Norton Speed disk ?

Guys,

I use Norton Speeddisk (2002) for my defragging in Win98se - is it better than the windows option ??

I understand theres a replacement defragger for ME which works in 98 - would this be better than Speeddisk ?

Just a couple of silly questions really but just wondered,

Mick

 

Hi Pomak249,
You will find almost too much information on defragmentation on the net. After reading them all you will still be unsure which
is technically the best and also gives value for money.
Try a search on this board to see all that has been discussed.
Users recommend a particular defragmentation program mostly because it suits the way they use the PC.
I personally favour Norton Speedisk (as it seems to get round
the "Restarting, disk contents changing..., but it is not free)
I use Diskeeper which I never have to start, never gets
interrupted as far as I know, but again it is not free.
Maybe try different apps and see how they perform on your
system ?
regards

 

Thanks - I've no problems with Speeddisk, its fast but as you say its not free. Just wondered if it was really doing its job ??

Mick

 

pomak249

You will find so many different ideas and like or dis-likes and you will still need to run the old standby program which called " Try it and see which is best for you. "

It also depende on which OS you are using. AND personal Preference.

SpeedDisk in 98 was a waste of my time. The defrag in XP is a time waster also.

So was SE defrag with TaskMonitor loading and the Applog folder load with a bunch of stuff

Windows ME defrag worked great in SE ( with Taxkmonitor shut down and the Applog folder empty.

And there is no way anyone will convince me that 2.6 gig of data scatterd form one end of a 6gig partition is any faster than having it all in one section at the beginning of the driive. It is true that programs may ( I doubt ) work faster but the MUCH extra time that it take to defrag MORE than makes up for it.
.
In SE I could defrag 6 Partitions containing about a total of app 25gig of data in about 5 minutes. Which I never had to do all 6 anyway unless I made a lot of saoftware changes.

It takes that long ( or longer ) to defrag 2.8gig of data on my XP C: drive alone. YUCK !!!

The only thing I used SpeedDisk for was to let it put the Fixed minimum size swap file at the begining of the D: drive.

But Norton SpeedDisk and now the defrag in XP does nothing more than waste time and add more wear on tear on the HD.

Windows itself is getting to be more of a time and disk space waster than a time saver.

I am SERIOUSLY Thinking of putting my old very solid Windows SE HD back in here.

And last but not least. And I see it as only getting worse if J. Q. Public does not but a stop to it.

Microsoft is ( and will continue to do so unless somehow stopped ) doing all it can to stop us from running 3rd party software.

I am in XP Pro right now. And the ONLY thing it is doing any better ( for me anyway ) is use up twice as much disk space.

Well off the soapbox and on to fixing a busted PC.

BillyBob

 

BB -

Is this encrypted ?
Do not understand what you mean.
regards

 

Well, I have to take exception to BB's comments re: Norton SpeedDisk and Windows98. Not too many people are running multiple partitions, so one has to consider whats the norm vs what any one individual is running. You will find a marked performance boost when file fragmentation is minimized.

The important thing is don't run multiple types thinking you are doing a super-duper job - they all organize things a little differently and each one insists they "know what's best

Personally, I prefer SpeedDisk to either the native 98 defragger or the ME defragger.

XP is a different story if one is running NTFS - I have yet to see any XP defragger that could be considered fast but, with that file structure, defragging is not as important.

 

You can say what you want. But there is no better program and data protection than the same residing at an address other than C:\Program Files.

I know it is ( and should be ) a personal preference. But I wiil be damned if I am going to take a change of losing 15-18 gig of programs and/or data just becasue the C: drive went bonkers. It is NOT necessary.

Just my one Golf game alone with more than a year of upgrades, added courses etc, would take about two hours ( or more ) to re-construct. ( If I could still find all of the stuff )

To that I will 100% agree. And by running more than one type it puts even more stress on the HD because of the differences.

BillyBob

 

I've used Speed Disk for years and currently run it on all 3 pcs at home. Also each pc is partitioned and no problems.

 

OMG,

I really started something here - guess we all have different views and our own favourites, think i'll stick with Speeddisk.

Thanks guys,

MIck

 

pomak249 - you didn't start anything. Its been going on for a long time. Welcome to the boards.

Good, friendly discourse - what else were you expecting?

Now, go back and read between the lines and you'll see that just about every contributor was 100% on the money for his/her situation.

OMG - nothing!

 

dmz1967

I warned you in my first reply.

I agree with Rockster2U

BB