acerola
asked on
defrag program with the "folders first" option
SpeedDisk used to be great. Lots of options. You could defrag you HD they very way you wanted. But now its XP version doesn't even have the "folders first" option. It also doesn't defrag locked files.
I found some defrag programs that defrag the locked files, but so far no one can put all the folders together. They are all over my HD.
So, anyone knows a defrag program for win xp that have this "folders first" option?
I found some defrag programs that defrag the locked files, but so far no one can put all the folders together. They are all over my HD.
So, anyone knows a defrag program for win xp that have this "folders first" option?
Howdy
Having depended on and been generally pleased with the performance of Diskeeper,stated above, recent testing with this product, O&O defrag V4, has shown some positive challenges and improved performance.
It has several methodologies you can choose from and you might just be pleasantly surprised as to how well it does for you.
http://www.oosoft.de/english/products/oodefragv4/index.html
You may want to give it try.
ITsy
Having depended on and been generally pleased with the performance of Diskeeper,stated above, recent testing with this product, O&O defrag V4, has shown some positive challenges and improved performance.
It has several methodologies you can choose from and you might just be pleasantly surprised as to how well it does for you.
http://www.oosoft.de/english/products/oodefragv4/index.html
You may want to give it try.
ITsy
ASKER
I tried both, but I couldn't find the "folders first" option. Do they have it? Where is it?
I don't recall either having a "folders first" option but thought you might find the O & O to be a viable defrag offering, particularly the stealth and speed. If folders first is the base requirement, then sorry I do not know of a program that has that specific setting.
ITsy
ITsy
It is my understanding that the Defrag in XP, which actually is the lite version of Diskkeeper automatically, arrange the folders (programs) according to how often they are used. The ones that are used the most are moved near the center of the disk so as to make the retrieval quicker.
ASKER
None of the above mentioned arrange the folders. Yes, the programs are organized according to use but the folders all remain where they are.
If you look at my drives map you will see a lot of yellow dots (folder files) all over the hd. I want a program that puts them all in the beginning, just like speedisk used to do in win9x.
If you look at my drives map you will see a lot of yellow dots (folder files) all over the hd. I want a program that puts them all in the beginning, just like speedisk used to do in win9x.
I thought SpeedDisk did this on XP, to be honest--certainly when I run it on my XP box at home the drive appears to consist of nothing but solid blocks of colour afterwards!
Norton System Works (disk optimization) perhaps?
"Optimization does far more and is significantly better than defragmentation. Optimization maximizes the usable free space on a hard drive and groups files together based on how they are accessed. The most important/frequently accessed files are placed at the beginning of the disk, closest to the disk head, for fastest access. Infrequently accessed files are placed out of the way. Free space is consolidated to avoid fragmenting newly added files, and extra space is added next to frequently accessed files, so they can grow without immediately becoming fragmented again."
© 1994-2001 Symantec Corporation. All rights reserved.
ASKER
Well, I have Norton System Works 2002 here. It behaves completely different on winxp and win9x machines. When it is installed on win9x machines it has all the options avaliable. But in winxp, it only has the files first, files last, files at end and umovable files options. No folders first.
I have used Norton's since the very first utility they made. Just recently, I purchased OnTrack, it has quite a bit more to it than the Norton System Works 2002, that I jut removed. Whereas Nortons has a registery editor, OnTrach also has that, and Registry Defrag. It is the best all around utility I have seen on the Market. $49.95 but does more than Norton, and MacAfee.
Go to: http://www.ontrack.com/ look at software, and it is Syste Suite 4.0
wlennon
Go to: http://www.ontrack.com/ look at software, and it is Syste Suite 4.0
wlennon
Chances are acerola since XP is a vastly different architecture then Win98 that doing folders first would be an unnecessary and/or would have no affect on optimization of the disk. BTW is the file system NTFS if it is this may be why that option is not available?
ASKER
CrazyOne, I use fat32. Same file system used by win9x.
I don't know how ntfs handles directories, but in fat/fat32 they are standart files with the directory attribute set. They can get fragmented if the directory has many entries and if they are spread all over the hd their access is slowed down.
I don't know how ntfs handles directories, but in fat/fat32 they are standart files with the directory attribute set. They can get fragmented if the directory has many entries and if they are spread all over the hd their access is slowed down.
I still don't think you are going to see any improvement with a folders firts option with XP. If it were possible or if it were considered something that was still affective and useful then the option would still be there. Obviously the vendors purposely left it out for some reason. I am guessing that their testing indicated that this had no real affect on perfromance or XP just blocks attempts at doing this.
ASKER
If you have folders spread around your hd, your free space is not consolidated. This will cause fragmentation of your new files. And folders at the beginning and all together provides better performance. And the hd map looks ugly with all those yellow dots ;p
Maybe XP has some locking machanism for folders. But this is no problem, since OO and other defrags can handle this by doing a boot time defrag.
Maybe XP has some locking machanism for folders. But this is no problem, since OO and other defrags can handle this by doing a boot time defrag.
ASKER
wlennon,
I tried JETDefrag, from Ontrack SystemSuite 4. It is just like every other defrag. No "folders first" option.
I tried JETDefrag, from Ontrack SystemSuite 4. It is just like every other defrag. No "folders first" option.
>>>If you have folders spread around your hd, your free space is not consolidated
True but when all programs are shutdown the free space is consolidatd rather well. It may have a few wholes but overall I have my doubts that performance gain or lost is going to be very noticable. At least I haven't noticed it. It may be measurable in nanoseconds or milliseconds.
True but when all programs are shutdown the free space is consolidatd rather well. It may have a few wholes but overall I have my doubts that performance gain or lost is going to be very noticable. At least I haven't noticed it. It may be measurable in nanoseconds or milliseconds.
