diskeeper lite defragmenter

After the discussion here some time ago I installed diskeeper lite and
power defragmenter. I thought power defragmenter is just a GUI for
deskeeper . Or am I wrong ?

Anyway, every nos and then when I restart the pc from hibernation I get
a diskeeper lite message which invites me to buy the full version. No
info whether a defragmentation took place.

Does nayone know whether these nag screens are linked to a proir
defragmentation ?

Thanks
Frank

FTR wrote:
> After the discussion here some time ago I installed diskeeper lite and
> power defragmenter. I thought power defragmenter is just a GUI for
> deskeeper . Or am I wrong ?
>
> Anyway, every nos and then when I restart the pc from hibernation I get
> a diskeeper lite message which invites me to buy the full version. No
> info whether a defragmentation took place.
>
> Does nayone know whether these nag screens are linked to a proir
> defragmentation ?
>
> Thanks
> Frank


My search in the group was not extensive ve enough. sorry Folks. Now I
now that the nag screen in Diskeeper lite can be stopped in rename
ShowHtml.exe to ShowHtml.exe.txt (thanks you, JP Loken) and I confounded
diskeeper lite and is not linked to Power Defragmenter.

Any experiences with the relative merits of both ?

I use Won XP Home SP2.

Thanks
Frank

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:28:26 +0100, FTR <news.ftr@free.fr> wrote:

>FTR wrote:
>> After the discussion here some time ago I installed diskeeper lite and
>> power defragmenter. I thought power defragmenter is just a GUI for
>> deskeeper . Or am I wrong ?
>>
>> Anyway, every nos and then when I restart the pc from hibernation I get
>> a diskeeper lite message which invites me to buy the full version. No
>> info whether a defragmentation took place.
>>
>> Does nayone know whether these nag screens are linked to a proir
>> defragmentation ?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Frank
>
>
>My search in the group was not extensive ve enough. sorry Folks. Now I
>now that the nag screen in Diskeeper lite can be stopped in rename
>ShowHtml.exe to ShowHtml.exe.txt (thanks you, JP Loken) and I confounded
>diskeeper lite and is not linked to Power Defragmenter.
>
>Any experiences with the relative merits of both ?

The French were scandalised by the idea that an estimated six to nine
percent of the revenues paid by its police ministry for Panda's Global
Virus Insurance might have gone into the coffers of the Church, which
was founded by L Ron Hubbard. The issue with Panda is similar to what
happened last year when the German government forced Microsoft to
implement a way to remove or disable Diskeeper in Windows 2000, which
was developed by Executive Software, whose chief executive was a
Scientologist.

I and many others who have researched the doings of this worldwide
cult, regardless of how many gullible movie stars support it, do not
use software associated with them. Anyone interested will find a
sickening dearth of information with a Google search of Scientology.

For anyone not interested, I am unaware of any problems with their
programs. I found Diskeeper at a couple megs, provided me with no
benefits over WinME defrag which is only 200K.

>I use Won XP Home SP2.
>
>Thanks
>Frank

BoB

BoB wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:28:26 +0100, FTR <news.ftr@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> FTR wrote:
>>> After the discussion here some time ago I installed diskeeper lite and
>>> power defragmenter. I thought power defragmenter is just a GUI for
>>> deskeeper . Or am I wrong ?
>>>
>>> Anyway, every nos and then when I restart the pc from hibernation I get
>>> a diskeeper lite message which invites me to buy the full version. No
>>> info whether a defragmentation took place.
>>>
>>> Does nayone know whether these nag screens are linked to a proir
>>> defragmentation ?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Frank
>>
>> My search in the group was not extensive ve enough. sorry Folks. Now I
>> now that the nag screen in Diskeeper lite can be stopped in rename
>> ShowHtml.exe to ShowHtml.exe.txt (thanks you, JP Loken) and I confounded
>> diskeeper lite and is not linked to Power Defragmenter.
>>
>> Any experiences with the relative merits of both ?
>
> The French were scandalised by the idea that an estimated six to nine
> percent of the revenues paid by its police ministry for Panda's Global
> Virus Insurance might have gone into the coffers of the Church, which
> was founded by L Ron Hubbard. The issue with Panda is similar to what
> happened last year when the German government forced Microsoft to
> implement a way to remove or disable Diskeeper in Windows 2000, which
> was developed by Executive Software, whose chief executive was a
> Scientologist.
>
I guess the Germans were more scandalised a couple of years ago when the
police in Southern Germany discovered that those people created the
software that helped the police transfer their data files.
And, if I remember well, this company also tranferred the files so all
criminal files of suspects in this part of South Germany could have been
read by the so-called church.
And it is not the German government that is at conflict with Microsoft
because of its exploiting of a monopolist position but the European
Union and the 25 countries that we unite.

