Hi,

What's the best defrag tool to use on a notebook running W2K Professional
with a Hitachi 7K60 60GB 7200RPM hard drive?

If people could recommend a best freeware and also a best commercial
software, that'd be great.

Thanks,
Dave

Dave Hau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What's the best defrag tool to use on a notebook running W2K
> Professional with a Hitachi 7K60 60GB 7200RPM hard drive?
>
> If people could recommend a best freeware and also a best commercial
> software, that'd be great.

Executive Software offers Diskeeper Light as freeware. I believe it is
identical to the defrag utility built in to Windows XP.
http://www.grassheap.com/download.php?ID=4103

PerfectDisk6 from Raxco is a good commercial product as is O&O Defrag.

> Dave Hau wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > What's the best defrag tool to use on a notebook running W2K
> > Professional with a Hitachi 7K60 60GB 7200RPM hard drive?
> >
> > If people could recommend a best freeware and also a best
> > commercial software, that'd be great.


There is an article on utility software in the February issue
of PCWorld (p. 81) which says:

"...our analysts found no evidence that defragmentation
enhanced performance. On a desktop system from the
PC World office with a heavily used, never-defragmented
hard drive, the lab conducted speed tests using a range of
applications before and after defragmenting the drive with
each utitlity. In the end, the Test Center saw no significant
performance improvement after defragmenting with any
program. This result flies in the face of the received wisdom
that fragmentation hinders performance, though much older
PCs (with slower and smaller hard drives) and heavily used
servers may benefit more from defragging."

In my opinion, the defraggers that are already inside Windows
(installed and taking up storage) are good enough, and the money
for 3rd party defraggers could better be spent on other things.

*TimDaniels*

> There is an article on utility software in the February issue
> of PCWorld (p. 81) which says:
>
> "...our analysts found no evidence that defragmentation
> enhanced performance. On a desktop system from the
> PC World office with a heavily used, never-defragmented
> hard drive, the lab conducted speed tests using a range of
> applications before and after defragmenting the drive with
> each utitlity. In the end, the Test Center saw no significant
> performance improvement after defragmenting with any
> program. This result flies in the face of the received wisdom
> that fragmentation hinders performance, though much older
> PCs (with slower and smaller hard drives) and heavily used
> servers may benefit more from defragging."

Aha - this is surprising indeed! Maybe it has to do with reduced seeking
noise of hard disks after a defrag - maybe that creates the feeling of a
faster PC. Very interesting indeed... (whistling the X-Files tune now...)/

"Slashed Zero" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:d2yRb.8262$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > There is an article on utility software in the February issue
> > of PCWorld (p. 81) which says:
> >
> > "...our analysts found no evidence that defragmentation
> > enhanced performance. On a desktop system from the
> > PC World office with a heavily used, never-defragmented
> > hard drive, the lab conducted speed tests using a range of
> > applications before and after defragmenting the drive with
> > each utitlity. In the end, the Test Center saw no significant
> > performance improvement after defragmenting with any
> > program. This result flies in the face of the received wisdom
> > that fragmentation hinders performance, though much older
> > PCs (with slower and smaller hard drives) and heavily used
> > servers may benefit more from defragging."

> Aha - this is surprising indeed!

Nope, many of us have realised that for years now.

> Maybe it has to do with reduced seeking
> noise of hard disks after a defrag

Nope, its mostly just mindlessly obsessive behaviour.

Thats sort of problem is endemic with the worst of the
geeks that dont really have much of a grasp of the basics.

You see the same problem with 8MB caches on hard drives
too. Few actually check to see if the bigger cache is actually
detectable in a proper double blind trial and just insist on one.

> - maybe that creates the feeling of a faster PC.

Not likely when most modern systems are reasonably quiet seeking.

> Very interesting indeed... (whistling the X-Files tune now...)/

With your firm grasp of the basics, please explain why defrag tools are
often thought to be effective (i.e. why Microsoft supplies one with Windows
and why Symantec makes SpeedDisk) and why, in reality, they're not. Seems to
me it makes sense that if a file is located in one continuous block of data,
it can be read in one motion, rather than in a couple of different read
cycles, thus being quicker. Obviously, this turns out not to be true. Why?

SZ.

