Speed Disk vs Defrag

  • Thread starter Thread starter JCO
  • Start date Start date
In article <#sHjHjMzIHA.5852@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca says...
> Leythos wrote:
>
> > In article <#NnCTFJzIHA.548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca
> > says...
[snip]
>
> No, NTFS does not "daisy-chain" clusters! It's all held in the file
> attributes within the MFT. The MFT has a mirror for error
> recoverability, the location of both of those is held in the boot
> sector. In addition to those there is a log file that is used for file
> recovery.

I'm not really arguing with you, but what happens to the MFT when you
delete a partition and it's the ONLY partition on a disk?

The reason I ask is that I've had a Drive improperly managed and a new
admin broke the array (soft) and then deleted the partitions, didn't
format, just deleted the partitions - so, it showed the entire drive as
unused. I was able to use an old program called Undelete to recover all
the files - although they were named recoveredfile001. (and proper
extension).

I'm just wondering - that's all.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
 
Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>The cluster points to the next cluster for files that span clusters, the
>>>FAT only points to the first cluster that a file uses, the clusters
>>>point to the next cluster.
>>
>>That is how it works with FAT/FAT32 but it doesn't work like that at all
>>with NTFS. On NTFS that information is all kept as attributes in the
>>MFT, the file system does not need to flip trough each individual
>>cluster to find the next one, it's all held in a Virtual Cluster Number
>>to Logical Cluster map (VCN-to-LCN) in the file's data attribute.
>
>
> That sounds like a more sensible and robust approach, since you don't have
> to go out and read all the disk clusters to find out where the next one is
> (and pray that one of them isn't corrupt, breaking the chain).

That is not really how it works, (on FAT) the clusters are daisy-chained
in the FAT, the operating system doesn't open successive clusters to
find out where the next one is, it reads that information in the FAT.
The first cluster information for the file is found in the Directory
entry and the other cluster information along with the last cluster is
read from the FAT. In any case, if a cluster in the chain is corrupt
the whole file is usually unreadable or corrupt anyway, chkdsk can
locate and try to repair these bad clusters but most of the time the
recovered clusters are of much use and the corrupt files are not easily,
if at all repairable.

John
 
> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up.
> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data
> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover
> the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and
> stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is
> together.
> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you
> should use both tools.
> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it
> matter? Can one tool undermine the other?
>
> Thanks

Since they use two different methodologies, each will cause the other to
have a lot of defrag work to do. In general, in my case at least, I've
found that Speed Disk gives me the longest lasting tiem between needs to
defrag. Run defrag multiple times and the latter times will go quickly
same with speed disk. Run one then the other and you'll be waiting
every single time.

IF you have speed disk and it works well for you, especially if you use
any of its most useful features that defrag doesn't have, you're ahead
of the game. If you're "just a user" then it's not going to matter
much.

But, pick one and stay with it.

HTH
 
> JCO wrote:
>> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up.
>> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data
>> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover
>> the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and
>> stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is
>> together. If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems
>> that you
>> should use both tools.
>> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it
>> matter? Can one tool undermine the other?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>
> First, IMO, the term defrag does not necessarily imply its going to
> order anything. Defrag is just the process of joining all the
> segments of a fragmented file into one file on contiguous sectors of
> the HD. Not necessarily any special place. There are defraggers like
> O&O
> defrag that I like that will let you order them by date used, date
> created, name or just do a fast defrag filling holes.
> I'm not sure if there is any logic to the built in version in XP.
> And I truely can't talk about Norton.
>
> So when you say Speed Disk does an ordering, and stacks it up front,
> that's basically the same thing the internal XP one does, maybe not
> the ordering, I don't know about XP's logic if any. It does pull all
> the files forward (if you wish to use that term) and leaves the
> remainder of the drive in the back. I do think however that XP's
> Defrag does hop around the NTFS MFT files and any unmovable files.
> Norton might be more bold and move a bit more. I've seen utilities
> that say they do
> shuffle and rebuild the registry (which is normally unmovable) and MFT
> area but I'm not sure I want those things moved on a running system
> anyway.
> I think just running XP's defrag would suffice most system maintenance
> plans.

