Disk Defragmenter Tells Lies?

[unbreakable]

I remember when you defraged in win98 all the info was moved to the start of
the drive nice and neat. In win XP
it says it defragments but leaves the data all around the disk! The
individual files may not be fragmented but I want total defrag. Any free
program or shareware that can do this?
I would like to include the defrag of the page file too...

 

[Will Denny]

Hi

Certain files in XP can't be 'defragged':

"Files That You Cannot Defragment"
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/prkd_tro_ldtg.asp

The pagefile can be deframented with instructions on the above link.

Will

 

[johnf]

Have a look at Diskeeper, which is the full-blown version of the XP one.
Especially check out the Boot-Time Defragmentation, (under Actions), & 'Set
it and forget it'.

 

[Plato]

I remember when you defraged in win98 all the info was moved to the start of
the drive nice and neat. In win XP
it says it defragments but leaves the data all around the disk! The
individual files may not be fragmented but I want total defrag. Any free
program or shareware that can do this?
I would like to include the defrag of the page file too...

Some apps to play with:
http://www.raxco.com
http://www.executive.com/downloads/menu.asp

 

[unbreakable]

thanks to all!


Hi

Certain files in XP can't be 'defragged':

"Files That You Cannot Defragment"
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/prkd_tro_ldtg.a
sp

The pagefile can be deframented with instructions on the above link.

Will

 

[javacatREMOVETHIS]

I w98, most defrager's were implimented as special device drivers, and
they defrag'd the drive directly, bypassing the OS; as such they could
do virtually anything they wanted -- they were fast, and complete.
SpeedDisk under w98 did a very complete job, moving dir's up front and
sorting all files on the disk in directory order. It even sorted the
dir's themselves.

Under XP, there is a new MS-Approved Defragmenting API [ie, software
routines] within the OS itself that all the XP defrager's use. These
routines are designed to be "safe", but not fast. They work on NTFS or
FAT drivers. But they are limited to simply defraging a file, nothing
more - no dir sort, no optimization. [Most boot-time defrager's can move
the dirs to the front of the drive, and they can defrag the page file and
the MFT].

As a result, under XP defraggers are "not as good as" they used to be!
But they have MS's blessing now.

Diskeeper and PerfectDisk are generally considered the best choices
available. SpeedDisk under XP is ok too, and is DOES support some
"optimizations" [you can specify files-first and files-last]; it
does not have a boot-time defrager, its major failing [Symantec
says it's working on it]. None of them are very fast.

I Wish Symantec would bring the old SpeedDisk Driver Version up to date;
even if it means booting to a special OS and running it stand-alone,
I miss the all-encompassing optimization that it performed. And damn
it was fast!

 

[Charles C. Drew]

Have you actually run recent versions of Diskeeper or PerfectDisk? They may
not display as pretty a drive map, or display defrag progress as smoothly,
but they do cause a noticeable performance change on the PCs they run on. I
know because I've used all three (including Speedisk which is very poor for
W2k and XP).


| I w98, most defrager's were implimented as special device drivers, and
| they defrag'd the drive directly, bypassing the OS; as such they could
| do virtually anything they wanted -- they were fast, and complete.
| SpeedDisk under w98 did a very complete job, moving dir's up front and
| sorting all files on the disk in directory order. It even sorted the
| dir's themselves.
|
| Under XP, there is a new MS-Approved Defragmenting API [ie, software
| routines] within the OS itself that all the XP defrager's use. These
| routines are designed to be "safe", but not fast. They work on NTFS or
| FAT drivers. But they are limited to simply defraging a file, nothing
| more - no dir sort, no optimization. [Most boot-time defrager's can move
| the dirs to the front of the drive, and they can defrag the page file and
| the MFT].
|
| As a result, under XP defraggers are "not as good as" they used to be!
| But they have MS's blessing now.
|
| Diskeeper and PerfectDisk are generally considered the best choices
| available. SpeedDisk under XP is ok too, and is DOES support some
| "optimizations" [you can specify files-first and files-last]; it
| does not have a boot-time defrager, its major failing [Symantec
| says it's working on it]. None of them are very fast.
|
| I Wish Symantec would bring the old SpeedDisk Driver Version up to date;
| even if it means booting to a special OS and running it stand-alone,
| I miss the all-encompassing optimization that it performed. And damn
| it was fast!
|

