just a quick question on defragger

why is it that when i use win xp default defragger it takes it time but when i run diskeeper it is a matter of very few minutes . is it that the default defrag it more thorough than diskeeper or just excetional slow.

 

Defrag in XP is based on Disk Keeper. Think of it as Disk keeper Lite.

I'm not positive on this, but doesnt disk keeper have a setting to defrag when you are idle?

This might be why it seems faster on manual defrags with it. It already defragged most your drive when you werent doing anything

just a guess.

 

The built in Defragger in XP is made by the same people as Disk Keeper. But disk keeper (as the 3rd party addon) seems to work faster. Not entirley sure why mind. People have used the API to make programs like contig available at www.sysinternals.com

 

i do have it enable to run when idle but i was just wandering why it was so quick even before i had this enabled

 

Recent ads for Diskeeper in the major IT rags, er ... mags, say that it's a myth that XP's defrag is Diskeeper Lite (sorta), because both the engine AND the algorithms are different. The claim of the developer is that Diskeeper is both faster and more effective by a long shot.

OTOH, the Feb issue of PCWorld has an article in which it's claimed that they could find no significant performance diff between a well-defragged disk and a badly fragged one on a fast machine. Older, slower machines, yes.

SO, ... a LOT of this comes down to who you believe and why, and the bottom line is that you should try whatever you want and rely on your own experiences with your own machines.

I find that a machine that is regularly maintained (Trash and caches emptied, useless files deleted, spyware and virus files updated and run and acted on, cookies controlled, registry cleaned and compacted, SysRestore cleared, and chkdsk and defragger run -- the whole thing plus disk images takes me about thirty minutes once a week) runs extremely well and is extremely dependable and essentially crashproof.

But that's just me.

 

The problem with mag writers is they don't know how to do basic research

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;227463

EDIT: But that doesn't go to say that Diskeeper hasnt started using a new engine while XP is stuck with an older version forever more. But to say that XP defrag is not based on Diskeeper is incorrect. This is the reason why I don't read Computer Mags anymore. Too many, to be quite blunt, idiots.

 

well put wizewiz i agree there is nothing wrong with a little maintenace. it keeps all running well

 

I think everything you've said there is a good point, Adrynalyne, and I won't dispute the general level of idiocy evident in the rags, but it's still the problem of who to believe, and how to guess when silly semantics games are being played to fool the reader.

(Microsoft would deny calling Jensen a liar, and Jensen would deny calling Microsoft a liar. They would point to exact phrasings that make the claims different and not strictly comparable.)

But you see why I said (this is part of my post above):