>> (Since when did you promote yourself to the title of MVP??)
>>>> --
>>>> johnf
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> - Greg/Raxco Software
>>>>> Microsoft MVP - Windows File System
>>>>>
>>>>> Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
>>>>> commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support
>>>>> department.
>>>>>
>>>>> Want to email me? Delete ntloader.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "johnf" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Agree totally with one exception?
>>>>>> If you run 'boot-time defrag' on Diskeeper, then open ANY app.,
>>>>>> close it and then re-open it, it's abt. 4 times faster. That's
>>>>>> great, but if you check the amount of fragmentation after
>>>>>> boot-time has run, it's a mess.
>>>>>> Haven't worked that one out yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> johnf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have used DK also and currently use O&O. Back in the Amiga
>>>>>>> 500/2000 days after a defrag I could notice a real speedup
>>>>>>> especially at boot time. I have yet (in the past 20 yrs) ever seen
>>>>>>> any "noticeable" performance gain with a freshly defragged hd.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMHO it is much less critical these days with powerful cpu's and
>>>>>>> fast hd's to defrag at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Charlie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "johnf" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> There's two functions I particularly like with Diskeeper.
>>>>>>>> I have 2 drives, both partitioned, with an OS on the first
>>>>>>>> partition of each.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. By booting up in OS1, from there I can defrag the other 3
>>>>>>>> partitions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. If I boot to OS2, I can defrag OS1 from there, which moves
>>>>>>>> everything after the Paging file to before it, this gives a much
>>>>>>>> better defrag for those who think their PC really won't run
>>>>>>>> properly without it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wouldn't be without Diskeeper.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> johnf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Diskeeper will NOT make the driver perfect, it is not designed
>>>>>>>>> to do so. It mearly cleans it up as best it can, and when run
>>>>>>>>> regularly (set and forget) it will keep it fairly well defrag'd.
>>>>>>>>> Only if you run its boot-time defrag w/ all the options set will
>>>>>>>>> it make the drive perfect, and as soon as it's done and XP comes
>>>>>>>>> back up the drive will be fragged again. Don't worry about it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Norton Speed Disk (for XP) is not as thourough as it used to be
>>>>>>>>> under Win98, it too can only do so much w/ an XP harddrive.
>>>>>>>>> [Under W98 w/ FAT32 it was super fast and very complete; too
>>>>>>>>> bad it's not like that anymore].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PerfectDisk and OODefrag are the other options, and they too are
>>>>>>>>> about the same. Under XP you really can't get a perfect defrag,
>>>>>>>>> and you really don't need it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BTW, most reviews seem to conclude that DisKeeper is "the Best".

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

And what information have I provided has been not responsible and/or
incorrect?

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.

"johnf" > wrote in message
...
> Well try and act a bit more responsibly.
>
> --
> johnf
>
> > I didn't. Microsoft did.
> >
> > MVP and proud of it!
> >
> > - Greg/Raxco Software
> > Microsoft MVP - Windows File System
> >
> > Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
> > commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support
> > department.
> >
> > Want to email me? Delete ntloader.
> >
> >
> >
> > "johnf" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> Yes, and EVERY time anyone mentions DK on this NG you cannot resist
> >> coming back with the same old egotistical Spam.
> >> (Since when did you promote yourself to the title of MVP??)
> >> --
> >> johnf
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> - Greg/Raxco Software
> >>> Microsoft MVP - Windows File System
> >>>
> >>> Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
> >>> commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support
> >>> department.
> >>>
> >>> Want to email me? Delete ntloader.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "johnf" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> Agree totally with one exception?
> >>>> If you run 'boot-time defrag' on Diskeeper, then open ANY app., close
> >>>> it and then re-open it, it's abt. 4 times faster. That's great, but
> >>>> if you check the amount of fragmentation after boot-time has run,
> >>>> it's a mess.
> >>>> Haven't worked that one out yet.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> johnf
> >>>>
> >>>>> I have used DK also and currently use O&O. Back in the Amiga
> >>>>> 500/2000 days after a defrag I could notice a real speedup
> >>>>> especially at boot time. I have yet (in the past 20 yrs) ever seen
> >>>>> any "noticeable" performance gain with a freshly defragged hd.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IMHO it is much less critical these days with powerful cpu's and
> >>>>> fast hd's to defrag at all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Charlie
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "johnf" > wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>> There's two functions I particularly like with Diskeeper.
> >>>>>> I have 2 drives, both partitioned, with an OS on the first
> >>>>>> partition of each.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. By booting up in OS1, from there I can defrag the other 3
> >>>>>> partitions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. If I boot to OS2, I can defrag OS1 from there, which moves
> >>>>>> everything after the Paging file to before it, this gives a much
> >>>>>> better defrag for those who think their PC really won't run
> >>>>>> properly without it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Wouldn't be without Diskeeper.
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> johnf
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Diskeeper will NOT make the driver perfect, it is not designed to
> >>>>>>> do so. It mearly cleans it up as best it can, and when run
> >>>>>>> regularly (set and forget) it will keep it fairly well defrag'd.
> >>>>>>> Only if you run its boot-time defrag w/ all the options set will
> >>>>>>> it make the drive perfect, and as soon as it's done and XP comes
> >>>>>>> back up the drive will be fragged again. Don't worry about it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Norton Speed Disk (for XP) is not as thourough as it used to be
> >>>>>>> under Win98, it too can only do so much w/ an XP harddrive. [Under
> >>>>>>> W98 w/ FAT32 it was super fast and very complete; too bad it's not
> >>>>>>> like that anymore].
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> PerfectDisk and OODefrag are the other options, and they too are
> >>>>>>> about the same. Under XP you really can't get a perfect defrag,
> >>>>>>> and you really don't need it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> BTW, most reviews seem to conclude that DisKeeper is "the Best".
>
>

