[gries818]

My Lenovo laptop came with Diskkeeper lite installed, do you think this beta would run on XP, I love the program

EDIT:

This Diskeeper build will only install on the specific builds of the 32-bit Vista noted, it will not install on other Windows platforms. Also note this Diskeeper build must be installed/uninstalled by the default Administrator account only

I'm still gonna try anyways

Just Install on Vista and Defrag through Vista

[phileysmiley]

My Lenovo laptop came with Diskkeeper lite installed, do you think this beta would run on XP, I love the program

EDIT:

This Diskeeper build will only install on the specific builds of the 32-bit Vista noted, it will not install on other Windows platforms. Also note this Diskeeper build must be installed/uninstalled by the default Administrator account only

I'm still gonna try anyways

Just Install on Vista and Defrag through Vista

I happen to be doing that as we speak.

[kd1966]

My experience with this new Beta is ................ ummmm Ok so far, but I am not really comparing it to the Vista Defragger as much as I am comparing it to the PerfectDisk 7 defragger I use in XP........... if that makes sense.

Anyhow, I defragged TWICE in Vista using DK10 and the best fragmentation level I could get was some files with ~85 excess fragments or so, which was better than after the first DK10 defrag, which had me with a few files of over 130'ish fragments, but still far better than without defragmenting at all.............

After the SECOND round of DK10 defragging, I rebooted to XP (I'm there now) to defrag this Vista drive using PerfectDisk-7, which I did and here are the "After" screen shots:



Ok, with this shot, as you can see, it is the "Summary screen", but a few things "STAND OUT" if you will........ Like the almost 650 excess fragments in the Metadata.......... Wazzup wit dat???

On to the next one...........



Well dang it all........ there's that rascally HIBERFIL.SYS file I can't seem to get rid of in Vista......... 2+GB in size, but thankfully only ~30 or so excess fragments........

Last one for now.........



Ok, so apparantly Metadata files not only hidden, but cannot be defragged, and I'm OK with that....... EXCEPT that one of the files has nearly FIVE HUNDRED EXCESS FRAGMENTS and the other one has nearly ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY!!!

Is there any way possible that MS with this glorious new OS could reduce the number of fragmented files that we as users cannot "UN-FRAG"???

[phileysmiley]

How did you get that last shot? I'll see what mine looks like. Tell me how to navigate to it.

__________
EDIT: Oh, nm. That's not Diskeeper.

[kd1966]

I'm sorry Larry, those shots were from PerfectDisk 7; I was trying to see if I could get better defrag from DK or PD. It appears that I get a "leeeetle" bit better with PD, but still there are issues with the Metadata and the Hiberfile

[phileysmiley]

this thing is so much better than the built in defragger. If MS doesn't get their act together in fixing defrag.exe, Diskeeper and other such programs are going to get a lot of business.

But that doesn't hurt MS in any way shape or form, so why bother?

CG is correct. MS has stressed many times that they consider Windows to be a platform for ISV's, so in some cases, they really don't even want to put in the effort to improve some native functions. They need to keep the door open for third party developers.

[kd1966]

True - just look at who's suing them now (Adobe for PDF, Symanctec for imaging stuff...........) So would the DK people sue if MS ostensibly "improved" the defragger......???

[imnuts]

True - just look at who's suing them now (Adobe for PDF, Symanctec for imaging stuff...........) So would the DK people sue if MS ostensibly "improved" the defragger......???

they should at least make it so that it actually defragments the drive instead of fragmenting it, or doing nothing at all. I mean, the Diskeeper folks helped MS with the defrag.exe program in XP, it's just a very simplified version of the full program, so I don't see why they would have much of an issue if MS made at least a working defrag program and integrated it. Sort of defeats the purpose of including it if it doesn't work.

[phileysmiley]

True - just look at who's suing them now (Adobe for PDF, Symanctec for imaging stuff...........) So would the DK people sue if MS ostensibly "improved" the defragger......???

The issues are different though. Adobe sued because MS WANTED to include PDF support. Adobe didn't want MS to have the option to "save as PDF" by default without paying them a fee for the use of the name. MS took it OUT because Adobe didn't want it there by default.

[bigjohnl]

Diskeeper works just great on Vista for me.