You're absolutely right XPs defrag is fine and there's no reason to
avoid it. Speed Disk is a little better and does allow you to put your
choice of files first, middle, last, next to last, or combinations of
those, on the disk. For one who knows what files he works on the most
and which cause the most fragmantation to occur, those features can be
very handy. Those same features in the hands of a non-thinking
inxperienced person though can slow the machine down as much or more
than normal fragmentation does. Example: Putting all Word docs on the
outer tracks and all temp and .BAK docs on the inner tracks just outside
the system area, would cause a LOT of disk seeking/thrashing every time
you press a key! So, it's like most other things use your head and
know what they do, then follow the mfgr's advice wherever possible
unless you are certain you know better.

HTH
 
> "JCO" wrote in <news:YOD3k.4070$8q2.2595@trnddc02>:
>
>> Thanks very much for the info.
>> Issue with the XP Defrag then is that it will only do one drive
>> (partition) at a time. I have 8-partitions so it's nice to set them
>> all to Defrag and go to bed.
>
> Use the Task Scheduler for that. That's what I do. Schedule an event
> to run the defrag once per month on each partition. Do NOT have them
> all running at the same time. For 8 partitions, have them scheduled
> (only an example):
>
> defrag c: - 1st MON of the month
> defrag d: - 1st TUE of the month
> defrag e: - 1st WED of the month
> defrag f: - 1st THU of the month
> defrag g: - 1st FRI of the month
> defrag h: - 1st SAT of the month
> defrag i: - 2nd SUN of the month
> defrag j: - 2nd MON of the month
>
> Have them scheduled to run at, like, 3AM in the morning. Of course,
> you could write a batch file that used the 'for' command to walk
> through a series of drive letters and on each loop run the defrag.exe
> with that drive letter as its parameter, and you could even schedule
> a single event in Task Scheduler to run that batch file. Depends on
> how convoluted you want to go: simple with lots of scheduled event,
> or more complicated with a single schedule event.

But speed disk will do all that pretty much automagically for you. And
monthly isn't always a good schedule. Some drives need it more often,
others less often.
I find it very useful, actually, the way SD implement it.
Unfortunately I'm a video editor so the amount of fragmentation can
be pretty important to me when I have to defrag a drive two or sometimes
three times in a day (after each session) to keep things zipping along.
Once you get used to it, speed disk can work faster and more efficiently
than defrag but, like I said, defrag is also perfectly acceptable when
it's what you have available.
I also find that defragging in the background adds a lot of time
between needing defrags, too. Speed Disk implemented that well and you
never notice it having to pause anything so you can start using the
system again. The inactive period before background defrag kicks in is
also adjustable.
And with either method, it's important to know how to tell whether
you really need to defrag or not. If the fragments are in files you
never use, the defrag can still wait, for example. And I didn't mean to
say schedules arean't useful they definitely ARE, and monthly is a good
middle of the road schedule to keep the defragging times reasonable.
The more fragmented a drive becomes, the longer it takes to defrag it
especially the larger drives if you have partitions over say 80 Gig.
For this and other easons I try to keep my partitions at 40 to 80 Gigs
each.

HTH
 
> In article <3nD3k.3801$8q2.2416@trnddc02>, someone@somewhere.com
> says...
>> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up.
>> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data
>> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover
>> the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and
>> stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is
>> together.
>>
>> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you
>> should use both tools.
>> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it
>> matter? Can one tool undermine the other?
>
> Actually, the pointers remain, that's how the file system works, each
> cluster points to the next in line for the file to continue.
>
> What Defrag attempts to do is make the FILE contiguous so that the r/w
> heads don't waste time seeking across disk space without reading.
>
> Fragmented file (F = File) . = some other file
> FFF...F......FFFFFFFFF.....FFFF
>
> Defragmented
> ....FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.......
>
> Defragmenting does not always include PACKING the files against each
> other.

