Forum Home
Press F1
 
Thread ID: 31189 2003-03-14 19:52:00 Norton Utilities Vs Windows Defrag tomthekiwi (3361) Press F1
Post ID Timestamp Content User
128121 2003-03-15 09:53:00 after a quick little search it looks like the w2k defrag was based on an early ver of diskeeper. just shows how much i know about w2k ;-)

does anyone have any links about the history of it?

i might just have to give the pro ver a try. i have used the light ver and its not great.
tweak'e (174)
128122 2003-03-15 10:18:00 I cover my bets by using both Notrtons system works and Executive diskkeeper and what a tidy compu I have;) Thomas (1820)
128123 2003-03-16 12:12:00 I find Fix-it better than nortons plus Diskeeper is super fast .
I also use Zone Alarm Pro and Pest patrol as well as adaware 6 pro on 98 SE at the moment
kiwibeat (304)
128124 2003-03-16 12:15:00 There is no point in using two defrag programs. One just undoes what the other one did -=JM=- (16)
128125 2003-03-16 12:25:00 Nortons is usually only slower on the first pass. If you let it organise your disk then after that it only has to defrag a small proportion of the disk and is therefore much faster.

Nortons manual does tell you the first pass will be very slow.

I also agree with JM. It is pointless using two defrag programs.

Cheers

Billy 8-{)
Billy T (70)
128126 2003-03-16 13:30:00 >>There is no point in using two defrag programs. One just undoes what the other one did
Did he give the impression that he used both at the same time?
cicero (1379)
128127 2003-03-16 21:52:00 Well cicero,

Not at the same time no, but that would be improbable anyway because each one would restart when the other changed the disk . That is another "chase me, **** me" type of endless loop .

However, even running consecutively is pointless and is just exercising your HDD needlessly . This also increasies the chances of a data error, especially if scan disk is not run before each defrag .

One defrag is enough, just choose your poison .

Cheers

Billy 8-{)
Billy T (70)
1 2