Windows Legacy OS forum

General discussion

XP's Defrag says Norton's Speed Disk "causes" fragmentation

by rausdahl / August 23, 2005 2:29 PM PDT

I'm running XP Home (SP2). I recently bought Norton System Works Premier 2005. When I run Speed Disk on my NTSF Boot drive, then check it with XP's Disk Defrag analyser, the analyser shows the worst fragmentation I ever seen and says the disk needs to be defragged. Has anyone else encountered this?

I submitted a question about it to Norton's tech support 5 days ago. I got an e-mail saying someone would contact me within 24 hours, but I haven't heard another word since.

I've run into a few other quirks with Speed Disk that I'd like to discuss, but will hold off until getting some feedback on this one.


Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: XP's Defrag says Norton's Speed Disk "causes" fragmentation
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: XP's Defrag says Norton's Speed Disk "causes" fragmentation
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
by auggief / August 23, 2005 4:48 PM PDT

I was told once that Speed Disk arranges data by frequency of use versus Degrag wich doesn't.
Just repaeating what I was told and not sure it is factual.

Collapse -
Arrangement Parm/Choice shouldn't cause fragmentatin
by rausdahl / August 24, 2005 12:33 PM PDT
In reply to: WAG


Thanks for your reply. I believe you're correct regarding the frequency of use (at least for my install of Norton System Works, which is another quirk I won't mention yet). But... organizing the files by frequency of use shouldn't cause individual files to be fragmented. Windows indicates the files are fragmented far worse "after" running Speed Disk than they were "before" running it. In fact, one of the quirks I hadn't mentioned yet, is that I've even seen Speed Disk itself report worse fragmentation "after" running it, than it showed "before" running it. I've also checked startup times for a few applications I use frequently, and they've actually been taking longer to start up "after" running Speed Disk, than they took "before" running it. But my main reason for defragging is not related to start up speeds. My purpose for defragging is to get the maximum contiguous free space sizes that I can on my hard drive because I'm capturing and rendering videos, which works best with large sections of free space on the drive. At this point, my confidence in Speed Disk is pretty shakey.

Collapse -
by hpjohn11 / September 24, 2005 7:41 AM PDT
In reply to: WAG

I got around this by going to and downloaded the full Diskeeper The Home edition is not expensive. Windows defragmenter is part of Diskeeper.

Collapse -
Over defragmenting.
by R. Proffitt Forum moderator / August 23, 2005 11:00 PM PDT

There are some that the primary use of the machine appears to be 'defragmenting.' Here's a few items I'll share with you.

1. XP has an issue that it degrades the DMA but looking at the setting is unreliable. You must perform the procedure noted at the link to assure that DMA is set to it's highest supported setting. Many look, but don't perform the noted (and easy) procedure. I will not write further on this. Read

2. Even Speed disk at one time could disagree with itself. You could set it to defrag for size or use and when you flip the setting, it would report how badly the disk was ....

3. Booting XP will result in some fragmented files. Your choice to fix or just use the machine.

4. What do I do? I set the machine to defrag monthly and use the machine.

Your choice here.


Collapse -
In regard to Over defragmenting
by rausdahl / August 24, 2005 12:52 PM PDT
In reply to: Over defragmenting.


Thanks for your reply and for the link.

I plan to try what the link suggested, but FWIW, one of the video applications I use runs actual read/write tests on the drives I use for the very purpose of ensuring DMA is enabled and the drives can actually handle ''via testing'', DMA read/write rates. But I'm not at all clear on how DMA vs PIO relates to fragmentation. I can see how it could cause the defrag process to run slower, but I don't see how it would cause files to be fragmented -- perhaps you can clarify for me.

REGARDING #2 (Defrag for size or for use)
This is one of the quirks I hadn't mentioned yet. In my installation of Speed Disk (From System Works Premier 2005), I'm not given the choice of defragging based on size or use. I've seen this choice documented on Norton's web site, but based on the online documentation that came with System Works, it's my impression this might only be a choice when running earlier versions of Windows (e.g. 98, ME, 2000). Even so, I've seen Speed Disk itself report worse fragmentation ''after'' a defrag than it showed before the defrag. That doesn't exactly give me warm fuzzies. Sad

REGARDING #3 (Booting will cause some fragmentation)
I'm not at all worried about a little fragmentation. But as I mentioned in my original post, per XP's defrag analyser, the fragmentation ''after'' running Speed Disk is terrible -- I've never seen it report such bad statistics.