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

"I not convinced that totally consolidating the free space is a good thing."

Most everybody agrees that fragmentation results in a loss of file system
performance. Anything that you can do to minimize fragmentation (ie.
defragmenting) results in a faster and more effecient performing file
system. If free space is consolidated, the file system is at least provided
the opportunity to create files contiguously ensuring that the best possible
file system performance is retained for a longer period of time.

Not consolidating free space results in faster file system
re-fragmentation - which most agree is not a good thing - and the need to
perform more frequent defragmentation. More frequent defrag passes in
itself is not necessarily a bad thing if you have the ability to schedule to
run attended. But what about systems with terrabytes worth of storage and
not really a "good" time to run a defrag pass. For environments such as
this, only needing to defragment once a month is far better than requiring a
daily defrag pass in order to keep things running as fast as possible.

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.

"Parish" > wrote in message
...
> Alex Nichol wrote:
>
> > Parish wrote:
> >
> >>Care to give your reasons? I tried it once and stopped it running when
> >>it had done hardly anything after a couple of hours. I guess Raxco would
> >>say that it "had to clean up the mess left by Diskeeper", which I'd been
> >>using
> >
> > Two.
> >
> > The important one is that Diskeeper, as a matter of policy, does not
> > consolidate free space. To me that is one of the main purposes.
> >
>
> I not convinced that totally consolidating the free space is a good
> thing. If you have the free space distributed around the disk then the
> chances are improved that, when it's needed, there will be a block close
> to the current head position; as long as it doesn't leave thousands of
> spaces each only a handful of clusters in size.
>
> Of course, if you work with something like video editing where you can
> have multi-gigabyte files, then totally consolidating the free space
> would be a good thing.
>
> > Second DK and the inbuilt one require 15% free space before they will
> > work. PD does not have this restriction
> >
>
> Yes, I see form Raxco'swebsite that PD only needs 5% but having said
> that I would never run a disk that full anyway; the OS needs headroom to
> manage the FS efficiently. I have a rule of thumb (the origin of which
> is lost in the mists of time) that when a HD reaches 75% full it's time
> to replace it with a larger one, or add another.
>
> > And as a minor point I got irritated by DK always saying 'you need to
> > defrag' even when I had only just done so.
> >
>
> I wouldn't blame DK for that, the fault lies with Windows which appears
> to make no effort (or at least very little) to avoid fragmentation. I've
> seen fragmented files appear literally minutes after defragging.
>
> I've used every version of NT and in the Installation Guide booklet
> included with all versions up and including(?) 4 it used to state, in
> the section about the choice between FAT and NTFS, that FAT is prone to
> fragmentation but that NTFS doesn't suffer from this problem. As we all
> now know NTFS is just as bad as FAT, and now XP (and 2K?) come with a
> built-in defragger. Whether the reason was that fragmentation wasn't
> really considered in the design of NTFS or whether the design meant that
> the smaller disk sizes in the days when NT3.1 appeared in '93 didn't
> suffer fragmentation (to any great extent) and that it simply hasn't
> scaled well to todays disk sizes I don't know. If the latter, then the
> claims with early NT versions that NTFS was better than FAT for
> fragmentation would have been true.
>
> > And as a general point - yes, different tools tend to work to different
> > strategies, and this can lead to problems when you move from one to
> > another; the biggest rule is to decide on a product and stick to it -
> > don't mix and match
> >
> >

[Parish]

Greg Hayes/Raxco Software wrote:

> Executive Software themselves will be the first one to tell you that the
> built-in defragmenter is NOT based on Diskeeper.
>

Obviously no-one has told Microsoft.

