Based on peoples experience, which defrag utility does the best job for
NTFS drives? I'm trying to decide between tools in System Mechanic,
Norton Speed Disk and Diskeeper.

I'm not so concerned about the time it takes to defrag, more about how
good a job it does.

Any recommendations?

Thanks

In news:1127543690.715719.219600@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com,
Anuradha Dissanayake <falconne@gmail.com> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> Based on peoples experience, which defrag utility does the best job
> for NTFS drives? I'm trying to decide between tools in System
> Mechanic, Norton Speed Disk and Diskeeper.
>
> I'm not so concerned about the time it takes to defrag, more about how
> good a job it does.
>
> Any recommendations?
>
> Thanks

The defrag in System Mechanic is actually fairly decent. If you already own
it I'd stick with it. If you're looking to purchase one then I'd suggest O&O
Defrag...

O&O Software's versatile disk utilities for Windows:
http://www.oo-software.com/

Galen
--

"You know that a conjurer gets no credit when once he has explained his
trick; and if I show you too much of my method of working, you will
come to the conclusion that I am a very ordinary individual after all."

Sherlock Holmes

I purchased a product made by Raxco, it's called Perfect Disk, currently at
version 7 and it has a very simple to use schedule utility besides doing a
defrag manually on the main HDD or a slave HDD.

"Galen" wrote:

> In news:1127543690.715719.219600@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com,
> Anuradha Dissanayake <falconne@gmail.com> had this to say:
>
> My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
>
> > Based on peoples experience, which defrag utility does the best job
> > for NTFS drives? I'm trying to decide between tools in System
> > Mechanic, Norton Speed Disk and Diskeeper.
> >
> > I'm not so concerned about the time it takes to defrag, more about how
> > good a job it does.
> >
> > Any recommendations?
> >
> > Thanks
>
> The defrag in System Mechanic is actually fairly decent. If you already own
> it I'd stick with it. If you're looking to purchase one then I'd suggest O&O
> Defrag...
>
> O&O Software's versatile disk utilities for Windows:
> http://www.oo-software.com/
>
> Galen
> --
>
> "You know that a conjurer gets no credit when once he has explained his
> trick; and if I show you too much of my method of working, you will
> come to the conclusion that I am a very ordinary individual after all."
>
> Sherlock Holmes
>
>
>

Roger that. If speed is not your only requirement and you want the best
result, PerfectDisk v7.0 is by far the best. On the other hand, if you
want speed with a decent result, go with Diskeeper.

djbearb@hotmail.com wrote:
> Roger that. If speed is not your only requirement and you want the best
> result, PerfectDisk v7.0 is by far the best. On the other hand, if you
> want speed with a decent result, go with Diskeeper.

RE: the previous replies and 3rd party recommendations

What's wrong with the XP defragger? What doesn't it do well?

Consolidate Free Space, cannot optimally place things like the
Pagefile.Sys, Hiberfil.Sys and the NTFS MFT components.

There is nothing wrong with the native XP defrag tool. But it like
other built-in utilities has only basic functionality. You can compare
it to XP CD burning and 3rd-party products like Nero and Easy CD.


"Z" <Z@no.spam> wrote in message news:_EdZe.7388$eH2.2574@fe02.lga...
> djbearb@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Roger that. If speed is not your only requirement and you want the best
>> result, PerfectDisk v7.0 is by far the best. On the other hand, if you
>> want speed with a decent result, go with Diskeeper.
>
> RE: the previous replies and 3rd party recommendations
>
> What's wrong with the XP defragger? What doesn't it do well?

Definitely stay away from Norton Speed Disk. That could screw up your
operating system. Go with DisKeeper or PerfectDisk.


