Opinon on defragers for XP Pro w/ntfs

[Chris]

What's the latest in the defragmenter world? What is working well with XP
Pro and NTFS?
I am using System works 2003 and it seems to work fine but I am wondering
what the latest opinions are.

Thanks

[Papa]

The defragger that come with Windows XP Pro works just fine with Fat32 and
with NTFS. Why would you use something else that will just add clutter to
your system? IMO, third party programs should be avoided as much as
possible.

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
> What's the latest in the defragmenter world? What is working well with XP
> Pro and NTFS?
> I am using System works 2003 and it seems to work fine but I am wondering
> what the latest opinions are.
>
> Thanks
>
>

[Vaughn McMillan - Executive Software]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:34:27 +0300, "Chris" > wrote:

>What's the latest in the defragmenter world? What is working well with XP
>Pro and NTFS?
>I am using System works 2003 and it seems to work fine but I am wondering
>what the latest opinions are.
>
>Thanks
>

Hi -

There are a number of third-party defraggers available that offer more
features and better results than the native Windows XP Disk
Defragmenter. It's been mentioned here before that Symantec is getting
out of the defragger business, so you might want to consider one from
a company that will support the product in the future.

Here's a short list of some of the available defraggers that are
better than the built-in utility:

Diskeeper, by Executive Software - www.diskeeper.com

O&O Defrag, by O&O Software - www.oo-defrag.com.

PerfectDisk, by Raxco - www.raxco.com

Diskeeper is by far the most prevalent defragger in the
enterprise/corporate market, with millions of happy users. The other
two are also highly regarded, and all three offer trial versions that
you can download and check out free for 30 days or so.

I hope this helps -

Vaughn McMillan
Executive Software

[Vaughn McMillan - Executive Software]

Why use something else? Perhaps a more thorough defrag, scheduling
capabilities, better information/reports, and not having to baby-sit
the defragger are not for everybody, but rest assured plenty of people
feel these added benefits are worth the added "clutter" on their
systems.

JMHO. ;-)

Vaughn McMillan
Executive Software

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:49:23 -0400, "Papa" > wrote:

>The defragger that come with Windows XP Pro works just fine with Fat32 and
>with NTFS. Why would you use something else that will just add clutter to
>your system? IMO, third party programs should be avoided as much as
>possible.
>
>"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>> What's the latest in the defragmenter world? What is working well with XP
>> Pro and NTFS?
>> I am using System works 2003 and it seems to work fine but I am wondering
>> what the latest opinions are.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>

[Papa]

If you think it needs baby-sitting, you really haven't used it. Further, it
does a very thorough defrag.

Far too many people get sucked in by the hype that is produced by these
third-party packages - and become convinced for no good reason that these
packages are a "must have" item.


"Vaughn McMillan - Executive Software" >
wrote in message ...
> Why use something else? Perhaps a more thorough defrag, scheduling
> capabilities, better information/reports, and not having to baby-sit
> the defragger are not for everybody, but rest assured plenty of people
> feel these added benefits are worth the added "clutter" on their
> systems.
>
> JMHO. ;-)
>
> Vaughn McMillan
> Executive Software
>
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:49:23 -0400, "Papa" > wrote:
>
> >The defragger that come with Windows XP Pro works just fine with Fat32
and
> >with NTFS. Why would you use something else that will just add clutter to
> >your system? IMO, third party programs should be avoided as much as
> >possible.
> >
> >"Chris" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> What's the latest in the defragmenter world? What is working well with
XP
> >> Pro and NTFS?
> >> I am using System works 2003 and it seems to work fine but I am
wondering
> >> what the latest opinions are.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >>
> >
>

[Chris]

Well, first of all the defrager native to XP is a stripped out version of
diskeeper from executive software. It will not do as thorough a job
defragmenting. If it did why would anyone buy the full version? If you
want to really know what is different in the way they defrag go to their
site and read or ask.
"Papa" > wrote in message
...
> If you think it needs baby-sitting, you really haven't used it. Further,
it
> does a very thorough defrag.
>
> Far too many people get sucked in by the hype that is produced by these
> third-party packages - and become convinced for no good reason that these
> packages are a "must have" item.
>
>
> "Vaughn McMillan - Executive Software" >
> wrote in message ...
> > Why use something else? Perhaps a more thorough defrag, scheduling
> > capabilities, better information/reports, and not having to baby-sit
> > the defragger are not for everybody, but rest assured plenty of people
> > feel these added benefits are worth the added "clutter" on their
> > systems.
> >
> > JMHO. ;-)
> >
> > Vaughn McMillan
> > Executive Software
> >
> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:49:23 -0400, "Papa" > wrote:
> >
> > >The defragger that come with Windows XP Pro works just fine with Fat32
> and
> > >with NTFS. Why would you use something else that will just add clutter
to
> > >your system? IMO, third party programs should be avoided as much as
> > >possible.
> > >
> > >"Chris" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> What's the latest in the defragmenter world? What is working well
with
> XP
> > >> Pro and NTFS?
> > >> I am using System works 2003 and it seems to work fine but I am
> wondering
> > >> what the latest opinions are.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>

[Papa]

Not true. It does an entirely adequate job. Anything additional is just a
waste of money. As I said earlier, people who buy the add-ons have been
convinced to do so by advertising hype, and that is the reason why they buy
the so-called "full version".

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
> Well, first of all the defrager native to XP is a stripped out version of
> diskeeper from executive software. It will not do as thorough a job
> defragmenting. If it did why would anyone buy the full version? If you
> want to really know what is different in the way they defrag go to their
> site and read or ask.
> "Papa" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If you think it needs baby-sitting, you really haven't used it. Further,
> it
> > does a very thorough defrag.
> >
> > Far too many people get sucked in by the hype that is produced by these
> > third-party packages - and become convinced for no good reason that
these
> > packages are a "must have" item.
> >
> >
> > "Vaughn McMillan - Executive Software" >
> > wrote in message ...
> > > Why use something else? Perhaps a more thorough defrag, scheduling
> > > capabilities, better information/reports, and not having to baby-sit
> > > the defragger are not for everybody, but rest assured plenty of people
> > > feel these added benefits are worth the added "clutter" on their
> > > systems.
> > >
> > > JMHO. ;-)
> > >
> > > Vaughn McMillan
> > > Executive Software
> > >
> > > On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:49:23 -0400, "Papa" > wrote:
> > >
> > > >The defragger that come with Windows XP Pro works just fine with
Fat32
> > and
> > > >with NTFS. Why would you use something else that will just add
clutter
> to
> > > >your system? IMO, third party programs should be avoided as much as
> > > >possible.
> > > >
> > > >"Chris" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> What's the latest in the defragmenter world? What is working well
> with
> > XP
> > > >> Pro and NTFS?
> > > >> I am using System works 2003 and it seems to work fine but I am
> > wondering
> > > >> what the latest opinions are.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Alex Nichol]

Chris wrote:

>What's the latest in the defragmenter world? What is working well with =
XP
>Pro and NTFS?
>I am using System works 2003 and it seems to work fine but I am =
wondering
>what the latest opinions are.

The two big external ones are DiskKeeper from Executive software, and
Perfect Disk from Raxco. Norton does not work very well now and
Symantec seem to be giving up on development. Both those packages use
the MS supplied APIs to ensure security of files during defrag, and
provide 'off line' methods to optimise disks at boot time. Having tried
both my preference is for Perfect disk for two reasons - it does not
require free space to the tune of 15% of the disk in order to work, and
it does a good job of condensing free space as well - a matter that I
regard as important, as it much reduces the rapid onset of more
fragmentation afterwards


--=20
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K.

[Papa]

I've done the research, trying to discourage users from unnecessary
expenses. By the way, your "peanuts and beer" comment was uncalled for and a
bit childish.

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
> It absolutely is true. Go do a little research and you will find out the
> differences.
> If "adequate" is what you settle for then stick to your generic beer and
> peanuts and have a great day!
>
> "Papa" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Not true. It does an entirely adequate job. Anything additional is just
a
> > waste of money. As I said earlier, people who buy the add-ons have been
> > convinced to do so by advertising hype, and that is the reason why they
> buy
> > the so-called "full version".
> >
> > "Chris" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Well, first of all the defrager native to XP is a stripped out version
> of
> > > diskeeper from executive software. It will not do as thorough a job
> > > defragmenting. If it did why would anyone buy the full version? If
you
> > > want to really know what is different in the way they defrag go to
their
> > > site and read or ask.
> > > "Papa" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > If you think it needs baby-sitting, you really haven't used it.
> Further,
> > > it
> > > > does a very thorough defrag.
> > > >
> > > > Far too many people get sucked in by the hype that is produced by
> these
> > > > third-party packages - and become convinced for no good reason that
> > these
> > > > packages are a "must have" item.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Vaughn McMillan - Executive Software"
> >
> > > > wrote in message ...
> > > > > Why use something else? Perhaps a more thorough defrag, scheduling
> > > > > capabilities, better information/reports, and not having to
baby-sit
> > > > > the defragger are not for everybody, but rest assured plenty of
> people
> > > > > feel these added benefits are worth the added "clutter" on their
> > > > > systems.
> > > > >
> > > > > JMHO. ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Vaughn McMillan
> > > > > Executive Software
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:49:23 -0400, "Papa" >
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >The defragger that come with Windows XP Pro works just fine with
> > Fat32
> > > > and
> > > > > >with NTFS. Why would you use something else that will just add
> > clutter
> > > to
> > > > > >your system? IMO, third party programs should be avoided as much
as
> > > > > >possible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"Chris" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >> What's the latest in the defragmenter world? What is working
> well
> > > with
> > > > XP
> > > > > >> Pro and NTFS?
> > > > > >> I am using System works 2003 and it seems to work fine but I am
> > > > wondering
> > > > > >> what the latest opinions are.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[pongo]

I discovered that my 120gb hard drive was 52% fragmented after two attempts with xp pro's built in defragger. Installed Diskeeper 8 and it reduced it to 1% fragmented in one swipe. I highly recommend it!