How to Defragment Your Disk Drive Volumes in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314848&Product=winxp

"Disk Defragmenter MMC is based on the full retail version of Executive
Software Diskeeper"

> - Greg/Raxco Software
> Microsoft MVP - Windows File System
>

[Parish]

Greg Hayes/Raxco Software wrote:

> "I not convinced that totally consolidating the free space is a good thing."
>
> Most everybody agrees that fragmentation results in a loss of file system
> performance. Anything that you can do to minimize fragmentation (ie.
> defragmenting) results in a faster and more effecient performing file
> system. If free space is consolidated, the file system is at least provided
> the opportunity to create files contiguously ensuring that the best possible
> file system performance is retained for a longer period of time.
>
> Not consolidating free space results in faster file system
> re-fragmentation - which most agree is not a good thing - and the need to
> perform more frequent defragmentation. More frequent defrag passes in
> itself is not necessarily a bad thing if you have the ability to schedule to
> run attended. But what about systems with terrabytes worth of storage and
> not really a "good" time to run a defrag pass. For environments such as
> this, only needing to defragment once a month is far better than requiring a
> daily defrag pass in order to keep things running as fast as possible.
>

OK Greg, in view of your comments, and those of others, that total
consolidation of free space is important to reduce fragmentation of
files I grabbed a 30-day trial version of PD 6.0, and ran it as per the
instructions on the Introduction screen, namely run a Boot-time defrag
and an on-line defrag with Smart Placement. I ran the latter immediately
after the former, without starting any other progs (other than those
that run at startup anyway).

<http://users.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/disk.png> shows the disk map
immediately after the Smart Placement defrag. Note the 9 fragmented
blocks (1 block = 19.44MB) in the blue area at the top and the odd files
near the end of the disk, especially the "boot" file(s) (cyan block)
which should be at the front of the disk. Also, because you place the
MFT, pagefile etc. in the middle of the disk, as per MS guidelines
(which DK doesn't do) it is impossible to fully consolidate the free
space on a disk less than ~50% full.

Immediately after this I did Alt-PrintScreen to grab the image of the PD
window, opened PaintShop Pro, pasted the image, added the highlighting,
saved it, and uploaded it to my website - I did nothing else. I then
clicked Analyze in PD and this is the disk map,
<http://users.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/disk2.png>; there's files all over
the place (note that the block of boot files at the front of the disk
have been split up; the 9 fragmented blocks in the blue area has been
reduced to 8; and another block at the end of the disk has become a
"boot" file (the one missing from the front?)), PD reported *238*
fragmented files.

Just for completeness <http://users.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/disk3.png> is
the state of the disk after about an hour. PD now reports 706 fragmented
files.

Clearly consolidating all the free space does absolutely diddly squat to
prevent fragmentation. Either the design of NTFS is extremely poor, or
fragmentation in NTFS isn't the major performance issue it's made out to be.

The figures for my disk are

Used 23GB
Free 45.3GB
Total 68.3GB

I would welcome your analysis/comments on this.

Regards,

Parish

> Microsoft MVP - Windows File System
>

[Jym]

Greg ,
Why does the Diskkeeper Lite recommend defragging so often , when the
built-in XP defragging software doesn't. I have reverted back to the XP
defrag , do to this inaccuracy. Jym

"Greg Hayes/Raxco Software" > wrote in message
...
>
> However, in the Diskeeper manuel, it also talks about how important free
> space consolidation is. If there isn't a large enough piece of contiguous
> free space, Diskeeper will not be able to defragment the pagefile.
> Diskeeper also has an Improved Free Space defrag method - if it wasn't
> important, they would not provide this ability.
>
> - Greg/Raxco Software
> Microsoft MVP - Windows File System
>
> Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
> commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support
department.
>
> Want to email me? Delete ntloader.
>
>
> "Peter" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
> > conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
> >
> > A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere in
> > Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the speed,
> > it's sometimes even better!
> >
> > Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows server
> and
> > is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
> > I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[CapFusion]

Yes, XP use Diskeeper. That is correct but the function is limited.
Alot of Windows XPother tools is base from some other full function tool,
too.

CapFusion,...



