SpeedDisk vs. Diskeeper

[user]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

I have been using Norton SpeedDisk v6.03.36a to defragment my HD for
some time now and have been mostly satisfied with it. Taking the
suggestion to give Executive Software Diskeeper v9.0.515 a try for
fragmenting my HD, I installed it for a test run.

I found out that both Norton SpeedDisk and Diskeeper do not agree on
what a defragmented HD is. Example: I run SpeedDisk and it tells me
that I am defragmented and I let it take the time it needs to defrag
the HD. It has a GUI that shows via colors the fragmentation and you
can see the files being moved and the colors starting to line up, thus
fragmentation being taken care of. I then run Diskeeper right after
SpeedDisk has finished defragging the HD and it says that I am 30%-40%
fragmented and I let it take the time to defragment the HD. It also
has a GUI that lets me see what is going on. Right after letting
Diskeeper finish doing its thing, I run SpeedDisk again and it says
that I am fragmented all to hell and shows me the fragmentation via
the GUI.

So, both programs seem to have a different opinion as to the
fragmentation of the HD. Looks to me that a fragmented HD is like a
pregnant woman… Either it is or it ain’t! So why does Diskeeper and
SpeedDisk seem to have a problem agreeing on if it is or not and which
one is telling the truth and which on is telling a lie if either one
actually knows in the first place.

Thanks in advance & Regards,

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

For whatever it might be worth I normally run the defragmenter that came
with WindowsXP and Norton agrees that the resulting drive is 100% defragged.
Who knows?
(The WinXP version runs about 3 times as fast as the Norton version ergo I
use it.)

".@." <.@.net> wrote in message
newses2v0pcenq4l6k0i7sco2bpii99cium8i@4ax.com...
>I have been using Norton SpeedDisk v6.03.36a to defragment my HD for
> some time now and have been mostly satisfied with it. Taking the
> suggestion to give Executive Software Diskeeper v9.0.515 a try for
> fragmenting my HD, I installed it for a test run.
>
> I found out that both Norton SpeedDisk and Diskeeper do not agree on
> what a defragmented HD is. Example: I run SpeedDisk and it tells me
> that I am defragmented and I let it take the time it needs to defrag
> the HD. It has a GUI that shows via colors the fragmentation and you
> can see the files being moved and the colors starting to line up, thus
> fragmentation being taken care of. I then run Diskeeper right after
> SpeedDisk has finished defragging the HD and it says that I am 30%-40%
> fragmented and I let it take the time to defragment the HD. It also
> has a GUI that lets me see what is going on. Right after letting
> Diskeeper finish doing its thing, I run SpeedDisk again and it says
> that I am fragmented all to hell and shows me the fragmentation via
> the GUI.
>
> So, both programs seem to have a different opinion as to the
> fragmentation of the HD. Looks to me that a fragmented HD is like a
> pregnant woman. Either it is or it ain't! So why does Diskeeper and
> SpeedDisk seem to have a problem agreeing on if it is or not and which
> one is telling the truth and which on is telling a lie if either one
> actually knows in the first place.
>
> Thanks in advance & Regards,
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

Just one quick note: There is a difference between "defragmenting" and
"compacting." Norton compacts the disk while it is defragmenting. That is
why Norton seems to, actually, does, take longer than Diskeeper. Diskeeper
defragments the files but does not move them to one end of the disk, i.e.,
compact them.

I have used both Diskeeper 8 and 9 and Norton SpeedDisk. I like each for
what it does. Why you have the discrepancy, I cannot answer. I mostly use
Diskeeper because I like its "Set it and Forget it" option of defragging.
But when I want the HD completely "defragged" and have the time, I call
upon Norton's SpeedDisk to compact and defrag.

Regards,

Turner


".@." <.@.net> wrote in message
newses2v0pcenq4l6k0i7sco2bpii99cium8i@4ax.com...
>I have been using Norton SpeedDisk v6.03.36a to defragment my HD for
> some time now and have been mostly satisfied with it. Taking the
> suggestion to give Executive Software Diskeeper v9.0.515 a try for
> fragmenting my HD, I installed it for a test run.
>
> I found out that both Norton SpeedDisk and Diskeeper do not agree on
> what a defragmented HD is. Example: I run SpeedDisk and it tells me
> that I am defragmented and I let it take the time it needs to defrag
> the HD. It has a GUI that shows via colors the fragmentation and you
> can see the files being moved and the colors starting to line up, thus
> fragmentation being taken care of. I then run Diskeeper right after
> SpeedDisk has finished defragging the HD and it says that I am 30%-40%
> fragmented and I let it take the time to defragment the HD. It also
> has a GUI that lets me see what is going on. Right after letting
> Diskeeper finish doing its thing, I run SpeedDisk again and it says
> that I am fragmented all to hell and shows me the fragmentation via
> the GUI.
>
> So, both programs seem to have a different opinion as to the
> fragmentation of the HD. Looks to me that a fragmented HD is like a
> pregnant woman. Either it is or it ain't! So why does Diskeeper and
> SpeedDisk seem to have a problem agreeing on if it is or not and which
> one is telling the truth and which on is telling a lie if either one
> actually knows in the first place.
>
> Thanks in advance & Regards,
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

