The best Defrag-Program?!
What do you think is the best Defrag-Program for Win2K? Is it the implemented Diskkeeper (in Win2K), SpeedDisk (Part of Norton Utilities 2001), the original Diskkeeper or an other program? What do you use? I think SpeedDisk from Symantec is a fine Defrag-Program, but the implemented Diskkeeper is also a good prog ( ...
What do you think is the best Defrag-Program for Win2K? Is it the implemented Diskkeeper (in Win2K), SpeedDisk (Part of Norton Utilities 2001), the "original" Diskkeeper or an other program? What do you use?
I think SpeedDisk from Symantec is a fine Defrag-Program, but the implemented Diskkeeper is also a good prog (only very simple)...
I think SpeedDisk from Symantec is a fine Defrag-Program, but the implemented Diskkeeper is also a good prog (only very simple)...
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Hi, NT.gamer.
I try not to bad-mouth software I don't know, but I have to agree with temo about the Symantec software. I don't use it (and therefore should probably keep my yap shut about it), but I have had to scrape together more client's machines than I can shake a stick at because of problems they've had with SystemWorks and Norton Utilities and NAV. I suspect that the farkled systems have resulted from misuse of those utilities, and not simply from failures in the software packages themselves. Nonetheless, when I hear some wacky story about strange behavior following defragging, the hair stands up on the back of my neck, and the next two words I'm likely to hear are "Speed Disk".
That being said, the built-in defragger in W2K is not sufficient. Why? It doesn't defrag the Master File Table. Standard installs of W2K (where the setup program formats the partition as FAT, installs W2K, then converts to NTFS) give the user 512 byte clusters. That causes fragmentation of the file system as a whole, and the MFT in particular. Over time this leads to serious performance penalties.
The commercial version of Diskeeper NT (from Executive Software, the people who designed the defragger that comes with W2K) is what I've used most successfully. It's not as aggressive as Speed Disk, but also not as dangerous, to my way of thinking. It can defrag the MFT, directory structures and page file at boot time. It can run continuously in the background to defrag the parts of the file system that are safe to defrag during normal operations. (Continuous defragging is an okay idea on a desktop or server system with fast drives, but not a great idea on a notebook.)
O&O Defrag is well thought of by some people whose opinions I respect. And I'm sure there are other defraggers that are as good. But do get one that will defrag the MFT for you.
Regards,
Jim
I try not to bad-mouth software I don't know, but I have to agree with temo about the Symantec software. I don't use it (and therefore should probably keep my yap shut about it), but I have had to scrape together more client's machines than I can shake a stick at because of problems they've had with SystemWorks and Norton Utilities and NAV. I suspect that the farkled systems have resulted from misuse of those utilities, and not simply from failures in the software packages themselves. Nonetheless, when I hear some wacky story about strange behavior following defragging, the hair stands up on the back of my neck, and the next two words I'm likely to hear are "Speed Disk".
That being said, the built-in defragger in W2K is not sufficient. Why? It doesn't defrag the Master File Table. Standard installs of W2K (where the setup program formats the partition as FAT, installs W2K, then converts to NTFS) give the user 512 byte clusters. That causes fragmentation of the file system as a whole, and the MFT in particular. Over time this leads to serious performance penalties.
The commercial version of Diskeeper NT (from Executive Software, the people who designed the defragger that comes with W2K) is what I've used most successfully. It's not as aggressive as Speed Disk, but also not as dangerous, to my way of thinking. It can defrag the MFT, directory structures and page file at boot time. It can run continuously in the background to defrag the parts of the file system that are safe to defrag during normal operations. (Continuous defragging is an okay idea on a desktop or server system with fast drives, but not a great idea on a notebook.)
O&O Defrag is well thought of by some people whose opinions I respect. And I'm sure there are other defraggers that are as good. But do get one that will defrag the MFT for you.
Regards,
Jim
Hmmm, most of the horror stories are from older SpeedDisk versions and NT4 ...
I'm not 100% sure but I think the SpeedDisk included with the old NortonUtilities for NT was different from the standalone SpeedDisk. Maybe some stories come from the more limited version ?!
I haven't had a problem using the SpeedDisk included in the SystemWorks2001, it is the same as the standalone version.