"Parish" > wrote in message
...
> Greg Hayes/Raxco Software wrote:
>
> > "XP's defrag IS Diskeeper"
> >
> > This is incorrect.
> >
> > With Windows 2000, the built-in defragmenter was a joint development
effort
> > between Executive Software and Microsoft. With Windows XP, the built-in
> > defragmenter is strictly Microsoft. Because it was originally based on
> > joint code, it still has Executive Software listed. Kinda like Internet
> > Explorer says "Based on NCSA Mosaic.".
> >
>
> Microsoft describe it thus, "Disk Defragmenter MMC is based on the full
> retail version of Executive Software Diskeeper."
>
>
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314848&Product=winxp
>
> > - Greg/Raxco Software
> > Microsoft MVP - Windows File System
> >
> > Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
> > commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support
department.
> >
> > Want to email me? Delete ntloader.
> >
> >
> > "johnf" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> XP's defrag IS Diskeeper - a basic version designed by Executive
Software
> >> under contract to MS, so I guess that definitely makes it the best
seller.
> >>
> >> --
> >> johnf
> >>
> >> > Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used
> >> > by the majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."? I would
have
> >> > thought the defragmenter included in the WINXP package is the best
> >> > selling in the world :-).
> >> >
> >> > It sounds as if you are in the business of marketing Diskeeper!
> >> >
> >> > My experience suggests that all defragmenter products I have tried
are
> >> > very similar in performance albeit they approach the task in
different
> >> > ways. Most if not all of the claims of one product being "better"
than
> >> > the other are based on non objective experience.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Peter" > wrote in message
> >> > .. .
> >> >> My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
> >> >> conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
> >> >>
> >> >> A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated
somewhere
> >> >> in Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the
> >> >> speed, it's sometimes even better!
> >> >>
> >> >> Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows
> >> >> server and is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
> >> >> I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >

[CapFusion]

Diskeeper
http://www.executive.com/products/productsr.asp
Disk Defragmentation program

XP have a basic version.

CapFusion,...


"Parish" > wrote in message
...
> Edward W. Thompson wrote:
>
> > Where did you get the info from with respect to Diskeeper being "used by
the
> > majority...." and "best selling defragmenter...."? I would have thought
the
> > defragmenter included in the WINXP package is the best selling in the
world
>
> Which _is_ Diskeeper.
>
> > :-).
> >
> > It sounds as if you are in the business of marketing Diskeeper!
> >
> > My experience suggests that all defragmenter products I have tried are
very
> > similar in performance albeit they approach the task in different ways.
Most
> > if not all of the claims of one product being "better" than the other
are
> > based on non objective experience.
> >
> >
> > "Peter" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> >> My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
> >> conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
> >>
> >> A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere
in
> >> Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the
speed,
> >> it's sometimes even better!
> >>
> >> Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows server
> > and
> >> is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
> >> I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >

[Parish]

Alex Nichol wrote:

> Parish wrote:
>
>>Care to give your reasons? I tried it once and stopped it running when
>>it had done hardly anything after a couple of hours. I guess Raxco would
>>say that it "had to clean up the mess left by Diskeeper", which I'd been
>>using
>
> Two.
>
> The important one is that Diskeeper, as a matter of policy, does not
> consolidate free space. To me that is one of the main purposes.
>

I not convinced that totally consolidating the free space is a good
thing. If you have the free space distributed around the disk then the
chances are improved that, when it's needed, there will be a block close
to the current head position; as long as it doesn't leave thousands of
spaces each only a handful of clusters in size.

Of course, if you work with something like video editing where you can
have multi-gigabyte files, then totally consolidating the free space
would be a good thing.

> Second DK and the inbuilt one require 15% free space before they will
> work. PD does not have this restriction
>

Yes, I see form Raxco'swebsite that PD only needs 5% but having said
that I would never run a disk that full anyway; the OS needs headroom to
manage the FS efficiently. I have a rule of thumb (the origin of which
is lost in the mists of time) that when a HD reaches 75% full it's time
to replace it with a larger one, or add another.

> And as a minor point I got irritated by DK always saying 'you need to
> defrag' even when I had only just done so.
>

I wouldn't blame DK for that, the fault lies with Windows which appears
to make no effort (or at least very little) to avoid fragmentation. I've
seen fragmented files appear literally minutes after defragging.

I've used every version of NT and in the Installation Guide booklet
included with all versions up and including(?) 4 it used to state, in
the section about the choice between FAT and NTFS, that FAT is prone to
fragmentation but that NTFS doesn't suffer from this problem. As we all
now know NTFS is just as bad as FAT, and now XP (and 2K?) come with a
built-in defragger. Whether the reason was that fragmentation wasn't
really considered in the design of NTFS or whether the design meant that
the smaller disk sizes in the days when NT3.1 appeared in '93 didn't
suffer fragmentation (to any great extent) and that it simply hasn't
scaled well to todays disk sizes I don't know. If the latter, then the
claims with early NT versions that NTFS was better than FAT for
fragmentation would have been true.

