PDA

View Full Version : Best Defrag for xp?



dumb-bell
04-04-2003, 08:32 PM
What do you reckon is the best defrag program for xp. I was using power defrag for 98 but it wont run on xp. Thanks in advance.

minos#2
04-04-2003, 08:51 PM
Diskeeper 7 or Norton Utilities 2003 Speed Disk ( as recommended in Aprils PC World ) and I personally recommend Diskeeper.

Although XP has a "lite" version anyway....

:-)

godfather
04-04-2003, 09:03 PM
The built in version in XP seems to do a fine job, I am not sure you would gain anything with a third party application?

The Student
04-04-2003, 09:21 PM
Hi,

Defrag tools are all the same.

They perform the same duty as any other, but its more likely how they arrange and organise data on disk, that will determine which one will be the best to use.

Like as I would of said too If I had posted much sooner......You wouldn't gain anything with a third party application.

Trev0
04-04-2003, 11:12 PM
apart from diskeeper lite being much quicker...

Trev0
04-04-2003, 11:22 PM
here it is (http://www.grassheap.com/download.php?ID=4103) at only 10mb but worth it...

mikebartnz
05-04-2003, 07:56 AM
>>Defrag tools are all the same.
You are way off mark there. Assuming XP's defrag is the same as 2000 it is very hard to tell exactly what it does but the older defrags never moved system files or the swap files. If they were all the same no one would bother to produce another one.

-=JM=-
05-04-2003, 07:19 PM
I use diskkeeper lite. Don't think it does anything better than other ones but it is fast.


Though as Graham L says, a defrag is like an oil change in a car it's a major operation.

The Student
05-04-2003, 08:00 PM
> >>Defrag tools are all the same.
> You are way off mark there.

OK. (In my humble opinion)?

Assuming XP's defrag is
> the same as 2000 it is very hard to tell exactly what
> it does but the older defrags never moved system
> files or the swap files.

Past and to the Present versions of Disk Defragmentator originate from the same Software Company "Executive Software" which have been used for Windows 2000 - XP. But only in lite versions. I know for sure that XP and 2000 are the case.!!

As for older defrags never moved system files or swap files, I haven't yet within my experience (I stand corrected) found any utility that can do this for you. The only way which I have known in relevance to Page \ Swap file, is to 'manually' (using the O.S.) to move this file to another partition or secondary drive if available.


If they were all the same
> no one would bother to produce another one.

If its the same company, they would just make minor changes to suit your O.S.

Trev0
05-04-2003, 11:37 PM
I've gotta admit to knowing nothing about defraging , but why is diskeeper lite much, much quicker than the XP defragger if they're made by the same people to do the same job??
do you think that diskeeper lite is not as good as defrag XP? and if so why not??!
and does it matter??

Trev

mikebartnz
06-04-2003, 01:39 AM
>>As for older defrags never moved system files or swap files, I haven't yet within my experience (I stand corrected) found any utility that can do this for you.
I'm pretty sure Norton's Speed Disk did just that

TiM©:*)
06-04-2003, 09:57 AM
I recon winXP defrag is good, look at the results I got http://www.clanswat.orcon.net.nz/images/perfect.JPG

Dak2
06-04-2003, 10:58 AM
You won't get that result on a NTFS drive, I use VoptXP V7, it has a lot of handy utils bundled with it.

Trev0
06-04-2003, 05:08 PM
mine never looks like that Tim... what did you do to get that? My XP defrag lines are usually all over the place different colours n'all!

Trev

TiM©:*)
11-04-2003, 06:52 PM
> mine never looks like that Tim... what did you do to
> get that? My XP defrag lines are usually all over the
> place different colours n'all!
>
> Trev

Ahh, It really isnt that good, that drive is my biggest 17.7gigs, and in the bar, it shows in ratio or that ever so, blah blah blah, and that drive is where all my games are installed, so it doesnt change much, hahah

stu140103
11-04-2003, 09:03 PM
> The built in version in XP seems to do a fine job, I
> am not sure you would gain anything with a third
> party application?

godfather is right it is better to use he built in version in XP.

The Student
11-04-2003, 09:04 PM
Ok..ok..

You can somehow look like this: http://sal.neoburn.net/pf1images/Student Defrag.gif

if your using NTFS. Not as easy as FAT32 systems.

mikebartnz
12-04-2003, 12:18 AM
Why?

Susan B
12-04-2003, 12:41 PM
The Student: Why do you have so many little partitions? If you don't mind me asking. :-)

I always thought each partition hogged a fair bit of hard drive space to write the FAT (or whatever it is) so the more you have, the more space is wasted. Unless I have got it all wrong, of course.

TiM©:*)
12-04-2003, 04:18 PM
how come the link has a 20% or somehting

The Student
12-04-2003, 05:30 PM
> The Student: Why do you have so many little
> partitions? If you don't mind me asking. :-)

Hiya Susan,

No I don't mind at all...

