diskeeper lite defragmenter

[FTR]

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]

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

 

[BoB]

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

 

[FTR]

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.

 

[Thomas Lauer]

[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...?)

 

[FTR]

[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

 

[Daniel Mandic]

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

 

[FTR]

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

 

[TedK]

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.

 

[FTR]

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

Bravo!

 

[Peter Seiler]

FTR - 18.01.2006 11:04 :

[snipped]

Bravo!

"Bravo" for unnecessarely fullquoting ~ 75 quotinglines again. *GRRR*

Please learn to quote. THX in advance.

 

[Daniel Mandic]

FTR wrote:

Bravo!

Can you copy and paste that, and reply it here?

I have not found the words Diskkeeper.
Executive Software, yes, but where is Diskkeeper?



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[TedK]

FTR wrote:







Can you copy and paste that, and reply it here?

I have not found the words Diskkeeper.
Executive Software, yes, but where is Diskkeeper?



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

Daniel, the site is: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/227463/ The
following is specific.

(Quote)


SUMMARY

The Disk Defragmenter tool is based on the full retail version of
Diskeeper by Executive Software International, Inc. The version that is
included with Microsoft Windows 2000 and later provides limited
functionality in maintaining disk performance by defragmenting volumes
that use the FAT, the FAT32, or the NTFS file system. (Unquote)

Cordially,
TedK

 

[Daniel Mandic]

The Disk Defragmenter tool is based on the full retail version of
Diskeeper by Executive Software International, Inc. The version that
is included with Microsoft Windows 2000 and later provides limited
functionality in maintaining disk performance by defragmenting
volumes that use the FAT, the FAT32, or the NTFS file system.
(Unquote)

Cordially,
TedK

Well, first of all it´s nowhere written in the INFO that the program is
called 'Diskkeeper'
Second, I do not start the program. So it is the same, if it where not
here. For DOS and FAT16 I have MS-Defrag.exe. Ntfs do not need a defrag
(XP don´t need)




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Thomas Lauer]

Ntfs do not need a defrag (XP don´t need)

Can you elaborate? I am a heavy user of NTFS and I have to defragment my
drives regularly. Am I missing something?

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Can you elaborate? I am a heavy user of NTFS and I have to defragment
my drives regularly. Am I missing something?

Sers,


Just do as you wish. I am cured


FAT16, O.K. but NTFS? I thought it is one of the strenghts of NTFS,
that you never need to defragment it (it stays reliable). Maybe you can
quench out some speed with defragging, but not enough, and the risk is
higher than the benefit.

Just think about a power-failure, exactly at that point of the HD where
your favourite (unique - no backup) program or file lies !!!





Kind Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Thomas Lauer]

FAT16, O.K. but NTFS? I thought it is one of the strenghts of NTFS,
that you never need to defragment it (it stays reliable).

Ah, I see... but reliable and defragmented is not the same. The fact is
that a defragmented partition (even NTFS) is more stable and faster than
a non-defragmented one.

Maybe you can quench out some speed with defragging, but not enough,
and the risk is higher than the benefit.

Okay, I get it and that sounds more like what I'd expect. It sure is a
valid assessment.

Just think about a power-failure, exactly at that point of the HD where
your favourite (unique - no backup) program or file lies !!!

No backup? You must be joking

 

[BoB]

Big Snip

Bravo!

News to me but wouldn't be surprised. One more reason to add to
the dozens already noted to pass on XP/Vista/et al.

I have better ways to spend my time than patching software. I see
the first patches have been provided to Vista beta testers.

BoB

 

[Sietse Fliege]

Those who are interested in Diskeeper Lite (last free version V7) may want
to know about Diskeeper Lite V9 ! I copied this information:

"On the Intel site I found Diskeeper Lite 9! To get it you need to
download the full version (89MB) of Intel Desktop Utilities.
Once downloaded, run the exe to unzip its contents into a folder of your
choice. In the directory tree created you will find these folders:
..../3rdparty/Diskeeper/ and ...3rdpartyDiskeeper.64.
Works great and the new Performance tab is excellent.

In the Readme_EN.txt and in the License Agreement I didn't find any rules
prohibiting downloading and using this program (on a single computer),
therefore I am assuming there aren't any. Please note that both on my
desktop and on my laptop the installation failed unless I uninstalled
previous version of Diskeeper Lite.
Windows 2000 and later, 89 MB "

 

[Sietse Fliege]

Those who are interested in Diskeeper Lite (last free version V7) may
want to know about Diskeeper Lite V9 ! I copied this information:

"On the Intel site I found Diskeeper Lite 9! To get it you need to
download the full version (89MB) of Intel Desktop Utilities.
Once downloaded, run the exe to unzip its contents into a folder of
your choice. In the directory tree created you will find these
folders: .../3rdparty/Diskeeper/ and ...3rdpartyDiskeeper.64.
Works great and the new Performance tab is excellent.

In the Readme_EN.txt and in the License Agreement I didn't find any
rules prohibiting downloading and using this program (on a single
computer), therefore I am assuming there aren't any. Please note that
both on my desktop and on my laptop the installation failed unless I
uninstalled previous version of Diskeeper Lite.
Windows 2000 and later, 89 MB "

I forgot the link:
http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/software/idu/