> And as a general point - yes, different tools tend to work to different
> strategies, and this can lead to problems when you move from one to
> another; the biggest rule is to decide on a product and stick to it -
> don't mix and match
>
>

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

Diskeeper Lite is designed to sell the full version of Diskeeper. It can't
do too good of a job or people wouldn't want to "upgrade" to the full
version :)

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.


"Jym" <not @home> wrote in message
...
> Greg ,
> Why does the Diskkeeper Lite recommend defragging so often , when the
> built-in XP defragging software doesn't. I have reverted back to the XP
> defrag , do to this inaccuracy. Jym
>
> "Greg Hayes/Raxco Software" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > However, in the Diskeeper manuel, it also talks about how important free
> > space consolidation is. If there isn't a large enough piece of
contiguous
> > free space, Diskeeper will not be able to defragment the pagefile.
> > Diskeeper also has an Improved Free Space defrag method - if it wasn't
> > important, they would not provide this ability.
> >
> > - Greg/Raxco Software
> > Microsoft MVP - Windows File System
> >
> > Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
> > commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support
> department.
> >
> > Want to email me? Delete ntloader.
> >
> >
> > "Peter" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > > My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
> > > conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
> > >
> > > A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere
in
> > > Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the
speed,
> > > it's sometimes even better!
> > >
> > > Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows
server
> > and
> > > is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
> > > I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

Parish,

I would help to have stats associated with each of the pictures so that we
know what files are fragmented.

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.


"Parish" > wrote in message
...
> Greg Hayes/Raxco Software wrote:
>
> > "I not convinced that totally consolidating the free space is a good
thing."
> >
> > Most everybody agrees that fragmentation results in a loss of file
system
> > performance. Anything that you can do to minimize fragmentation (ie.
> > defragmenting) results in a faster and more effecient performing file
> > system. If free space is consolidated, the file system is at least
provided
> > the opportunity to create files contiguously ensuring that the best
possible
> > file system performance is retained for a longer period of time.
> >
> > Not consolidating free space results in faster file system
> > re-fragmentation - which most agree is not a good thing - and the need
to
> > perform more frequent defragmentation. More frequent defrag passes in
> > itself is not necessarily a bad thing if you have the ability to
schedule to
> > run attended. But what about systems with terrabytes worth of storage
and
> > not really a "good" time to run a defrag pass. For environments such as
> > this, only needing to defragment once a month is far better than
requiring a
> > daily defrag pass in order to keep things running as fast as possible.
> >
>
> OK Greg, in view of your comments, and those of others, that total
> consolidation of free space is important to reduce fragmentation of
> files I grabbed a 30-day trial version of PD 6.0, and ran it as per the
> instructions on the Introduction screen, namely run a Boot-time defrag
> and an on-line defrag with Smart Placement. I ran the latter immediately
> after the former, without starting any other progs (other than those
> that run at startup anyway).
>
> <http://users.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/disk.png> shows the disk map
> immediately after the Smart Placement defrag. Note the 9 fragmented
> blocks (1 block = 19.44MB) in the blue area at the top and the odd files
> near the end of the disk, especially the "boot" file(s) (cyan block)
> which should be at the front of the disk. Also, because you place the
> MFT, pagefile etc. in the middle of the disk, as per MS guidelines
> (which DK doesn't do) it is impossible to fully consolidate the free
> space on a disk less than ~50% full.
>
> Immediately after this I did Alt-PrintScreen to grab the image of the PD
> window, opened PaintShop Pro, pasted the image, added the highlighting,
> saved it, and uploaded it to my website - I did nothing else. I then
> clicked Analyze in PD and this is the disk map,
> <http://users.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/disk2.png>; there's files all over
> the place (note that the block of boot files at the front of the disk
> have been split up; the 9 fragmented blocks in the blue area has been
> reduced to 8; and another block at the end of the disk has become a
> "boot" file (the one missing from the front?)), PD reported *238*
> fragmented files.
>
> Just for completeness <http://users.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/disk3.png> is
> the state of the disk after about an hour. PD now reports 706 fragmented
> files.
>
> Clearly consolidating all the free space does absolutely diddly squat to
> prevent fragmentation. Either the design of NTFS is extremely poor, or
> fragmentation in NTFS isn't the major performance issue it's made out to
be.
>
> The figures for my disk are
>
> Used 23GB
> Free 45.3GB
> Total 68.3GB
>
> I would welcome your analysis/comments on this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Parish
>
> > Microsoft MVP - Windows File System
> >

[Kristi]

Mindstar wrote:
> I've been using Diskkeeper 8 today to try defragment my drives.. Its ran
> about 20 times now and my drives are still 20% fragmented.. am I doing
> something wrong? is there a better alternative? (I'm sure Norton was
> better.. but that was a long time ago)..