ASKER
I'm not sure you understand what consolidated free space means. It has nothing to do with programs open. Consolidated free space is the amount of free space that is not "fragmented".
For example: my hd has 80gb. It is full up to 40gb. So, after defrag, the drive map looks half full half empty. But in the middle of the free half there is a folder file. So the free space is not consolidated. In my case, there are a lot of folders spread in the free space (and also in the used space). So, whe I start saving new files they will get fragmented because they must split themselves in between the folders.
My drive map is something like this:
X = full block
0 = Empty Block
- = directory
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX-
XXXX-XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX-XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
0000-000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000
0000000000-000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000
000-0000000000000000000000
And with the speeddisk for win9x I could make it look like this:
--XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
00000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000
Nice, isn't it?
For example: my hd has 80gb. It is full up to 40gb. So, after defrag, the drive map looks half full half empty. But in the middle of the free half there is a folder file. So the free space is not consolidated. In my case, there are a lot of folders spread in the free space (and also in the used space). So, whe I start saving new files they will get fragmented because they must split themselves in between the folders.
My drive map is something like this:
X = full block
0 = Empty Block
- = directory
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX-
XXXX-XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX-XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
0000-000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000
0000000000-000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000
000-0000000000000000000000
And with the speeddisk for win9x I could make it look like this:
--XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
00000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000
Nice, isn't it?
Actually I do understand. What I am saying is that with the programs closed the folders and files can be moved. While a program or file is open within a folder defrag doesn't move them. Hence the reason for closing down the programs and the free space becomes more consolidated. Thats what I do and the free space is pretyy much a solid block. :>)
ASKER
All the defrag programs I used didn't even touch the folder files. My hd has yellow chicken pox.
I'm increasing the points to 200. The points will be awarded to the guy who gives me a defrag program that moves the folders to the beginning of the hd.
I'm increasing the points to 200. The points will be awarded to the guy who gives me a defrag program that moves the folders to the beginning of the hd.
If your trying to get all the available space below the the last cluster, You have to run defrag from safe mode in XP. This stops all the services from loading & any programs from loading that are not needed.
Ok I emailed Symantec about this and this was my question to them
In the version for Win98 Speed Disk had an option I believe called "Folders First" or something like that? This option defragmented that disk in such a way it placed the folders in a tight grouping and consolidated the free disk space into one solid block. Now with the version for XP this option does not seem to be available and folders seem to be incorporated within the free space blocking causing the free space not to consolidate into one solid block. Please explain the reason for this.
--------------------------
And this was their reponse
I am sorry about the confusion on this. Windows XP has a number of differences from Windows 98. One of the major differences is how it allows software and hardware to interact. This means that Speed Disk and the other utilities must behave in a different manner to function. Here is a document on Speed Disk and Windows XP:
Title: 'After running Speed Disk under Windows XP, the drive is still
fragmented'
Document ID: 2001120607464609
http://service1.symantec.com/support/nunt.nsf/docid/2001120607464609?Open&src=w
"Situation:
You are running Speed Disk under Windows XP. Speed Disk may seem to run slower than the 2001 version, and after completion, the drive still shows significant fragmentation.
Solution:
Speed Disk for Windows XP does not use the native Speed Disk driver. Instead it uses the Microsoft MoveFile API. This results in less functionality and less thoroughness for Speed Disk, though moves are now handled in a "Microsoft-approved" manner.
As a result of the migration away from the Norton Speed Disk driver, higher amounts of fragmentation may remain on the drive after Speed Disk completes. Speed Disk for Windows XP does not touch system files, system folders, or Master File Table (MFT). In addition, some of the fragmented files are unmovable, such as the _Restore files and the Pagefile. Therefore, higher fragmentation rates may be reported, especially for the System Volume Information folder. However, fragmentation will still be much lower than it was before running Speed Disk, and file placement will be optimized.
Once you have established a baseline fragmentation level that the operating system is not going to allow you to get beyond, you can adjust the alarm level in the System Doctor sensor so that it is not red all the time. "
--------------------------
So there you have it. It apparently and unfortunately can't be done.
In the version for Win98 Speed Disk had an option I believe called "Folders First" or something like that? This option defragmented that disk in such a way it placed the folders in a tight grouping and consolidated the free disk space into one solid block. Now with the version for XP this option does not seem to be available and folders seem to be incorporated within the free space blocking causing the free space not to consolidate into one solid block. Please explain the reason for this.
--------------------------
And this was their reponse
I am sorry about the confusion on this. Windows XP has a number of differences from Windows 98. One of the major differences is how it allows software and hardware to interact. This means that Speed Disk and the other utilities must behave in a different manner to function. Here is a document on Speed Disk and Windows XP:
Title: 'After running Speed Disk under Windows XP, the drive is still
fragmented'
Document ID: 2001120607464609
http://service1.symantec.com/support/nunt.nsf/docid/2001120607464609?Open&src=w
"Situation:
You are running Speed Disk under Windows XP. Speed Disk may seem to run slower than the 2001 version, and after completion, the drive still shows significant fragmentation.
Solution:
Speed Disk for Windows XP does not use the native Speed Disk driver. Instead it uses the Microsoft MoveFile API. This results in less functionality and less thoroughness for Speed Disk, though moves are now handled in a "Microsoft-approved" manner.
As a result of the migration away from the Norton Speed Disk driver, higher amounts of fragmentation may remain on the drive after Speed Disk completes. Speed Disk for Windows XP does not touch system files, system folders, or Master File Table (MFT). In addition, some of the fragmented files are unmovable, such as the _Restore files and the Pagefile. Therefore, higher fragmentation rates may be reported, especially for the System Volume Information folder. However, fragmentation will still be much lower than it was before running Speed Disk, and file placement will be optimized.
