Diskeeper Lite vs. Disk Defragmenter in System Tools

[xp_newbie]

In my brand new Lenovo laptop I received Windows XP Pro pre-installed
with lots of other software that either expire within 3 months or
simply have very limited functionality. This is probably more for the
financial benefit of Lenovo (whatever deal they cut with the software
companies of which software they are trying to promote), then for the
benefit of their consumer...

One of these promotional bloatware is Diskeeper Lite. When invoked, it
pops up a screen that says in the beginning:

"Diskeeper Lite can keep your computer running fast; just like new.
How? Your Windows operating system regularly saves data to your hard
drive by fragmenting it into pieces. Throughout the day, fragmentation
continues to accumulate increasing the time it takes to access your
files or execute a task. Diskeeper Lite eliminates fragmentation and
quickly returns your computer to its "like new" state.

Fragmentation accumulates so fast, it can affect performance in only a
few hours of use. Manually running a defragmenter will not keep up with
fragmentation. The best way to keep fragmentation eliminated is
automatic defragmentation."

I was happy that Lenovo was so generous as to provide me with this
wonderful utility... Until I read the next sentence:

"Diskeeper Lite can only be operated manually. It was developed as an
introduction to our fully automatic version of Diskeeper. [Buy
Diskeeper Now]".

Now... if one one hand "Manually running a defragmenter will not keep
up with fragmentation" and on the other hand "Diskeeper Lite can only
be operated manually", why use Diskeeper Lite at all???

Doesn't Disk Defragmenter (in System Tools) that comes with Windows XP
actually do the same ("manually")?

If not, please enlighten me about the advantage of using the
promotional Diskeeper Lite - MANUALLY...

Thanks,
Alex

 

[xp_newbie]

Believe it or not, I found a similar posting in alt.comp.freeware:
http://tinyurl.com/rygka

Diskeeper Lite is called there misery-ware. :-D

After running it once I understand why.

 

[Synapse Syndrome]

In my brand new Lenovo laptop I received Windows XP Pro pre-installed
with lots of other software that either expire within 3 months or
simply have very limited functionality. This is probably more for the
financial benefit of Lenovo (whatever deal they cut with the software
companies of which software they are trying to promote), then for the
benefit of their consumer...

One of these promotional bloatware is Diskeeper Lite. When invoked, it
pops up a screen that says in the beginning:

"Diskeeper Lite can keep your computer running fast; just like new.
How? Your Windows operating system regularly saves data to your hard
drive by fragmenting it into pieces. Throughout the day, fragmentation
continues to accumulate increasing the time it takes to access your
files or execute a task. Diskeeper Lite eliminates fragmentation and
quickly returns your computer to its "like new" state.

Fragmentation accumulates so fast, it can affect performance in only a
few hours of use. Manually running a defragmenter will not keep up with
fragmentation. The best way to keep fragmentation eliminated is
automatic defragmentation."

I was happy that Lenovo was so generous as to provide me with this
wonderful utility... Until I read the next sentence:

"Diskeeper Lite can only be operated manually. It was developed as an
introduction to our fully automatic version of Diskeeper. [Buy
Diskeeper Now]".

Now... if one one hand "Manually running a defragmenter will not keep
up with fragmentation" and on the other hand "Diskeeper Lite can only
be operated manually", why use Diskeeper Lite at all???

Doesn't Disk Defragmenter (in System Tools) that comes with Windows XP
actually do the same ("manually")?

If not, please enlighten me about the advantage of using the
promotional Diskeeper Lite - MANUALLY...

The Windows Disk Defragmenter is actually based on an earlier verion of the
retail Diskeeper program, so I don't think there will be much difference in
performance at all.

"The Disk Defragmenter tool is based on the full retail version of Diskeeper
by Executive Software International, Inc."

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=227463

I use Winternals Defrag as it doesn't even need to be installed on
workstation machines, only the server.

ss.

 

[xp_newbie]

And here is another reference, which this time suggests that "Microsoft
Defrag: is actually Diskeeper Lite!"???

http://tinyurl.com/p4jdd

Strange. If Diskeeper Lite is actually Microsoft Defrage, why then put
it on my laptop?

 

[xp_newbie]

OK. Thanks. I can now proceed with uninstalling it. It keeps popping up
a window nagging me to buy the full version. Let me tell you, this is
annoying.

 

[Roy Coorne]

(e-mail address removed) scribbled:

OK. Thanks. I can now proceed with uninstalling it. It keeps popping up
a window nagging me to buy the full version. Let me tell you, this is
annoying.

As XP newbie you may wish to apply the free version of O&O Defrag
available at <http://www.freewareweb.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?ID=1470>
which I use for W2K and WinXP with both success and pleasure;-)

(e-mail address removed)

 

[xp_newbie]

As XP newbie you may wish to apply the free version of O&O Defrag
available at <http://www.freewareweb.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?ID=1470>
which I use for W2K and WinXP with both success and pleasure;-)

Thanks for the tip, Roy. My only question now is what advantages does
it provide over the WXP built-in defrag utility?

And given that it is a freeware as opposed to the pro version:

http://www.oo-software.com/en/products/oodefrag/pro/

Isn't this essentially the same deal as the Diskeeper Lite?

Thanks,
Alex

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

FWIW...

I've had XP installed on my computer since it was released in '01, and
I've not defragged more than a few times... meaning less than six.

And each time I did so, the system told me that it was unnecessary.