I missed this thread - I was switching newsreaders and lost the flag. Thus
my "late" reply.

In answer to your subject line question:
When I was playing with Win98, I liked Norton's Speeddisk cause it
ordered files in a seemingly useful manner. Seemingly, I say, because I
was never able to actually notice much of any difference.
When I started playing with WinXP RC1, I tested (and retested) all (I
think) defraggers out there and found PerfectDisk5 to be **by far** the
best, in terms of minimizing re-fragmentation, and improving boot time.
Now I'm on PerfectDisk6 and find:
a) initial defrags are far faster,
b) subsequent defrags are even faster, and
c) my boot time runs about 20 sec

I use the default "smart placement" for all partitions and drives.

I suggest you d/l a free 30 day trial and give it a shot..
hth
Kristi
--
Shuttle AN35N Ultra, XP2600Bart(11.5x400), 512mb, GeF3Ti200, WinXPproSP1.
Defragger Raxco PerfectDisk6 rocks! fast!

[Lance Jensen]

Diskeeper Lite is essentially the same as the full Diskeeper, using
the same defragment engines; both do essentially the same basic
defragmenting. But Diskeeper Lite includes only the Analyze and
Defragment features. It does not include the scheduling or Boot-Time
Defragment features, so you have to run it manually. It's a free
product that will do the job, so you don't HAVE to buy a defragmenter
if you don't need the extra features.

Lance Jensen
Executive Software Tech Support


"Greg Hayes/Raxco Software" > wrote in message >...
> Diskeeper Lite is designed to sell the full version of Diskeeper. It can't
> do too good of a job or people wouldn't want to "upgrade" to the full
> version :)
>
> - Greg/Raxco Software
> Microsoft MVP - Windows File System
>
> Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
> commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.
>
> Want to email me? Delete ntloader.
>
>
> "Jym" <not @home> wrote in message
> ...
> > Greg ,
> > Why does the Diskkeeper Lite recommend defragging so often , when the
> > built-in XP defragging software doesn't. I have reverted back to the XP
> > defrag , do to this inaccuracy. Jym
> >
> > "Greg Hayes/Raxco Software" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > However, in the Diskeeper manuel, it also talks about how important free
> > > space consolidation is. If there isn't a large enough piece of
> contiguous
> > > free space, Diskeeper will not be able to defragment the pagefile.
> > > Diskeeper also has an Improved Free Space defrag method - if it wasn't
> > > important, they would not provide this ability.
> > >
> > > - Greg/Raxco Software
> > > Microsoft MVP - Windows File System
> > >
> > > Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
> > > commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support
> department.
> > >
> > > Want to email me? Delete ntloader.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Peter" > wrote in message
> > > .. .
> > > > My guess is that you see some open spaces and therefore you make the
> > > > conclusion that it's still 20% fragmentized....wrong!
> > > >
> > > > A lot of people make that same conclusion. It's even stated somewhere
> in
> > > > Diskeeper's manual that some open spaces have no influence on the
> speed,
> > > > it's sometimes even better!
> > > >
> > > > Diskeeper is used by the majprity of companies who run a windows
> server
> and
> > > > is the best selling defragmenter in the world.
> > > > I guess those computer professionals are all wrong... doh!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

[Jason]

Doesn't it go back as far as NT 3.5 or 3.51?

"DILIP" > wrote in message
...
> Hi
>
> Where did you get the idea that NTFS is something new. It been around
from
> NT4 days. Also, note that a crash on an NTFS volume can be as
unrecoverable
> as FAT32, depending on how serious it is.
>
> "Parish" > wrote in message
> ...
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Diskeeper will NOT make the driver perfect, it is not designed to do
so.
> > > It mearly cleans it up as best it can, and when run regularly (set and
> > > forget) it will keep it fairly well defrag'd. Only if you run its
> > > boot-time defrag w/ all the options set will it make the drive
perfect,
> > > and as soon as it's done and XP comes back up the drive will be
fragged
> > > again. Don't worry about it.
> > >
> > > Norton Speed Disk (for XP) is not as thourough as it used to be under
> > > Win98, it too can only do so much w/ an XP harddrive. [Under W98 w/
> FAT32
> > > it was super fast and very complete; too bad it's not like that
> anymore].
> > >
> > > PerfectDisk and OODefrag are the other options, and they too are about
> > > the same. Under XP you really can't get a perfect defrag, and you
really
> > > don't need it.
> > >
> >
> > The question of a "perfect" defrag is irrelevant when comparing Win98
> > and XP 'coz you're comparing two totally different filesystems; FAT32 is
> > an ugly hack on a 20 year old FS originally designed for 360K floppies
> > whereas NTFS is a modern FS that can support Terabyte sized disks. They
> > are totally different.
> >
> > What you see/saw with Norton SD on a FAT FS was all the directories
> > placed contiguously at the start of the disk, followed by all the files
> > contiguously, followed by all the free space contiguously at the end.
> > That is not necessarily the most efficient layout, it just looks neat.
> >
> > > BTW, most reviews seem to conclude that DisKeeper is "the Best".
>
>

