What's the best freeware defragger to use in Windows XP Pro. SP2with limited free disk spaces?

[Phillip Pi]

The first thing is that volumes C and D do not have the normal 4 kb cluster
size. This can occur in certain situations if they are converted from FAT32
to NTFS without taking precautions. See the link which follows:
http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/ntfscvt.htm
The Default Cluster Size for the NTFS and FAT File Systems
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314878/en-us

Other than reformatting I do not know how to correct the error. Of course
with your C volume that involves reinstalling Windows XP and all that
entails.

Interesting. I did NOT set up these partitions and OS (think it was a
preinstalled image from IT since I remember having to get IT to set up
my account).

Can PartitionMagic v8.01 fix this (of course, backup)? If so, then how
much speed improvements am I expecting? Are you saying defragging won't
fix this slow issue?

How many drives are there? Are all volumes on the same drive or are they on
physically separate drives?

1 physical Maxtor HDD and three MS partitions (C:, D:, and E. And
there a Dell partition so that's four in total.

The problem with your C volume is more than likely the transaction log. What
is generating the log and what is recorded in the log? Some logs open using
notepad and you can delete older data leaving the more current information.

Not sure what it is. I see a bunch of lines like:
S2G: 5 8275
S2G: 5 8275
S2G: 5 8275
S2G: 5 7918
S2G: 5 7918
S2G: 5 7918
S2G: 5 7918
S2G: 5 7918
S2G: 5 7918
Process Explorer and Unlocker doesn't say who has this file opened.

The size and fragmentation of the file will be preventing effective
defragmentation by the Microsoft Defragmenter. You also have a number of
other log files. Do these also contain old data which you do not need to
keep?

When you run the Microsoft Disk Defragmenter does it complete leaving one or
two of the larger files or does it give up? You should always run cCleaner
(or Disk CleanUp ) before running Disk Defragmenter. If it completes leaving
some files run Disk Defragmenter again and see if the number of fragments
reduce. If this does not work download and run Defraggler. Given the amount
of free space on volume C I would expect Disk Defragmenter and / or
Defraggler to resolve the problem

I don't know. I will try again. I will try JKdefrag this time.

The problem with your D volume is the same as volume C but much more severe.
I would suspect the problem has been created by placing the images on the
volume when the volume is in a fragmented state. You might avoid the problem
in future by running Disk CleanUp and Disk Defragmenter before putting the
images on the volume. You have 3 large files, which if temporarily removed
from the volume, would enable Disk Defragmenter to work, although it might
take quite a time. Defraggler might work with the files still on the volume.

I can run it overnight or weekend if needed. I have had these VMware
images for years. The PC is pretty old (3-4 years old).

Do you have access to an external cradle and another hard drive, which you
could connect to your computer. You can then copy the large files to the
external drive deleting the original copies using Shift+Delete to bypass the
Recycle Bin, run Disk Defragmenter and copy the files back. You should find
the large files copied are only in a few fragments and not multi fragmented
as before.

I will try that if things get worse.

Your E volume should not cause defragmentation problems.

Yeah, it looks nice.
--
Phillip Pi
Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
ISP/Symantec Online Services, Consumer Business Unit
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was Monday, March 09, 2009 5:55:37 PM, and on a whim,
Phillip Pi pounded out on the keyboard:

Interesting. I did NOT set up these partitions and OS (think it was a
preinstalled image from IT since I remember having to get IT to set up
my account).

Can PartitionMagic v8.01 fix this (of course, backup)? If so, then how
much speed improvements am I expecting? Are you saying defragging won't
fix this slow issue?

Hi Phillip,

Someone is being very paranoid. There isn't anything wrong with your
cluster sizes. Most likely you have much less wasted space with 512
clusters, and you may have more fragmentation. So what. Use PM8 if you
have it. You can see what the difference in wasted space is by seeing
what you gain/lose by changing the cluster size. PM8 can change your
cluster size if you want it, but like you stated, create a backup first.

