| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 31153 | 2003-03-13 21:36:00 | defrag two | annewells (3345) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 127819 | 2003-03-14 03:36:00 | try here for a zip file: WinTask We're sorry, but this page is currently unavailable for viewing. If this site belongs to you, please read this help page for more information and assistance. |
Scouse (83) | ||
| 127820 | 2003-03-14 03:39:00 | Your connection may have timed out, as I can still download it on 3 PC's here. what about somebody else? I might have to make a HTML website linking to it. |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 127821 | 2003-03-14 04:40:00 | Hi Anne: I can understand your frustration. You've received much helpful advice here. Danger & Jimbo recommended getting an application called "End it all". I agree. It is free, and can close all running applications in one hit, so that scan & defrag runs sweetly. A restart when finished gets them back. It fixed my scan/defrag problems. You may care to look at my earlier post giving information on this here: pressf1.pcworld.co.nz I note you have Win98. So do I, & on that post is information on how to get & install the WinME defragger, which is said to be better & faster than the 98 defragger. I have found that to be true. Good luck. Bazza. |
Bazza (407) | ||
| 127822 | 2003-03-14 08:13:00 | Finally Bazza, some one else who has seen the light! | Danger (287) | ||
| 127823 | 2003-03-16 08:57:00 | Why is the WinME defrag faster? | Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 127824 | 2003-03-16 09:55:00 | Hi CS: I dont really know 'why'. If you look at the link in my previous post it states that "MS has shipped in WinME an improved version of defrag, compared with the one in Win 95/98. But believe me it is true. It's really fast. Using end it all + the WinME defragger last night, it defragged my 20Gb drive containing about 10GB of data in 8 minutes, without any restarts. Of course, I imagine it is only of benefit for Win 95/98 users. Cheers. |
Bazza (407) | ||
| 127825 | 2003-03-16 09:59:00 | Okay, interesting.. And MS wont say or dont know why? | Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 127826 | 2003-04-02 07:59:00 | Hello again Chilling, They sure are saying that the WinME defragger is better/faster, but dont tell us why. Never mind, doesn't really matter. I can assure you and any users of win95/98 that this method of using both End it All + the WinME defragger is very fast. Since my last post, I have done a scan + defrag this evening of my 20GB HD containing about 10GB of data in 2min for scan + 8 min for defrag. Incidently, I notice another poster saying that the first 10% of defrag is used for scandisk. Is this correct? I was advised to always do a scan first then immediately defrag. Does anyone know if the defrag does the initial scan so that a running scandisk first is not necessary. With thanks. |
Bazza (407) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||