Ok! Here’s a question! How did you know that I had all these partitions?

You see, I used a link from a previous posting to upload my images and apparently, I cannot see nothing but the error: "Page cannot be found"??

So I feel pretty bummed out at the moment upon having to upload another image.....!!

Ok, now going back to your question, the first reason why, I have so many partitions is because I have 2 Hard Disk Drives. You probably couldn't tell, just by looking at that, so had to let you in on my little secret…..

Secondly, each HDD has a duty to perform. - In my opinion that is
(in case Mikebartnz might question me on this)

The first hard drive is responsible for: Operating Systems: XP, 2000 Office applications; MP3, Email, Ghost (End of the HDD)

You might say, why email? Well, it’s because I use 2000 as my main OS to work from, and that there are more than one user at a time using this machine. Problem is that when any user (except Administrator) opens up Outlook for email, how can that user distribute the email message to another user without affecting security and rights issues? By having an email partition, I can do this. This acts like a gateway for users to open and distribute email to any user from all account groups.

Adobe on the other hand, is recommended to be installed on a separate partition.

Overall, if the first Hard Drive fails, it doesn’t bother me at all, because most of my important contents are stored in the second hard drive, as I speak…….


The Second HDD is responsible for Page files for XP and 2000; most importantly, backup, files. If my Operating System goes AWOL, or HDD 1 fails, at least I know that this will not affect my backups, as most of my files and other accounts are stored here.

I’m sure you got the picture here, (including Mikebartnz ) so I probably don’t have to expand further more on my many partitions….

Okay, moving onto your next question…..

> I always thought each partition hogged a fair bit of
> hard drive space to write the FAT (or whatever it is)
> so the more you have, the more space is wasted.
> Unless I have got it all wrong, of course.

Hmm this is all news for me......Sounds very technical indeed…

I can not stipulate if your right or not on this. My expertise has gone to mush at the moment, so it’s back to the books I guess!!!

I hope this is good enough to explain some of my reasons for my amass of partitions there. If not, let me know.

Cheers.

The Student
12-04-2003, 05:31 PM
> how come the link has a 20% or somehting

You tell me?

I don't know?

godfather
12-04-2003, 06:42 PM
The Student:

You should try and avoid spaces in filenames uploaded. The space needs a %20 (HTML for a space) replacing your space, and the link works fine.
Hence some can see it.

Also hence the forum linking software assumes that when it encounters a space the URL has finished

Susan B
12-04-2003, 09:18 PM
The Student:

> Ok! Here?s a question! How did you know that I had all these partitions?

Easy! I copied and pasted your link because I knew it was broken and would not take me to your page. ;-)

Like Godfather said, you need to avoid spaces in file names, and even then the forum sometimes has a mind of its own. Experience helps. ;-)

Thanks for the explanation regarding your partitions, I can see your reasoning. I am not sure where I read about lots of partitions taking up more space and cannot even be sure if I dreamed it or not so don't quote me on that one, will you. :p

Cheers.

dumb-bell
12-04-2003, 10:17 PM
Many replies have come from my original question and I thank you all most sincerely for the interest and guidance you offer me. God bless you all and my decision now is between Download Accelerator Pro which I used with Win 98 (but I find the latest version is add intrusive) or Flash Get which I shall probably try.

The replies since April 11 re NTFS etc are way beyond me. I hope I'm not missing something. I wish I could get my head around computers and at 81 I'm running out of time. I've just bought a laptop so I'll take that with me when I go then I may understand it better when I see you up there.

Thanks again, you're most helpful.
Dumb-bell.

Susan B
12-04-2003, 10:37 PM
Ummm, Pat (I am not calling you dumb-bell :O) Download Accelerator Pro and Flash Get are used for downloading files, not for defragging, which is what this thread is about.

Have you accidentally posted your reply in the wrong thread, do you think? ?:|


> I wish I could get my head around computers and at 81 I'm running out of time.

Are you really 81? It sounds to me like you are doing very well with computers, you should be proud of yourself. My dad won't touch them and he is younger than you. :-)

dumb-bell
13-04-2003, 12:19 AM
Thanks Susan. Yep wrong thread. Silly me.

dumb-bell - aptly named.

The Student
13-04-2003, 12:22 AM
Hi godfather,

Yea, thanks for that bit of extra information......

Cheers

The Student
13-04-2003, 12:25 AM
I am not sure where I read
> about lots of partitions taking up more space and
> cannot even be sure if I dreamed it or not so don't
> quote me on that one, will you. :p
>
> Cheers.

Ok, will keep that in mind....

mikebartnz
13-04-2003, 11:05 AM
>>Secondly, each HDD has a duty to perform. - In my opinion that is
(in case Mikebartnz might question me on this)

I totaly agree with you on partitioning. I like the way you say that each HDD has a duty to perform as that describes it very well.
As for Susan B query about wasting space through partitioning. You have a partition table and if you use Fat you have a file allocation table for each partition which is relative to the size so the space wasted would be minor.