Speed Disk vs Defrag

These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. Defrag
removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on the
harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk
(Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of
speak) so that all the empty space is together.

If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you should
use both tools.
My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter?
Can one tool undermine the other?

Thanks

Use one (1) of 'em.

JCO wrote:
> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up.
> Defrag
> removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on
> the
> harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk
> (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of
> speak) so that all the empty space is together.
>
> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you
> should
> use both tools.
> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter?
> Can one tool undermine the other?
>
> Thanks

use either one
at any time because
it "really" makes no
difference to the
"machine".

however, what i do
recommend is to ensure
you do a chkdsk to ensure
that the mft reconciles
with the file system,
before and after defrag-in.

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>


"JCO" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:3nD3k.3801$8q2.2416@trnddc02...
> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. Defrag
> removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on the
> harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk
> (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of speak)
> so that all the empty space is together.
>
> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you should
> use both tools.
> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter? Can
> one tool undermine the other?
>
> Thanks
>
>

JCO wrote:
> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up.
> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data
> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the
> HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up
> front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is together.
>
> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you
> should use both tools.
> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it
> matter? Can one tool undermine the other?
>
> Thanks
>
>

First, IMO, the term defrag does not necessarily imply its going to
order anything. Defrag is just the process of joining all the segments
of a fragmented file into one file on contiguous sectors of the HD.
Not necessarily any special place. There are defraggers like O&O
defrag that I like that will let you order them by date used, date
created, name or just do a fast defrag filling holes.
I'm not sure if there is any logic to the built in version in XP.
And I truely can't talk about Norton.

So when you say Speed Disk does an ordering, and stacks it up front,
that's basically the same thing the internal XP one does, maybe not the
ordering, I don't know about XP's logic if any. It does pull all the
files forward (if you wish to use that term) and leaves the remainder of
the drive in the back. I do think however that XP's Defrag does hop
around the NTFS MFT files and any unmovable files. Norton might be
more bold and move a bit more. I've seen utilities that say they do
shuffle and rebuild the registry (which is normally unmovable) and MFT
area but I'm not sure I want those things moved on a running system anyway.

I think just running XP's defrag would suffice most system maintenance
plans.

"JCO" wrote in <news:3nD3k.3801$8q2.2416@trnddc02>:

> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. Defrag
> removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on the
> harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk
> (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of
> speak) so that all the empty space is together.

They are both disk defragmenters. They use slightly different criteria
as to what is the best scheme to defragment the files.

> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you should
> use both tools.

No. Because each uses different criteria to defragment the file
sectors, one will try to defrag one way, the other will undo that defrag
(a bit) to do the defrag its way, the first one will undo the other
defrag again, and you keep going back and forth undoing some of what the
other defragger did.

> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter?
> Can one tool undermine the other?

Pick one and stick with it. I gave up on SpeedDisk somewhere back in
1999 when it could cause corruption of the file system. They may have
fixed that problem but then I gave up on all consumer-grade Norton
products back in 2003.

Thanks very much for the info.
Issue with the XP Defrag then is that it will only do one drive (partition)
at a time. I have 8-partitions so it's nice to set them all to Defrag and
go to bed.

"VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote in message
news:YdednVpF2YDwldLVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> "JCO" wrote in <news:3nD3k.3801$8q2.2416@trnddc02>:
>
>> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up.
>> Defrag
>> removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on
>> the
>> harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk
>> (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of
>> speak) so that all the empty space is together.
>
> They are both disk defragmenters. They use slightly different criteria
> as to what is the best scheme to defragment the files.
>
>> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you
>> should
>> use both tools.
>
> No. Because each uses different criteria to defragment the file
> sectors, one will try to defrag one way, the other will undo that defrag
> (a bit) to do the defrag its way, the first one will undo the other
> defrag again, and you keep going back and forth undoing some of what the
> other defragger did.
>
>> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter?
>> Can one tool undermine the other?
>
> Pick one and stick with it. I gave up on SpeedDisk somewhere back in
> 1999 when it could cause corruption of the file system. They may have
> fixed that problem but then I gave up on all consumer-grade Norton
> products back in 2003.

fyi:

speed disk actually
reorganizes the file
system.

if i recall, it moves
all the system files
to the beginning and
sorts them alphabetically.

but again it really doesn't
make a difference to the
machine because as
you say defrag is simply to
clump files together to
reduce disk access time.

i prefer the windows
defrag method myself.
--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