The Windows XP defragger, a crippled Diskeeper in poor disguise, is truly
crippled though. A real defragger shoves all the files to one end of the hard
drive to speed up disk accesses further. The Windows XP defragger apparently
does defragment most of the files though, altho you can never tell with
Micro$oft. Files in use by the system cannot be defragmented, so boot in safe
mode for a better defragging experience. Sysutils has a free page file
defragger on its web site, to take care of page file defragmentation... Ben
Myers

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:24:14 -0700, "Tom Clydesdale"
<t.clydesdale.nospam@comcast.net> wrote:

>For whatever it might be worth I normally run the defragmenter that came
>with WindowsXP and Norton agrees that the resulting drive is 100% defragged.
>Who knows?
>(The WinXP version runs about 3 times as fast as the Norton version ergo I
>use it.)
>
>".@." <.@.net> wrote in message
>newses2v0pcenq4l6k0i7sco2bpii99cium8i@4ax.com...
>>I have been using Norton SpeedDisk v6.03.36a to defragment my HD for
>> some time now and have been mostly satisfied with it. Taking the
>> suggestion to give Executive Software Diskeeper v9.0.515 a try for
>> fragmenting my HD, I installed it for a test run.
>>
>> I found out that both Norton SpeedDisk and Diskeeper do not agree on
>> what a defragmented HD is. Example: I run SpeedDisk and it tells me
>> that I am defragmented and I let it take the time it needs to defrag
>> the HD. It has a GUI that shows via colors the fragmentation and you
>> can see the files being moved and the colors starting to line up, thus
>> fragmentation being taken care of. I then run Diskeeper right after
>> SpeedDisk has finished defragging the HD and it says that I am 30%-40%
>> fragmented and I let it take the time to defragment the HD. It also
>> has a GUI that lets me see what is going on. Right after letting
>> Diskeeper finish doing its thing, I run SpeedDisk again and it says
>> that I am fragmented all to hell and shows me the fragmentation via
>> the GUI.
>>
>> So, both programs seem to have a different opinion as to the
>> fragmentation of the HD. Looks to me that a fragmented HD is like a
>> pregnant woman. Either it is or it ain't! So why does Diskeeper and
>> SpeedDisk seem to have a problem agreeing on if it is or not and which
>> one is telling the truth and which on is telling a lie if either one
>> actually knows in the first place.
>>
>> Thanks in advance & Regards,
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

Ben is right. The MSFT defrag is a crippled Diskeeper. Personally, I ahve
not used verion 9.0, but I have used v. 7 and 8. On my kids PC, which is
Win98 and hence Fat 32, I use Norton. For my XP and Win2K boxes, I use
Diskeeper (love their boot-time defrag). In short, Norton seems to do a
better job on Fat 32 partitions, while Diskeeper is the choice for NTFS
partitions. I've also heard good things about Raxco's PerfectDisk, but I
have never tired it. I believe that they offer a free trial as well.

--
"Hurricane" Andrew
Milford, Delaware

".@." <.@.net> wrote in message
newses2v0pcenq4l6k0i7sco2bpii99cium8i@4ax.com...
>I have been using Norton SpeedDisk v6.03.36a to defragment my HD for
> some time now and have been mostly satisfied with it. Taking the
> suggestion to give Executive Software Diskeeper v9.0.515 a try for
> fragmenting my HD, I installed it for a test run.
>
> I found out that both Norton SpeedDisk and Diskeeper do not agree on
> what a defragmented HD is. Example: I run SpeedDisk and it tells me
> that I am defragmented and I let it take the time it needs to defrag
> the HD. It has a GUI that shows via colors the fragmentation and you
> can see the files being moved and the colors starting to line up, thus
> fragmentation being taken care of. I then run Diskeeper right after
> SpeedDisk has finished defragging the HD and it says that I am 30%-40%
> fragmented and I let it take the time to defragment the HD. It also
> has a GUI that lets me see what is going on. Right after letting
> Diskeeper finish doing its thing, I run SpeedDisk again and it says
> that I am fragmented all to hell and shows me the fragmentation via
> the GUI.
>
> So, both programs seem to have a different opinion as to the
> fragmentation of the HD. Looks to me that a fragmented HD is like a
> pregnant woman. Either it is or it ain't! So why does Diskeeper and
> SpeedDisk seem to have a problem agreeing on if it is or not and which
> one is telling the truth and which on is telling a lie if either one
> actually knows in the first place.
>
> Thanks in advance & Regards,
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

Way back when, in the dark prehistoric days of DOS, all the competing disk
defraggers (Norton, PC Tools and others) compacted and defragged. This has
created the expectation in my own mind and in the minds of others that a good
thorough defragging including compacting the hard drive. Some of the old
defraggers even got really scientific with little real effect, allowing you to
sort folders, place EXE and COM files at the beginning of a folder, etc etc.