Also true and that's another method of minimizing frequency of degrags
too.
 
> What extra unwanted baggage comes with Speed Disk?
>
>
>
> JCO wrote:
>> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up.
>> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data
>> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover
>> the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and
>> stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is
>> together.
>> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you
>> should use both tools.
>> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it
>> matter? Can one tool undermine the other?
>>
>> Thanks

Not sure what you mean none that I know of. But Speed Disk isn't I
don't think, availalble as a standalone. It's part of several other
packages that make up Norton, namely SystemWorks.
 
I think one thing all defrag software, (speed disk included)
is that they all use Microsoft's MoveFile.api which limits to
some extent what this type of software can do.

Windows built in defrag software is based on Diskeeper's
software. Speed disk lost a lot of functionality about two
or 3 years after Windows XP was released, as they
where either forced or chose to use the MoveFile.api

JS

"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:%23%23ejjoOzIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up.
>> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data
>> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover
>> the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and
>> stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is
>> together.
>> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you
>> should use both tools.
>> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it
>> matter? Can one tool undermine the other?
>>
>> Thanks
>
> Since they use two different methodologies, each will cause the other to
> have a lot of defrag work to do. In general, in my case at least, I've
> found that Speed Disk gives me the longest lasting tiem between needs to
> defrag. Run defrag multiple times and the latter times will go quickly
> same with speed disk. Run one then the other and you'll be waiting every
> single time.
>
> IF you have speed disk and it works well for you, especially if you use
> any of its most useful features that defrag doesn't have, you're ahead of
> the game. If you're "just a user" then it's not going to matter much.
>
> But, pick one and stay with it.
>
> HTH
>
>
 
Leythos wrote:

> I'm not really arguing with you, but what happens to the MFT when you
> delete a partition and it's the ONLY partition on a disk?
>
> The reason I ask is that I've had a Drive improperly managed and a new
> admin broke the array (soft) and then deleted the partitions, didn't
> format, just deleted the partitions - so, it showed the entire drive as
> unused. I was able to use an old program called Undelete to recover all
> the files - although they were named recoveredfile001. (and proper
> extension).
>
> I'm just wondering - that's all.

When you delete partitions the entries are removed from the partition
table, the rest of the information is still untouched on the disk. I
don't know all that much about recovery software but I think that in
that case it would look or scan for the partition boot sector(s) on the
drive and from the boot sector it would find the information necessary
to rebuild the partition table.

John
 
The date and time was 6/12/2008 5:50 PM, and on a whim, JS pounded out
on the keyboard:

> I think one thing all defrag software, (speed disk included)
> is that they all use Microsoft's MoveFile.api which limits to
> some extent what this type of software can do.
>
> Windows built in defrag software is based on Diskeeper's
> software. Speed disk lost a lot of functionality about two
> or 3 years after Windows XP was released, as they
> where either forced or chose to use the MoveFile.api
>
> JS
>
> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:%23%23ejjoOzIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up.
>>> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data
>>> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover
>>> the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and
>>> stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is
>>> together.
>>> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you
>>> should use both tools.
>>> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it
>>> matter? Can one tool undermine the other?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>> Since they use two different methodologies, each will cause the other to
>> have a lot of defrag work to do. In general, in my case at least, I've
>> found that Speed Disk gives me the longest lasting tiem between needs to
>> defrag. Run defrag multiple times and the latter times will go quickly
>> same with speed disk. Run one then the other and you'll be waiting every
>> single time.
>>
>> IF you have speed disk and it works well for you, especially if you use
>> any of its most useful features that defrag doesn't have, you're ahead of
>> the game. If you're "just a user" then it's not going to matter much.
>>
>> But, pick one and stay with it.
>>
>> HTH
>>
>>
>
>

I still use NU 2003 and SD is much more configurable than Defrag. I
place all my exe, dll, com, files at the beginning, page files at the
end, and optimizing takes very little time because of it.