"Anuradha Dissanayake" <falconne@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127543690.715719.219600@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Based on peoples experience, which defrag utility does the best job for
> NTFS drives? I'm trying to decide between tools in System Mechanic,
> Norton Speed Disk and Diskeeper.
>
> I'm not so concerned about the time it takes to defrag, more about how
> good a job it does.
>
> Any recommendations?
>
> Thanks
>

SeaMaid wrote:
> Definitely stay away from Norton Speed Disk. That could screw up your
> operating system. Go with DisKeeper or PerfectDisk.
>
>
> "Anuradha Dissanayake" <falconne@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1127543690.715719.219600@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
>>Based on peoples experience, which defrag utility does the best job for
>>NTFS drives? I'm trying to decide between tools in System Mechanic,
>>Norton Speed Disk and Diskeeper.
>>
>>I'm not so concerned about the time it takes to defrag, more about how
>>good a job it does.
>>
>>Any recommendations?
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>
>
>
I've been using SpeedDisk since Win95 with absolutely no problems,
upgrading as necessary, of course.

Bill

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 10:54:45 -0400, "R. McCarty"
<PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Consolidate Free Space, cannot optimally place things like the
>Pagefile.Sys, Hiberfil.Sys and the NTFS MFT components.
>
>There is nothing wrong with the native XP defrag tool. But it like
>other built-in utilities has only basic functionality. You can compare
>it to XP CD burning and 3rd-party products like Nero and Easy CD.
>
>
>"Z" <Z@no.spam> wrote in message news:_EdZe.7388$eH2.2574@fe02.lga...
>> djbearb@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Roger that. If speed is not your only requirement and you want the best
>>> result, PerfectDisk v7.0 is by far the best. On the other hand, if you
>>> want speed with a decent result, go with Diskeeper.
>>
>> RE: the previous replies and 3rd party recommendations
>>
>> What's wrong with the XP defragger? What doesn't it do well?
>

Where is the objective evidence to show that one 'defrag' utility is
'better' than the other?

What is meant by 'better'?

I did an detailed evaluation on Diskkeeper 9.0 for our computer club, using
6 test machines.
It did not improve, either speed nor compactness on Windows XP Pro, over
the native defrag.
It did however take over and you can't use the native defrag after
installing.
It was better than the Windows 98 Defrag in both speed and ease. (You did
not have to close background programs).
It was about equal to the Windows ME Defrag in speed and features.
Note. In Win98 and WinME, you could still use the native defrag as well.

I asked for my money back and was given a bad email address by the vendor.
Now I have to call them back again on Monday.

"Edward W. Thompson" <thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:8bhcj1h8gk2957pmt012gvitimekn6l5sn@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 10:54:45 -0400, "R. McCarty"
> <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Consolidate Free Space, cannot optimally place things like the
>>Pagefile.Sys, Hiberfil.Sys and the NTFS MFT components.
>>
>>There is nothing wrong with the native XP defrag tool. But it like
>>other built-in utilities has only basic functionality. You can compare
>>it to XP CD burning and 3rd-party products like Nero and Easy CD.
>>
>>
>>"Z" <Z@no.spam> wrote in message news:_EdZe.7388$eH2.2574@fe02.lga...
>>> djbearb@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> Roger that. If speed is not your only requirement and you want the best
>>>> result, PerfectDisk v7.0 is by far the best. On the other hand, if you
>>>> want speed with a decent result, go with Diskeeper.
>>>
>>> RE: the previous replies and 3rd party recommendations
>>>
>>> What's wrong with the XP defragger? What doesn't it do well?
>>
>
> Where is the objective evidence to show that one 'defrag' utility is
> 'better' than the other?
>
> What is meant by 'better'?

I have used Speed disk for over 8 years in Norton Utilities and it has never
created any problems no matter my OS. I'm using XP sp2 now and it still
works.

However there have been several other defrag programs that have come on the
market and they are very, very good.

I'm trying out "Perfect Disk" right now and it is fast and clean.

My current preference though, right now is O&O defrag which I'm finding
extremely useful.

Also XP's built in defragger uses a subset of Diskeeper. If you have
Diskeeper then diskeeper is run.

Regards,

"SeaMaid" <seamaid24-graphics@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ucULGrTwFHA.4032@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Definitely stay away from Norton Speed Disk. That could screw up your
> operating system. Go with DisKeeper or PerfectDisk.
>
>
> "Anuradha Dissanayake" <falconne@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1127543690.715719.219600@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>> Based on peoples experience, which defrag utility does the best job for
>> NTFS drives? I'm trying to decide between tools in System Mechanic,
>> Norton Speed Disk and Diskeeper.
>>
>> I'm not so concerned about the time it takes to defrag, more about how
>> good a job it does.
>>
>> Any recommendations?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>
>

About a year and a half ago, one of the PC magazines did a study
of defraggers. The slowest by far was Norton's. And it wasn't even
the best.