 

[Andy Lee]

Under XP, there is a new MS-Approved Defragmenting API [ie, software
routines] within the OS itself that all the XP defrager's use. These
routines are designed to be "safe", but not fast. They work on NTFS or
FAT drivers. But they are limited to simply defraging a file, nothing
more - no dir sort, no optimization. [Most boot-time defrager's can move
the dirs to the front of the drive, and they can defrag the page file and
the MFT].

Well its obvious you have not used the latest ver of Diskkeeper for XP
then. It does have Boot time defrag it does have file re-order It can
defrag the pagefile, etc etc.

As a result, under XP defraggers are "not as good as" they used to be!
But they have MS's blessing now.

The built in Defrag in XP is just a cut down ver of Diskkeeper that MS
license from Executive Software missing most of the bits mentioned
above.

Diskeeper and PerfectDisk are generally considered the best choices
available. SpeedDisk under XP is ok too, and is DOES support some
"optimizations" [you can specify files-first and files-last]; it
does not have a boot-time defrager, its major failing [Symantec
says it's working on it]. None of them are very fast.

Like most Symantec products Symantec are always "working on it". Thats
cause most of their stuff is overblown shite with more hooks into the
OS than an Angling club. Speed Disk was crap, still is crap and will
always be crap Its the only defragger I've ever used that screwed up a
HD.The only product they make worth anything is Ghost. The full
version of Diskkeeper is way faster than the builtin ver in XP.

I Wish Symantec would bring the old SpeedDisk Driver Version up to date;
even if it means booting to a special OS and running it stand-alone,
I miss the all-encompassing optimization that it performed. And damn
it was fast!

Don't hold your breath Symantec have never been good at giving the
customer what they want as opposed to what Symantec "think" you want.

 

[javacatREMOVETHIS]

No wonder. Change to NTFS.

Been there, done that. NTFS is NOT faster, not on a 30 GB drive.

 

[Andy Lee]

Obvious to someone who doesn't read too well, I guess. I do use
Diskeeper, and it's fine, I didn't say it wasn't. Stop being so
defensive.

Sorry defensive had nothing to do with it. Looking at the other
responses your post recieved either we all misinterpreted what you
said/implied or you did. You never mentioned anywhere in your post
that you used Diskkeeper, you commented on its failings which implied
you may have looked at it and discarded it as not suitable.

I did not say it would not do boot-time defrag, I said
SpeeDisk doesn't. Nothing in my post demeaned Diskeeper at all. In fact,
I said "Diskeeper and PerfectDisk are generally considered the best
choices available."

So the comment that

As a result, under XP defraggers are "not as good as" they used to be!
But they have MS's blessing now

Was not meant as a put down. Sorry I must have interpreted what you
said.

BTW, it does NOT re-order files in directory order, it does NOT sort the
directories themselves, you can NOT designate files to be placed first or
last. It does not reorder files at all - it just defrags 'em [Boot-time
defrag can put dirs up front tho].

Yes I know all this you may have notice I mentioned only the things
it does have, you even quoted them above. Maybe we have a different
idea about what file reorder is.

It IS much slower than Speedisk was
under W98, but, as I said, they ALL ARE now. Diskeeper is my choice, even
tho I have Speedisk installed. But there's room for improvement, for sure.

But if Speeddisk does things that Diskkeeper does not, why are you not
using that instead. Maybe the things Diskkeeper does are actually
worth doing. I don't know wether most of the things Speed disk could
do were ever worth doing anything anyway.