Once you have established a baseline fragmentation level that the operating system is not going to allow you to get beyond, you can adjust the alarm level in the System Doctor sensor so that it is not red all the time. "
--------------------------
So there you have it. It apparently and unfortunately can't be done.
ASKER
OO defrag can defrag every file on the disk, even the locked ones. It runs at boot time, before windows loads.
Partition magic does lots of low level operations on disks, also at boot time.
The file system is the same as before (fat32).
It is possible. Just maybe no defrag soft does it.
Partition magic does lots of low level operations on disks, also at boot time.
The file system is the same as before (fat32).
It is possible. Just maybe no defrag soft does it.
>>>OO defrag can defrag every file on the disk, even the locked ones. It runs at boot time
Well during the boot not everything is loaded so a lot of the stuff isn't locked down like it is when the OS is up and running. So it is likely that there are very few files that are locked to begin with. Boot time is different then the OS being completely loaded. It is like chkdsk which runs before the OS loads so it can do its fixes because it doesn't have to deal with locked files.
Apparently Speed Disk and friends use special drivers, probably VxD's, in Win98. So the defrag could be ran while the OS was running. However the NT based OS's don't allow VxD's to be run which is one of the main reasons these OS's are more stable. As Symantec points out they can't use their specific drivers on XP like they did in Win98 so they rely on the Windows API functions to accomplish the task.
So to get a complete defragmentation it would have to happen before the OS loads. In other words once the OS is completely loaded the system files and folders can't be moved. Hence the reason Folder First no longer exists. So in a nutshell if you are going to run a defrag application while the OS is completely loaded then their won't be a complete defragmentaion.
Well during the boot not everything is loaded so a lot of the stuff isn't locked down like it is when the OS is up and running. So it is likely that there are very few files that are locked to begin with. Boot time is different then the OS being completely loaded. It is like chkdsk which runs before the OS loads so it can do its fixes because it doesn't have to deal with locked files.
Apparently Speed Disk and friends use special drivers, probably VxD's, in Win98. So the defrag could be ran while the OS was running. However the NT based OS's don't allow VxD's to be run which is one of the main reasons these OS's are more stable. As Symantec points out they can't use their specific drivers on XP like they did in Win98 so they rely on the Windows API functions to accomplish the task.
So to get a complete defragmentation it would have to happen before the OS loads. In other words once the OS is completely loaded the system files and folders can't be moved. Hence the reason Folder First no longer exists. So in a nutshell if you are going to run a defrag application while the OS is completely loaded then their won't be a complete defragmentaion.
I just came across this one called PerfectDisk. It does have an option to defrag directories for offline/Boot time defrag. Note that this option is not available when the OS has completely loaded (online).
www.raxco.com
www.raxco.com
ASKER
I have already tried PerfecDisk. It does handle the directories, but it doesn't move them to the beggining of the drive. They are still all over the place.
Check out the green stuff all over my hd:
http://www.acerola2000.hpg.com.br/defrag.JPG
Check out the green stuff all over my hd:
http://www.acerola2000.hpg.com.br/defrag.JPG
ASKER
This screen shot was taken after performing a boot time defrag with the directories and system files checked.
Well mine looked better then yours after defragging while Windows was running. I guess the point here is that what once was isn't anymore. No more folders first just like no more scandisking (chkdsk) the partition that is locked by the OS while the OS is running. None of the vendors have this option for the NT OS's so that should tell us something. Which is it just can't be done that way anymore. :>(
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Yes, Comply. Also putting this hd as a slave in a win9x machine should do the trick. But even if I still had a win9x machine around that wouldn't be very practical.
I guess I will have to wait and hope for Norton 2003 to have a boot time defrag with all the options back. I wonder if Microsoft would give the "certified" title to a program that does that...
I guess I will have to wait and hope for Norton 2003 to have a boot time defrag with all the options back. I wonder if Microsoft would give the "certified" title to a program that does that...
>>>I wonder if Microsoft would give the "certified" title to a program that does that
Probably not since these defrags utilities for NT based OS's don't use their own drivers but use the API functions that are built into the OS to accomplish the task. Since there isn't any API functions that do this "Folders First" thing then chances are MS wouldn't certify a defrag utility that says it can. However MS may in the future include API functions that will allow this type of option to be workable.
Probably not since these defrags utilities for NT based OS's don't use their own drivers but use the API functions that are built into the OS to accomplish the task. Since there isn't any API functions that do this "Folders First" thing then chances are MS wouldn't certify a defrag utility that says it can. However MS may in the future include API functions that will allow this type of option to be workable.
Hopefully you've already been helped by these great experts, but thought this to be of value, if you've not already checked WindowsUpdate.
WindowsUpdate just delivered IE 6 Service Patch 1 which also includes fixes to Outlook Express
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q326489
The following link shows you the list of fixes included in IE 6 SP1
http://support.microsoft.com/common/canned.aspx?R=d&H=List%20of%20Fixes%20in%20Microsoft%20Internet%20Explorer%206%20SP1&LL=support&Sz=kbIE600sp1fix&Fr=&DU=&SD=GN&LN=EN-US&CND=1&VR=&CAT=&VRL=&SG=&MaxResults=150
WindowsUpdate just delivered Windows XP Service Patch 1
This shows you the items/problems fixed in this release.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q324722
":0) Asta
WindowsUpdate just delivered IE 6 Service Patch 1 which also includes fixes to Outlook Express
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q326489
The following link shows you the list of fixes included in IE 6 SP1
http://support.microsoft.com/common/canned.aspx?R=d&H=List%20of%20Fixes%20in%20Microsoft%20Internet%20Explorer%206%20SP1&LL=support&Sz=kbIE600sp1fix&Fr=&DU=&SD=GN&LN=EN-US&CND=1&VR=&CAT=&VRL=&SG=&MaxResults=150
WindowsUpdate just delivered Windows XP Service Patch 1
This shows you the items/problems fixed in this release.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q324722
":0) Asta
Like you, CrazyOne, I have also used most of the defrags mentioned in this thread. I understand how you want your directories placed first. I never used the old SpeedDisk that had that capability, but I have tested most of the defrags that are available for XP. Actually, as far as boot delay, XP's built-in defrag is better than any of the others.