I have 3 hard drives with multiple partitions. OS, data, and program
drives are all 512kb cluster sizes. No issues. If you have large files
(video, etc), then use a larger size. But don't freak out because you
don't have 4k clusters. That's fretting over nothing.


Terry R.

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was Monday, March 09, 2009 5:55:37 PM, and on a whim,
Phillip Pi pounded out on the keyboard:

Interesting. I did NOT set up these partitions and OS (think it was a
preinstalled image from IT since I remember having to get IT to set up
my account).

Can PartitionMagic v8.01 fix this (of course, backup)? If so, then how
much speed improvements am I expecting? Are you saying defragging won't
fix this slow issue?

I also recommend JKDefrag, or lately I even like Ultimate Defrag better:
http://www.neowin.net/news/software/08/05/23/ultimatedefrag-freeware-edition-172

Terry R.

 

[Ant]

Someone is being very paranoid. There isn't anything wrong with your
cluster sizes. Most likely you have much less wasted space with 512
clusters, and you may have more fragmentation. So what. Use PM8 if you
have it. You can see what the difference in wasted space is by seeing
what you gain/lose by changing the cluster size. PM8 can change your
cluster size if you want it, but like you stated, create a backup first.

I have 3 hard drives with multiple partitions. OS, data, and program
drives are all 512kb cluster sizes. No issues. If you have large files
(video, etc), then use a larger size. But don't freak out because you
don't have 4k clusters. That's fretting over nothing.

OK, so no performance improvements I assume.
--
"Look not to the windmill's turning while the ant still burrows." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: (e-mail address removed)
( ) or (e-mail address removed)
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.

 

[Gerry]

Danny

How much minimum free disk space does JkDefrag require?
JkDefrag does not require a minimum free disk space, unlike many other
defragmenters. But:
Windows reserves some space for expansion of the MFT, default is 12.5% of
the volume size. This space is counted by Windows as free space because it
can/will be used for regular files when the rest of the volume is full.
JkDefrag cannot move files into this space, only out of ("reclaim MFT
reserved space").
A file can only be defragmented if there is a gap on disk big enough to hold
the entire file. There may be plenty of free space, but what is needed is a
single big gap. In these cases JkDefrag will try to reduce the number of
fragments in the file by using the biggest gaps available.
http://www.kessels.com/Jkdefrag/

--


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Gerry]

Phillip

Whilst I have no experience of using J K Defrag ( it may be an excellent
tool ) some of the claims voiced by others ( not Terry R ) are not true.
Quotes from the J K Defrag site follow:

"All fragmented files are defragmented, simply by moving them to the first
gap on the disk that is big enough. If there is no gap big enough then the
defragmenter will reduce the number of fragments in the file by moving as
much of the file as possible into the largest gaps available."

"How much minimum free disk space does JkDefrag require?
JkDefrag does not require a minimum free disk space, unlike many other
defragmenters. But:
Windows reserves some space for expansion of the MFT, default is 12.5% of
the volume size. This space is counted by Windows as free space because it
can/will be used for regular files when the rest of the volume is full.
JkDefrag cannot move files into this space, only out of ("reclaim MFT
reserved space").
A file can only be defragmented if there is a gap on disk big enough to hold
the entire file. There may be plenty of free space, but what is needed is a
single big gap. In these cases JkDefrag will try to reduce the number of
fragments in the file by using the biggest gaps available."
Sources: http://www.kessels.com/Jkdefrag/

--


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Ant]

Interesting. I wonder if mine has enough to do that. I was going to run
it last night, but I needed VMware to run stuff first.

Phillip

Whilst I have no experience of using J K Defrag ( it may be an excellent
tool ) some of the claims voiced by others ( not Terry R ) are not true.
Quotes from the J K Defrag site follow:

"All fragmented files are defragmented, simply by moving them to the first
gap on the disk that is big enough. If there is no gap big enough then the
defragmenter will reduce the number of fragments in the file by moving as
much of the file as possible into the largest gaps available."