"Big_Al" <BigAl@MD.com> wrote in message news:%FD3k.6776$3j2.2922@trnddc03...
> JCO wrote:
>> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. Defrag
>> removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on the
>> harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk
>> (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of speak)
>> so that all the empty space is together.
>>
>> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you should
>> use both tools.
>> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter? Can
>> one tool undermine the other?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>
> First, IMO, the term defrag does not necessarily imply its going to order
> anything. Defrag is just the process of joining all the segments of a
> fragmented file into one file on contiguous sectors of the HD. Not necessarily
> any special place. There are defraggers like O&O defrag that I like that
> will let you order them by date used, date created, name or just do a fast
> defrag filling holes.
> I'm not sure if there is any logic to the built in version in XP.
> And I truely can't talk about Norton.
>
> So when you say Speed Disk does an ordering, and stacks it up front, that's
> basically the same thing the internal XP one does, maybe not the ordering, I
> don't know about XP's logic if any. It does pull all the files forward (if
> you wish to use that term) and leaves the remainder of the drive in the back.
> I do think however that XP's Defrag does hop around the NTFS MFT files and any
> unmovable files. Norton might be more bold and move a bit more. I've seen
> utilities that say they do shuffle and rebuild the registry (which is normally
> unmovable) and MFT area but I'm not sure I want those things moved on a
> running system anyway.
>
> I think just running XP's defrag would suffice most system maintenance plans.

I use Norton's Speed Disk (Version 2006) and it does provide an option to
order files by:
Files First, Files Last and Files at End.
But it takes a lot of trial and error to make these options worth using.

JS

"Big_Al" <BigAl@MD.com> wrote in message
news:%FD3k.6776$3j2.2922@trnddc03...
> JCO wrote:
>> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up.
>> Defrag removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data
>> together on the harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the
>> HD). Speed Disk (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up
>> front (sort of speak) so that all the empty space is together.
>>
>> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you
>> should use both tools.
>> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter?
>> Can one tool undermine the other?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>
> First, IMO, the term defrag does not necessarily imply its going to order
> anything. Defrag is just the process of joining all the segments of a
> fragmented file into one file on contiguous sectors of the HD. Not
> necessarily any special place. There are defraggers like O&O defrag that
> I like that will let you order them by date used, date created, name or
> just do a fast defrag filling holes.
> I'm not sure if there is any logic to the built in version in XP.
> And I truely can't talk about Norton.
>
> So when you say Speed Disk does an ordering, and stacks it up front,
> that's basically the same thing the internal XP one does, maybe not the
> ordering, I don't know about XP's logic if any. It does pull all the
> files forward (if you wish to use that term) and leaves the remainder of
> the drive in the back. I do think however that XP's Defrag does hop
> around the NTFS MFT files and any unmovable files. Norton might be more
> bold and move a bit more. I've seen utilities that say they do shuffle
> and rebuild the registry (which is normally unmovable) and MFT area but
> I'm not sure I want those things moved on a running system anyway.
>
> I think just running XP's defrag would suffice most system maintenance
> plans.

In article <3nD3k.3801$8q2.2416@trnddc02>, someone@somewhere.com says...
> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. Defrag
> removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on the
> harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk
> (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of
> speak) so that all the empty space is together.
>
> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you should
> use both tools.
> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter?
> Can one tool undermine the other?

Actually, the pointers remain, that's how the file system works, each
cluster points to the next in line for the file to continue.

What Defrag attempts to do is make the FILE contiguous so that the r/w
heads don't waste time seeking across disk space without reading.

Fragmented file (F = File) . = some other file
FFF...F......FFFFFFFFF.....FFFF

Defragmented
.....FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.......

Defragmenting does not always include PACKING the files against each
other.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

"JCO" wrote:

> These do different things as far as keeping your harddrive tuned up. Defrag
> removes all the pointers by putting entire programs or data together on the
> harddrive (in sequence instead of scattered allover the HD). Speed Disk
> (Norton) is suppose to reorder the data and stack it up front (sort of
> speak) so that all the empty space is together.
>
> If I understand this correctly (or close enough), it seems that you should
> use both tools.
> My question is this: Which tool is better to use first? Does it matter?
> Can one tool undermine the other?
>
> Thanks
>
>
Hello,
Do not know if one is better to use then the other.
It would seem using one then the other may be doing the job twice, just a
little differently.
There is a free program.
JKDeFrag
http://www.kessels.com/jkdefrag/
Smalll, easy to use.
It will defrag all drives and partitions.
take care.
beamish.