SpeedDisk increased my boot time immediately by 6 seconds (from 12 up to 18 seconds to boot), and included services that further increased boot time and memory usage.
Diskeeper had little effect, but annoyingly replaced the built-in defrag until I uninstalled it. At least it put it back during uninstallation. But it also had an annoying background service. If I'm trying to speed up a PC, the LAST thing I want to do is automatically load another startup service!
O&O Defrag has nothing particularly interesting about it.
PerfectDisk increased my boot time by a few seconds as well, although it did defrag system files well. I ran the built-in defrag immediately following the PerfectDisk run, and interestingly ended up with an overall decrease of 4 seconds after PerfectDisk screwed things up then XP defrag straightened it out. 13 seconds to boot XP--that is better than Microsoft's defrag could do by itself!
But after running the built-in defrag again, I was back up to 16 seconds. So I know that there's got to be some way to maintain that 13 seconds.
I came to this thread through a google search for the Defrag API for XP, because I'm sick of these lame, untested attempts to improve performance by Norton, O&O, Executive Software, and Raxco. Problem is, I don't think that Microsoft exposes the API to anyone except its business partners. I'll keep looking, and maybe sometime I'll build the solution for you. And I'll remember to include the "directories first" option for ya! ;-)
Good luck!
Ben
SpeedDisk increased my boot time immediately by 6 seconds (from 12 up to 18 seconds to boot), and included services that further increased boot time and memory usage.
Diskeeper had little effect, but annoyingly replaced the built-in defrag until I uninstalled it. At least it put it back during uninstallation. But it also had an annoying background service. If I'm trying to speed up a PC, the LAST thing I want to do is automatically load another startup service!
O&O Defrag has nothing particularly interesting about it.
PerfectDisk increased my boot time by a few seconds as well, although it did defrag system files well. I ran the built-in defrag immediately following the PerfectDisk run, and interestingly ended up with an overall decrease of 4 seconds after PerfectDisk screwed things up then XP defrag straightened it out. 13 seconds to boot XP--that is better than Microsoft's defrag could do by itself!
But after running the built-in defrag again, I was back up to 16 seconds. So I know that there's got to be some way to maintain that 13 seconds.
I came to this thread through a google search for the Defrag API for XP, because I'm sick of these lame, untested attempts to improve performance by Norton, O&O, Executive Software, and Raxco. Problem is, I don't think that Microsoft exposes the API to anyone except its business partners. I'll keep looking, and maybe sometime I'll build the solution for you. And I'll remember to include the "directories first" option for ya! ;-)
Good luck!
Ben
If you use Diskeeper, it has the directory consolidation option when you do a boot time defrag, This has moved all the folders to the beginning for me, that is until you create another one!
Peter
Peter
Maybe the best solution is to use a removable boot disk (cd-r, floppy etc.) with a defrag program and a compatible O.S. on it. By "compatible O.S." I mean one that is able to read/write the file system you are using (fat32 in this case) and also able to run a defrag program (one that optimizes directories in this case). the only trouble is, i don't know of a defrag program/os combo offhand that fits the bill. anyone have any suggestions?
acerola,
No comment has been added lately, so it's time to clean up this TA.
I will leave a recommendation in the Cleanup topic area for this question:
RECOMMENDATION: Award points to CrazyOne
Please leave any comments here within 7 days.
PLEASE DO NOT ACCEPT THIS COMMENT AS AN ANSWER!
Thanks,
jonnyz0109
EE Cleanup Volunteer
No comment has been added lately, so it's time to clean up this TA.
I will leave a recommendation in the Cleanup topic area for this question:
RECOMMENDATION: Award points to CrazyOne
Please leave any comments here within 7 days.
PLEASE DO NOT ACCEPT THIS COMMENT AS AN ANSWER!
Thanks,
jonnyz0109
EE Cleanup Volunteer
ASKER
No one answered the question. They all proposed defrag programs avaliable in the market, but none had the option I wanted (folders first). Since that was the main point of the question, I suggest the question to be deleted.
acerola I disagree. What you asked can't be done on NT based OS's. So the questione was answered.
ASKER
> acerola I disagree. What you asked can't be done on NT based OS's. So the questione was answered.
So, NT based OS's are worse than dos based os's. And I disagree with that because I am using FAT32, and not NTFS. So it is the same file system I used in win98 and winme, where I could do it.
> Actually, no is a very competent answer, such as a car engine, ask the mechanic can it be fixed, the mechanic says I tried, but no, it cannot.
So, if the mechanics tells me he can't fix the car, should I still pay him anyway? That gives me an idea of a nice way to make money: open a "fix-all" store, say "no, it can't be fixed" to everybody and charge them.
So, NT based OS's are worse than dos based os's. And I disagree with that because I am using FAT32, and not NTFS. So it is the same file system I used in win98 and winme, where I could do it.
> Actually, no is a very competent answer, such as a car engine, ask the mechanic can it be fixed, the mechanic says I tried, but no, it cannot.
So, if the mechanics tells me he can't fix the car, should I still pay him anyway? That gives me an idea of a nice way to make money: open a "fix-all" store, say "no, it can't be fixed" to everybody and charge them.
Man we have been through this, I it just insn't about the file system It is about the OS.