Of course I have my OS's (5) on separate partitions, with data on
another and programs on yet another. That way I can use programs on
other OS partitions without having to waste space on multiple installs
of the program. My OS partitions are 4 to 7 gig, programs partition is
7 gig, and then my data partitions. And it's much quicker making backups.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
 
Twayne wrote:
>> What extra unwanted baggage comes with Speed Disk?

Norton, in general. :-)

>>
>> JCO wrote:
>>> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up.
>>> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data
>>> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover
>>> the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and
>>> stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is
>>> together.
>>> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you
>>> should use both tools.
>>> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it
>>> matter? Can one tool undermine the other?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>
> Not sure what you mean none that I know of. But Speed Disk isn't I
> don't think, availalble as a standalone. It's part of several other
> packages that make up Norton, namely SystemWorks.

Well, and THAT is a problem!
 
I use Speed Disk 2006 which has lost some of the
nice automatic relocation and optimization features
that were listed (using color codes) the lower right,
and were once part of earlier versions of speed disk.

As mentioned in a earlier post I make use of the
Files First, Files Last and Files at End options,
The number of entries I've entered in each of these sub-groups is
rather long and the order of each entry in the list is important for
best results.

JS

"Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
news:%23wRNCkPzIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> The date and time was 6/12/2008 5:50 PM, and on a whim, JS pounded out on
> the keyboard:
>
>> I think one thing all defrag software, (speed disk included)
>> is that they all use Microsoft's MoveFile.api which limits to
>> some extent what this type of software can do.
>>
>> Windows built in defrag software is based on Diskeeper's
>> software. Speed disk lost a lot of functionality about two
>> or 3 years after Windows XP was released, as they
>> where either forced or chose to use the MoveFile.api
>>
>> JS
>>
>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:%23%23ejjoOzIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up.
>>>> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data
>>>> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover
>>>> the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and
>>>> stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is
>>>> together.
>>>> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you
>>>> should use both tools.
>>>> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it
>>>> matter? Can one tool undermine the other?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>> Since they use two different methodologies, each will cause the other to
>>> have a lot of defrag work to do. In general, in my case at least, I've
>>> found that Speed Disk gives me the longest lasting tiem between needs to
>>> defrag. Run defrag multiple times and the latter times will go quickly
>>> same with speed disk. Run one then the other and you'll be waiting
>>> every single time.
>>>
>>> IF you have speed disk and it works well for you, especially if you use
>>> any of its most useful features that defrag doesn't have, you're ahead
>>> of the game. If you're "just a user" then it's not going to matter
>>> much.
>>>
>>> But, pick one and stay with it.
>>>
>>> HTH
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> I still use NU 2003 and SD is much more configurable than Defrag. I place
> all my exe, dll, com, files at the beginning, page files at the end, and
> optimizing takes very little time because of it.
>
> Of course I have my OS's (5) on separate partitions, with data on another
> and programs on yet another. That way I can use programs on other OS
> partitions without having to waste space on multiple installs of the
> program. My OS partitions are 4 to 7 gig, programs partition is 7 gig,
> and then my data partitions. And it's much quicker making backups.
>
> --
> Terry R.
>
> ***Reply Note***
> Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
> Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
 
John John (MVP) wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>
>>>> The cluster points to the next cluster for files that span clusters,
>>>> the
>>>> FAT only points to the first cluster that a file uses, the clusters
>>>> point to the next cluster.
>>>
>>> That is how it works with FAT/FAT32, but it doesn't work like that at
>>> all
>>> with NTFS. On NTFS that information is all kept as attributes in the
>>> MFT, the file system does not need to flip trough each individual
>>> cluster to find the next one, it's all held in a Virtual Cluster Number
>>> to Logical Cluster map (VCN-to-LCN) in the file's data attribute.
>>
>> That sounds like a more sensible and robust approach, since you don't
>> have
>> to go out and read all the disk clusters to find out where the next one
>> is
>> (and pray that one of them isn't corrupt, breaking the chain).
>
> That is not really how it works, (on FAT) the clusters are daisy-chained
> in the FAT, the operating system doesn't open successive clusters to
> find out where the next one is, it reads that information in the FAT.
> The first cluster information for the file is found in the Directory
> entry and the other cluster information along with the last cluster is
> read from the FAT. In any case, if a cluster in the chain is corrupt
> the whole file is usually unreadable or corrupt anyway, chkdsk can
> locate and try to repair these bad clusters but most of the time the
> recovered clusters are of much use and the corrupt files are not easily,
> if at all repairable.
>
> John