The Microsoft-licensed Diskeeper shipped as part of Windows 2000 does both
defragging and compacting of files. I'll bet that Diskeeper sales fell through
the floor when Windows 2000 came out, so Executive Software undoubtedly made a
deal with Microsoft to include the cripped version with XPee... Ben Myers

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:17:37 -0500, "Turner Morgan" <wa4mqy_mobile3@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Just one quick note: There is a difference between "defragmenting" and
>"compacting." Norton compacts the disk while it is defragmenting. That is
>why Norton seems to, actually, does, take longer than Diskeeper. Diskeeper
>defragments the files but does not move them to one end of the disk, i.e.,
>compact them.
>
>I have used both Diskeeper 8 and 9 and Norton SpeedDisk. I like each for
>what it does. Why you have the discrepancy, I cannot answer. I mostly use
>Diskeeper because I like its "Set it and Forget it" option of defragging.
>But when I want the HD completely "defragged" and have the time, I call
>upon Norton's SpeedDisk to compact and defrag.
>
>Regards,
>
> Turner
>
>
>".@." <.@.net> wrote in message
>newses2v0pcenq4l6k0i7sco2bpii99cium8i@4ax.com...
>>I have been using Norton SpeedDisk v6.03.36a to defragment my HD for
>> some time now and have been mostly satisfied with it. Taking the
>> suggestion to give Executive Software Diskeeper v9.0.515 a try for
>> fragmenting my HD, I installed it for a test run.
>>
>> I found out that both Norton SpeedDisk and Diskeeper do not agree on
>> what a defragmented HD is. Example: I run SpeedDisk and it tells me
>> that I am defragmented and I let it take the time it needs to defrag
>> the HD. It has a GUI that shows via colors the fragmentation and you
>> can see the files being moved and the colors starting to line up, thus
>> fragmentation being taken care of. I then run Diskeeper right after
>> SpeedDisk has finished defragging the HD and it says that I am 30%-40%
>> fragmented and I let it take the time to defragment the HD. It also
>> has a GUI that lets me see what is going on. Right after letting
>> Diskeeper finish doing its thing, I run SpeedDisk again and it says
>> that I am fragmented all to hell and shows me the fragmentation via
>> the GUI.
>>
>> So, both programs seem to have a different opinion as to the
>> fragmentation of the HD. Looks to me that a fragmented HD is like a
>> pregnant woman. Either it is or it ain't! So why does Diskeeper and
>> SpeedDisk seem to have a problem agreeing on if it is or not and which
>> one is telling the truth and which on is telling a lie if either one
>> actually knows in the first place.
>>
>> Thanks in advance & Regards,
>>
>
>

 

[user]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:17:37 -0500, "Turner Morgan"
<wa4mqy_mobile3@comcast.net> wrote:

>Norton compacts the disk while it is defragmenting.
>Diskeeper defragments the files but does not move them to one end of the
>disk, i.e., compact them.

Okay, I see where you are coming from. Well, it seems to me that if
you defrag but don't compact then you will fragment back up a lot
faster because of all those "Holes" left behind by not compressing.
In other words, you add a bunch of new files, they will start filling
up the holes left behind, thus those new files being fragmented from
the very first.

>Why you have the discrepancy, I cannot answer.

Well, according to what you said above, I guess the discrepancy is not
so much that they disagree on the amount of fragmentation but that
they disagree on the amount of free space in the middle of all those
used spaces left behind (one compressing and the other not).

Again, if all this is true, I don't see the need to defragment if you
are not going to compress and get all those holes filled up. All you
are doing is leaving holes for everything to fragment into more
quickly than you would without those holes.

Am I looking at this right?

Regards,



"We have no intention of shipping another bloated OS and shoving it
down the throats of our users." -- Paul Maritz, Microsoft group vice
president

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

You've got it almost 100% right. Yes, the drive fragments up faster with all
the holes of unused disk space. Yes, it is still worth defragging, because
individual programs and files will load faster from the hard drive compared to
their fragmented state.

I might just try installing the real defragger in Windows 2000 on an XP system
for kicks, just to see what happens... Ben Myers

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:18:44 GMT, ".@." <.@.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:17:37 -0500, "Turner Morgan"
><wa4mqy_mobile3@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Norton compacts the disk while it is defragmenting.
>>Diskeeper defragments the files but does not move them to one end of the
>>disk, i.e., compact them.
>
>Okay, I see where you are coming from. Well, it seems to me that if
>you defrag but don't compact then you will fragment back up a lot
>faster because of all those "Holes" left behind by not compressing.
>In other words, you add a bunch of new files, they will start filling
>up the holes left behind, thus those new files being fragmented from
>the very first.
>
>>Why you have the discrepancy, I cannot answer.
>
>Well, according to what you said above, I guess the discrepancy is not
>so much that they disagree on the amount of fragmentation but that
>they disagree on the amount of free space in the middle of all those
>used spaces left behind (one compressing and the other not).
>
>Again, if all this is true, I don't see the need to defragment if you
>are not going to compress and get all those holes filled up. All you
>are doing is leaving holes for everything to fragment into more
>quickly than you would without those holes.
>
>Am I looking at this right?
>
>Regards,
>
>
>
>"We have no intention of shipping another bloated OS and shoving it
>down the throats of our users." -- Paul Maritz, Microsoft group vice
>president
>
>

 

[user]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:03:02 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
(Ben Myers) wrote:

>Yes, the drive fragments up faster with all
>the holes of unused disk space.

With that said, Norton's Speedisk which compresses along with its
defragmenting is the better choice over Diskeeper which only
defragments.

I will be removing Diskeeper from my system and staying with the
Norton for now or until something better comes along. One of the
reasons I was checking other stuff out was because Speedisk takes so
long, even on my 2g speed system. However, the reason it takes so
long was also pointed out to me as being the reason of going the extra
mile and compressing along with defragmenting.

