Better de-fragger program?

[Brutuskend]

Nortons (bundled with system works)

Or Windows XP's native de-fragger

And why?

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

I just use the one WIndows comes with

Beyond what it does, how much more speed improvement are you expecting from it?

 

[PowerMacG5]

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.

 

[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?

 

[saxophonoia]

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.

Yeah Diskeeper is much better in the full version.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[Dufman]

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.

it does not sound better at all.

 

[jmgonzalez]

You can schedule proactive defrags of your drive with Diskeeper. If you have a certain period of time during a day to run this, you can tell it to run during those times only.

 

[LordSnailz]

Is there a free and good one out there that can beat the native one? Speed is not as important as how effective it is.

 

[DGath]

I have windows defrag set to defrag all my drives once a week while I'm in class or at work. This feature isn't anything special. I can think of better things to spend $30 on. Set windows scheduler to run windows/system32/defrag c: or whatever drive you want done.

For those native defraggers, just found out the other day that system32/defrag.exe has a hidden feature, defrag -b. That will only defrag boot files and move them to the front. Why microsoft doesn't list this feature is beyond me.

Charging a lot of money for a defragger is like charging a lot of money for bottled water, why?

 

[RVN]

I use the built in XP defragger for my os and programs partition and O&O for the "storage" partitions. I used the free O&O (no longer available) for years before buying the "pro" version. I used the Norton speed disk and Disk Keeper and Disk Keeper Lite and prefer the interface and functionality of the O&O better on NTFS partitions.