Ok I emailed Symantec about this and this was my question to them
In the version for Win98 Speed Disk had an option I believe called "Folders First" or something like that? This option defragmented that disk in such a way it placed the folders in a tight grouping and consolidated the free disk space into one solid block. Now with the version for XP this option does not seem to be available and folders seem to be incorporated within the free space blocking causing the free space not to consolidate into one solid block. Please explain the reason for this.
--------------------------
And this was their reponse
I am sorry about the confusion on this. Windows XP has a number of differences from Windows 98. One of the major differences is how it allows software and hardware to interact. This means that Speed Disk and the other utilities must behave in a different manner to function. Here is a document on Speed Disk and Windows XP:
Title: 'After running Speed Disk under Windows XP, the drive is still
fragmented'
Document ID: 2001120607464609
http://service1.symantec.com/support/nunt.nsf/docid/2001120607464609?Open&src=w
"Situation:
You are running Speed Disk under Windows XP. Speed Disk may seem to run slower than the 2001 version, and after completion, the drive still shows significant fragmentation.
Solution:
Speed Disk for Windows XP does not use the native Speed Disk driver. Instead it uses the Microsoft MoveFile API. This results in less functionality and less thoroughness for Speed Disk, though moves are now handled in a "Microsoft-approved" manner.
As a result of the migration away from the Norton Speed Disk driver, higher amounts of fragmentation may remain on the drive after Speed Disk completes. Speed Disk for Windows XP does not touch system files, system folders, or Master File Table (MFT). In addition, some of the fragmented files are unmovable, such as the _Restore files and the Pagefile. Therefore, higher fragmentation rates may be reported, especially for the System Volume Information folder. However, fragmentation will still be much lower than it was before running Speed Disk, and file placement will be optimized.
Once you have established a baseline fragmentation level that the operating system is not going to allow you to get beyond, you can adjust the alarm level in the System Doctor sensor so that it is not red all the time. "
--------------------------
So there you have it. It apparently and unfortunately can't be done.
Ok I emailed Symantec about this and this was my question to them
In the version for Win98 Speed Disk had an option I believe called "Folders First" or something like that? This option defragmented that disk in such a way it placed the folders in a tight grouping and consolidated the free disk space into one solid block. Now with the version for XP this option does not seem to be available and folders seem to be incorporated within the free space blocking causing the free space not to consolidate into one solid block. Please explain the reason for this.
--------------------------
And this was their reponse
I am sorry about the confusion on this. Windows XP has a number of differences from Windows 98. One of the major differences is how it allows software and hardware to interact. This means that Speed Disk and the other utilities must behave in a different manner to function. Here is a document on Speed Disk and Windows XP:
Title: 'After running Speed Disk under Windows XP, the drive is still
fragmented'
Document ID: 2001120607464609
http://service1.symantec.com/support/nunt.nsf/docid/2001120607464609?Open&src=w
"Situation:
You are running Speed Disk under Windows XP. Speed Disk may seem to run slower than the 2001 version, and after completion, the drive still shows significant fragmentation.
Solution:
Speed Disk for Windows XP does not use the native Speed Disk driver. Instead it uses the Microsoft MoveFile API. This results in less functionality and less thoroughness for Speed Disk, though moves are now handled in a "Microsoft-approved" manner.
As a result of the migration away from the Norton Speed Disk driver, higher amounts of fragmentation may remain on the drive after Speed Disk completes. Speed Disk for Windows XP does not touch system files, system folders, or Master File Table (MFT). In addition, some of the fragmented files are unmovable, such as the _Restore files and the Pagefile. Therefore, higher fragmentation rates may be reported, especially for the System Volume Information folder. However, fragmentation will still be much lower than it was before running Speed Disk, and file placement will be optimized.
Once you have established a baseline fragmentation level that the operating system is not going to allow you to get beyond, you can adjust the alarm level in the System Doctor sensor so that it is not red all the time. "
--------------------------
So there you have it. It apparently and unfortunately can't be done.
Please focus in on the following statement. The NT based OS's DO NOT ALLOW low level access to the hard drive which is needed to accomplish what you asked. BLAME the OS not the products. NT based OS's are very different from the Win9x family of OS's. It has nothing to do with the file system. The ANSWER IS NO this not acknowledgeable in XP. End of story. The question has been answered.
--------------------------
Solution:
Speed Disk for Windows XP does not use the native Speed Disk driver. Instead it uses the Microsoft MoveFile API. This results in less functionality and less thoroughness for Speed Disk, though moves are now handled in a "Microsoft-approved" manner.
As a result of the migration away from the Norton Speed Disk driver, higher amounts of fragmentation may remain on the drive after Speed Disk completes. Speed Disk for Windows XP does not touch system files, system folders, or Master File Table (MFT). In addition, some of the fragmented files are unmovable, such as the _Restore files and the Pagefile. Therefore, higher fragmentation rates may be reported, especially for the System Volume Information folder. However, fragmentation will still be much lower than it was before running Speed Disk, and file placement will be optimized.
--------------------------
Solution:
Speed Disk for Windows XP does not use the native Speed Disk driver. Instead it uses the Microsoft MoveFile API. This results in less functionality and less thoroughness for Speed Disk, though moves are now handled in a "Microsoft-approved" manner.
As a result of the migration away from the Norton Speed Disk driver, higher amounts of fragmentation may remain on the drive after Speed Disk completes. Speed Disk for Windows XP does not touch system files, system folders, or Master File Table (MFT). In addition, some of the fragmented files are unmovable, such as the _Restore files and the Pagefile. Therefore, higher fragmentation rates may be reported, especially for the System Volume Information folder. However, fragmentation will still be much lower than it was before running Speed Disk, and file placement will be optimized.
acerola, >So, if the mechanics tells me he can't fix the car, should I still pay him anyway?<
If a mechanic tears down an engine to see if it can be fixed, you still have to pay the $45.50 per Hour Charge that is a standard fee. Good luck on your fix-it sotre!