BTW, I am using the speedisk that comes with an older version of
Norton Tools, the 2002 release. It ran real quickly on my older FAT32
systems but since moving to NTFS systems with XP, it has really turned
into a slug. Could another reason for the slowness be that
defragmentation and compressing are done differently on NTFS systems
thus the need to goto a newer version of speedisk?

Regards,



"There won't be anything we won't say to people to try and convince
them that our way is the way to go." -- Bill Gates

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

>
> I will be removing Diskeeper from my system and staying with the
> Norton for now or until something better comes along. One of the
> reasons I was checking other stuff out was because Speedisk takes so
> long, even on my 2g speed system. However, the reason it takes so
> long was also pointed out to me as being the reason of going the extra
> mile and compressing along with defragmenting.
>
I should point out that there is a slight disadvantage to Norton's
compacting. And that is, depending on cluster size (or is it sector size?)
of the disk, when you have to add data to a file that might result in the
new data being added to the end of the "compact" area of the disk, that is,
far away from the parent file. With DiskKeeper's leaving holes between
"compact" areas, the new data could get placed closer to the parent file.
Hence, you could suffer a performance hit, i.e., slower access time to read
all the file's data, with Norton's method. Also, the next time you defrag
and compact with Norton, all those intervening files have to be moved
further "down" the disk to make room for the fragments of new data to be
added to the parent file. With the DiskKeeper method, there may be an empty
space closer to the parent file which would result in faster access to all
the file's pieces plus faster defragmenting because not so many files would
have to be moved to append the new data to the parent file. Confused?

> BTW, I am using the speedisk that comes with an older version of
> Norton Tools, the 2002 release. It ran real quickly on my older FAT32
> systems but since moving to NTFS systems with XP, it has really turned
> into a slug. Could another reason for the slowness be that
> defragmentation and compressing are done differently on NTFS systems
> thus the need to goto a newer version of speedisk?
>
I can't really comment on this. I'm not terribly familiar with the
differences between FAT32 and NTFS. If just read that NTFS is "better" than
FAT32. And, by the way, most of what I said above applies to FAT32; I
assume it works for NTFS also. Maybe Ben could help out here?

I just know that I have SystemWorks 2005 and when I have Speedisk defrag and
compact the 120Gb drive in my 700XL (only about 1/3 used) I just go into the
hamshack, fire up the transceiver and make a few contacts because I know
Speedisk is going to take some time, usually >1.5 hours, to finish the job.
It couldn't hurt to do the upgrade, but I'm not sure that Symantec made all
that many changes or improvements between the 2004 and 2005 versions. So,
if you can find a copy of SystemWorks 2004 around (the local Staples had the
2004 version still on the shelf just before Christmas), you might save a few
bucks over the 2005 version.

Regards,
Turner

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

Placement of files on the hard drive is why the developers of the early
defraggers became obsessive about the number of options offered by their
products. They thought people wanted to fine-tune the data on their hard
drives, a carryover from the more static hard drive layouts on old mainframes.

The reality is that the Windows environment, with all its glorious complexity,
is 1000% more dynamic in its use of the hard drive. This is a good reason not
to be very obsessive about whether a file gets placed in a "hole" between other
files or tacked onto the free space immediately after the last file on the
drive. Nevertheless, it troubles me to see huge gaping holes resulting from
files being splattered all over the drive, because I know damned well that the
disk heads dance back and forth across longer distances to access data across
the entire drive. If the files are all shoved down at one end of the hard
drive, the average hard drive seek times are reduced quite a bit, and the system
goes a little faster.

The best answer? Hey, keep speedisk and diskeeper both on the hard drive. They
don't take up much space. Run speeddisk once in a while to slide all the files
to one end of the hard drive. Run diskeeper to do a quick and dirty defrag.

For the purposes of 99.9% of us, it is not worth even trying to use some sort of
instrumentation to see which provides the best result. Software instrumentation
contaminates the results. Hardware instrumentation is too expensive for all but
the hard drive design labs. And Windows does not lend itself to repeatability
of closely controlled tests... Ben Myers

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:19:11 -0500, "Turner Morgan" <wa4mqy_mobile3@comcast.net>
wrote:

>>
>> I will be removing Diskeeper from my system and staying with the
>> Norton for now or until something better comes along. One of the
>> reasons I was checking other stuff out was because Speedisk takes so
>> long, even on my 2g speed system. However, the reason it takes so
>> long was also pointed out to me as being the reason of going the extra
>> mile and compressing along with defragmenting.
>>
>I should point out that there is a slight disadvantage to Norton's
>compacting. And that is, depending on cluster size (or is it sector size?)
>of the disk, when you have to add data to a file that might result in the
>new data being added to the end of the "compact" area of the disk, that is,
>far away from the parent file. With DiskKeeper's leaving holes between
>"compact" areas, the new data could get placed closer to the parent file.
>Hence, you could suffer a performance hit, i.e., slower access time to read
>all the file's data, with Norton's method. Also, the next time you defrag
>and compact with Norton, all those intervening files have to be moved
>further "down" the disk to make room for the fragments of new data to be
>added to the parent file. With the DiskKeeper method, there may be an empty
>space closer to the parent file which would result in faster access to all
>the file's pieces plus faster defragmenting because not so many files would
>have to be moved to append the new data to the parent file. Confused?
>
>> BTW, I am using the speedisk that comes with an older version of
>> Norton Tools, the 2002 release. It ran real quickly on my older FAT32
>> systems but since moving to NTFS systems with XP, it has really turned
>> into a slug. Could another reason for the slowness be that
>> defragmentation and compressing are done differently on NTFS systems
>> thus the need to goto a newer version of speedisk?
>>
>I can't really comment on this. I'm not terribly familiar with the
>differences between FAT32 and NTFS. If just read that NTFS is "better" than
>FAT32. And, by the way, most of what I said above applies to FAT32; I
>assume it works for NTFS also. Maybe Ben could help out here?
>
>I just know that I have SystemWorks 2005 and when I have Speedisk defrag and
>compact the 120Gb drive in my 700XL (only about 1/3 used) I just go into the
>hamshack, fire up the transceiver and make a few contacts because I know
>Speedisk is going to take some time, usually >1.5 hours, to finish the job.
>It couldn't hurt to do the upgrade, but I'm not sure that Symantec made all
>that many changes or improvements between the 2004 and 2005 versions. So,
>if you can find a copy of SystemWorks 2004 around (the local Staples had the
>2004 version still on the shelf just before Christmas), you might save a few
>bucks over the 2005 version.
>
>Regards,
> Turner
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

