Best phone camera 2016/2017: Galaxy S7 vs iPhone 7 vs Google Pixel vs HTC 10 Evo vs OnePlus 3T vs…
Hi to you all,
I'm using XP Home pent 4 with 2 hard drives, I'm trying to defrag my HD's by either nortons speed disk of MS systems defrag, but without any success. I usually use Nortons Speed disk, but this does not now seem to work, it stops at about 50%, and MS defrag does not seem to work. Is this because of a conflict between the 2?
I have also tried to defrag in safe mode but still no joy.
I have two HD's the one with the system i.e. C drive is the one that I'm trying to defrag, have not tried the other D drive.
Would welcom any advise. Use Nortons 2002.
I have been using this Norton Utility to optimize my Hd, but find that within a few days it drops from 100% optimized to arround 70%. Today I thought I`d try a MS defrag, but the analysis says that i do not need to defrag this volume.In fact it says that total fragmentation is only 4%.
Why do both these utilities seem to disagree with each other, and which is the best to use?
Also a friend told me that too much defraging can harm the disk, is this true?
I am using Win Xp Pro and NTFS
Oops, didn`t mean to repost this thread as well as mine which is titled Norton Speed Disk
I have had both run on my system without any apparent conflict (using NIS2003). However you could try disabling the speed disk service and then running the Windows defragmenter and see if that helps. Also depending on when you last defragged your disk the process can take some time and its not unusual in such circumstances for it to appear to hang.
According to Norton (in the NIS2003 manual) the difference between what Speeddisk reports and what other defragmenters (including Windows Disk Defragmenter) report is due to "different statistical reporting" by each programme, the point is also made that Speeddisk "optimises" the disk by grouping files depending on how they are accessed which is not the same as defragmentation which invlolves re-arranging the way data is stored such that each file is "stored in adjacent or contigious disk clusters". .
Nevertheless I too have experienced a similar situation to yourself Shunna (on a 2.53 P4, Win Xp Pro Sys) in that I would run Speeddisk and find that after only a few days it would report fragmentation of 20% plus.
Windows defragmenter on the other hand would say that the disk did not need to be de-fragmented.
However I do recall reading somewhere that Windows Degragmenter can be a little tardy when it comes to letting you know its a good time to defrag so I generally run it on the first saturday of the month on the relevent partitions that require it.
I don't now bother with Speeddisk since I noted no performance benefit over using the Windows defragmenter. The fact that the Windows Defragmenter won't degfrag the swap file been overcome by placing the swap file on a seperate partition of its own to minimise the likelihood of it getting fragmented.
Finally hard disks are pretty robust devices so defragmenting every month or so is unlikely to harm it. Defragmenting more often than that is probably only called for in the event that you have installed or uninstalled a lot of new programmes. If of course you use a programme such a Diskkeeper lite that is designed to run (as needed) in the background that is a different situation since that is a feature of the programme and should not harm your disk.
The reason Norton reprots quicker than Windows about fragmentation is exactly because of what Boyzone has said in his reply. After defragmentation by Windows new installed files are placed after all the rest of the data in continious order, or at least sort of. With Norton new data to the drive does not necessarily mean it is to go at the end of all other data, hence fragmentation reporting. I do have to add though that defrag for NTFS and FAT 32 is not very efficient, because of the way the file systems work. It is more a case of alphabetically arranging, with Norton also having placement rules, than actual defragmentation.
That would be OU812 in his reply, sorry guys
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.