"How much minimum free disk space does JkDefrag require?
JkDefrag does not require a minimum free disk space, unlike many other
defragmenters. But:
Windows reserves some space for expansion of the MFT, default is 12.5% of
the volume size. This space is counted by Windows as free space because it
can/will be used for regular files when the rest of the volume is full.
JkDefrag cannot move files into this space, only out of ("reclaim MFT
reserved space").
A file can only be defragmented if there is a gap on disk big enough to hold
the entire file. There may be plenty of free space, but what is needed is a
single big gap. In these cases JkDefrag will try to reduce the number of
fragments in the file by using the biggest gaps available."
Sources: http://www.kessels.com/Jkdefrag/

--
"Ants can carry twenty times their weight, which is useful information
if you're moving out and you need help getting a potato chip across
town." --Ron Darian
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: (e-mail address removed)
( ) or (e-mail address removed)
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was Monday, March 09, 2009 10:53:32 PM, and on a whim,
Ant pounded out on the keyboard:

OK, so no performance improvements I assume.

Phillip,

I doubt you will see any benefits by changing your cluster sizes by the
info you've provided.

If you are able to install and uninstall programs, you could go through
and uninstall any programs that aren't needed any longer. There are
most likely a lot of Windows patch folders that could be moved from
c:\windows to D: or E: (in the unlikely event they would ever need to be
uninstalled, they could be copied back to c:\windows). You could free
up hundreds of megs on C: by doing that. Learn more about that by
reading here:
http://windowsxp.mvps.org/Hotfix_backup.htm

Your pagefile on C: is already at a minimum size.

My bigger concern would be your "backup and archive" drive E:. It
appears there is only one hard drive in this workstation. So if your IT
dept. isn't backing up your local data to a server, or if your main data
isn't stored on a server and backed up, I would ask the IT people about
that. Because if you are backing up to E: thinking it's safe, it's a
false sense of security. If the hard drive fails you will lose C: D:
and E:, so you lose everything.


Terry R.

 

[Phillip Pi]

I doubt you will see any benefits by changing your cluster sizes by the
info you've provided.

OK. Then, I won't bother doing that then.

If you are able to install and uninstall programs, you could go through
and uninstall any programs that aren't needed any longer. There are
most likely a lot of Windows patch folders that could be moved from
c:\windows to D: or E: (in the unlikely event they would ever need to be
uninstalled, they could be copied back to c:\windows). You could free
up hundreds of megs on C: by doing that. Learn more about that by
reading here:
http://windowsxp.mvps.org/Hotfix_backup.htm

Yeah, I have tossed a lot of stuff out already especially SP2, hot
fixes, etc.

Your pagefile on C: is already at a minimum size.
Yes.


My bigger concern would be your "backup and archive" drive E:. It
appears there is only one hard drive in this workstation. So if your IT
dept. isn't backing up your local data to a server, or if your main data
isn't stored on a server and backed up, I would ask the IT people about
that. Because if you are backing up to E: thinking it's safe, it's a
false sense of security. If the hard drive fails you will lose C: D:
and E:, so you lose everything.

I do make weekly backups manually to a server as an offline and shared
backup. I use E: drive as my local storage.
--
Phillip Pi
Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
ISP/Symantec Online Services, Consumer Business Unit
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com

 

[Gerry]

Phillip

Earlier you queried whether there might be speed improvements from changing
the cluster size. This is not an easy one to answer as any performance gains
are difficult to measure and often subjective. The performance benefits
coming from a larger cluster size arise from a reduced rate of file
fragmentation where the average file size is large. You are of course trying
to resolve a situation where file fragmentation has become a serious problem
so ideally you would not want something that speeds up fragmentation. You
will see a noticeable improvement if you can eliminate fragmentation but
this will only last for a while until you need to cleanup and defragment
again. I suspect that the preliminary disk cleanup helps as much as
defragmentation. Apart from resolving severe fragmentation defragmenting is
only one measure contributing to better system performance. Other factors
are often more important. The CPU capacity and the amount of RAM are the
more important normal bottlenecks holding back system performance but there
are a number of other factors which can apply. I do not think changing the
cluster size is worthwhile given the likely benefits.

