I used Diskeeper 8 and it seemed to do a better job than the original defragmenter in Win2k. I read
someone using Perfect Disk. Any other recommendations?

And what are some other utilities to keep your hard drives working well? Does error checking in Windows
make any difference? Does it really fix anything? Is it better to use a DOS type utility to circumvent
the operating system entirely?

Frank W <reply_to_newsgroup@please.ccom> wrote
in message news:375g4iF57esstU1@individual.net...

Dont bother defragging unless you are in some very unusual situation.

I just enable SMART. Thats not so much to keep it
working well as to get an early warning if its dying.

Tho I spose you could claim that monitoring the
drive temp with an alarm for that using SMART
is a ute to keep the hard drives working well.

You dont see too many hard drives go overtemp on a
fan failure tho, its usually seen with the cpu much earlier.

Depends on how often your system sees a mains failure.

Yes, in that situation it does.

Nope, they're useless now.

Frank W. wrote:

For most PC users, I recommend any defragger that is free -- which means the
one built into WinWhatever.

The most useful HD utility for any WinWhatever PC is backup IMHO.
--
Cheers, Bob

Ann Onimus <Ann@Onimus.net> wrote in message
news:vkas01ppglclrlv69rsjsihpj4cs10vavt@news.Onimu s.net...
Because its pointless with most modern systems.

You 'understand' wrong.

I bet you wouldnt be able to pick it in a proper
randomised double blind trial without being allowed
to use a ute that displays the fragmentation level.

And if you cant pick it, its a waste of time doing it.

Rod Speed wrote:
Define "modern."


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

What exactly is degraggin supposed to do? Make it faster for the drive to access data? Make it faster
at moving data once accessed? Enquiring minds need to know.

Frank W. wrote:
fragmented.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

Ah, no she understands perfectly. Maybe _you_ don't have a need to defrag
with the apps _you_ use, and that's fine... for _you_. However, you quite
obviously don't use the apps _I_ do because the difference is readily
discernible.

Try rendering a conformed 50 gig avi fle with Premier Pro with a fragmented
drive and see how long it takes versus a disk that's just been defragged. No
display of fragmentation needed to see the difference.

Anyone with even the most basic of observation skills would easily recognize
the difference when doing the above mentioned task. Just because _you_ don't
need to defrag doesn't mean _everyone_ doesn't need to defrag.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:18:05 -0600, "Frank W."
<reply_to_newsgroup@please.ccom> wrote:

Howdy,

No expert I, but...

Yes, and yes.

Essentially, a fragmented drive is analogous to an office
that stores its multi-page documents by putting each page in
a different file.

When the document needs to be accessed, it takes a while to
find, then assemble, all the parts.

It is just the same for data that needs to be assembled for
use (or transfer) on your system, but is stored in many bits
and pieces in a variety of locations on your drive.

The defragging process just locates those pieces, and puts
'em together.

HTH,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

"Chuck U. Farley" wrote:

You may be correct about the dependence on specific apps, but
one of the 2 big PC mags published an article on defragging
utilities 12 to 14 months ago, and their conclusion regarding
Windows XP was that they could see no speed difference between
the fragged and de-fragged OS. Their conclusion was that for
WinXP, defragging isn't needed. Of course, they didn't test *your*
system, and it could be that WinXP defrags in the background.
I notice that after about 10 or 15 minutes of inactivity, my hard drive
starts chattering quietly. Maybe it's defragging?

*TimDaniels*

Ann Onimus <Ann@Onimus.net> wrote in message
news:hp6t011931m4n4fiptgmriiuedqd37gv5g@news.Onimu s.net...
Nope, fragmentation did have a noticeable effect with older
slower hard drives which took more time to move the heads
from fragment to fragment and they were generally run with
much less free space and with cruder space allocation
algorithms so fragmented rather more quickly.

Many got into the habit of obsessively defragging and just
keep mindlessly defragging with modern systems that dont
see any benefit they could pick in a proper double blind trial.

CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:420E9EA6.5010404@prodigy.net...
Bought or assembled in the last few years.

Frank W <reply_to_newsgroup@please.ccom> wrote
in message news:377o75F59nd4qU1@individual.net...

Ensure that all files are contiguous, all the sectors used for
a particular file have no bits of other files between them.

Yes.

Nope.

Well they cant. That would be spilling the beans.

CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:420EAB3B.9090404@prodigy.net...
Oh bullshit. You were hallucinating.

Have fun explaining why none of mine have ever crashed
due to fragmentation when I never defrag at all.

"Kenneth" <usenet@SPAMLESSsoleassociates.com> wrote in message
news:b1dt01lomp0hra7f0sm6d4nejr6iu4ljkp@4ax.com...
And the modern reality is that it takes very little time for the
heads to move from one fragment to another, and the heads
are moving around all over the drive for various reasons like
the internet temporary cache etc etc etc and very few apps
read much continuously anymore, and those that do can still
get access to the data plenty fast enough with fragments
when say playing a DVD file or music anyway.

Chuck U. Farley <chuckufarley@dyslexia.com> wrote
in message news:377qadF5bkhbfU1@individual.net...

Nope.

I said MOST modern systems for a reason.

The difference is trivial in the total time it takes.

And most dont do that sort of thing much anyway.

I said MOST modern systems for a reason.

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:yIqdnaK_PoASTZPfRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
And they are right with most modern systems.

Nope, it doesnt.

Nope, its keeping track of what has changed to speed access.

It also periodically reorganises the system drive to speed
access, but that isnt defragging and the system files dont
fragment much on most modern systems anyway.

shawn <nanoflower@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fn0u01t4o6khnv6crr3e4b8tcutek26s9f@4ax.com...
I used the word MOST for a reason.

I used the word MOST for a reason.

Nope.

Complete waste of time.

If it isnt, there isnt any point in defragging.

In article <3783s8F57orv3U1@individual.net>, rod_speed@yahoo.com says...
There is a bug in NT where Windows could crash on bootup if the MFT
became too fragmented.
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;228734

--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.att.net/~andyross

Yeah, vague and inspecific insinuations are always best when you make
incorrect generalizations based only on your own anecdotal experience.

It most assuredly is _not_ trivial, you'd know that if you actually used the
app.

Yeah, and _most_ people only use a computer for web browsing and email so by
your logic "most" people don't need a "modern" computer anyway.

See above.