It seems no one denies that the Diskeeper 8 engine is better than the one
that comes with Windows XP, which is prone to stall, among its problems. So
why use it, when the Diskeeper engine (without scheduling features, not
available in Windows defragger) is also free?
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=1207

srdiamond

Is this a rhetorical question?.....I have used Diskeeper Lite for almost
a year with no problem, despite having read somewhere, that Diskeeper causes
problems(?) in XP.. I prefer it to the 'native' Diskeeper version in xp, and
it has never 'messed-up' anything that i am aware of on my PC..
Yup, I like it.. it is fast and free.
"srdiamond" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:G1Gfc.12048$(E-Mail Removed)...
> It seems no one denies that the Diskeeper 8 engine is better than the one
> that comes with Windows XP, which is prone to stall, among its problems.
So
> why use it, when the Diskeeper engine (without scheduling features, not
> available in Windows defragger) is also free?
> http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=1207
>
> srdiamond
>
>

I use Windows' boring built in defragger. My computer starts in 42 seconds
and runs very quickly.

Rocky

"Peter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:eoKOJ%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Is this a rhetorical question?.....I have used Diskeeper Lite for
almost
> a year with no problem, despite having read somewhere, that Diskeeper
causes
> problems(?) in XP.. I prefer it to the 'native' Diskeeper version in xp,
and
> it has never 'messed-up' anything that i am aware of on my PC..
> Yup, I like it.. it is fast and free.
> "srdiamond" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:G1Gfc.12048$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > It seems no one denies that the Diskeeper 8 engine is better than the
one
> > that comes with Windows XP, which is prone to stall, among its problems.
> So
> > why use it, when the Diskeeper engine (without scheduling features, not
> > available in Windows defragger) is also free?
> > http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=1207
> >
> > srdiamond
> >
> >
>
>

I don't suppose one defragger produces much better results than any other.
The difference is in the kinds of problems that arise and how fast it gets
the job done. For someone who is satisfied there's no reason to change,
but when you read about the problems some users have getting the native
one to complete, a free download makes more sense than continued struggle.

srdiamond

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 21:48:30 -0400, Rocket J. Squirrel
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I use Windows' boring built in defragger. My computer starts in 42
> seconds
> and runs very quickly.
>
> Rocky
>
> "Peter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:eoKOJ%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Is this a rhetorical question?.....I have used Diskeeper Lite for
> almost
>> a year with no problem, despite having read somewhere, that Diskeeper
> causes
>> problems(?) in XP.. I prefer it to the 'native' Diskeeper version in xp,
> and
>> it has never 'messed-up' anything that i am aware of on my PC..
>> Yup, I like it.. it is fast and free.
>> "srdiamond" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:G1Gfc.12048$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > It seems no one denies that the Diskeeper 8 engine is better than the
> one
>> > that comes with Windows XP, which is prone to stall, among its
>> problems.
>> So
>> > why use it, when the Diskeeper engine (without scheduling features,
>> not
>> > available in Windows defragger) is also free?
>> > http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=1207
>> >
>> > srdiamond
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>



--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

"...but when you read about the problems some users have getting the native
one to complete, a free download makes more sense than continued struggle."

Sorry, but I don't agree. Defragmenting is a very basic function of the
operating system. If a computer has a problem that prevents defragmenting
from working properly, the thing to do is to resolve the problem, not to
ignore it by installing third party software.

Rocky

"srdiamond" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newspr6mumsnafwdaay@computer...
> I don't suppose one defragger produces much better results than any other.
> The difference is in the kinds of problems that arise and how fast it gets
> the job done. For someone who is satisfied there's no reason to change,
> but when you read about the problems some users have getting the native
> one to complete, a free download makes more sense than continued struggle.
>
> srdiamond
>
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 21:48:30 -0400, Rocket J. Squirrel
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > I use Windows' boring built in defragger. My computer starts in 42
> > seconds
> > and runs very quickly.
> >
> > Rocky
> >
> > "Peter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:eoKOJ%(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Is this a rhetorical question?.....I have used Diskeeper Lite for
> > almost
> >> a year with no problem, despite having read somewhere, that Diskeeper
> > causes
> >> problems(?) in XP.. I prefer it to the 'native' Diskeeper version in
xp,
> > and
> >> it has never 'messed-up' anything that i am aware of on my PC..
> >> Yup, I like it.. it is fast and free.
> >> "srdiamond" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> news:G1Gfc.12048$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> > It seems no one denies that the Diskeeper 8 engine is better than the
> > one
> >> > that comes with Windows XP, which is prone to stall, among its
> >> problems.
> >> So
> >> > why use it, when the Diskeeper engine (without scheduling features,
> >> not
> >> > available in Windows defragger) is also free?
> >> > http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=1207
> >> >
> >> > srdiamond
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

1. I understand the native defrag is sensitive to incidental events, such
as a screen saver starting up. Also, if something interrupts it, Windows
defrag must start over. These factors do not necessarily reflect systemic
problems.

2. Some problems arise because the disk has insufficient free space. Lack
of much free space does not necessarily constitute a systemic problem,
unless it is insufficient for some purpose, defragging being one of the
purposes often implicated. If the native defragger fails, downloading the
free one may be a better solution than to keep trying or to buy a larger
hard drive, if you can't afford more space.

I understand (but I could be wrong) that Diskkeeper 8 requires less disk
space than the native defragger, although the best one in this respect
might be Raxco's Perfect Disk (free to try but not free).

srdiamond

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 04:43:35 -0400, Rocket J. Squirrel
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "...but when you read about the problems some users have getting the
> native
> one to complete, a free download makes more sense than continued
> struggle."
>
> Sorry, but I don't agree. Defragmenting is a very basic function of the
> operating system. If a computer has a problem that prevents defragmenting
> from working properly, the thing to do is to resolve the problem, not to
> ignore it by installing third party software.
>
> Rocky
>
> "srdiamond" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> newspr6mumsnafwdaay@computer...
>> I don't suppose one defragger produces much better results than any
>> other.
>> The difference is in the kinds of problems that arise and how fast it
>> gets
>> the job done. For someone who is satisfied there's no reason to change,
>> but when you read about the problems some users have getting the native
>> one to complete, a free download makes more sense than continued
>> struggle.
>>
>> srdiamond
>>