You would see an improved system performance if you could increase the
available free disk space to 25 to 35% but this is not easily measurable.

You have a pagefile on volume E, which is part of a single drive. Most
people, who have diverse views on best practice regarding the pagefile,
would not consider this helps system performance. You should either have a
single pagefile on volume C or have a dedicated pagefile partition as the
first partition on a second hard drive leaving a small pagefile in volume C.
Which is best causes many heated debates between the two opposing
viewpoints but no one would advocate what you have to achieve best
performance.

The logic underlying the partition structure is unclear to me. What is meant
to be the purpose of each partition? I cannot see the benefit to be gained
from moving files from C to D as both have limited free space. I cannot see
any system restore points. Has system restore been turned off. With regard
to C you might look at the points detailed below, which may marginally help.

Another default setting which could be wasteful is that for temporary
internet files, especially if you do not store offline copies on disk.
The default allocation is 3% of drive. Depending on your attitude to
offline copies you could reduce this to 1% or 2%. In Internet Explorer
select Tools, Internet Options, General, Temporary Internet Files,
Settings to make the change. At the same time look at the number of days
history is held.

The default allocation for the Recycle Bin is 10 % of drive. Change to
5%, which should be sufficient. In Windows Explorer place the cursor
on your Recycle Bin, right click and select Properties, Global and
move the slider from 10% to 5%. However, try to avoid letting it get
too full as if it is full and you delete a file by mistake it will
bypass the Recycle Bin and be gone for ever.

Select Start, All Programs, Accessories, System Tools, System
Information, Tools, Dr Watson and verify that the box before "Append to
existing log" is NOT checked. This means the next time the log is
written it will overwrite rather than add to the existing file.

If your drive is formatted as NTFS another potential gain arises with
your operating system on your C drive. In the Windows Directory of
your C partition you will have some Uninstall folders in your Windows
folder typically: $NtServicePackUninstall$ and $NtUninstallKB282010$
etc. These files may be compressed or not compressed. If compressed
the text of the folder name appears in blue characters. If not
compressed you can compress them. Right click on each folder and
select Properties, General, Advanced and check the box before Compress
contents to save Disk Space. On the General Tab you can see the amount
gained by deducting the size on disk from the size. Folder
compression is only an option on a NTFS formatted drive / partition.

--


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Lem]

OK. Then, I won't bother doing that then.



Yeah, I have tossed a lot of stuff out already especially SP2, hot
fixes, etc.



I do make weekly backups manually to a server as an offline and shared
backup. I use E: drive as my local storage.

This thread has gone on far too long.

There seems to be an extremely simple solution to your defragmenting
problem: pick some of the largest files/folders and *temporarily* move
them someplace else. You could move them to the server that you use as
"offline and shared backup," you could burn them to a CD or DVD, or you
could buy an inexpensive USB drive (or even a USB flash drive, given
that you're only going to be using it temporarily; you can get an 8GB
flash drive for less than $15
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...ption=usb flash&page=1&bop=And&SrchInDesc=8gb
or 16GB for less than $30
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...tion=usb flash&page=1&srchInDesc=16gb&bop=And).

Move enough files so that the Windows defragger has enough free space to
work, then move your files back.

--
Lem -- MS-MVP

To the moon and back with 2K words of RAM and 36K words of ROM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm

 

[Gerry]

Lem

What rule says you cannot have long conversations.. It can go on for as long
people wish to contribute. At least it a sensible conversation and not a
flame war.