If a mechanic tears down an engine to see if it can be fixed, you still have to pay the $45.50 per Hour Charge that is a standard fee. Good luck on your fix-it sotre!
Yep regardless of the outcome in Auto garage one has to pay for the time that was used to analyze the problem.
ASKER
> The NT based OS's DO NOT ALLOW low level access to the hard drive which is needed to accomplish what you asked.
Man, I use partition magic for windows xp. It can change cluster size, change partition size, join and split partitions, convert between FAT32, NTFS and other partition types, etc, etc. This is much more "low level" then moving folders, that are nothing but files. Like OO defrag, it uses the "blue screen mode" to do the operation. If partition magic can do all that stuff, it sure is possible to move folders. It just hasn't been done yet. Or maybe it had, but we don't know.
Man, I use partition magic for windows xp. It can change cluster size, change partition size, join and split partitions, convert between FAT32, NTFS and other partition types, etc, etc. This is much more "low level" then moving folders, that are nothing but files. Like OO defrag, it uses the "blue screen mode" to do the operation. If partition magic can do all that stuff, it sure is possible to move folders. It just hasn't been done yet. Or maybe it had, but we don't know.
ASKER
And btw, I totally disagree to just give away points because someone tryed but did not succeeded in providing a working solution. But since I must give the points to someone, I'll give them to Comply. His solution is far from what I wanted (folders first defrag program for windows xp), but it is a working one, and would solve the problem.
The answer is a solution to his need. It may not be the way he wants it too function, But the fact is it works. I have done this before for the same reason. The fix does not work on NTFS files as he has stated.
There is a differance as to how the folders first does work, When compared to other defrag Utilities. Even when you goto the companys that sell defrag programs. They give you a very detailed desciption of how the program "Moves files and folders" and just how this optimizes the drive. When studing this you will see that 98% work just the same. They must use the same programmers and designers.
Even the indexing service in XP slows the system down by 20% "Faster indexing and finding" Never seen the thing work right yet.
There is a differance as to how the folders first does work, When compared to other defrag Utilities. Even when you goto the companys that sell defrag programs. They give you a very detailed desciption of how the program "Moves files and folders" and just how this optimizes the drive. When studing this you will see that 98% work just the same. They must use the same programmers and designers.
Even the indexing service in XP slows the system down by 20% "Faster indexing and finding" Never seen the thing work right yet.
I agree they all just about work the same on Fat32 regardless of who the product maker is, but on NTFS this just isn't true. The best your can do for optimising in NTFS is to use Partition to write smaller sectors, Partition Magic's ver 8 is better with NTFS than the pervious versions, but what I don't like about it is that Boot Magic will not work without a Fat32 Partition Present.
ASKER
Comply's answer is not wrong. It just isn't the ideal solution I was looking for, which is a defrag program with folders first option on windows xp. Comply's answer is a workaround that would solve my problem.
On the other hand, answers stating "it can't be done" seem to me wrong. It would be more correct to state: "I don't know any program that does that". Folders are nothing but files. It is not a very low level operation to move them. You can create and delete them all the time on explorer windows. And low level access to disk is allowed in NT systems, otherwise partition magic wouldn't work.
On the other hand, answers stating "it can't be done" seem to me wrong. It would be more correct to state: "I don't know any program that does that". Folders are nothing but files. It is not a very low level operation to move them. You can create and delete them all the time on explorer windows. And low level access to disk is allowed in NT systems, otherwise partition magic wouldn't work.
If it works for you, the accepting it is okay with me, but I still feel it is not the answer.
Regards,
Wes
Regards,
Wes
It is not the answer and no low level access to the file system is allowed while any portion of the XP OS is loaded. Which as soon as you boot and the XP logo shows up affectively XP is loaded. Therefor low level access to the disk is prohibited. Creating and deleting folder has nothing to do with low level access at all. Not even close.
>>>It is not a very low level operation to move them
Oh yes it is. If it wasn't the vendors of these utilities would have made the folders first possible. XP does not allow this to be done. All defrags including the one that comes with XP have to go through the Windows API and aren't allowed to go directly to the disk except through XP. XP didn't include a function to do folders first so without that IT CAN'T be down. Geesh. Get over it acerola IT CAN"T BE DONE IT CAN"T BE DONE IT CAN"T BE DONE. And I was the one that answered the question as it was asked.
it can't be done" is the absolute correct answer which you apparently can't understand. IT CAN'T BE DONE while XP is running period. End of story. My answer was correct.
>>>It is not a very low level operation to move them
Oh yes it is. If it wasn't the vendors of these utilities would have made the folders first possible. XP does not allow this to be done. All defrags including the one that comes with XP have to go through the Windows API and aren't allowed to go directly to the disk except through XP. XP didn't include a function to do folders first so without that IT CAN'T be down. Geesh. Get over it acerola IT CAN"T BE DONE IT CAN"T BE DONE IT CAN"T BE DONE. And I was the one that answered the question as it was asked.
it can't be done" is the absolute correct answer which you apparently can't understand. IT CAN'T BE DONE while XP is running period. End of story. My answer was correct.
ASKER
If you can create, delete, copy and move folders in the explorer window, and since folders are nothing but files, I see no reason why you can't change their location on the hard drive while defragging, the same way you do with ordinary files. It doesn't seem to be a very low level operation.
But even if it is a low level operation, it can be done in the blue screen mode, just like partition magic does. It is still windows xp os running, but with all services and other stuff not running. The blue screen mode is similar to a linux command prompt. The kernel and other essential parts of the os are running, a shell is running, but everything else is not. That way you can have low level access to the disk.