Ben Myers wrote:
>
> For the purposes of 99.9% of us, it is not worth even trying to use
some sort of
> instrumentation to see which provides the best result. Software
instrumentation
> contaminates the results. ...
>

Yes, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies to computers also.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

Ben Myers wrote:
> The Windows XP defragger, a crippled Diskeeper in poor disguise, is truly
> crippled though. A real defragger shoves all the files to one end of the hard
> drive to speed up disk accesses further. The Windows XP defragger apparently
> does defragment most of the files though, altho you can never tell with
> Micro$oft. Files in use by the system cannot be defragmented, so boot in safe
> mode for a better defragging experience. Sysutils has a free page file
> defragger on its web site, to take care of page file defragmentation... Ben
> Myers

ben can you please post a link to the page file defragmenter. i have bee
looking on sysutils and have not been able to find it.

any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:24:14 -0700, "Tom Clydesdale"
> <t.clydesdale.nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>For whatever it might be worth I normally run the defragmenter that came
>>with WindowsXP and Norton agrees that the resulting drive is 100% defragged.
>>Who knows?
>>(The WinXP version runs about 3 times as fast as the Norton version ergo I
>>use it.)
>>
>>".@." <.@.net> wrote in message
>>newses2v0pcenq4l6k0i7sco2bpii99cium8i@4ax.com...
>>
>>>I have been using Norton SpeedDisk v6.03.36a to defragment my HD for
>>>some time now and have been mostly satisfied with it. Taking the
>>>suggestion to give Executive Software Diskeeper v9.0.515 a try for
>>>fragmenting my HD, I installed it for a test run.
>>>
>>>I found out that both Norton SpeedDisk and Diskeeper do not agree on
>>>what a defragmented HD is. Example: I run SpeedDisk and it tells me
>>>that I am defragmented and I let it take the time it needs to defrag
>>>the HD. It has a GUI that shows via colors the fragmentation and you
>>>can see the files being moved and the colors starting to line up, thus
>>>fragmentation being taken care of. I then run Diskeeper right after
>>>SpeedDisk has finished defragging the HD and it says that I am 30%-40%
>>>fragmented and I let it take the time to defragment the HD. It also
>>>has a GUI that lets me see what is going on. Right after letting
>>>Diskeeper finish doing its thing, I run SpeedDisk again and it says
>>>that I am fragmented all to hell and shows me the fragmentation via
>>>the GUI.
>>>
>>>So, both programs seem to have a different opinion as to the
>>>fragmentation of the HD. Looks to me that a fragmented HD is like a
>>>pregnant woman. Either it is or it ain't! So why does Diskeeper and
>>>SpeedDisk seem to have a problem agreeing on if it is or not and which
>>>one is telling the truth and which on is telling a lie if either one
>>>actually knows in the first place.
>>>
>>>Thanks in advance & Regards,
>>>
>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

Found via google with the search argument "defragment page file", without the
quotes:

http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/pagedefrag.shtml

.... Ben Myers

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:20:02 GMT, bob brozewicz
<brozewicz.rf_nospam_@verizon.net> wrote:

