- Apr 2, 2001
- 26,558
- 4
- 0
Originally posted by: Marauder911
If only between the two, the native one. I would, however, suggest upgrading to Diskeeper. Windows XP's built in defragmenter is a castrated version of Diskeeper, and would highly recommend getting Diskeeper.
Originally posted by: Marauder911
If only between the two, the native one. I would, however, suggest upgrading to Diskeeper. Windows XP's built in defragmenter is a castrated version of Diskeeper, and would highly recommend getting Diskeeper.
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Originally posted by: Marauder911
If only between the two, the native one. I would, however, suggest upgrading to Diskeeper. Windows XP's built in defragmenter is a castrated version of Diskeeper, and would highly recommend getting Diskeeper.
What does Diskeeper add?
Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Originally posted by: Marauder911
If only between the two, the native one. I would, however, suggest upgrading to Diskeeper. Windows XP's built in defragmenter is a castrated version of Diskeeper, and would highly recommend getting Diskeeper.
What does Diskeeper add?
Yes what makes it better?
it does not sound better at all.Originally posted by: saxophonoia
Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Originally posted by: Marauder911
If only between the two, the native one. I would, however, suggest upgrading to Diskeeper. Windows XP's built in defragmenter is a castrated version of Diskeeper, and would highly recommend getting Diskeeper.
What does Diskeeper add?
Yes what makes it better?
didn't feel like explaining it all so here is a link I will say that it is much faster though along with some added features.