It can be done with xp running. It just cant be done with all the services and graphical stuff running. And OO defrag uses the blue screen mode to defrag locked files such as the page file.
You answer is wrong and doesn't help me solve the problem at all. Comply's answer at least solves the problem.
But even if it is a low level operation, it can be done in the blue screen mode, just like partition magic does. It is still windows xp os running, but with all services and other stuff not running. The blue screen mode is similar to a linux command prompt. The kernel and other essential parts of the os are running, a shell is running, but everything else is not. That way you can have low level access to the disk.
It can be done with xp running. It just cant be done with all the services and graphical stuff running. And OO defrag uses the blue screen mode to defrag locked files such as the page file.
You answer is wrong and doesn't help me solve the problem at all. Comply's answer at least solves the problem.
>>>It can be done with xp running. It just cant be done with all the services and graphical stuff running. And OO defrag uses the blue screen mode to defrag locked files such as the page file.
So does Disk Keeper. But you are wrong many system files are loaded in the Blue Screen just set a the /sos switch in the boot.in and you will at least 20 to 30 files being loaded many of which are system files before the blue screen Lords.
>>>You answer is wrong and doesn't help me solve the problem at all. Comply's answer at least solves the problem.
And neither does Comply's answer. My answer is the correct answer
This is what you asked "So, anyone knows a defrag program for win xp that have this "folders first" option?" and the answer is NO there is not. So my answer is the correct answer. Sorry acerola you obviously just don't understand. Several of us have told you over and over and over and over again it that XP does not allow this. Sorry you can't grasp that concept but that is the way it is.
So does Disk Keeper. But you are wrong many system files are loaded in the Blue Screen just set a the /sos switch in the boot.in and you will at least 20 to 30 files being loaded many of which are system files before the blue screen Lords.
>>>You answer is wrong and doesn't help me solve the problem at all. Comply's answer at least solves the problem.
And neither does Comply's answer. My answer is the correct answer
This is what you asked "So, anyone knows a defrag program for win xp that have this "folders first" option?" and the answer is NO there is not. So my answer is the correct answer. Sorry acerola you obviously just don't understand. Several of us have told you over and over and over and over again it that XP does not allow this. Sorry you can't grasp that concept but that is the way it is.
The truth is it does work with XP, Just not while it's running. His Question "So, anyone knows a defrag program for win xp that have this "folders first" The Solution is, Windows 98 can do this. Simple, Just boot to Win9x defrag the fat 32 drive running XP, Reboot to XP, There you have it. The whole process takes 2min. The cost is $35.00 for a 20 gig harddrive to install 9x on. Less then the cost of the program!
The question was not "A native defrag program for XP running NTFS"
The question was not "A native defrag program for XP running NTFS"
Comply the question was "So, anyone knows a defrag program for win xp that have this "folders first" and the answer is no there is not. Using a Win98 program is not a prgram for XP so the answer is still no there is not any program for XP that has this option. Sorry Comply your answer is a good work around for acerola but it is a bandaid not a fix. I am not arguing that you should not get the points. I am just saying that the way the question was worded the answer is NO.
Besides acerola said "No one answered the question. They all proposed defrag programs avaliable in the market, but none had the option I wanted (folders first). Since that was the main point of the question, I suggest the question to be deleted."
And then when pressured acerola choose your comment which does not address the original question nor the rebuttle. Even in acerola stated rebuttle My answer is still the correct answer.
And then when pressured acerola choose your comment which does not address the original question nor the rebuttle. Even in acerola stated rebuttle My answer is still the correct answer.
You just refuse to except the solution to his problem. The program that will and does fix his problem is a "Program on the market, Which does have that option."
The internet was never designed for mass market communication, But people came up with a solution for all the problems.
The anwser is a "Working solution" to his need. It may not have been designed for it, but it works. Like putting a square filter in a round hole. It may not look good but it got Apollo 13 home didn't it!
The internet was never designed for mass market communication, But people came up with a solution for all the problems.
The anwser is a "Working solution" to his need. It may not have been designed for it, but it works. Like putting a square filter in a round hole. It may not look good but it got Apollo 13 home didn't it!
You are missing the point Comply. The answer is still NO there is no program for XP that will do this. Seconadly most users are going to have NTFS and not have Win98 installed or available. The other point in acerola desired to delete the question saying "No one answered the question" and then when pressured all of sudden your comment answered the question seems to me acerola did that out of spite and I think Wes sees it the same way. I still say as the question was stated that NO is the answer. NO is the answer to the question purely and simply.
You guys kill me, You are full of **** if it won't work why can it be done!!
If the qusetion is a "Native Application running on a XP box defrag folders first" Then No. But that is not the question. The solution is the answer to his problem. It can and is being done as I speak.
Do what you want. I still got a square peg in a round hole to fit!!
If the qusetion is a "Native Application running on a XP box defrag folders first" Then No. But that is not the question. The solution is the answer to his problem. It can and is being done as I speak.
Do what you want. I still got a square peg in a round hole to fit!!
I also see where you didn't give me the points "WesLennon." I really like how that works. He excepted my answer to his problem.
I quess if you don't like the answer and ot works for him. Who gives a <Foul language edited, and saved>. I'll just give them to my buddy!!!!
I quess if you don't like the answer and ot works for him. Who gives a <Foul language edited, and saved>. I'll just give them to my buddy!!!!
>>>But that is not the question
That was the question Comply
Are you blind or what "So, anyone knows a defrag program for win xp that have this "folders first" option? "
This implies a program desgined for XP not something designed for Win98. Open your eyes man
It cannot be done within in XP Geesh some people just don't get it.
>>>I also see where you didn't give me the points "WesLennon." I really like how that works. He excepted my answer to his problem
You got the points for this question. What you want more Comply come on wake up why don't you.
