View Full Version : Norton Utilities Vs Windows Defrag

15-03-2003, 08:52 AM
Could someone tell me which is the better of the two programs?

Also would help if you could state your qualifications to support your recommendations.

15-03-2003, 09:33 AM
Nortons is better. Reasons:
It sorts your hard disk in an order that the greater population thinks will make your computer run faster. eg if you had 128MB of RAM then it will stick your swap disk at the front of the drive, as you will use it more often and been at the front makes it the quickest.

I don't know if nortons is any quicker though.

Billy T
15-03-2003, 10:28 AM
Hi Tom

Windows defrag is a cut down version of a third party program licensed to Microsoft. I can't remember the original, and it might even have been Nortons, but certainly Nortons offers more features.

On the other hand, unless you are a particularly demanding user, windows defrag (run in safe mode or by using Enditall2 to shut down your operating programs) will do a perfectly satisfactory job.

You don't say what OS you are using, but if it is W95, 98 or 98SE you could also download the Win ME defrag file (defrag.exe) and use that instead as it is faster and offers more features. It is easy to find on a Google search.


Billy 8-{)

15-03-2003, 10:46 AM
no contest here. norton utilities has a range of programs, including speed disk, optomistion wizard, disk doctor, windoctor, image, registry editor, registry tracker etc.

as far as speed disk vs defrag goes.....speed disk will work with background programs running (provided its not interrupted to much), can run in the background (so you can continue working on something esle), moves the swapfile the the front (fastest part) of the drive and is faster (imho) than windows defrag(tho w2k/xp defrag is fairly quick).

personally system works is a good buy. the tools(and antivirus) are well worth the money. you can get free alternatives but they are less effective and harder to use.

>Also would help if you could state your qualifications to support your recommendations

i'm tweak'e, need i say any more :^O :^O

Graham L
15-03-2003, 02:48 PM
I am not convinced about the merits of being able to do other work while a defrag is working.

However well the defrag programme is written, it is doing a potentially dangerous thing. If anything goes wrong, you will lose data. If you are running other software, it can go wrong. The safe way to perform defrag is to have the defragger as the only programme running.

I've said this before: 'If you are changing the oil in your car, you don't expect to be driving the car at the same time." Defraggng a disk is a comparable maintenance operation. You can afford to have the computer not doing anything else.

15-03-2003, 04:25 PM
Diskeeper beats both of those fast and efficient and you can surf as well while it defrags trhough this will slow it down there is a stripped down version of ity built into XP .

15-03-2003, 05:11 PM
>here is a stripped down version of it built into XP .

i seriously doubt that www.execsoft.com made the stock standard microsoft windows XP defrag program.

15-03-2003, 06:22 PM
Well I'm using XP and have my drives formatted as NTFS. I've yet to have it where XP actually says I need to do a defrag. When I analyse it always says it's not required.

Lesson: use NTFS ;)

15-03-2003, 09:58 PM
I do use XP but this was an exercise to convince my Mum that Nortons was a better product, she uses Norton Internet Security and Nortons Anti-Virus.

She just doesn't like change :)

Julius Caesar
15-03-2003, 10:21 PM

Of the two, Norton is the preffered choice. As was stated from an earlier posting, the defragmentator that comes with Windows, is a cut down version of 'Executive Software's Diskeeeper.

Personally, both are good utilities, but would highly recommend Norton's Speed Disk. One disadvantage between the two, which I tend to encounter often, is the 'time' factor.

Norton's speed disk takes longer than the one that comes with Windows.
I have a huge hard drive with several partitions, and that even moving or deleting a file and having to use Norton's Speed disk again, starts from scratch and will take the same amount of time as with not been defragged at all.

Re: Qualifications

Emperor of Rome and lover of Cleopatra.

15-03-2003, 10:53 PM
after a quick little search it looks like the w2k defrag was based on an early ver of diskeeper. just shows how much i know about w2k ;-)

does anyone have any links about the history of it?

i might just have to give the pro ver a try. i have used the light ver and its not great.

15-03-2003, 11:18 PM
I cover my bets by using both Notrtons system works and Executive diskkeeper and what a tidy compu I have;)

17-03-2003, 12:12 AM
I find Fix-it better than nortons plus Diskeeper is super fast .
I also use Zone Alarm Pro and Pest patrol as well as adaware 6 pro on 98 SE at the moment

17-03-2003, 12:15 AM
There is no point in using two defrag programs. One just undoes what the other one did

Billy T
17-03-2003, 12:25 AM
Nortons is usually only slower on the first pass. If you let it organise your disk then after that it only has to defrag a small proportion of the disk and is therefore much faster.

Nortons manual does tell you the first pass will be very slow.

I also agree with JM. It is pointless using two defrag programs.


Billy 8-{)

17-03-2003, 01:30 AM
>>There is no point in using two defrag programs. One just undoes what the other one did
Did he give the impression that he used both at the same time?

Billy T
17-03-2003, 09:52 AM
Well cicero,

Not at the same time no, but that would be improbable anyway because each one would restart when the other changed the disk. That is another "chase me, **** me" type of endless loop.

However, even running consecutively is pointless and is just exercising your HDD needlessly. This also increasies the chances of a data error, especially if scan disk is not run before each defrag.

One defrag is enough, just choose your poison.


Billy 8-{)