I tried the Auslogics defragger and while it does seem to work faster
than the default XP defrag utility, like the XP defragger it still
leaves blank spaces. Is there any such thing as a freeware defragger
that doesn't?

>I tried the Auslogics defragger and while it does seem to work faster
>than the default XP defrag utility, like the XP defragger it still
>leaves blank spaces. Is there any such thing as a freeware defragger
>that doesn't?

Try JKDefrag.

- Thee Chicago Wolf

Thee Chicago Wolf wrote:
>> I tried the Auslogics defragger and while it does
>> seem to work faster
>> than the default XP defrag utility, like the XP
>> defragger it still
>> leaves blank spaces. Is there any such thing as a
>> freeware defragger
>> that doesn't?
>
> Try JKDefrag.
>
> - Thee Chicago Wolf

You know, you don't necessarily want NO blank spaces
between files. It makes fragmentation occur faster
because anything edited that needs to go to disk can't
possibly by put anywhere contiguously.

HTH

Pop`

The GUI representation of the fragmentation is simply - a representation.
Don't place too much stock in what you see displayed. Run defrag
occasionally and it does it's job. If you want to purchase a decent defrag
program with more options go for Raxco Perfect Disk. But really the Windows
Defrag utility is good enough and serves the purpose fine.

--

Xandros


"Thee Chicago Wolf" <.@.> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >I tried the Auslogics defragger and while it does seem to work faster
>>than the default XP defrag utility, like the XP defragger it still
>>leaves blank spaces. Is there any such thing as a freeware defragger
>>that doesn't?
>
> Try JKDefrag.
>
> - Thee Chicago Wolf

Doc wrote:
>
> I tried the Auslogics defragger and while it does seem to work faster
> than the default XP defrag utility, like the XP defragger it still
> leaves blank spaces. Is there any such thing as a freeware defragger
> that doesn't?

There is nothing wrong with the XP defragger. You are simply wasting
your time finding something new.

--
http://www.bootdisk.com/

Excellent point. Unless you're exceptionally well
versed in drive structures and usages it's pretty
pointless to try to finesse them. There ARE some that
allow a little more flexibility in where things get
stored on a disk (inside, middle, end, etc) but unless
you're into something that causes almost instant
fragmentation (like video rendering) 99% of users won't
notice much improvement visually or especailly in time
between defrag needs.

HTH


Xandros wrote:
> The GUI representation of the fragmentation is
> simply - a
> representation. Don't place too much stock in what
> you see displayed.
> Run defrag occasionally and it does it's job. If you
> want to purchase
> a decent defrag program with more options go for
> Raxco Perfect Disk.
> But really the Windows Defrag utility is good enough
> and serves the
> purpose fine.
>
> "Thee Chicago Wolf" <.@.> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> I tried the Auslogics defragger and while it does
>>> seem to work
>>> faster than the default XP defrag utility, like the
>>> XP defragger it
>>> still leaves blank spaces. Is there any such thing
>>> as a freeware
>>> defragger that doesn't?
>>
>> Try JKDefrag.
>>
>> - Thee Chicago Wolf

Plato wrote:
> Doc wrote:
>> I tried the Auslogics defragger and while it does seem to work faster
>> than the default XP defrag utility, like the XP defragger it still
>> leaves blank spaces. Is there any such thing as a freeware defragger
>> that doesn't?
>
> There is nothing wrong with the XP defragger. You are simply wasting
> your time finding something new.
>

Xp's defrag takes at least 3 times longer (if there's any significant
fragmentation) than JKdefrag. Seems to lay out "tracks" for better seeks
as well.

http://www.kessels.com/JkDefrag/ (author's site)

>> There is nothing wrong with the XP defragger. You are simply wasting
>> your time finding something new.
>>
>
>Xp's defrag takes at least 3 times longer (if there's any significant
>fragmentation) than JKdefrag. Seems to lay out "tracks" for better seeks
>as well.
>
>http://www.kessels.com/JkDefrag/ (author's site)

The person who said there's nothing better to look for than the MS
defragger obviously is not informed. I've read the info from the
JKDefrag author and his tool's methodology is far more intelligent
than the MS defrag tool even if it uses the same APIs. I've done side
by side on two freshly Ghosted machines; one using XP defrag and one
with JK defrag. JKDefrag finished faster and the machine was bit
speedier in general.

- Thee Chicago Wolf

nobody > wrote:
>
> >> I tried the Auslogics defragger and while it does seem to work faster
> >> than the default XP defrag utility, like the XP defragger it still
> >> leaves blank spaces. Is there any such thing as a freeware defragger
> >> that doesn't?
> >
> > There is nothing wrong with the XP defragger. You are simply wasting
> > your time finding something new.
>
> Xp's defrag takes at least 3 times longer (if there's any significant
> fragmentation) than JKdefrag. Seems to lay out "tracks" for better seeks
> as well.

So what. Set defrag to run before you go out to do your wash.

Plato wrote:

> nobody > wrote:
>>
>> >> I tried the Auslogics defragger and while it does seem to work faster
>> >> than the default XP defrag utility, like the XP defragger it still
>> >> leaves blank spaces. Is there any such thing as a freeware defragger
>> >> that doesn't?
>> >
>> > There is nothing wrong with the XP defragger. You are simply wasting
>> > your time finding something new.
>>
>> Xp's defrag takes at least 3 times longer (if there's any significant
>> fragmentation) than JKdefrag. Seems to lay out "tracks" for better seeks
>> as well.
>
> So what. Set defrag to run before you go out to do your wash.

This is a good example of the unfortunate (and spreading) attitude that
instead of the desire for and respect for tight code, efficiency and
compactness in software, the refrain becomes "I have lots of speed and
memory so **** software is fine with me".


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org