That was the question Comply
Are you blind or what "So, anyone knows a defrag program for win xp that have this "folders first" option? "
This implies a program desgined for XP not something designed for Win98. Open your eyes man
It cannot be done within in XP Geesh some people just don't get it.
>>>I also see where you didn't give me the points "WesLennon." I really like how that works. He excepted my answer to his problem
You got the points for this question. What you want more Comply come on wake up why don't you.
ASKER
Experts exchange is not a game of wrong and right answers. It is a place to help people solve problems. Points should be awarded to the best working solution. Comply was the only one to propose a working solution.
I myself think that this question should be deleted, but since it is not an option, and since I was asked to close the question, I gave the points to Comply because, again, his is the only working solution.
If I ask "how do I do this?" and someone answers "it can't be done", this doesn't help me at all. But if instead someone says "do this instead", it solves the problem.
This is my last comment in this question. Thank you all guys for the help.
I myself think that this question should be deleted, but since it is not an option, and since I was asked to close the question, I gave the points to Comply because, again, his is the only working solution.
If I ask "how do I do this?" and someone answers "it can't be done", this doesn't help me at all. But if instead someone says "do this instead", it solves the problem.
This is my last comment in this question. Thank you all guys for the help.
Look I can care less what you say is the answer! The fact remains the solution works!!!
Like I said, The question was "That will defrag folders, Files First on XP" Show me where the solution does not work! You can't cause it does, Just not from XP windows! So you refuse my answer to his problem. You can give MS $1000.00 and they still will not give you this a a option!
"Was there a program mentioned by you are anyone else that would do the trick" Yes its called Win9x with "Speed Disk installed" how much more do you want me to include! You want me to draw you a picture of it, OK.
Install your second hard drive-Load Windows 9x-Install speed disk-Change CMOS settings to first boot drive HD1-Boot to Windows 9x-Run Speed disk on HD0-Shut Down windows 9x-Change CMOS to First boot drive HD0-Boot up to XP. There is was done!
Like I said, The question was "That will defrag folders, Files First on XP" Show me where the solution does not work! You can't cause it does, Just not from XP windows! So you refuse my answer to his problem. You can give MS $1000.00 and they still will not give you this a a option!
"Was there a program mentioned by you are anyone else that would do the trick" Yes its called Win9x with "Speed Disk installed" how much more do you want me to include! You want me to draw you a picture of it, OK.
Install your second hard drive-Load Windows 9x-Install speed disk-Change CMOS settings to first boot drive HD1-Boot to Windows 9x-Run Speed disk on HD0-Shut Down windows 9x-Change CMOS to First boot drive HD0-Boot up to XP. There is was done!
Actually it doesn't work it just looks like it does. You are fooling yourself you really believe what Speed Disk is telling you. It doesn't even work in Win98 it is just a slight of hand.
Norton on Speed disk, this is also a reprint and can be found on their FAQ's section in Help.
Title: 'After running Speed Disk under Windows XP, the drive is still
fragmented'
Document ID: 2001120607464609
http://service1.symantec.com/support/nunt.nsf/docid/2001120607464609?Open&src=w
"Situation:
You are running Speed Disk under Windows XP. Speed Disk may seem to run slower than the 2001 version, and after completion, the drive still shows significant fragmentation.
Solution:
Speed Disk for Windows XP does not use the native Speed Disk driver. Instead it uses the Microsoft MoveFile API. This results in less functionality and less thoroughness for Speed Disk, though moves are now handled in a "Microsoft-approved" manner.
As a result of the migration away from the Norton Speed Disk driver, higher amounts of fragmentation may remain on the drive after Speed Disk completes. Speed Disk for Windows XP does not touch system files, system folders, or Master File Table (MFT). In addition, some of the fragmented files are unmovable, such as the _Restore files and the Pagefile. Therefore, higher fragmentation rates may be reported, especially for the System Volume Information folder. However, fragmentation will still be much lower than it was before running Speed Disk, and file placement will be optimized.
Once you have established a baseline fragmentation level that the operating system is not going to allow you to get beyond, you can adjust the alarm level in the System Doctor sensor so that it is not red all the time. "
Title: 'After running Speed Disk under Windows XP, the drive is still
fragmented'
Document ID: 2001120607464609
http://service1.symantec.com/support/nunt.nsf/docid/2001120607464609?Open&src=w
"Situation:
You are running Speed Disk under Windows XP. Speed Disk may seem to run slower than the 2001 version, and after completion, the drive still shows significant fragmentation.
Solution:
Speed Disk for Windows XP does not use the native Speed Disk driver. Instead it uses the Microsoft MoveFile API. This results in less functionality and less thoroughness for Speed Disk, though moves are now handled in a "Microsoft-approved" manner.
As a result of the migration away from the Norton Speed Disk driver, higher amounts of fragmentation may remain on the drive after Speed Disk completes. Speed Disk for Windows XP does not touch system files, system folders, or Master File Table (MFT). In addition, some of the fragmented files are unmovable, such as the _Restore files and the Pagefile. Therefore, higher fragmentation rates may be reported, especially for the System Volume Information folder. However, fragmentation will still be much lower than it was before running Speed Disk, and file placement will be optimized.
Once you have established a baseline fragmentation level that the operating system is not going to allow you to get beyond, you can adjust the alarm level in the System Doctor sensor so that it is not red all the time. "
Wes tell them about what MS told you about if you checke the HEX in Win98 you would find that the folders weren't moved in the fashion stated by Speed Disk. Like I said it is an illusion and it is foolish to ever use a product like this that was designed for Win98 on a NT based OS even if the file System is FAT32.
Have you looked at this one
http://www.execsoft.co.uk/products/diskeeper/dk7.htm
The Crazy One