OK (and I probably should have known this).
But above, I thought you had said that "the file system (in XP) does not
need to flip through each individual cluster to find the next one", and I
mistakenly thought you were implying that FAT was that way (in contrast with
NT). But maybe you're talking about going through the entries within the
table itself (FAT or MFT).
 
"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>OK (and I probably should have known this).
>But above, I thought you had said that "the file system (in XP) does not
>need to flip through each individual cluster to find the next one", and I
>mistakenly thought you were implying that FAT was that way (in contrast with
>NT). But maybe you're talking about going through the entries within the
>table itself (FAT or MFT).

I think you'd be crippled if your parentheses keys ever stopped
working. It'd be like tying an Italian's hands behind his back and
then telling him to talk.
 
Bill in Co. wrote:

> John John (MVP) wrote:
>
>>Bill in Co. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>The cluster points to the next cluster for files that span clusters,
>>>>>the
>>>>>FAT only points to the first cluster that a file uses, the clusters
>>>>>point to the next cluster.
>>>>
>>>>That is how it works with FAT/FAT32, but it doesn't work like that at
>>>>all
>>>>with NTFS. On NTFS that information is all kept as attributes in the
>>>>MFT, the file system does not need to flip trough each individual
>>>>cluster to find the next one, it's all held in a Virtual Cluster Number
>>>>to Logical Cluster map (VCN-to-LCN) in the file's data attribute.
>>>
>>>That sounds like a more sensible and robust approach, since you don't
>>>have
>>>to go out and read all the disk clusters to find out where the next one
>>>is
>>>(and pray that one of them isn't corrupt, breaking the chain).
>>
>>That is not really how it works, (on FAT) the clusters are daisy-chained
>>in the FAT, the operating system doesn't open successive clusters to
>>find out where the next one is, it reads that information in the FAT.
>>The first cluster information for the file is found in the Directory
>>entry and the other cluster information along with the last cluster is
>>read from the FAT. In any case, if a cluster in the chain is corrupt
>>the whole file is usually unreadable or corrupt anyway, chkdsk can
>>locate and try to repair these bad clusters but most of the time the
>>recovered clusters are of much use and the corrupt files are not easily,
>>if at all repairable.
>>
>>John
>
>
> OK (and I probably should have known this).
> But above, I thought you had said that "the file system (in XP) does not
> need to flip through each individual cluster to find the next one"

It was in reference to a post by Leytos who said that the FAT only
pointed to the first cluster and who suggested that the "chain" was then
retrieved from, or that each successive cluster "pointed" to the next
cluster in the chain. My reply was in made in that context where I made
the point that NTFS doesn't flip through clusters, I wasn't suggesting
that FAT did, I was only commenting about NTFS which is the native NT
file system.

