Norton Speedisk vs XP defrag????

[Gomer]

My XP defrag has been taking quite a while these days (several minutes to defrag 15 gig). It takes that long even if I run it twice in a row. So I started using Norton Speeddisk.

I have noticed that SD puts things in different order than XP defrag. I am just curious what everyones thoughts on this are... and if anyone knows what my XP defrag problem might be.

[maface]

To you have a lot of programs in your start up? I'm not sure what the differences between Norton and XP are. The XP version is by Executive Software who make DiskKeeper

[Gomer]

No, not a lot of programs in start up... I try to keep my machine lean and mean.

Oth relevent info. HD is 15.6 gig full, 11.4 gig free.

XP defrag usually leaves a "Compressing files 1%" message up when it is hanging.

[Inanis]

The built in defrag for XP is better than SpeedDisk. . .

If you can get Diskeeper Workstation 6 or 7 . .it has an awesome "Set it and Forget it" feature that waits idle in the background, and defrags when you arent using the computer . . uses very little resources and basically keeps your system CONSTANTLY defragged.

EDIT: Not sure if version 6 works on XP, works great on Win2k.

[lynchmob]

I dont use XP,but, when I install w2k I make a 3GB partition.Then,after install is complete, I partition the rest of the drive.Why?
It takes less time to defrag 3GB than 15GB and alot of the time the other partitions wont need defragging,depending on disk usage and what is stored there.
Speedisk puts the swap file 1st and frequently used and modified files next .
I,too, prefer Diskeeper Workstation and now run it on all windows machines.
lynch

[no1_vern]

Hi Gomer,
When I used N-SD it slowed my system down so I went back to using XP defrag. I used the same method as lynchmob in settig up my hd it's one of the best ways to go.

[OuTpaTienT]

Originally posted by Inanis
The built in defrag for XP is better than SpeedDisk. . .

What makes you say that?

I'd say Speed Disk is better. In the past MS licensed Norton's SpeedDisk technology to use as their defragger. Don't know if that's still the case or not.

But there's certainly nothing wrong Speed Disk. It's one of the few Norton Utilities that still is worth getting.

And as far as a disk defragger sitting idle in the background all the time, that doesn't sound appealing to me at all. I don't want an application screwing with the file system whenever it feels like it. That's a process I prefer to start and stop myself.

Windows XP Defragmenter Test

[ClubMed]

The average user will hardly notice any difference in system response when using any of the defraggers available in the market. This is of course strictly IMO

SpeedDisk is not bad when you configure it properly and choose to put windows and frequently accessed folders first.

DiskKeeper is for networks mostly. Works on a standalone but is too complicated and resource hungry.

My opinion is that the build in XP one is more than enough and use speeddisk only if you ave bought the Norton Utilities 2002 package.

Also, its better to stick to any one- or one will undo what the other has done and you wind up spinning wheels.

[Gomer]

Additional info...