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Lem]

Lem

What rule says you cannot have long conversations.. It can go on for as long
people wish to contribute. At least it a sensible conversation and not a
flame war.

No rule, just an observation.

--
Lem -- MS-MVP

To the moon and back with 2K words of RAM and 36K words of ROM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was Tuesday, March 10, 2009 12:15:32 PM, and on a
whim, Phillip Pi pounded out on the keyboard:

OK. Then, I won't bother doing that then.



Yeah, I have tossed a lot of stuff out already especially SP2, hot
fixes, etc.



I do make weekly backups manually to a server as an offline and shared
backup. I use E: drive as my local storage.

Hi Phillip,

Since you have limited hard disk space available, I don't see a lot of
solutions left. You could turn off System Restore and empty the Recycle
Bin, then optimize C: with either of the defraggers I suggested
yesterday. Also, when/if you turn SR back on, make sure you're only
monitoring drive C:, as monitoring D: and E: will eat up more disk
space. Since I keep regular backups, and like to keep my 5 OS
partitions small (7 gig at the most), I keep SR turned off all the time.
The main reason is SR has failed me and too many clients when it was
really needed, so it's a false sense of security IMO, so why depend on
it at all. A good backup schedule is by far the best protection.


Terry R.

 

[Phillip Pi]

Earlier you queried whether there might be speed improvements from changing
the cluster size. This is not an easy one to answer as any performance gains
are difficult to measure and often subjective. The performance benefits
coming from a larger cluster size arise from a reduced rate of file
fragmentation where the average file size is large. You are of course trying
to resolve a situation where file fragmentation has become a serious problem
so ideally you would not want something that speeds up fragmentation. You
will see a noticeable improvement if you can eliminate fragmentation but
this will only last for a while until you need to cleanup and defragment
again. I suspect that the preliminary disk cleanup helps as much as
defragmentation. Apart from resolving severe fragmentation defragmenting is
only one measure contributing to better system performance. Other factors
are often more important. The CPU capacity and the amount of RAM are the
more important normal bottlenecks holding back system performance but there
are a number of other factors which can apply. I do not think changing the
cluster size is worthwhile given the likely benefits.

Yeah, it's a tedious process to complete too. Also, risky if something
goes wrong.

You would see an improved system performance if you could increase the
available free disk space to 25 to 35% but this is not easily measurable.
OK.


You have a pagefile on volume E, which is part of a single drive. Most
people, who have diverse views on best practice regarding the pagefile,
would not consider this helps system performance. You should either have a
single pagefile on volume C or have a dedicated pagefile partition as the
first partition on a second hard drive leaving a small pagefile in volume C.
Which is best causes many heated debates between the two opposing
viewpoints but no one would advocate what you have to achieve best
performance.
OK.


The logic underlying the partition structure is unclear to me. What is meant
to be the purpose of each partition? I cannot see the benefit to be gained
from moving files from C to D as both have limited free space. I cannot see
any system restore points. Has system restore been turned off. With regard
to C you might look at the points detailed below, which may marginally help.

IT disabled system restore feature (enabling it gets denied). I guess it
is the same reason why you think it is useless.

Another default setting which could be wasteful is that for temporary
internet files, especially if you do not store offline copies on disk.
The default allocation is 3% of drive. Depending on your attitude to
offline copies you could reduce this to 1% or 2%. In Internet Explorer
select Tools, Internet Options, General, Temporary Internet Files,
Settings to make the change. At the same time look at the number of days
history is held.

I don't use offline feature. TIF is at 1%.

The default allocation for the Recycle Bin is 10 % of drive. Change to
5%, which should be sufficient. In Windows Explorer place the cursor
on your Recycle Bin, right click and select Properties, Global and
move the slider from 10% to 5%. However, try to avoid letting it get
too full as if it is full and you delete a file by mistake it will
bypass the Recycle Bin and be gone for ever.

