Norton speed disk 2002 or XP defragger?

  joseph k. 12:44 07 May 04
Locked

I can't understand why these two utilities produce such different results. Norton 2002 is supposed to be compatable with XP and yet when I use it and then check the results using the defragger anaysis tool, the latter suggests that the disk is horribly defragmented. Out of interest I tried the defragger the other day out of interest (having bought Norton Utilities partly for the speed disk I haven't used XPs utility for a while) and it stopped defragging when the report stated that the disk was still 34% defraggmented. The defrag report also stated that this was far from satisfactory, but it was the best it could do. I don't understand it! Does anyone else?

  woodchip 13:32 07 May 04

They both use different Optimization methods you should use one or the other not both

  joseph k. 13:37 07 May 04

Thanks again 'Woodchip', but from what you have said I can definately deduce that using Speed Disk is OK can I?

  woodchip 13:42 07 May 04

I should say OK, but do not run other Norton utilities other than AV and Firewall at start of comp I only use Speed Disc and Disc Doctor as both I think are better than MS

  woodchip 13:45 07 May 04

One question are you using Fat32 or NTFS to find out double click My computer right click C:\ drive and check what properties say. As you need to know if Norton supports NTFS. If not it will mess your drive up

  joseph k. 13:57 07 May 04

That is a little bit worrying as it is NTFS. Obviously when I was using it with 98se it was Fat 32.

  woodchip 14:59 07 May 04

Check at symantec to see if 2002 supports NTFS

  joseph k. 15:21 07 May 04

I know this isn't quite the same thing, but it does say that it is designed for programs upto XP. I'll go and check as you say now, and report back.

  joseph k. 15:38 07 May 04

Just been there and their very first FAQ on the subject 'NTFS Speed Disk 2002' gave me the definitive answer. Speed disk is designed to run on 98se using fat32 and by default on XP using NTFS. It is a bit puzzling that it and the XP defragmenter should deliver such polar results though. As I have said the XP defrag stops 2/3 of the way, says that really isn't good enough, but it cannot do anymore. Weird! Consequently I have asked them if they can spare a moment to let me know why this is. I don't suppose they will, especially as it seems only to be of academic interest. Whatever thanks for all your time and effort woodchip. This place has become my computer University. I ask so much that I travel by many aka's LOL!

  woodchip 17:13 07 May 04

If it supports NTFS you will be better using it

  joseph k. 17:33 07 May 04

Actually better! Brill! I have always thought of it as being a more pernickety version of defrag, not actually different. Thanks again. J

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Best phone camera 2016/2017: Galaxy S7 vs iPhone 7 vs Google Pixel vs HTC 10 Evo vs OnePlus 3T vs…

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

These are the Best Christmas Ads and Studio Projects of 2016

Super Mario Run preview | Hands-on first impressions of Super Mario Run: Mario's iPhone & iPad…