Two Defrag Programs?

I have JKDefrag and the windows default defragmenter on my machine. Is it
ok to have both or will they conflick with each other? I would prefer to
have the JKDefrag, so would it be ok/safe to remove the default defrag?
System: Acer 2450 laptop
Windows XP - Home Edition
SP3 , Explorer 7

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:39:26 -0600, "slick1" <catishome@hotmail.com>
wrote in <#qfrysv1IHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>:

> I have JKDefrag and the windows default defragmenter on my machine. Is it
>ok to have both or will they conflick with each other?

It is OK to have both, but you should only run one at a time.

>I would prefer to
>have the JKDefrag, so would it be ok/safe to remove the default defrag?

Yes.

JkDefrag is excellent.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

I have four installed and they all work.

Just never try to run more than one at a time on the same partition.

"slick1" <catishome@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23qfrysv1IHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> I have JKDefrag and the windows default defragmenter on my machine. Is
> it ok to have both or will they conflick with each other? I would prefer
> to have the JKDefrag, so would it be ok/safe to remove the default defrag?
> System: Acer 2450 laptop
> Windows XP - Home Edition
> SP3 , Explorer 7
>
>
>

While on this subject: Which is better or worse? I have Disk Keeper 2007
installed, but I don't know if it is any better or worse than anything else.
(Naturally, Disk Keeper says theirs in the best)

/Everyone/ says theirs is the best. And everyone who uses a third-party
defragger thinks theirs is the best. What are you, some kind of
troublemaker? ;-)

---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

jp2msft wrote:
> While on this subject: Which is better or worse? I have Disk Keeper 2007
> installed, but I don't know if it is any better or worse than anything else.
> (Naturally, Disk Keeper says theirs in the best)

Haha! Yeah, probably!

Disk Keeper is nice, but it removes the references to Windows' Defrag and
replaces those references to their own links. I *guess* Disk Keeper is
working, but it would be nice to have a comparison tool that I could open up
to view whether or not Disk Keeper is doing all that it claims.

"Leonard Grey" wrote:

> /Everyone/ says theirs is the best. And everyone who uses a third-party
> defragger thinks theirs is the best. What are you, some kind of
> troublemaker? ;-)

I believe DiskKeeper offers the /option/ to replace Windows' own
defragmenter, but I don't think this is the default.

---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

jp2msft wrote:
> Haha! Yeah, probably!
>
> Disk Keeper is nice, but it removes the references to Windows' Defrag and
> replaces those references to their own links. I *guess* Disk Keeper is
> working, but it would be nice to have a comparison tool that I could open up
> to view whether or not Disk Keeper is doing all that it claims.
>
> "Leonard Grey" wrote:
>
>> /Everyone/ says theirs is the best. And everyone who uses a third-party
>> defragger thinks theirs is the best. What are you, some kind of
>> troublemaker? ;-)
>

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:40:03 -0700, jp2msft
<jp2msft@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
<62397911-8523-4FC7-BDC7-2855F833D951@microsoft.com>:

>While on this subject: Which is better or worse? I have Disk Keeper 2007
>installed, but I don't know if it is any better or worse than anything else.
>(Naturally, Disk Keeper says theirs in the best)

I use and recommend JkDefrag.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"slick1" <catishome@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23qfrysv1IHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> I have JKDefrag and the windows default defragmenter on my machine. Is
> it ok to have both or will they conflick with each other?
Under Windows 98, some defrag programs conflicted with others since
they used different rules for placing the (now) defragmented files.

I assume that these conflicts are still in existence now, but I
didn't notice a problem when I tried JKDefrag and Windows XP's builtin
version.

I didn't notice any difference in my system performance beyond what
the builtin Defragment Now does.

There is obviously room for improvement since the stand-alone disk
image programs manage to not do as much seeking as the Windows Copy
function does.

Also, none of the commercial programs that I looked at is willing to
sort the files in lexical order, which means that there is no way to
gauge the progress of the Windows search command, so I'm sticking
with the builtin defrag.

> I would prefer
> to have the JKDefrag, so would it be ok/safe to remove the default defrag?
> System: Acer 2450 laptop
> Windows XP - Home Edition
> SP3 , Explorer 7