>Ben Myers wrote:
>> The Windows XP defragger, a crippled Diskeeper in poor disguise, is truly
>> crippled though. A real defragger shoves all the files to one end of the hard
>> drive to speed up disk accesses further. The Windows XP defragger apparently
>> does defragment most of the files though, altho you can never tell with
>> Micro$oft. Files in use by the system cannot be defragmented, so boot in safe
>> mode for a better defragging experience. Sysutils has a free page file
>> defragger on its web site, to take care of page file defragmentation... Ben
>> Myers
>
>ben can you please post a link to the page file defragmenter. i have bee
>looking on sysutils and have not been able to find it.
>
>any help would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:24:14 -0700, "Tom Clydesdale"
>> <t.clydesdale.nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For whatever it might be worth I normally run the defragmenter that came
>>>with WindowsXP and Norton agrees that the resulting drive is 100% defragged.
>>>Who knows?
>>>(The WinXP version runs about 3 times as fast as the Norton version ergo I
>>>use it.)
>>>
>>>".@." <.@.net> wrote in message
>>>newses2v0pcenq4l6k0i7sco2bpii99cium8i@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>I have been using Norton SpeedDisk v6.03.36a to defragment my HD for
>>>>some time now and have been mostly satisfied with it. Taking the
>>>>suggestion to give Executive Software Diskeeper v9.0.515 a try for
>>>>fragmenting my HD, I installed it for a test run.
>>>>
>>>>I found out that both Norton SpeedDisk and Diskeeper do not agree on
>>>>what a defragmented HD is. Example: I run SpeedDisk and it tells me
>>>>that I am defragmented and I let it take the time it needs to defrag
>>>>the HD. It has a GUI that shows via colors the fragmentation and you
>>>>can see the files being moved and the colors starting to line up, thus
>>>>fragmentation being taken care of. I then run Diskeeper right after
>>>>SpeedDisk has finished defragging the HD and it says that I am 30%-40%
>>>>fragmented and I let it take the time to defragment the HD. It also
>>>>has a GUI that lets me see what is going on. Right after letting
>>>>Diskeeper finish doing its thing, I run SpeedDisk again and it says
>>>>that I am fragmented all to hell and shows me the fragmentation via
>>>>the GUI.
>>>>
>>>>So, both programs seem to have a different opinion as to the
>>>>fragmentation of the HD. Looks to me that a fragmented HD is like a
>>>>pregnant woman. Either it is or it ain't! So why does Diskeeper and
>>>>SpeedDisk seem to have a problem agreeing on if it is or not and which
>>>>one is telling the truth and which on is telling a lie if either one
>>>>actually knows in the first place.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks in advance & Regards,
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

Ben Myers wrote:
> Found via google with the search argument "defragment page file", without the
> quotes:
>
> http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/pagedefrag.shtml
>
> ... Ben Myers
after i ask i did uses google and found it on sysinternals and not sysutils.

thanks
>
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:20:02 GMT, bob brozewicz
> <brozewicz.rf_nospam_@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Ben Myers wrote:
>>
>>>The Windows XP defragger, a crippled Diskeeper in poor disguise, is truly
>>>crippled though. A real defragger shoves all the files to one end of the hard
>>>drive to speed up disk accesses further. The Windows XP defragger apparently
>>>does defragment most of the files though, altho you can never tell with
>>>Micro$oft. Files in use by the system cannot be defragmented, so boot in safe
>>>mode for a better defragging experience. Sysutils has a free page file
>>>defragger on its web site, to take care of page file defragmentation... Ben
>>>Myers
>>
>>ben can you please post a link to the page file defragmenter. i have bee
>>looking on sysutils and have not been able to find it.
>>
>>any help would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>>>On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:24:14 -0700, "Tom Clydesdale"
>>><t.clydesdale.nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>For whatever it might be worth I normally run the defragmenter that came
>>>>with WindowsXP and Norton agrees that the resulting drive is 100% defragged.
>>>>Who knows?
>>>>(The WinXP version runs about 3 times as fast as the Norton version ergo I
>>>>use it.)
>>>>
>>>>".@." <.@.net> wrote in message
>>>>newses2v0pcenq4l6k0i7sco2bpii99cium8i@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I have been using Norton SpeedDisk v6.03.36a to defragment my HD for
>>>>>some time now and have been mostly satisfied with it. Taking the
>>>>>suggestion to give Executive Software Diskeeper v9.0.515 a try for
>>>>>fragmenting my HD, I installed it for a test run.
>>>>>
>>>>>I found out that both Norton SpeedDisk and Diskeeper do not agree on
>>>>>what a defragmented HD is. Example: I run SpeedDisk and it tells me
>>>>>that I am defragmented and I let it take the time it needs to defrag
>>>>>the HD. It has a GUI that shows via colors the fragmentation and you
>>>>>can see the files being moved and the colors starting to line up, thus
>>>>>fragmentation being taken care of. I then run Diskeeper right after
>>>>>SpeedDisk has finished defragging the HD and it says that I am 30%-40%
>>>>>fragmented and I let it take the time to defragment the HD. It also
>>>>>has a GUI that lets me see what is going on. Right after letting
>>>>>Diskeeper finish doing its thing, I run SpeedDisk again and it says
>>>>>that I am fragmented all to hell and shows me the fragmentation via
>>>>>the GUI.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, both programs seem to have a different opinion as to the
>>>>>fragmentation of the HD. Looks to me that a fragmented HD is like a
>>>>>pregnant woman. Either it is or it ain't! So why does Diskeeper and
>>>>>SpeedDisk seem to have a problem agreeing on if it is or not and which
>>>>>one is telling the truth and which on is telling a lie if either one
>>>>>actually knows in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks in advance & Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

Sorry. In my haste to post a response and move on to other things, the names of
sometimes get scrambled up in my head. Main thing is you found it, and it
works... Ben

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:30:58 GMT, bob brozewicz
<brozewicz.rf_nospam_@verizon.net> wrote:

