Defrag, XP versus ME.

I have 3 partitions (Fat32) on a 30G hard drive. 98, XP, and Backups. Made a folder on the desktop. Put in about 2G of files. Copied them to an empty Backup partition. Defraged in XP. No fragments, just moving files. It took 50 minutes. Removed the files. Copied again to Backup partition. Went to 98 partition, and defraged backup partition with ME defragmenter. It took 12 minutes. Is it possible to use ME defragmenter on XP. I cannot see the XP partition in 98 partition. I am used to ME defragmenter, and even like the looks of it. If my test is correct, the XP defragmenter seems to be much slower. 50Min. versus 12 Min. Do not know what would happen if it was also fragmented.

 

The XP defrag routine not only defrags files but tries to optimize the partition layout by moving files around different portions of the partition based on what it sees as your usage patterns. If you have plenty of memory, future runs should be quite a bit faster if done regularly and as the defragger gets things set for the way you use XP, it will need to do less moving.

I honestly don't know what effect the ME defragger would have if you tried to run it on an XP partition nor would I recommend trying it.

 

HI!! Newt. ME can also be set to move things around to match usage. I heard from a guy, who heard from a guy (you get the picture), that someone had a dual boot, 98 & XP with partitions made by XP. He uses ME to defrag 98 & XP partitions. I guess he can see the XP partition from the 98 partition. ME defrag is not on XP. I am sure you know how reliable that can be.
Oh yes, I was not clear about the partitions. They were made with "Partition Magic ".