[Jason]

Haven't used perfect disk (but wouldn't mind having a look) but O&O
defrayments space - places files at the beginning of the drive, free space
at the end. This is one of many reasons I uninstalled diskeeper.
"Alex Nichol" > wrote in message
...
> Parish wrote:
>
> >Care to give your reasons? I tried it once and stopped it running when
> >it had done hardly anything after a couple of hours. I guess Raxco would
> >say that it "had to clean up the mess left by Diskeeper", which I'd been
> >using
>
> Two.
>
> The important one is that Diskeeper, as a matter of policy, does not
> consolidate free space. To me that is one of the main purposes.
>
> Second DK and the inbuilt one require 15% free space before they will
> work. PD does not have this restriction
>
> And as a minor point I got irritated by DK always saying 'you need to
> defrag' even when I had only just done so.
>
> And as a general point - yes, different tools tend to work to different
> strategies, and this can lead to problems when you move from one to
> another; the biggest rule is to decide on a product and stick to it -
> don't mix and match
>
>
> --
> Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
> Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:08:10 +1300, "Jason" >

>Doesn't it go back as far as NT 3.5 or 3.51?

Yes, NTFS does - originally it was similar to OS/2's HPFS (High
Performance File System) which predates NT. At some point, IBM and MS
fell out, with IBM feeling that MS were ignoring OS/2 development at
the expense of NT - so IBM took over OS/2 development from then on.

>"DILIP" > wrote in message

>>Also, note that a crash on an NTFS volume can be as
>>unrecoverable as FAT32, depending on how serious it is.

Absolutely true. All the file-system-level smarts can't help if
problems arise beneath that layer, e.g. bad hardware or a malware
payload that attacks raw disk beforee the OS boots.

>> "Parish" > wrote in message

>> > The question of a "perfect" defrag is irrelevant when comparing Win98
>> > and XP 'coz you're comparing two totally different filesystems; FAT32 is
>> > an ugly hack on a 20 year old FS originally designed for 360K floppies
>> > whereas NTFS is a modern FS that can support Terabyte sized disks. They
>> > are totally different.

They are totally different, but it's not all roses where NTFS is
concerned. FATxx is a simple design that is properly documented, and
easy/cheap/powerful data recovery tools for it abound - plus you can
access it from outside Windows (DOS mode boot) to run virus scanners,
copy off files and so on.

NTFS has no equivalent maintenance OS, plus it is proprietary; MS can
and do alter it whenever they see fit, even halfway through the same
version of NT when a new Service Pack comes out.

In terms of fragmentation, the impact of this on NTFS differs from
that on FATxx, but impact there still is.

In FATxx, directory entries are small - which is just as well, because
to find an entry, the system has to wade through all the other entries
that precede it in the directory's cluster chain. When a subdirectory
(or a FAT32 root) grows slowly, the cluster chain is fragmented and
that process becomes very slow (and vulnerable).

In NTFS, directory entries can be a lot larger, as they contain more
metadata as well as the first part of the file itself. But access to
entries is indexed, so the code doesn't have to wade through every
entry on the way - that's why fragmentation has less impact.

Small files can reside entirely within an NTFS dir entry, which skips
the extra step needed to reach the data - that's why NTFS can be
faster when small files are involved.

NTFS has a massive and critical structure called the MFT (Master File
Table), and as this is just about always in use, defraggers tend not
to be able to defrag it. When this frags, it can slow down NTFS, and
if it's never defragged, the slowdown can't be fixed.

>> > What you see/saw with Norton SD on a FAT FS was all the directories
>> > placed contiguously at the start of the disk, followed by all the files
>> > contiguously, followed by all the free space contiguously at the end.
>> > That is not necessarily the most efficient layout, it just looks neat.

Yes, it's worth taking the larger view of what a defrag is supposed to
do - not so much defragment file cluster chains (tho there are times
when that is *exactly* what you want) but speed up file system access.

New defrag logic started appearing in Win98 that flew in the face of
standard logic; often-used files were deliberately fragmented in order
to move the most often used *parts* of the files to faster disk.

Other initiatives try to reproduce the beneficial effect of
*intelligent* partitioning, i.e. move large seldom-used files to
"slow" areas of the disk. Intelligent partitioning still has the
upper hand there, but it's a nice thought.

>> > > BTW, most reviews seem to conclude that DisKeeper is "the Best".

AFAIK, all defraggers other than Norton Speed Disk are merely wrappers
around the same MS defrag API - so differences are likely to be
"chromeware" or related to conveniences such as schedulding.



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Running Windows-based av to kill active malware is like striking
a match to see if what you are standing in is water or petrol.
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

[CZ]

>Doesn't it go back as far as NT 3.5 or 3.51?

Yes, NTFS does - originally it was similar to OS/2's HPFS (High
Performance File System) which predates NT. At some point, IBM and MS
fell out, with IBM feeling that MS were ignoring OS/2 development at
the expense of NT - so IBM took over OS/2 development from then on.

cquirke:

IIRC, some of the disagreement was IBM's interest in keeping OS/2 a 16 bit
op system. MS wanted to go 32 bit.

[Jason]

I guess this is where MS was better but then Novel's server uses OS/2's file
format to save Windows 95 and later files (paths and names up to 255
characters). Would Novel and OS/2 be using 16bit to do this?
"CZ" > wrote in message
...
> >Doesn't it go back as far as NT 3.5 or 3.51?
>
> Yes, NTFS does - originally it was similar to OS/2's HPFS (High
> Performance File System) which predates NT. At some point, IBM and MS
> fell out, with IBM feeling that MS were ignoring OS/2 development at
> the expense of NT - so IBM took over OS/2 development from then on.
>
> cquirke:
>
> IIRC, some of the disagreement was IBM's interest in keeping OS/2 a 16 bit
> op system. MS wanted to go 32 bit.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:03:15 -0800, "CZ" > wrote:

>>Doesn't it go back as far as NT 3.5 or 3.51?

>Yes, NTFS does - originally it was similar to OS/2's HPFS (High
>Performance File System) which predates NT. At some point, IBM and MS
>fell out, with IBM feeling that MS were ignoring OS/2 development at
>the expense of NT - so IBM took over OS/2 development from then on.

>cquirke:

Hi!

>IIRC, some of the disagreement was IBM's interest in keeping OS/2 a 16 bit
>op system. MS wanted to go 32 bit.

Then there were reports that MS had a lot of folks tied up with OS/2 -
an article referred to X number on OS/2 while DOS 5 was done by 1.

Those were interesting times, tho - rather like the 32-bit home
computer era whgen everyone was talking WIMP (Windows, Icons, Mouse,
Pointers) and multi-tasking. There wasn't one clear set recipe,
everyone was trying different designs.

When Win95 was in beta, there were plenty of discussions about
multitasking and so on. Just about all contenders boasted pre-emptive
multi-tasking for 32-bit apps, but differed on what to do with 16-bit
Windows apps. Win95 ran 'em all in a single VM, within which they
could communicate as defectively as ever, and competitively (oops,
"co-operatively") multitask. NT ran each in its own VM, pre-emptively
time sliced for a smoother system, and if that meant more RAM or these
old apps couldn't work properly, too bad.

OS/2 looked as if it offered the best solution; you could specify, per
app (much as today's per-shortcut compatibility setting in XP) whether
the Win16 app was to be time-sliced pre-emptively or run in a shared
space with other Win16 apps.

But I must say, having dipped into all of them at the time, OS/2 lost
the beauty contest hands down :-p


You can compare Win9x and NT with VL-bus and PCI. VL-bus was great
for the moment; a simple evolution of ISA-16 that supported old ISA
cards while giving kick-ass speed that matched PCI. PCI was a far
more ambitious design that took another two years to gain market
share, and was beset with teething troubles (there was a time when PCI
LAN cards were particularly FUDdy). But once PCI caught on, it had
the staying power, laying a chunk of the basis for PnP.

This week, I worked on an old PC running Win95 SR2 with IE 5.5 SP2 in
16M RAM at 200MHz. I was amazed how snappy it was! Even after
killing off the deliberate slowdown (sorry, "animation") of Win98's
menus etc. my own 512M 1.8GHz Win98SE doesn't feel as frisky.



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -