Re: is there a better XP Defrag..?

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:35:00 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler
>On 6/10/05 03:08:18, Edward W. Thompson wrote:

>> Third party defraggers are not better than the WINXP native defragger
>> unless running faster and having a pretty interface makes them better.
>> From a functional point of view the WINXP native defragger is equal to
>> all third party defraggers

>Do you have some good facts to back this up? Or is it just a belief?

I think the assertion is based on the OS's defrag API, which is called
by most defraggers. If the native defragger and add-on defraggers are
all using the same API, they'd be unlikely to differ in terms of
result; only convenience (e.g. defrag all volumes sequentially).

However, some defraggers may work in ways other than the API (Norton
Speed Disk is said to) or may parametize the API differently, and that
might make them more versitile, if not uniformly better.

More effective still, might be to partition intelligently. For
example, if NTFS insists on putting core file system structures plumb
in the middle of the volume so speed is much the same when it fills
up, but the volume never fills up, then you have all that head travel
for nothing - better to size the volume smaller, so no matter how
useless the defrag or file system logic, the total head travel is
constrained by the size of the volume.





>------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
Forget http://cquirke.blogspot.com and check out a
better one at http://topicdrift.blogspot.com instead!
>------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
.