Prev: defragmentation
Next: Dell running XP Pro SP3 will not recognize previously recognized printer
From: thanatoid on 26 Dec 2009 01:57
"Twayne" <nobody(a)spamcop.net> wrote in
news:OUF4P$dhKHA.1460(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

<SNIP>

>> Thanks for the further explanation. I will carefully
>> experiment with the Me defragger - it has always worked
>> great in 9x, and with the Auslogic one which someone said
>> this about:
>
> Uhh, worked OK in 9x?

Yes, it is common advice in virtually every tweak site I have
seen to use the Me versions of scandisk and defrag, they usually
come as one file.

> Then you have formatted your XP
> disks as FAT?

FAT32. I don't trust NTFS.

> I don't think a win9x program would work
> right on XP's normal NTFS system, because it very likely
> didn't exist at that time and most likely couldn't account
> for it. I'd be careful running a FAT took on an NTFS disk;
> if that's what's going on.

As you already know, no, but I tried it, and it wouldn't run,
the usual incomprehensible dependencies message. But I installed
the free Auslogics defragger and it is great - I'm gonna forget
about the XP defragger.

>> "WinXP defrag = A bicycle going through one foot of sticky
>> mud. Auslogics Disk Defrag = The Starship Enterprise at
>> warp speed."
>
> LOL! Not sure I agree with that, but ... it is a minimal
> product without any bells & whistles. Except for the newer
> defraggers around, I usually found XPs defragger to be
> faster than other 3rd party tools. The newer stuff though
> has jumped ahead of it.

Try the Auslogics. I haven't actually defragged anything with
it, just analyzed - it WAS fast, and the interface and the
options and the info it gives are VERY promising.

t.
From: Twayne on 26 Dec 2009 13:53
In news:Xns9CED9E722EBFthanexit(a)188.40.43.245,
thanatoid <waiting(a)the.exit.invalid> typed:
> "Twayne" <nobody(a)spamcop.net> wrote in
> news:OUF4P$dhKHA.1460(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>> Thanks for the further explanation. I will carefully
>>> experiment with the Me defragger - it has always worked
>>> great in 9x, and with the Auslogic one which someone said
>>> this about:
>>
>> Uhh, worked OK in 9x?
>
> Yes, it is common advice in virtually every tweak site I have
> seen to use the Me versions of scandisk and defrag, they usually
> come as one file.
>
>> Then you have formatted your XP
>> disks as FAT?
>
> FAT32. I don't trust NTFS.
>
>> I don't think a win9x program would work
>> right on XP's normal NTFS system, because it very likely
>> didn't exist at that time and most likely couldn't account
>> for it. I'd be careful running a FAT took on an NTFS disk;
>> if that's what's going on.
>
> As you already know, no, but I tried it, and it wouldn't run,
> the usual incomprehensible dependencies message. But I installed
> the free Auslogics defragger and it is great - I'm gonna forget
> about the XP defragger.
>
>>> "WinXP defrag = A bicycle going through one foot of sticky
>>> mud. Auslogics Disk Defrag = The Starship Enterprise at
>>> warp speed."
>>
>> LOL! Not sure I agree with that, but ... it is a minimal
>> product without any bells & whistles. Except for the newer
>> defraggers around, I usually found XPs defragger to be
>> faster than other 3rd party tools. The newer stuff though
>> has jumped ahead of it.
>
> Try the Auslogics. I haven't actually defragged anything with
> it, just analyzed - it WAS fast, and the interface and the
> options and the info it gives are VERY promising.
>
> t.

Hmm, I just might do that if it'll handle NTFS. I can understand the logic
on abuot everything you said except IMO your distrust of NTFS isn't
necessary. With all the additional features and functions it provides I
consider it a great step forward from the day it came out.
One think I have often wondered about though: If your machine is all FAT,
whichever version of it you use, I wonder if that thwarts viruses and
malware at all? Expecially the ones that want to mess with the OS. Not that
the perpetrators would eve know in most cases; they're irrelevant anyway
once they've sent their spews.

Cheers,

Twayne`




--
--
We've already reached
tomorrow's yesterday
but we're still far away from
yesterday's tomorrow.

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: defragmentation
Next: Dell running XP Pro SP3 will not recognize previously recognized printer