I lowered from 30% to 5% to see how that goes. I usually keep my recycle
bin almost empty.

Select Start, All Programs, Accessories, System Tools, System
Information, Tools, Dr Watson and verify that the box before "Append to
existing log" is NOT checked. This means the next time the log is
written it will overwrite rather than add to the existing file.

Already unchecked.

If your drive is formatted as NTFS another potential gain arises with
your operating system on your C drive. In the Windows Directory of
your C partition you will have some Uninstall folders in your Windows
folder typically: $NtServicePackUninstall$ and $NtUninstallKB282010$
etc. These files may be compressed or not compressed. If compressed
the text of the folder name appears in blue characters. If not
compressed you can compress them. Right click on each folder and
select Properties, General, Advanced and check the box before Compress
contents to save Disk Space. On the General Tab you can see the amount
gained by deducting the size on disk from the size. Folder
compression is only an option on a NTFS formatted drive / partition.

Yes, it is in NTFS and has compress feature. I do delete old hotfixes,
SP2 upgrade, etc.

I find it strange for IT to make my D: drive the local Windows account
directories/folders. It seems like they made C: for system stuff, D: for
data stuff, etc.
--
Phillip Pi
Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
ISP/Symantec Online Services, Consumer Business Unit
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com

 

[Phillip Pi]

Since you have limited hard disk space available, I don't see a lot of
solutions left. You could turn off System Restore and empty the Recycle
Bin, then optimize C: with either of the defraggers I suggested
yesterday. Also, when/if you turn SR back on, make sure you're only
monitoring drive C:, as monitoring D: and E: will eat up more disk
space. Since I keep regular backups, and like to keep my 5 OS
partitions small (7 gig at the most), I keep SR turned off all the time.
The main reason is SR has failed me and too many clients when it was
really needed, so it's a false sense of security IMO, so why depend on
it at all. A good backup schedule is by far the best protection.

Thanks for the tips. Yes, I do all those. IT disabled SR. I am not sure
why. Maybe they also think SR is useless.
--
Phillip Pi
Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst
ISP/Symantec Online Services, Consumer Business Unit
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com

 

[Gerry]

Phillip

System Restore -"I guess it is the same reason why you think it is useless."

I have not expressed any views on the functionality of System Restore. I do
not subscribe to that view. Most of the problems from using System Restore
arise from users not understanding the mechanics of System Restore and from
third party security software ( Norton is a major offender ) who have
written software which does not deal with it's relationship with System
Restore in a responsible manner.


--


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[BillW50]

In Gerry typed on Sat, 7 Mar 2009 22:24:04 -0000:

Like Patrick I have long been an advocate of using the Microsoft Disk
Defragmenter...

I actually have been using defraggers since the 80's and with the
exception of MFM drives, I *never* have seen an improvement from
defragging. My theory is the bus speed is slower than the reading of a
fragmented IDE drive anyway. Another possibility is that I only buy slow
CPU based machines. As I don't need Lear jet power to play DVDs.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

 

[BillW50]

In Ant typed on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:01:22 -0700:

Yeah. I know IT will force SP3 when SP2 ends its support. For now,
SP2. --

Everybody have a short memory or what? Nobody remembers the horrors of
upgrading to SP2? That was a *major* disaster for many! I tried to
upgrade three machines here and they all slowed down to a snail's pace.
The only fix to have SP2, was a total reinstall of a slipstream version
with SP2 included. That actually worked for me.

Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

 

[BillW50]

In Terry R. typed on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:38:23 -0700:

... I keep SR turned off all the time. The main reason is SR has
failed me and too many clients when it was really needed, so it's a
false sense of security IMO, so why depend on it at all.

Strange! It has saved my and millions of others all of the time.

A good backup schedule is by far the best protection.

Software backups are totally useless if your hardware fails. So that
isn't a good plan in my book. Only software and hardware backups are
the only way to go IMHO.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu