|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#16
March 26th 09, 01:22 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Defrag Tools
"......" wrote in message
... Hi, Which is the best defrag tool (free/paid)? Whats the advantage of using a third-party defrag tool over Windows built-in tool? regards Leo __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 3965 (20090326) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com If you want to pay, get Diskeeper 2009. You already have a free one. It is called Windows Defragmenter and works well enough. I haven't tried PerfectDisk, but even Diskeeper sets the defrag graphic to OFF by default in order to speed up the process overall. There is no benefit to a defrag graphic. All it ever shows is that the computer is doing something. Accurate it most definitely isn't.. -- Mike Hall - MVP Windows Experience http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/ __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 3965 (20090326) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com 
|
| Ads |
|
#17
March 26th 09, 03:51 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
|
|||
|
|||
|
Defrag Tools
Gerry
Based on your earlier post I downloaded Defraggler to evaluate it also. The test PC had a clean install of XP SP3 plus a bunch of test and diagnostic utilities as this is a new PC I just finished building. Drive is FAT32 with 26% used and highly fragmented. Running Defraggler now and it taking what appears to be an awful long time an still is only 50% complete. Do you find that Defraggler is also slow? -- JS http://www.pagestart.com "Gerry" wrote in message ... Leo None that are worth paying for! In most situations the Disk Defragmenter coming with Windows XP does a perfectly adequate job. Remember it is important to run Disk CleanUp ( or better still cCleaner ) before Disk Defragmenter to get the best results. Where there is a large fragmented file and limited free disk space Defraggler is useful. You can defragment individual files. An interesting relatively new entrant to the market is Defraggler (freeware for home users) which I am currently testing. It is worth looking at and does not with any negative reports. It also comes from the software house providing cCleaner: http://www.defraggler.com/features -- Hope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...... wrote: Hi, Which is the best defrag tool (free/paid)? Whats the advantage of using a third-party defrag tool over Windows built-in tool? regards Leo
|
|
#18
March 26th 09, 03:51 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
|
|||
|
|||
|
Defrag Tools
Gerry
Based on your earlier post I downloaded Defraggler to evaluate it also. The test PC had a clean install of XP SP3 plus a bunch of test and diagnostic utilities as this is a new PC I just finished building. Drive is FAT32 with 26% used and highly fragmented. Running Defraggler now and it taking what appears to be an awful long time an still is only 50% complete. Do you find that Defraggler is also slow? -- JS http://www.pagestart.com "Gerry" wrote in message ... Leo None that are worth paying for! In most situations the Disk Defragmenter coming with Windows XP does a perfectly adequate job. Remember it is important to run Disk CleanUp ( or better still cCleaner ) before Disk Defragmenter to get the best results. Where there is a large fragmented file and limited free disk space Defraggler is useful. You can defragment individual files. An interesting relatively new entrant to the market is Defraggler (freeware for home users) which I am currently testing. It is worth looking at and does not with any negative reports. It also comes from the software house providing cCleaner: http://www.defraggler.com/features -- Hope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...... wrote: Hi, Which is the best defrag tool (free/paid)? Whats the advantage of using a third-party defrag tool over Windows built-in tool? regards Leo
|
|
#19
March 26th 09, 04:27 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
|
|||
|
|||
|
Defrag Tools
JS
No not normally but all my testing has been on NTFS formatted disks. It has never taken an exceptionally long time. My disks would never, however, present the type of challenge that I have seen others bring to these newsgroups. BTW Defraggler works equally well in Vista but most of my use has been with Windows XP. If you have multi fragmented very large files I would tackle the small files before taking on a big one. Also eliminate temporary files using cCleaner first. It is quite a bit quicker than Disk Defragmenter -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ JS wrote: Gerry Based on your earlier post I downloaded Defraggler to evaluate it also. The test PC had a clean install of XP SP3 plus a bunch of test and diagnostic utilities as this is a new PC I just finished building. Drive is FAT32 with 26% used and highly fragmented. Running Defraggler now and it taking what appears to be an awful long time an still is only 50% complete. Do you find that Defraggler is also slow? "Gerry" wrote in message ... Leo None that are worth paying for! In most situations the Disk Defragmenter coming with Windows XP does a perfectly adequate job. Remember it is important to run Disk CleanUp ( or better still cCleaner ) before Disk Defragmenter to get the best results. Where there is a large fragmented file and limited free disk space Defraggler is useful. You can defragment individual files. An interesting relatively new entrant to the market is Defraggler (freeware for home users) which I am currently testing. It is worth looking at and does not with any negative reports. It also comes from the software house providing cCleaner: http://www.defraggler.com/features -- Hope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...... wrote: Hi, Which is the best defrag tool (free/paid)? Whats the advantage of using a third-party defrag tool over Windows built-in tool? regards Leo
|
|
#20
March 26th 09, 04:27 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
|
|||
|
|||
|
Defrag Tools
JS
No not normally but all my testing has been on NTFS formatted disks. It has never taken an exceptionally long time. My disks would never, however, present the type of challenge that I have seen others bring to these newsgroups. BTW Defraggler works equally well in Vista but most of my use has been with Windows XP. If you have multi fragmented very large files I would tackle the small files before taking on a big one. Also eliminate temporary files using cCleaner first. It is quite a bit quicker than Disk Defragmenter -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ JS wrote: Gerry Based on your earlier post I downloaded Defraggler to evaluate it also. The test PC had a clean install of XP SP3 plus a bunch of test and diagnostic utilities as this is a new PC I just finished building. Drive is FAT32 with 26% used and highly fragmented. Running Defraggler now and it taking what appears to be an awful long time an still is only 50% complete. Do you find that Defraggler is also slow? "Gerry" wrote in message ... Leo None that are worth paying for! In most situations the Disk Defragmenter coming with Windows XP does a perfectly adequate job. Remember it is important to run Disk CleanUp ( or better still cCleaner ) before Disk Defragmenter to get the best results. Where there is a large fragmented file and limited free disk space Defraggler is useful. You can defragment individual files. An interesting relatively new entrant to the market is Defraggler (freeware for home users) which I am currently testing. It is worth looking at and does not with any negative reports. It also comes from the software house providing cCleaner: http://www.defraggler.com/features -- Hope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...... wrote: Hi, Which is the best defrag tool (free/paid)? Whats the advantage of using a third-party defrag tool over Windows built-in tool? regards Leo
|
|
#21
March 26th 09, 04:33 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
|
|||
|
|||
|
Defrag Tools
Mike
There is no benefit to a defrag graphic. There is a benefit. Seeing something happening reassures the user and counters problems resulting from user frustration. The user is less tempted to interupt the process. -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Hall - MVP wrote: "......" wrote in message ... Hi, Which is the best defrag tool (free/paid)? Whats the advantage of using a third-party defrag tool over Windows built-in tool? regards Leo __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 3965 (20090326) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com If you want to pay, get Diskeeper 2009. You already have a free one. It is called Windows Defragmenter and works well enough. I haven't tried PerfectDisk, but even Diskeeper sets the defrag graphic to OFF by default in order to speed up the process overall. There is no benefit to a defrag graphic. All it ever shows is that the computer is doing something. Accurate it most definitely isn't..
|
|
#22
March 26th 09, 04:33 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
|
|||
|
|||
|
Defrag Tools
Mike
There is no benefit to a defrag graphic. There is a benefit. Seeing something happening reassures the user and counters problems resulting from user frustration. The user is less tempted to interupt the process. -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Hall - MVP wrote: "......" wrote in message ... Hi, Which is the best defrag tool (free/paid)? Whats the advantage of using a third-party defrag tool over Windows built-in tool? regards Leo __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 3965 (20090326) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com If you want to pay, get Diskeeper 2009. You already have a free one. It is called Windows Defragmenter and works well enough. I haven't tried PerfectDisk, but even Diskeeper sets the defrag graphic to OFF by default in order to speed up the process overall. There is no benefit to a defrag graphic. All it ever shows is that the computer is doing something. Accurate it most definitely isn't..
|
|
#23
March 26th 09, 04:47 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
|
|||
|
|||
|
Defrag Tools
Thanks,
I'll try it on one of my NTFS partitions. -- JS http://www.pagestart.com "Gerry" wrote in message ... JS No not normally but all my testing has been on NTFS formatted disks. It has never taken an exceptionally long time. My disks would never, however, present the type of challenge that I have seen others bring to these newsgroups. BTW Defraggler works equally well in Vista but most of my use has been with Windows XP. If you have multi fragmented very large files I would tackle the small files before taking on a big one. Also eliminate temporary files using cCleaner first. It is quite a bit quicker than Disk Defragmenter -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ JS wrote: Gerry Based on your earlier post I downloaded Defraggler to evaluate it also. The test PC had a clean install of XP SP3 plus a bunch of test and diagnostic utilities as this is a new PC I just finished building. Drive is FAT32 with 26% used and highly fragmented. Running Defraggler now and it taking what appears to be an awful long time an still is only 50% complete. Do you find that Defraggler is also slow? "Gerry" wrote in message ... Leo None that are worth paying for! In most situations the Disk Defragmenter coming with Windows XP does a perfectly adequate job. Remember it is important to run Disk CleanUp ( or better still cCleaner ) before Disk Defragmenter to get the best results. Where there is a large fragmented file and limited free disk space Defraggler is useful. You can defragment individual files. An interesting relatively new entrant to the market is Defraggler (freeware for home users) which I am currently testing. It is worth looking at and does not with any negative reports. It also comes from the software house providing cCleaner: http://www.defraggler.com/features -- Hope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...... wrote: Hi, Which is the best defrag tool (free/paid)? Whats the advantage of using a third-party defrag tool over Windows built-in tool? regards Leo
|
|
#24
March 26th 09, 04:47 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
|
|||
|
|||
|
Defrag Tools
Thanks,
I'll try it on one of my NTFS partitions. -- JS http://www.pagestart.com "Gerry" wrote in message ... JS No not normally but all my testing has been on NTFS formatted disks. It has never taken an exceptionally long time. My disks would never, however, present the type of challenge that I have seen others bring to these newsgroups. BTW Defraggler works equally well in Vista but most of my use has been with Windows XP. If you have multi fragmented very large files I would tackle the small files before taking on a big one. Also eliminate temporary files using cCleaner first. It is quite a bit quicker than Disk Defragmenter -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ JS wrote: Gerry Based on your earlier post I downloaded Defraggler to evaluate it also. The test PC had a clean install of XP SP3 plus a bunch of test and diagnostic utilities as this is a new PC I just finished building. Drive is FAT32 with 26% used and highly fragmented. Running Defraggler now and it taking what appears to be an awful long time an still is only 50% complete. Do you find that Defraggler is also slow? "Gerry" wrote in message ... Leo None that are worth paying for! In most situations the Disk Defragmenter coming with Windows XP does a perfectly adequate job. Remember it is important to run Disk CleanUp ( or better still cCleaner ) before Disk Defragmenter to get the best results. Where there is a large fragmented file and limited free disk space Defraggler is useful. You can defragment individual files. An interesting relatively new entrant to the market is Defraggler (freeware for home users) which I am currently testing. It is worth looking at and does not with any negative reports. It also comes from the software house providing cCleaner: http://www.defraggler.com/features -- Hope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...... wrote: Hi, Which is the best defrag tool (free/paid)? Whats the advantage of using a third-party defrag tool over Windows built-in tool? regards Leo
|
|
#25
March 26th 09, 05:49 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
|
|||
|
|||
|
Defrag Tools
JS
What was the cluster size on the FAT32 partition? -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ JS wrote: Thanks, I'll try it on one of my NTFS partitions. "Gerry" wrote in message ... JS No not normally but all my testing has been on NTFS formatted disks. It has never taken an exceptionally long time. My disks would never, however, present the type of challenge that I have seen others bring to these newsgroups. BTW Defraggler works equally well in Vista but most of my use has been with Windows XP. If you have multi fragmented very large files I would tackle the small files before taking on a big one. Also eliminate temporary files using cCleaner first. It is quite a bit quicker than Disk Defragmenter -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ JS wrote: Gerry Based on your earlier post I downloaded Defraggler to evaluate it also. The test PC had a clean install of XP SP3 plus a bunch of test and diagnostic utilities as this is a new PC I just finished building. Drive is FAT32 with 26% used and highly fragmented. Running Defraggler now and it taking what appears to be an awful long time an still is only 50% complete. Do you find that Defraggler is also slow? "Gerry" wrote in message ... Leo None that are worth paying for! In most situations the Disk Defragmenter coming with Windows XP does a perfectly adequate job. Remember it is important to run Disk CleanUp ( or better still cCleaner ) before Disk Defragmenter to get the best results. Where there is a large fragmented file and limited free disk space Defraggler is useful. You can defragment individual files. An interesting relatively new entrant to the market is Defraggler (freeware for home users) which I am currently testing. It is worth looking at and does not with any negative reports. It also comes from the software house providing cCleaner: http://www.defraggler.com/features -- Hope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...... wrote: Hi, Which is the best defrag tool (free/paid)? Whats the advantage of using a third-party defrag tool over Windows built-in tool? regards Leo
|
|
#26
March 26th 09, 05:49 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
|
|||
|
|||
|
Defrag Tools
JS
What was the cluster size on the FAT32 partition? -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ JS wrote: Thanks, I'll try it on one of my NTFS partitions. "Gerry" wrote in message ... JS No not normally but all my testing has been on NTFS formatted disks. It has never taken an exceptionally long time. My disks would never, however, present the type of challenge that I have seen others bring to these newsgroups. BTW Defraggler works equally well in Vista but most of my use has been with Windows XP. If you have multi fragmented very large files I would tackle the small files before taking on a big one. Also eliminate temporary files using cCleaner first. It is quite a bit quicker than Disk Defragmenter -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ JS wrote: Gerry Based on your earlier post I downloaded Defraggler to evaluate it also. The test PC had a clean install of XP SP3 plus a bunch of test and diagnostic utilities as this is a new PC I just finished building. Drive is FAT32 with 26% used and highly fragmented. Running Defraggler now and it taking what appears to be an awful long time an still is only 50% complete. Do you find that Defraggler is also slow? "Gerry" wrote in message ... Leo None that are worth paying for! In most situations the Disk Defragmenter coming with Windows XP does a perfectly adequate job. Remember it is important to run Disk CleanUp ( or better still cCleaner ) before Disk Defragmenter to get the best results. Where there is a large fragmented file and limited free disk space Defraggler is useful. You can defragment individual files. An interesting relatively new entrant to the market is Defraggler (freeware for home users) which I am currently testing. It is worth looking at and does not with any negative reports. It also comes from the software house providing cCleaner: http://www.defraggler.com/features -- Hope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...... wrote: Hi, Which is the best defrag tool (free/paid)? Whats the advantage of using a third-party defrag tool over Windows built-in tool? regards Leo
|
|
#27
March 26th 09, 06:40 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
|
|||
|
|||
|
Defrag Tools
....... wrote:
Thanks everyone. I am not having any problem with my system but I like defragging my disk every month. I have been using auslogic for the job but now I want to uninstall all unnecessary software form my system to boost its speed. So I was wondering whether windows built-in defrag can do the job for me. regards Leo Windows defrag utility will work just fine for you. It's a good tool, reliable and works well. There really is no strong reason for a 3rd party defragger. Other 3rd party defrag tool are available and some have some additional useful features IF you use them properly, which I find most people do not. The better ones have methods that are meant to slow down the amount of fragmentation and to a degree they do by judicious use of file locations and blank spaces on the disk, but in my estimation they won't help to change a need for a monthly degrag to say 3 months, and almost no one reads the manual to see how to make that happen anyway. I use a 3rd part app becuase of a couple of features in particular that I like. One, it will defrag in the background when the computer is idle. Thus, except during times of heavy use of the C drive, fragmentation never reaches the point of needing a manual defrag. I still check the fragmentation statuses and recommendations now and then and as a general rule they do stay below the 5% level, which is great. So in general, it's useful. HTH, Twayne
|
|
#28
March 26th 09, 06:40 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
|
|||
|
|||
|
Defrag Tools
....... wrote:
Thanks everyone. I am not having any problem with my system but I like defragging my disk every month. I have been using auslogic for the job but now I want to uninstall all unnecessary software form my system to boost its speed. So I was wondering whether windows built-in defrag can do the job for me. regards Leo Windows defrag utility will work just fine for you. It's a good tool, reliable and works well. There really is no strong reason for a 3rd party defragger. Other 3rd party defrag tool are available and some have some additional useful features IF you use them properly, which I find most people do not. The better ones have methods that are meant to slow down the amount of fragmentation and to a degree they do by judicious use of file locations and blank spaces on the disk, but in my estimation they won't help to change a need for a monthly degrag to say 3 months, and almost no one reads the manual to see how to make that happen anyway. I use a 3rd part app becuase of a couple of features in particular that I like. One, it will defrag in the background when the computer is idle. Thus, except during times of heavy use of the C drive, fragmentation never reaches the point of needing a manual defrag. I still check the fragmentation statuses and recommendations now and then and as a general rule they do stay below the 5% level, which is great. So in general, it's useful. HTH, Twayne
|
|
#29
March 26th 09, 06:47 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
|
|||
|
|||
|
Defrag Tools
Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
"......" wrote in message ... Hi, Which is the best defrag tool (free/paid)? Whats the advantage of using a third-party defrag tool over Windows built-in tool? regards Leo __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 3965 (20090326) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com If you want to pay, get Diskeeper 2009. You already have a free one. It is called Windows Defragmenter and works well enough. I haven't tried PerfectDisk, but even Diskeeper sets the defrag graphic to OFF by default in order to speed up the process overall. There is no benefit to a defrag graphic. All it ever shows is that the computer is doing something. Accurate it most definitely isn't.. I don't understand: Are you saying that graphics don't fragment of that they don't defrag well? I never looked at a graphic as any different than any other file w/r to fragmentation/defragging. What's the mechanism that it makes a difference? Twayne
|
|
#30
March 26th 09, 06:47 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
|
|||
|
|||
|
Defrag Tools
Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
"......" wrote in message ... Hi, Which is the best defrag tool (free/paid)? Whats the advantage of using a third-party defrag tool over Windows built-in tool? regards Leo __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 3965 (20090326) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com If you want to pay, get Diskeeper 2009. You already have a free one. It is called Windows Defragmenter and works well enough. I haven't tried PerfectDisk, but even Diskeeper sets the defrag graphic to OFF by default in order to speed up the process overall. There is no benefit to a defrag graphic. All it ever shows is that the computer is doing something. Accurate it most definitely isn't.. I don't understand: Are you saying that graphics don't fragment of that they don't defrag well? I never looked at a graphic as any different than any other file w/r to fragmentation/defragging. What's the mechanism that it makes a difference? Twayne
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
