- Oct 18, 1999
- 359
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: Noema
Built in, and I just let it do it automatically.
Originally posted by: oog
Originally posted by: Noema
Built in, and I just let it do it automatically.
same here
Originally posted by: lxskllr
Built in, it works just fine, and you can't beat the price.
Originally posted by: videopho
No choice but built-in.
I tried O&O (64bit) that didn't even install.
I use O&O everywhere else but Vista.
Originally posted by: Mem
Originally posted by: videopho
No choice but built-in.
I tried O&O (64bit) that didn't even install.
I use O&O everywhere else but Vista.
If you try to install the 32 bit version of O&O on Vista x64 it won't install,the 64 bit version works fine.I'm using O&O 8.6 (64 bit version) with my Vista x64,I like the different defrag options and speed it has over Vista's built-in one,I know version 10 is out but I'm very happy with the older version still.
Originally posted by: Nothinman
I find it amazing how many people actually worry about things like this that don't really affect anything.
Dude, keep that thinking to yourself.
My RAID0 was 50% fragmented, down to 0.5% after running Complete Access mode
and bingo, guess what?
My FSx game loading just drops a whopping ~300% or from 10 minutes down to just over 3 minutes.
This thing is a must when you run heavy disk caching memory apps like this one.
Also a huge benefit when running video encoding as well.
Based on O&O analysis, that's a fair assesment or calculation although I have not yet specifically gone into details by reading up on its site.
In fact, both of my FS2004 & FSx load time now have significantly reduced, more specific, the heavy-duty FSx "memory hogged" game loading time has gone from easily 15 minutes down to 2 minutes or so after spending sometime, pampering with it last night.
O&O, IMO, is proven way far better effective than the "freebee" from Vista OS, at least IMOE.