The bottom line after their study was that for WinXP, no defragging
was even needed! And if you feel you *must* defrag, the built-in
defrag utility was as good as the others. But HEY! Monster Cable
has made a fortune for people who think they need the ultimate -
no matter how expensive and useless it is. If you think that the
small degree of increased compaction that you get (that will last
all of 20 minutes) is worth $50, go for it!

Otherwise, if you're anal AND cheap, try defragging with the
partition to be defragged on a different hard drive from the one
where the OS is. When I do that, I notice that the files are in
fewer blocks - as depicted in the defrag GUI - than they are
when I defrag the OS's own partition. Also, try running the
defrag twice - that seems also to add a little bit more compaction.

*TimDaniels*


"Anuradha Dissanayake" <falconne@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1127543690.715719.219600@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Based on peoples experience, which defrag utility does the best job for
> NTFS drives? I'm trying to decide between tools in System Mechanic,
> Norton Speed Disk and Diskeeper.
>
> I'm not so concerned about the time it takes to defrag, more about how
> good a job it does.
>
> Any recommendations?
>
> Thanks
>

Your comments are noted. I was not commenting/replying on usefulness of
compaction. Just discussing answers to the question previously asked.

I run my maintenance programs overnight while I sleep and find they do a
good job.

Any defrag program works some faster/slower than others. People have their
preferences and most of them have trial periods. Then it's worthwhile using
them or that period.

Of course defragging is obsolete as soon as the next program is run and data
is stored. But eventually it does slow down and becomes a problem.

I've used Norton for a long time since I do not keep programs open the space
hog problem doesn't mean much. I don't run any of these programs "on
start-up" and recommend no one should do that.

Regards

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:wa-dnYhvB_MbdavenZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> About a year and a half ago, one of the PC magazines did a study
> of defraggers. The slowest by far was Norton's. And it wasn't even
> the best.
>
> The bottom line after their study was that for WinXP, no defragging
> was even needed! And if you feel you *must* defrag, the built-in
> defrag utility was as good as the others. But HEY! Monster Cable
> has made a fortune for people who think they need the ultimate -
> no matter how expensive and useless it is. If you think that the
> small degree of increased compaction that you get (that will last
> all of 20 minutes) is worth $50, go for it!
>
> Otherwise, if you're anal AND cheap, try defragging with the
> partition to be defragged on a different hard drive from the one
> where the OS is. When I do that, I notice that the files are in
> fewer blocks - as depicted in the defrag GUI - than they are
> when I defrag the OS's own partition. Also, try running the
> defrag twice - that seems also to add a little bit more compaction.
>
> *TimDaniels*
>
>
> "Anuradha Dissanayake" <falconne@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1127543690.715719.219600@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>> Based on peoples experience, which defrag utility does the best job for
>> NTFS drives? I'm trying to decide between tools in System Mechanic,
>> Norton Speed Disk and Diskeeper.
>>
>> I'm not so concerned about the time it takes to defrag, more about how
>> good a job it does.
>>
>> Any recommendations?
>>
>> Thanks
>>

This is quite interesting. If it is true that for Windows XP no defragging
was even needed, then Microsoft needs to update several documents where they
discuss Windows XP performance and the importance of defragmenting on a
regular basis