> For anyone not interested, I am unaware of any problems with their
> programs. I found Diskeeper at a couple megs, provided me with no
> benefits over WinME defrag which is only 200K.
thanks; this will reduce the no of installed programs by one.
>
>> I use Won XP Home SP2.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Frank
>
> BoB
>

FTR <news.ftr@free.fr> wrote:

[snipped stuff about Scientology-infiltrated companies]

> I guess the Germans were more scandalised a couple of years ago when the
> police in Southern Germany discovered that those people created the
> software that helped the police transfer their data files.
> And, if I remember well, this company also tranferred the files so all
> criminal files of suspects in this part of South Germany could have been
> read by the so-called church.

This is not necessarily correct. In fact, given the fact that these
files contain by their very nature highly sensitive material, it is very
probably complete nonsense.

The fact that you transfer a file doesn't mean that you can read its
content. For starters it could be encrypted in a manner that even the
seemingly all-powerful Scientology guys can't decrypt (for instance with
a one-time pad).

Don't jump to conclusions only because these guys are demonised all over
the place. They have to contend with physics as the rest of us has to.
(Or have they? Perhaps they can decrypt stuff with many prayers and the
help of their God...?)

--
cheers thomasl

mail: thomas.lauer@virgin.net

Thomas Lauer wrote:
> FTR <news.ftr@free.fr> wrote:
>
> [snipped stuff about Scientology-infiltrated companies]
>
>> I guess the Germans were more scandalised a couple of years ago when the
>> police in Southern Germany discovered that those people created the
>> software that helped the police transfer their data files.
>> And, if I remember well, this company also tranferred the files so all
>> criminal files of suspects in this part of South Germany could have been
>> read by the so-called church.
>
> This is not necessarily correct. In fact, given the fact that these
> files contain by their very nature highly sensitive material, it is very
> probably complete nonsense.
>
> The fact that you transfer a file doesn't mean that you can read its
> content. For starters it could be encrypted in a manner that even the
> seemingly all-powerful Scientology guys can't decrypt (for instance with
> a one-time pad).
>
> Don't jump to conclusions only because these guys are demonised all over
> the place. They have to contend with physics as the rest of us has to.
> (Or have they? Perhaps they can decrypt stuff with many prayers and the
> help of their God...?)
>

I tried to find an Internet reference but didn't find. It was not me
that was scandalised but the security people at the police in Baden
Wuerttemberg who worked with an intranet. Maybe they discovered the
advantages of encrypted file on an Intranet ??


But now the thread leaves the freeware issue. At least I'll stop
Frank

FTR wrote:

> I guess the Germans were more scandalised a couple of years ago when
> the police in Southern Germany discovered that those people created
> the software that helped the police transfer their data files. And,
> if I remember well, this company also tranferred the files so all
> criminal files of suspects in this part of South Germany could have
> been read by the so-called church. And it is not the German
we unite.


Hello!



"Defragmentierung Microsoft Corp, Executive Software Int'l Version: 1.0"
This is what I found with Microsoft Windows XP.

The Sekt-program is vanished from NT5.1.... I think Win2000 do have it.



Firstly, the Scientology Program Diskkeeper is uneffective, as any
other NTFS Defragmenter... forget it. Why do you want defragment NTFS
Part`s??? Let it work and only wonder!


The last time I could see a use of a defragmenter was DOS. FAT16. And
that only if you have not started Smartdrive.exe. NT, not to mention
NTFS, is even better and makes the use of a defragmenter unnecessary
(caching-strategies!!!) You would get better results when taking care
for a fast system. (e.g. Fast genuine-CPU with low latency caches, fast
RAM with low latency and so on). NT4, 5, 5.1 does cache effectively!!
The Second start of a program does not profit of a defragmented HD!

All at all you would get some seconds of faster booting... I would say
:-)

Or when booting up XP many times a day ;.) (I start normally one time,
and leave it then on (the IBM-PC) till I turn off... that´s all)

Make use of XP. Diskkeeper is crap!





Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

Daniel Mandic wrote:
> FTR wrote:
>
>> I guess the Germans were more scandalised a couple of years ago when
>> the police in Southern Germany discovered that those people created
>> the software that helped the police transfer their data files. And,
>> if I remember well, this company also tranferred the files so all
>> criminal files of suspects in this part of South Germany could have
>> been read by the so-called church. And it is not the German
> we unite.
>
>
> Hello!
>
>
>
> "Defragmentierung Microsoft Corp, Executive Software Int'l Version: 1.0"
> This is what I found with Microsoft Windows XP.
>
> The Sekt-program is vanished from NT5.1.... I think Win2000 do have it.
>
>
>
> Firstly, the Scientology Program Diskkeeper is uneffective, as any
> other NTFS Defragmenter... forget it. Why do you want defragment NTFS
> Part`s??? Let it work and only wonder!
>
>
> The last time I could see a use of a defragmenter was DOS. FAT16. And
> that only if you have not started Smartdrive.exe. NT, not to mention
> NTFS, is even better and makes the use of a defragmenter unnecessary
> (caching-strategies!!!) You would get better results when taking care
> for a fast system. (e.g. Fast genuine-CPU with low latency caches, fast
> RAM with low latency and so on). NT4, 5, 5.1 does cache effectively!!
> The Second start of a program does not profit of a defragmented HD!
>
> All at all you would get some seconds of faster booting... I would say
> :-)
>
> Or when booting up XP many times a day ;.) (I start normally one time,
> and leave it then on (the IBM-PC) till I turn off... that´s all)
>
> Make use of XP. Diskkeeper is crap!
>
I extended my Ram from 250 MB to 1GB. THIS really accelerated my PC

Frank

Daniel Mandic wrote:

FTR wrote:



I guess the Germans were more scandalised a couple of years ago when the police in Southern Germany discovered that those people created the software that helped the police transfer their data files. And, if I remember well, this company also tranferred the files so all criminal files of suspects in this part of South Germany could have been read by the so-called church. And it is not the German



we unite. Hello! "Defragmentierung Microsoft Corp, Executive Software Int'l Version: 1.0" This is what I found with Microsoft Windows XP. The Sekt-program is vanished from NT5.1.... I think Win2000 do have it. Firstly, the Scientology Program Diskkeeper is uneffective, as any other NTFS Defragmenter... forget it. Why do you want defragment NTFS Part`s??? Let it work and only wonder! The last time I could see a use of a defragmenter was DOS. FAT16. And that only if you have not started Smartdrive.exe. NT, not to mention NTFS, is even better and makes the use of a defragmenter unnecessary (caching-strategies!!!) You would get better results when taking care for a fast system. (e.g. Fast genuine-CPU with low latency caches, fast RAM with low latency and so on). NT4, 5, 5.1 does cache effectively!! The Second start of a program does not profit of a defragmented HD! All at all you would get some seconds of faster booting... I would say :-) Or when booting up XP many times a day ;.) (I start normally one time, and leave it then on (the IBM-PC) till I turn off... that´s all) Make use of XP. Diskkeeper is crap! Best Regards, Daniel Mandic

If you check MS you will find that the XP defragment program IS Diskkeeper Lite.

TedK wrote:
> Daniel Mandic wrote:
>> FTR wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I guess the Germans were more scandalised a couple of years ago when
>>> the police in Southern Germany discovered that those people created
>>> the software that helped the police transfer their data files. And,
>>> if I remember well, this company also tranferred the files so all
>>> criminal files of suspects in this part of South Germany could have
>>> been read by the so-called church. And it is not the German
>>>
>> we unite.
>>
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>>
>>
>> "Defragmentierung Microsoft Corp, Executive Software Int'l Version: 1.0"
>> This is what I found with Microsoft Windows XP.
>>
>> The Sekt-program is vanished from NT5.1.... I think Win2000 do have it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Firstly, the Scientology Program Diskkeeper is uneffective, as any
>> other NTFS Defragmenter... forget it. Why do you want defragment NTFS
>> Part`s??? Let it work and only wonder!
>>
>>
>> The last time I could see a use of a defragmenter was DOS. FAT16. And
>> that only if you have not started Smartdrive.exe. NT, not to mention
>> NTFS, is even better and makes the use of a defragmenter unnecessary
>> (caching-strategies!!!) You would get better results when taking care
>> for a fast system. (e.g. Fast genuine-CPU with low latency caches, fast
>> RAM with low latency and so on). NT4, 5, 5.1 does cache effectively!!
>> The Second start of a program does not profit of a defragmented HD!
>>
>> All at all you would get some seconds of faster booting... I would say
>> :-)
>>
>> Or when booting up XP many times a day ;.) (I start normally one time,
>> and leave it then on (the IBM-PC) till I turn off... that´s all)
>>
>> Make use of XP. Diskkeeper is crap!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Daniel Mandic
>>
> If you check MS you will find that the XP defragment program IS
> Diskkeeper Lite.

Bravo!