>Ben Myers wrote:
>> Found via google with the search argument "defragment page file", without the
>> quotes:
>>
>> http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/pagedefrag.shtml
>>
>> ... Ben Myers
>after i ask i did uses google and found it on sysinternals and not sysutils.
>
>thanks
>>
>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:20:02 GMT, bob brozewicz
>> <brozewicz.rf_nospam_@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ben Myers wrote:
>>>
>>>>The Windows XP defragger, a crippled Diskeeper in poor disguise, is truly
>>>>crippled though. A real defragger shoves all the files to one end of the hard
>>>>drive to speed up disk accesses further. The Windows XP defragger apparently
>>>>does defragment most of the files though, altho you can never tell with
>>>>Micro$oft. Files in use by the system cannot be defragmented, so boot in safe
>>>>mode for a better defragging experience. Sysutils has a free page file
>>>>defragger on its web site, to take care of page file defragmentation... Ben
>>>>Myers
>>>
>>>ben can you please post a link to the page file defragmenter. i have bee
>>>looking on sysutils and have not been able to find it.
>>>
>>>any help would be greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:24:14 -0700, "Tom Clydesdale"
>>>><t.clydesdale.nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>For whatever it might be worth I normally run the defragmenter that came
>>>>>with WindowsXP and Norton agrees that the resulting drive is 100% defragged.
>>>>>Who knows?
>>>>>(The WinXP version runs about 3 times as fast as the Norton version ergo I
>>>>>use it.)
>>>>>
>>>>>".@." <.@.net> wrote in message
>>>>>newses2v0pcenq4l6k0i7sco2bpii99cium8i@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I have been using Norton SpeedDisk v6.03.36a to defragment my HD for
>>>>>>some time now and have been mostly satisfied with it. Taking the
>>>>>>suggestion to give Executive Software Diskeeper v9.0.515 a try for
>>>>>>fragmenting my HD, I installed it for a test run.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I found out that both Norton SpeedDisk and Diskeeper do not agree on
>>>>>>what a defragmented HD is. Example: I run SpeedDisk and it tells me
>>>>>>that I am defragmented and I let it take the time it needs to defrag
>>>>>>the HD. It has a GUI that shows via colors the fragmentation and you
>>>>>>can see the files being moved and the colors starting to line up, thus
>>>>>>fragmentation being taken care of. I then run Diskeeper right after
>>>>>>SpeedDisk has finished defragging the HD and it says that I am 30%-40%
>>>>>>fragmented and I let it take the time to defragment the HD. It also
>>>>>>has a GUI that lets me see what is going on. Right after letting
>>>>>>Diskeeper finish doing its thing, I run SpeedDisk again and it says
>>>>>>that I am fragmented all to hell and shows me the fragmentation via
>>>>>>the GUI.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, both programs seem to have a different opinion as to the
>>>>>>fragmentation of the HD. Looks to me that a fragmented HD is like a
>>>>>>pregnant woman. Either it is or it ain't! So why does Diskeeper and
>>>>>>SpeedDisk seem to have a problem agreeing on if it is or not and which
>>>>>>one is telling the truth and which on is telling a lie if either one
>>>>>>actually knows in the first place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks in advance & Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

sorry to top post....

btw do you happen to be the same ben myers that help me upgrade my kids
compaq 5000 pc before xmas. if you remember, i had a ton of questions.

if you are he, i really appreciated all your help, the upgrade went off
with little problems. my kids were happy as could be with the upgrade.

i hate to say it, they have a FASTER machine than mine now.

Ben Myers wrote:
> Sorry. In my haste to post a response and move on to other things, the names of
> sometimes get scrambled up in my head. Main thing is you found it, and it
> works... Ben
>
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:30:58 GMT, bob brozewicz
> <brozewicz.rf_nospam_@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Ben Myers wrote:
>>
>>>Found via google with the search argument "defragment page file", without the
>>>quotes:
>>>
>>>http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/pagedefrag.shtml
>>>
>>>... Ben Myers
>>
>>after i ask i did uses google and found it on sysinternals and not sysutils.
>>
>>thanks
>>
>>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:20:02 GMT, bob brozewicz
>>><brozewicz.rf_nospam_@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ben Myers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The Windows XP defragger, a crippled Diskeeper in poor disguise, is truly
>>>>>crippled though. A real defragger shoves all the files to one end of the hard
>>>>>drive to speed up disk accesses further. The Windows XP defragger apparently
>>>>>does defragment most of the files though, altho you can never tell with
>>>>>Micro$oft. Files in use by the system cannot be defragmented, so boot in safe
>>>>>mode for a better defragging experience. Sysutils has a free page file
>>>>>defragger on its web site, to take care of page file defragmentation... Ben
>>>>>Myers
>>>>
>>>>ben can you please post a link to the page file defragmenter. i have bee
>>>>looking on sysutils and have not been able to find it.
>>>>
>>>>any help would be greatly appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:24:14 -0700, "Tom Clydesdale"
>>>>><t.clydesdale.nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>For whatever it might be worth I normally run the defragmenter that came
>>>>>>with WindowsXP and Norton agrees that the resulting drive is 100% defragged.
>>>>>>Who knows?
>>>>>>(The WinXP version runs about 3 times as fast as the Norton version ergo I
>>>>>>use it.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>".@." <.@.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>newses2v0pcenq4l6k0i7sco2bpii99cium8i@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have been using Norton SpeedDisk v6.03.36a to defragment my HD for
>>>>>>>some time now and have been mostly satisfied with it. Taking the
>>>>>>>suggestion to give Executive Software Diskeeper v9.0.515 a try for
>>>>>>>fragmenting my HD, I installed it for a test run.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I found out that both Norton SpeedDisk and Diskeeper do not agree on
>>>>>>>what a defragmented HD is. Example: I run SpeedDisk and it tells me
>>>>>>>that I am defragmented and I let it take the time it needs to defrag
>>>>>>>the HD. It has a GUI that shows via colors the fragmentation and you
>>>>>>>can see the files being moved and the colors starting to line up, thus
>>>>>>>fragmentation being taken care of. I then run Diskeeper right after
>>>>>>>SpeedDisk has finished defragging the HD and it says that I am 30%-40%
>>>>>>>fragmented and I let it take the time to defragment the HD. It also
>>>>>>>has a GUI that lets me see what is going on. Right after letting
>>>>>>>Diskeeper finish doing its thing, I run SpeedDisk again and it says
>>>>>>>that I am fragmented all to hell and shows me the fragmentation via
>>>>>>>the GUI.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So, both programs seem to have a different opinion as to the
>>>>>>>fragmentation of the HD. Looks to me that a fragmented HD is like a
>>>>>>>pregnant woman. Either it is or it ain't! So why does Diskeeper and
>>>>>>>SpeedDisk seem to have a problem agreeing on if it is or not and which
>>>>>>>one is telling the truth and which on is telling a lie if either one
>>>>>>>actually knows in the first place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks in advance & Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.gateway2000 (More info?)