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:wa-dnYhvB_MbdavenZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> About a year and a half ago, one of the PC magazines did a study
> of defraggers. The slowest by far was Norton's. And it wasn't even
> the best.
>
> The bottom line after their study was that for WinXP, no defragging
> was even needed! And if you feel you *must* defrag, the built-in
> defrag utility was as good as the others. But HEY! Monster Cable
> has made a fortune for people who think they need the ultimate -
> no matter how expensive and useless it is. If you think that the
> small degree of increased compaction that you get (that will last
> all of 20 minutes) is worth $50, go for it!
>
> Otherwise, if you're anal AND cheap, try defragging with the
> partition to be defragged on a different hard drive from the one
> where the OS is. When I do that, I notice that the files are in
> fewer blocks - as depicted in the defrag GUI - than they are
> when I defrag the OS's own partition. Also, try running the
> defrag twice - that seems also to add a little bit more compaction.
>
> *TimDaniels*
>
>
> "Anuradha Dissanayake" <falconne@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127543690.715719.219600@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> > Based on peoples experience, which defrag utility does the best job for
> > NTFS drives? I'm trying to decide between tools in System Mechanic,
> > Norton Speed Disk and Diskeeper.
> >
> > I'm not so concerned about the time it takes to defrag, more about how
> > good a job it does.
> >
> > Any recommendations?
> >
> > Thanks
> >

Greg Hayes/Raxco Software <ghayesntloader@raxco.com> wrote:

> This is quite interesting. If it is true that for Windows XP no
> defragging was even needed, then Microsoft needs to update several
> documents where they discuss Windows XP performance and the importance
> of defragmenting on a regular basis

Correct. There seems to be a common sense that defragging is not needed
under WinXP (NTFS), widely spread in local and international newsgroups
as well. That's nonsense - a better performance is easy to benchmark,
for instance right after updating to SP2. It's also a good idea to run
"Pagefile Defrag" (www.sysinternals.com) in addition after using the
system restore tool. However, I couldn't figure out any advantage of
third-party software (ie. "PerfectDisk 6.0") compared with the built-
in WinXP defrag.

--
d-d

Greg Hayes/Raxco Software wrote:
>
> This is quite interesting. If it is true that for Windows XP no defragging
> was even needed, then Microsoft needs to update several documents where they
> discuss Windows XP performance and the importance of defragmenting on a
> regular basis

1. True. Defrag is never "needed". But it does increase performance and
is recommended.
2. No third party util is ever required for a decent defrag. Use the
built in Win Util.
3. Prior to defrag, remove all unused/unwanted programs in add/remove
and delete all Internet cache files in advance for best results.




--
http://www.bootdisk.com/

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 09:19:21 -0400, Greg Hayes/Raxco Software wrote:

> This is quite interesting. If it is true that for Windows XP no defragging
> was even needed, then Microsoft needs to update several documents where they
> discuss Windows XP performance and the importance of defragmenting on a
> regular basis
>
> - Greg/Raxco Software
> Microsoft MVP - Windows File System
>
> Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
> commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.
>
> Want to email me? Delete ntloader.
>
> "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
> news:wa-dnYhvB_MbdavenZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> About a year and a half ago, one of the PC magazines did a study
>> of defraggers. The slowest by far was Norton's. And it wasn't even
>> the best.
>>
>> The bottom line after their study was that for WinXP, no defragging
>> was even needed! And if you feel you *must* defrag, the built-in
>> defrag utility was as good as the others. But HEY! Monster Cable
>> has made a fortune for people who think they need the ultimate -
>> no matter how expensive and useless it is. If you think that the
>> small degree of increased compaction that you get (that will last
>> all of 20 minutes) is worth $50, go for it!
>>
>> Otherwise, if you're anal AND cheap, try defragging with the
>> partition to be defragged on a different hard drive from the one
>> where the OS is. When I do that, I notice that the files are in
>> fewer blocks - as depicted in the defrag GUI - than they are
>> when I defrag the OS's own partition. Also, try running the
>> defrag twice - that seems also to add a little bit more compaction.
>>
>> *TimDaniels*
>>
>>
>> "Anuradha Dissanayake" <falconne@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1127543690.715719.219600@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>>> Based on peoples experience, which defrag utility does the best job for
>>> NTFS drives? I'm trying to decide between tools in System Mechanic,
>>> Norton Speed Disk and Diskeeper.
>>>
>>> I'm not so concerned about the time it takes to defrag, more about how
>>> good a job it does.
>>>
>>> Any recommendations?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>

PC mag writes stuff in the hopes that it will be controversial and "sell
copy" Fact? Truth? imho look elsewhere.

PerfectDisk is what I use.
Kristi
--
Shuttle AN35N Ultra, GeF4Ti4200, XP2600+Barton, 786mb
XPSP2+