I'm not 100% sure but I think the SpeedDisk included with the old NortonUtilities for NT was different from the standalone SpeedDisk. Maybe some stories come from the more limited version ?!
I haven't had a problem using the SpeedDisk included in the SystemWorks2001, it is the same as the standalone version.
DosFreak,
W2K doesn't look the same when it installs, but you still wind up with the 512 byte clusters. I didn't know whether it formatted NTFS directly or converted like NT4, but the JSI, Inc. site says it's a conversion. Also borne out by my own experience, unless I'm in a time warp or something, and it works differently here (on 50+ machines) than it does elsewhere. (Yes, a client's IT department clean-installed W2K on over 50 machines that wound up with 512 byte cluster sizes on their boot partitions. Yuck!)
If you know of a workaround (other than installing the drive as a slave in another system or using the trash partition method, which I use) I'd appreciate knowing about it.
Regards,
Jim
W2K doesn't look the same when it installs, but you still wind up with the 512 byte clusters. I didn't know whether it formatted NTFS directly or converted like NT4, but the JSI, Inc. site says it's a conversion. Also borne out by my own experience, unless I'm in a time warp or something, and it works differently here (on 50+ machines) than it does elsewhere. (Yes, a client's IT department clean-installed W2K on over 50 machines that wound up with 512 byte cluster sizes on their boot partitions. Yuck!)
If you know of a workaround (other than installing the drive as a slave in another system or using the trash partition method, which I use) I'd appreciate knowing about it.
Regards,
Jim
Quote:Originally posted by DosFreak:
"Standard installs of W2K (where the setup program formats the partition as FAT, installs W2K, then converts to NTFS) give the user 512 byte clusters."
You are thinking of NT4. NT5 does not convert to NTFS.
Hi, DosFreak.
I'm glad you brought my attention to the fact that NTFS initial formats under whichever format (FAT or NTFS) the user specifies during installation. After making my previous reply I decided to do a little looking around. The initial reference I saw to this at the JSI site was either my imagination or has since been corrected. I found the direct reference, of course, at Technet.
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q140/3/65.asp
Now, if only someone can tell me why W2K chooses to give you a 512 byte cluster size ANYWAY, I'd be satisfied. Well, not satisfied, but at least not totally puzzled. My understanding was that you got 512 byte clusters when "formatting" with the setup program because the system first formatted the partition as FAT, then converted to NTFS. (Since FAT uses 512 byte boundaries, that's why the conversion to 512 byte clusters in NTFS.) Since this is not the process that is occurring in W2K, why is the installer not given the ability to determine the cluster size that will be used? As it is, I'm still installing W2K by finding a way to format the partition with larger cluster sizes first, then choosing to install on the existing partition in the setup program.
Am I being dense? Is there a good reason for this inconvenience?
Regards,
Jim
Aye-Aye-Aye!!!
Never mind!
I found my answer here:
http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/win2000/setup.asp
Windows 2000 setup DOES format partitions as FAT32, then converts them to NTFS. Geez! Why do they post such apparently contradictory documents? Yeah, I know that FAT32 is not FAT, but you'd think they'd MENTION the fact that the setup program uses FAT32 instead of stating that it directly formats as NTFS in one place and saying it formats to FAT32 then converts to NTFS in another!!!
(grumble, grumble)
Anyhow, that explains why we still get 512 byte clusters -- which has been my main bugaboo all along!
I'll shut up now. (mutter, mutter)
[This message has been edited by jaywallen (edited 23 October 2000).]
"Standard installs of W2K (where the setup program formats the partition as FAT, installs W2K, then converts to NTFS) give the user 512 byte clusters."
You are thinking of NT4. NT5 does not convert to NTFS.
Hi, DosFreak.
I'm glad you brought my attention to the fact that NTFS initial formats under whichever format (FAT or NTFS) the user specifies during installation. After making my previous reply I decided to do a little looking around. The initial reference I saw to this at the JSI site was either my imagination or has since been corrected. I found the direct reference, of course, at Technet.
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q140/3/65.asp
Now, if only someone can tell me why W2K chooses to give you a 512 byte cluster size ANYWAY, I'd be satisfied. Well, not satisfied, but at least not totally puzzled. My understanding was that you got 512 byte clusters when "formatting" with the setup program because the system first formatted the partition as FAT, then converted to NTFS. (Since FAT uses 512 byte boundaries, that's why the conversion to 512 byte clusters in NTFS.) Since this is not the process that is occurring in W2K, why is the installer not given the ability to determine the cluster size that will be used? As it is, I'm still installing W2K by finding a way to format the partition with larger cluster sizes first, then choosing to install on the existing partition in the setup program.
Am I being dense? Is there a good reason for this inconvenience?
Regards,
Jim
Aye-Aye-Aye!!!
Never mind!
I found my answer here:
http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/win2000/setup.asp
Windows 2000 setup DOES format partitions as FAT32, then converts them to NTFS. Geez! Why do they post such apparently contradictory documents? Yeah, I know that FAT32 is not FAT, but you'd think they'd MENTION the fact that the setup program uses FAT32 instead of stating that it directly formats as NTFS in one place and saying it formats to FAT32 then converts to NTFS in another!!!
(grumble, grumble)
Anyhow, that explains why we still get 512 byte clusters -- which has been my main bugaboo all along!
I'll shut up now. (mutter, mutter)
[This message has been edited by jaywallen (edited 23 October 2000).]
symantec software isn't so bad, especially NAV. but i think the best defragger is the already simple one in win2k. u don't need fancy utilities to do standard jobs
------------------
2 Computers (networked)both have :
Intel SE440BX2
Pentium III 700Mhz (100)
LS-120 120 Mb (100MHz)
Fujitsu 17.3 GB Ultra DMA 66/10.2 GB Ultra DMA 66
Mitsubihi 50X IDE
Creative Vibra PCI 128bit
Matrox Millenium G400 16Mb AGP/Diamond Viper V770 Ultra 32MB AGP
Bay Netgear 10/100PCI
Medium ATX Tower case
120W Multimedia
MS Internet KB (PS2)
MS Win2000 Pro
------------------
2 Computers (networked)both have :
Intel SE440BX2
Pentium III 700Mhz (100)
LS-120 120 Mb (100MHz)
Fujitsu 17.3 GB Ultra DMA 66/10.2 GB Ultra DMA 66
Mitsubihi 50X IDE
Creative Vibra PCI 128bit
Matrox Millenium G400 16Mb AGP/Diamond Viper V770 Ultra 32MB AGP
Bay Netgear 10/100PCI
Medium ATX Tower case
120W Multimedia
MS Internet KB (PS2)
MS Win2000 Pro
Quote:Originally posted by ofelas:
Hey, JPW, looks like w2k setup does convert from fat(32?) to ntfs; however, every install I've had formats the boot partition with 4096 bytes...I've got 3 NTFS partitions of 5, 4 & 8GB each,and w2k as the sole os..
Hi, ofelas!
Well, shucks. I mustn't be holdin' my tongue right! I do intend to look into this to see just what controls this. Is there a spot in the install where you get to choose cluster size? Dang! I gotta stop lettin' other people do the installs!
Regards,
Jim
Hey, JPW, looks like w2k setup does convert from fat(32?) to ntfs; however, every install I've had formats the boot partition with 4096 bytes...I've got 3 NTFS partitions of 5, 4 & 8GB each,and w2k as the sole os..
Hi, ofelas!
Well, shucks. I mustn't be holdin' my tongue right! I do intend to look into this to see just what controls this. Is there a spot in the install where you get to choose cluster size? Dang! I gotta stop lettin' other people do the installs!
Regards,
Jim
Since I have always used DiskKeeper 5.03.340 for Windows 2000 Professional defragmenting with no trouble, I do not have anything else with which to compare.
I have to disagree with all the SpeedDisk haters out there. I have used a few and for NT/2000 SpeedDisk is by far the best. DiskKeeper is, in my oppinion, one of the worst. It takes DiskKeeper about 3 goes to do what speedDisk does in one!
[This message has been edited by BillGates (edited 03 December 2000).]
[This message has been edited by BillGates (edited 03 December 2000).]
[This message has been edited by BillGates (edited 03 December 2000).]
[This message has been edited by BillGates (edited 03 December 2000).]
