Re: XP - Disk Defragmentor vs Diskeeper
From: DILIP (dilipr_at_#*&!%l.com)
Date: 10/06/04
- Next message: David Maynard: "Re: Qualifying Media for XP - Use What?"
- Previous message: Pheasant PluckerŪ: "Networking 2 XP Pro machines"
- In reply to: Prabhat: "Re: XP - Disk Defragmentor vs Diskeeper"
- Next in thread: SlowJet: "Re: XP - Disk Defragmentor vs Diskeeper"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 13:03:31 +0530
The difference is with Partition Magic, you won't have the pains of a clean
installation - Like setting up the computer preferences just as you like
them. With a clean install you lose everything and start from scratch.
I've used PM7 Pro for conversion without any problems. Hope this helps.
-- Replace the obvious with "hotmail" "Prabhat" <not_a_mail@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uPlpbQuqEHA.3744@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > Hi Dilip, > > Thanks for the Information. The info about the Clean Install and Clustue > Size is Helpful to me. > I wanted to go for a "Convert". But Now I will not Opt for that, Instead I > will Do A Clean Install. > > And Aslo I have Partition magic 8.0. So I think I can also get that with > that. > > Thanks > Prabhat > > "DILIP" <dilipr@#*&!%l.com> wrote in message > news:OrYwIHuqEHA.2340@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... >> The XP clean installation format will always format the drive in the > *latest >> version* of the NTFS system files so you needn't worry about that (it >> doesn't matter whether you're using a slipstreamed Sp1 or Sp2 disk). The >> fact is Win2K ran NT5 which was substantially different from what was >> offered in NT4 (Encryption support for instance). And Windows XP runs >> something that is similar to the 2K version only that certain security >> enhancements and bugs have been ironed out. >> >> While formatting from the XP installation, cluster size is always 4K by >> default which is the best actually. Anything less than 4K and NTFS >> compression will not work on the drive. "convert" command will yield >> 512k >> clusters so don't use that. The only other option to get 4K clusters is > to >> convert using Partition magic 7+. >> >> -- >> Replace the obvious with "hotmail" >> >> "Prabhat" <not_a_mail@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:uDe%23SxiqEHA.1992@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >> > HI, >> > >> > That Format while Installing Will format to a NTFS or NTFS5? >> > >> > Now I am downloading from link: >> > http://www.raxco.co.uk/download.asp?ProductID=&Type= >> > >> > Thanks >> > Prabhat >> > >> > "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message >> > news:ake8d.3071$Vm1.355@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... >> >> Maybe the download is off-line for mainanence. >> >> >> >> Yes, when you install fresh XP will display a list of existing > partitions >> >> which are candidates for the install. Make sure that the partition you >> >> wish to use is labeled C:, other wise you can end up with a Windows >> >> install on another driver letter. (Not a big issue, but C:\ is > preferred) >> >> >> >> Once you select a partition/disk to install to, XP should present a >> >> screen with format options. ( If it doesn't, do not continue). There > are >> >> two options for NTFS, regular & Quick. A Quick format is faster >> >> but doesn't do bad sector checking. For more info, read this page: >> >> >> > > http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us >> > > /Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prkc_f >> > il_hzfx.asp >> >> >> >> >> >> "Prabhat" <not_a_mail@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:u$1w%23jiqEHA.3428@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... >> >> > Hi., >> >> > >> >> > That Link also Redirect to the Same Page again. >> >> > >> >> > Prabhat >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message >> >> > news:v0e8d.3280$gs1.51@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... >> >> >> Opps, Sorry about that - Try this one instead: >> >> >> http://www.raxco.com/products/downloadit/ >> >> >> >> >> >> "Prabhat" <not_a_mail@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:uMZWsaiqEHA.376@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... >> >> >> > Hi, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The Link is working, But the EXE Link in that Page does not WORK. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > http://www.raxco.com/products/downloadit/perfectdisk2000_download.cfm >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Thanks for this Link >> >> >> > Prabhat >> >> >> > >> >> >> > "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > news:jcd8d.3045$Vm1.2477@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... >> >> >> >> NTFS is Windows XP's native disk format. It offers a number of >> >> >> >> advantages over FAT32. The speed differential between them is >> >> >> >> very small. I would say that NTFS would be worth the conversion. >> >> >> >> But, with any disk modification, I would do a Chkdsk on all > first, >> >> >> >> even though the conversion itself will do a cursory disk check. >> >> >> >> You'll want to be sure to avoid ending up with 512 Kbyte > clusters. >> >> >> >> Do a Google for "NTFS Conversion 512" and you'll find plenty of >> >> >> >> tech notes on the potential issue. >> >> >> >> Also, if you are interested in "Fine Tuning" your drives, I > would >> >> >> >> recommend you investigate Raxco's Perfect Disk 2000, Version 6. >> >> >> >> With Offline and GUI Defrag it certainly optimizes performance & >> >> >> >> integrates nicely with Prefetch/Layout. >> >> >> >> They have a 30-Day free, but fully functional trial at: >> >> >> >> >> > http://www.raxco.com/products/downloadit/perfectdisk2000_download.cfm >> >> >> >> Spend a few minutes reading the Help on setup and configuration. >> >> >> >> Product cost is ~$45.00. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Prabhat" <not_a_mail@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> news:%23GUUe3hqEHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >> >> >> >> > Hi, >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Good Link. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > I have sen the Link: http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > There it is Mentioned that the : >> >> >> >> > NTFS Performance is Low on small volumes and High on Large >> > Volumns. >> >> >> >> > But FAT32 Performance is is High on small volumes and Low on >> >> >> >> > Large >> >> >> >> > Volumns. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > But what is that Volumn Size? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > I have a 80 GB GDD - 7200 RPM with Partition of 14 GB Each. SO >> >> > Shaould >> >> >> >> > I >> >> >> >> > Go >> >> >> >> > for NTFS, And Will NTFS will Perform GOOD on that Partition? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Thanks >> >> >> >> > Prabhat >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in > message >> >> >> >> > news:D6c8d.3136$gs1.2877@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... >> >> >> >> >> Please see the following: >> >> >> >> >> http://www.ntfs.com/quest1.htm >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "DILIP" <dilipr@#*&!%l.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> news:%236DG6IhqEHA.516@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >> >> >> >> >> > "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in >> > message >> >> >> >> >> > news:2898d.3068$gs1.346@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... >> >> >> >> >> >> NTFS has revision levels, just like Windows. Currently, XP >> > uses >> >> >> >> >> >> NTFS 3.1. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > The NTFS version for XP is 5.1. Win2K was NTFS 5. NT4 was >> > NTFS >> >> > 1.1 >> >> >> > or >> >> >> >> >> > commonly called NTFS 4. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > Also, fragmentation level is determined by usage & >> >> >> >> >> >> type of disk use. One factor is having My Documents and > other >> >> >> >> >> >> user data stores on the XP partition. Since those change >> >> > frequently >> >> >> >> >> >> it contributes to the fragmentation level. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Prabhat" <not_a_mail@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >> news:OsBDddfqEHA.1952@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... >> >> >> >> >> >>> Hi, >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Can you tell me what is NTFS 3? >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> I have my PC XP + SP2 (FAT32). Is the NTFS 3 is there in > XP >> > and >> >> > If >> >> >> > I >> >> >> >> >> >>> Convert >> >> >> >> >> >>> to NTFS DO I Get that? >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Thanks >> >> >> >> >> >>> Prabhat >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> "SlowJet" <SlowJet@noTY2this.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >>> news:iN88d.3355$Xk1.2947@trnddc02... >> >> >> >> >> >>>> I think diskkeeper has a marketing point that does not >> >> >> >> >> >>>> apply >> >> >> >> >> >>>> to >> >> >> > many >> >> >> >> >> >>> single >> >> >> >> >> >>>> computer users. The past need for frequent defrags is >> >> >> >> >> >>>> not >> >> > really >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> >>>> case >> >> >> >> >> >>>> for large partitions and NTFS 3. >> >> >> >> >> >>>> I found that running DK lite on a multi-partition disk >> > acually >> >> >> > keep >> >> >> >> > my >> >> >> >> >> >>>> Windows from self tuning after SP2, not to mention a bit > of >> >> > over >> >> >> >> >> >>>> head >> >> >> >> >> >>>> reporting news fragments. >> >> >> >> >> >>>> I wondered what the heck is a fragment anyway? >> >> >> >> >> >>>> It turns out that newly allocated files have > overallocation >> >> >> >> >> >>>> fragments >> >> >> >> >> >>>> and >> >> >> >> >> >>>> that are not always released until after a new file is >> > opened >> >> >> > again >> >> >> >> > or >> >> >> >> >> >>>> undated. I'm not sure how it works but I do know it is > not >> >> > worth >> >> >> >> >> >>>> worring >> >> >> >> >> >>>> about. >> >> >> >> >> >>>> On a single user computer with xp sp2, you could run for >> > years >> >> >> >> >> >>>> and >> >> >> >> >> >>> wouldn't >> >> >> >> >> >>>> ever reach the point of defragmentation equal to the SP2 >> >> > install. >> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> On a Pent 4 2.4 I defrag with the windows defrag and it >> >> >> >> >> >>>> doesn't >> >> >> > take >> >> >> >> >> >>>> very >> >> >> >> >> >>>> long and it seldom leaves any unfragmented files. All > I'm >> >> > saying >> >> >> > is >> >> >> >> >> >>>> for >> >> >> >> >> >>>> older PC's your money would be better spent on hardware >> >> >> >> >> >>>> that >> > a >> >> >> > bunch >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> >> >>> out >> >> >> >> >> >>>> dated and redundant untilities. >> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> And try letting your computer run two or three weeks >> >> >> >> >> >>>> without >> > a >> >> >> >> >> >>>> defrag >> >> >> >> >> >>>> and >> >> >> >> >> >>>> you'll see it is just as fast becuse NTFS doesn't slow > down >> >> > like >> >> >> > FAT >> >> >> >> >> >>>> and >> >> >> >> >> >>> the >> >> >> >> >> >>>> slowest you disk will ever be is right after the SP2 >> > install. >> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> IMO, :) >> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> SJ >> >> >> >> >> >>>> "Prabhat" <not_a_mail@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >>>> news:%23ia6QNeqEHA.1988@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > Ignore My Earlier POST as I forgot to send Multiple > News >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > Groups. >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > Hi all, >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > I have one Confusion. >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > I use my XP Built in Disk Defragmentor Once in a WEEK. >> > (And >> >> >> > After >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > a >> >> >> >> >> >>> CLean >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > Install). >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > Recently I have seen that The Builtin Defragmentor is >> > Still >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > Display >> >> >> >> > a >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > report >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > with the list of file that could not be defragmented. > So >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > I >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > searched >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > for >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > good >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > Deframentor in Internet and Found : "Diskeeper" from >> >> > Executive >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > Software. >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > I have installed that in my XP PC with SP2. I have > tested >> >> > that >> >> >> > and >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > found >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > Very good features in compare to Built in one. But > after >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > I >> >> >> > Install >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > that >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > When >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > I start my Biult in Defragmentor then that does not > start >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > the >> >> >> >> > Windows >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > Defregmentor but Starts the Diskeeper. >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > My Diskeeper Point to : C:\WINNT\system32\mmc.exe >> >> > "C:\Program >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > Files\Executive Software\Diskeeper\Diskeeper.msc" >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > and Build in Disk Defragmentor Ponts to : >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > %SystemRoot%\System32\dfrg.msc >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > Then Why does the Diskeeper Starts when I start my > Built >> > in >> >> >> >> >> >>> Defragmentor? >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > Thanks for any Suggestions >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > Prabhat >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > >
- Next message: David Maynard: "Re: Qualifying Media for XP - Use What?"
- Previous message: Pheasant PluckerŪ: "Networking 2 XP Pro machines"
- In reply to: Prabhat: "Re: XP - Disk Defragmentor vs Diskeeper"
- Next in thread: SlowJet: "Re: XP - Disk Defragmentor vs Diskeeper"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