John
 
John John (MVP) wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>
>> John John (MVP) wrote:
>>
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> The cluster points to the next cluster for files that span clusters,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> FAT only points to the first cluster that a file uses, the clusters
>>>>>> point to the next cluster.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is how it works with FAT/FAT32, but it doesn't work like that at
>>>>> all
>>>>> with NTFS. On NTFS that information is all kept as attributes in the
>>>>> MFT, the file system does not need to flip trough each individual
>>>>> cluster to find the next one, it's all held in a Virtual Cluster
>>>>> Number
>>>>> to Logical Cluster map (VCN-to-LCN) in the file's data attribute.
>>>>
>>>> That sounds like a more sensible and robust approach, since you don't
>>>> have
>>>> to go out and read all the disk clusters to find out where the next one
>>>> is
>>>> (and pray that one of them isn't corrupt, breaking the chain).
>>>
>>> That is not really how it works, (on FAT) the clusters are daisy-chained
>>> in the FAT, the operating system doesn't open successive clusters to
>>> find out where the next one is, it reads that information in the FAT.
>>> The first cluster information for the file is found in the Directory
>>> entry and the other cluster information along with the last cluster is
>>> read from the FAT. In any case, if a cluster in the chain is corrupt
>>> the whole file is usually unreadable or corrupt anyway, chkdsk can
>>> locate and try to repair these bad clusters but most of the time the
>>> recovered clusters are of much use and the corrupt files are not easily,
>>> if at all repairable.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>>
>> OK (and I probably should have known this).
>> But above, I thought you had said that "the file system (in XP) does not
>> need to flip through each individual cluster to find the next one"
>
> It was in reference to a post by Leytos who said that the FAT only
> pointed to the first cluster and who suggested that the "chain" was then
> retrieved from, or that each successive cluster "pointed" to the next
> cluster in the chain.

(although the statement above, as he wrote it, still seems a bit ambiguous
to me).

> My reply was in made in that context where I made
> the point that NTFS doesn't flip through clusters, I wasn't suggesting
> that FAT did, I was only commenting about NTFS which is the native NT
> file system.
>
> John

I see. I think I got at least some of it now. :-)
 
I guess we should through Diskeeper in the mix. It lets you do several
partitions at the same time as does Speed disk. I don't know which is
faster between Speed Disk or Diskeeper (Defrag is definitely the slowest),
but if all three have different methodologies as to how to do the task...
makes you wonder if defragging is really important. If any of the 3 cause
the one of the other two to do more work, then they can't all three be
correct.

"JS" <@> wrote in message news:#GKZL#OzIHA.3680@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> I think one thing all defrag software, (speed disk included)
> is that they all use Microsoft's MoveFile.api which limits to
> some extent what this type of software can do.
>
> Windows built in defrag software is based on Diskeeper's
> software. Speed disk lost a lot of functionality about two
> or 3 years after Windows XP was released, as they
> where either forced or chose to use the MoveFile.api
>
> JS
>
> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:%23%23ejjoOzIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up.
>>> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data
>>> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover
>>> the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and
>>> stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is
>>> together.
>>> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you
>>> should use both tools.
>>> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it
>>> matter? Can one tool undermine the other?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>> Since they use two different methodologies, each will cause the other to
>> have a lot of defrag work to do. In general, in my case at least, I've
>> found that Speed Disk gives me the longest lasting tiem between needs to
>> defrag. Run defrag multiple times and the latter times will go quickly
>> same with speed disk. Run one then the other and you'll be waiting every
>> single time.
>>
>> IF you have speed disk and it works well for you, especially if you use
>> any of its most useful features that defrag doesn't have, you're ahead of
>> the game. If you're "just a user" then it's not going to matter much.
>>
>> But, pick one and stay with it.
>>
>> HTH
>>
>>
>
>
 
Twayne

Isn't Norton System Works extra baggage! Why pay out money for software
giving you an overall negative return. Either don't spend any money and
use the Microsoft Disk Defragmenter or use your cash to buy a
defragmenter that brings with it more tangible benefits. Priorities for
my money do not include buying a third party defragmenter. Making proper
use of what comes with Windows XP yields perfectly satisfactory results.
Many users of third party defragmenters do not take the time to find out
how to get the most out of the tools provided with Windows XP.



~~~~


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

Twayne wrote:
>> What extra unwanted baggage comes with Speed Disk?
>>
>>
>>
>> JCO wrote:
>>> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up.
>>> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data
>>> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover
>>> the HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and
>>> stack it up front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is
>>> together.
>>> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you
>>> should use both tools.
>>> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it
>>> matter? Can one tool undermine the other?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>
> Not sure what you mean none that I know of. But Speed Disk isn't I
> don't think, availalble as a standalone. It's part of several other
> packages that make up Norton, namely SystemWorks.
 
Back
Top