General discussion

Locked

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--8/17/00

By ebott ·
Windows 2000 includes a light version of Executive Software's Diskeeper defragmentation software. Unfortunately, it has a few serious limitations, most notably its inability to schedule defrag sessions or optimize data in the Master File Table. Is disk fragmentation really an issue for Windows 2000 users? Should I upgrade to the full version of Diskeeper on NT and W2K workstations and servers? Is Norton's Speed Disk 5.0 any better? I'm especially interested in hearing of any independent benchmarks you've run to measure performance gains and of any hassles you might have encountered when defragging Windows 2000 servers.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

27 total posts (Page 3 of 3)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--8/17/00

by jostermann In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

Having used both at one point to verify the effectiveness in a large corporate environment, I found that both seemed to work without too much when installed on clean machines. When installed on "dirty" machines (heavily used/fragmented) Diskeeper worked but required multiple runs and reboots to complete, whereas Speed disk consistantly caused BSOD's on the same system (ghosted hard drives).

Also, Diskeeper when purchase as the multiple license server setup included versions for NT, and Win9x clients, and unlike Speed Disk, is currently W2K compliant.

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--8/17/00

by ebott In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

The question was auto-closed by TechRepublic

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--8/17/00

by taroy In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

I can not give you a posative answer on the various different defrag porgrams avail or which one is better as the only one I use is the Diskeeper Lite. I have no problems with this product.

I am runnig a laptop with 128megs of ram and have my pagefile set for 140 Megs for both Minimum and maximum settings. this keeps the page file size a constant size which helps keep your disk from fragmenting as often. You can also move your pagefile to another partition other than your C partition which will help as well.

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--8/17/00

by ebott In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

The question was auto-closed by TechRepublic

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--8/17/00

by Optimiser In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

Disk fragmentation is necessary for 200 users. As for Disk-keeper, not only does it not defrag properly the first time it is run (U have to run it a couple of times), but u end up with more fragments than what U started with!
Norton Speed Disk is definately better than Diskkeeper. Running it once is more than enough. It really defrags your disk and you can feel the change after using it. I have tried them both and will give Nortons Speed Disk the go ahead.

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--8/17/00

by ebott In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

The question was auto-closed by TechRepublic

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--8/17/00

by ebott In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

This question was auto closed due to inactivity

Back to Windows Forum
27 total posts (Page 3 of 3)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03

Related Discussions

Related Forums