Must have been me. I seem to be the only Ben Myers posting in the computer
newsgroups. There are clones of myself who are English journalists/authors,
experts on beer, and who knows what else. Glad it worked out for you... Ben

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:47:45 GMT, bob brozewicz
<brozewicz.rf_nospam_@verizon.net> wrote:

>sorry to top post....
>
>btw do you happen to be the same ben myers that help me upgrade my kids
>compaq 5000 pc before xmas. if you remember, i had a ton of questions.
>
>if you are he, i really appreciated all your help, the upgrade went off
>with little problems. my kids were happy as could be with the upgrade.
>
>i hate to say it, they have a FASTER machine than mine now.
>
>Ben Myers wrote:
>> Sorry. In my haste to post a response and move on to other things, the names of
>> sometimes get scrambled up in my head. Main thing is you found it, and it
>> works... Ben
>>
>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:30:58 GMT, bob brozewicz
>> <brozewicz.rf_nospam_@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ben Myers wrote:
>>>
>>>>Found via google with the search argument "defragment page file", without the
>>>>quotes:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/pagedefrag.shtml
>>>>
>>>>... Ben Myers
>>>
>>>after i ask i did uses google and found it on sysinternals and not sysutils.
>>>
>>>thanks
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:20:02 GMT, bob brozewicz
>>>><brozewicz.rf_nospam_@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ben Myers wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The Windows XP defragger, a crippled Diskeeper in poor disguise, is truly
>>>>>>crippled though. A real defragger shoves all the files to one end of the hard
>>>>>>drive to speed up disk accesses further. The Windows XP defragger apparently
>>>>>>does defragment most of the files though, altho you can never tell with
>>>>>>Micro$oft. Files in use by the system cannot be defragmented, so boot in safe
>>>>>>mode for a better defragging experience. Sysutils has a free page file
>>>>>>defragger on its web site, to take care of page file defragmentation... Ben
>>>>>>Myers
>>>>>
>>>>>ben can you please post a link to the page file defragmenter. i have bee
>>>>>looking on sysutils and have not been able to find it.
>>>>>
>>>>>any help would be greatly appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:24:14 -0700, "Tom Clydesdale"
>>>>>><t.clydesdale.nospam@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>For whatever it might be worth I normally run the defragmenter that came
>>>>>>>with WindowsXP and Norton agrees that the resulting drive is 100% defragged.
>>>>>>>Who knows?
>>>>>>>(The WinXP version runs about 3 times as fast as the Norton version ergo I
>>>>>>>use it.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>".@." <.@.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>newses2v0pcenq4l6k0i7sco2bpii99cium8i@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I have been using Norton SpeedDisk v6.03.36a to defragment my HD for
>>>>>>>>some time now and have been mostly satisfied with it. Taking the
>>>>>>>>suggestion to give Executive Software Diskeeper v9.0.515 a try for
>>>>>>>>fragmenting my HD, I installed it for a test run.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I found out that both Norton SpeedDisk and Diskeeper do not agree on
>>>>>>>>what a defragmented HD is. Example: I run SpeedDisk and it tells me
>>>>>>>>that I am defragmented and I let it take the time it needs to defrag
>>>>>>>>the HD. It has a GUI that shows via colors the fragmentation and you
>>>>>>>>can see the files being moved and the colors starting to line up, thus
>>>>>>>>fragmentation being taken care of. I then run Diskeeper right after
>>>>>>>>SpeedDisk has finished defragging the HD and it says that I am 30%-40%
>>>>>>>>fragmented and I let it take the time to defragment the HD. It also
>>>>>>>>has a GUI that lets me see what is going on. Right after letting
>>>>>>>>Diskeeper finish doing its thing, I run SpeedDisk again and it says
>>>>>>>>that I am fragmented all to hell and shows me the fragmentation via
>>>>>>>>the GUI.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So, both programs seem to have a different opinion as to the
>>>>>>>>fragmentation of the HD. Looks to me that a fragmented HD is like a
>>>>>>>>pregnant woman. Either it is or it ain't! So why does Diskeeper and
>>>>>>>>SpeedDisk seem to have a problem agreeing on if it is or not and which
>>>>>>>>one is telling the truth and which on is telling a lie if either one
>>>>>>>>actually knows in the first place.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thanks in advance & Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>