Slashed Zero wrote:
> With your firm grasp of the basics, please explain why defrag tools are
> often thought to be effective (i.e. why Microsoft supplies one with Windows
> and why Symantec makes SpeedDisk) and why, in reality, they're not. Seems to
> me it makes sense that if a file is located in one continuous block of data,
> it can be read in one motion, rather than in a couple of different read
> cycles, thus being quicker. Obviously, this turns out not to be true. Why?
>
> SZ.
>
>
There's rarely only a single file open. Often there's a spool file,
some OS files, the registry, perhaps a couple of cache files, data, etc.

Slashed Zero <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:G2ARb.8487$_(E-Mail Removed)...

> With your firm grasp of the basics, please explain
> why defrag tools are often thought to be effective

Just the usual mindless acceptance of claims without
actually trying a defrag and seeing if it makes any difference.

Just another example of stupid kids who believe what they
read without putting their ear to ear dog **** into gear.

> (i.e. why Microsoft supplies one with Windows

Because it did make a difference at one time and if they didnt,
lots of anal dills would be howling about it being left out.

> and why Symantec makes SpeedDisk)

They make anything that enough will buy.

> and why, in reality, they're not.

Because using them is undetectable in a double blind trial
without being allowed to use a ute that displays fragmentation.

> Seems to me it makes sense that if a file is located in
> one continuous block of data, it can be read in one motion,
> rather than in a couple of different read cycles, thus being
> quicker. Obviously, this turns out not to be true. Why?

Basically because modern systems move the heads
around for lots more than just between the fragments
of a file and the extra movement between fragments
is a very small part of the total head movements.

And the why is completely academic anyway.

What matters is if the difference is detectable or not.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:12:12 -0800, "Timothy Daniels"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>> Dave Hau wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > What's the best defrag tool to use on a notebook running W2K
>> > Professional with a Hitachi 7K60 60GB 7200RPM hard drive?
>> >
>> > If people could recommend a best freeware and also a best
>> > commercial software, that'd be great.
>
>
> There is an article on utility software in the February issue
>of PCWorld (p. 81) which says:
>
> "...our analysts found no evidence that defragmentation
> enhanced performance. On a desktop system from the
> PC World office with a heavily used, never-defragmented
> hard drive, the lab conducted speed tests using a range of
> applications before and after defragmenting the drive with
> each utitlity. In the end, the Test Center saw no significant
> performance improvement after defragmenting with any
> program. This result flies in the face of the received wisdom
> that fragmentation hinders performance, though much older
> PCs (with slower and smaller hard drives) and heavily used
> servers may benefit more from defragging."
>
> In my opinion, the defraggers that are already inside Windows
>(installed and taking up storage) are good enough, and the money
>for 3rd party defraggers could better be spent on other things.
>
>*TimDaniels*

you're impressed with PC World's expert opinion ?

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:12:12 -0800, "Timothy Daniels"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>> Dave Hau wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > What's the best defrag tool to use on a notebook running W2K
>> > Professional with a Hitachi 7K60 60GB 7200RPM hard drive?
>> >
>> > If people could recommend a best freeware and also a best
>> > commercial software, that'd be great.
>
>
> There is an article on utility software in the February issue
>of PCWorld (p. 81) which says:
>
> "...our analysts found no evidence that defragmentation
> enhanced performance. On a desktop system from the
> PC World office with a heavily used, never-defragmented
> hard drive, the lab conducted speed tests using a range of
> applications before and after defragmenting the drive with
> each utitlity. In the end, the Test Center saw no significant
> performance improvement after defragmenting with any
> program. This result flies in the face of the received wisdom
> that fragmentation hinders performance, though much older
> PCs (with slower and smaller hard drives) and heavily used
> servers may benefit more from defragging."
>
> In my opinion, the defraggers that are already inside Windows
>(installed and taking up storage) are good enough, and the money
>for 3rd party defraggers could better be spent on other things.
>
>*TimDaniels*

Well I gave that logic a three month try when I moved up to win2k and
sadly the Windows defragger left a lot to desire. I tried the 30 day
demo for Perfect Disk and it took care of all the issues that the
win2k junker couldn't handle.

Oh, and as for the PC World nonsense, I still say .45 beats 9mm, but
that kind of garbage sells magazines