I'm thinking maybe I should download the freeware version(s) of some of the other defrag tools I've seen discussed on this forum, just to see how XP feels about the job they do. Wink

Collapse -
by R. Proffitt Forum moderator / August 24, 2005 1:09 PM PDT

Here's the common dialogue.

"It's too slow unless I defragment."

-> Perform this procedure.

"It shows it's in DMA."

-> Please read the article and perform the procedure.

Hope that helps you understand that this area is tied indirectly with many that have to defragment or lose speed. XP's DMA display status is not reliable, however it takes but a few seconds to ... perform the procedure.

In closing, I just use the supplied defrag, scheduled monthly and have not noticed any issue.



Collapse -
Reply to XP's Defrag says Norton's Speed Disk "causes" fragm
by Talele / August 25, 2005 6:08 PM PDT

That?s not the problem with Norton Defrag or any other tool responsible for defragmenter. Even if you use OO-Software: defragment which usually have Five different defragmentation methods option for defragment, if you run windows defrag there after, it will again defrag your disk. This is because every tool you use has its own method for defragmentation. For e.g. Directory defragmentation, file defragmentation, Recent file access defragmentation? Generally what Norton does is he moves paging or swap file (NT-paging /9 x-swaps) at the end of the disk or start of the disk depends on what you have set for defragmentation. So I guess we don?t have to see how he has defragmentation in windows tool. Just check for the performance.

Collapse -
Windows VS Norton
by trucker2go / August 25, 2005 11:04 PM PDT

Windows does not leave any slack to add files to some programs as you change or they just run.
Norton leaves a little free space so you can add files or update, so the info will still be within that programs area on the disk...

Collapse -
Use Windows Defragment Analyzer
by glorym / August 26, 2005 12:20 AM PDT

I have Norton's Systemworks 2005. Using the defrag and the system check was always a problem. Therefore, they are uninstalled and I use the Windows Defrag Analyzer once a week and only defrag if it tells me to.

Collapse -
Removed Norton
by nschaefer308 / August 26, 2005 1:03 AM PDT

I have tried various versions of Norton System Works, and Network Associates (McAfee) System Tools over the last 8 years. Except for the version that I used on Windows 3.1 (8 years ago) I have not found a version (or any version) that has truly worked. The fact is that I often had to rebuild the system after having used these non native tools.
The same holds true for the XP versions. Performance on the system degraded to a point of rebuild.
Microsoft purchased the Diskeeper program. It was the only one that I had used (other than MS) that actually worked. Probably the reason why MS purchased them.
I would strongly recommend uninstalling the program and staying with the Diskeeper program native to the operating system. I would run the program at the end of a good day's work, everyday, for about three or four days and then once a month (depending on the programs that you use or the frequency and duration of use of your system).
One thing that the Diskeeper program will not defrag is the page file. I clear this out (through regedit) about once a month and have actually saved servers by performing this operation.

Collapse -
Take a look at Diskkeeper
by ljlocicero / August 26, 2005 1:14 AM PDT

I gave up on Speeddisk over 5 years ago when it started giving me issues like yours. Instead, I tried Diskeeper Lite & liked it so much that I bought the full program. They don't offer it anymore because the XP Defrag is the same product.

Diskeeper uses a multiple-feature analysis that is intended to maximize disk performance. The XP Defrag that you see is a watered-down version of Executive Software's Diskeeper that MS licensed from them.

The full version can even be set to automatically defrag the drive in the background when it senses fragmentation levels are getting too high. It can also defrag critical ''untouchable'' system files, like the Master File Table & the paging file, on boot-up.

If you want to look into it, try Executive Software's web site at for a trial download.

I think you will be happier with it than with Norton.
''This is not a paid advertisement.''

Collapse -
You need a better defragmenter
by mikebliv / August 26, 2005 1:43 AM PDT

You already know the fix, you need a defragmenter that creates contiguous free space. Check if Norton Speed Disk has this option. The ones I'm certain that can do this are Raxco PerfectDisk and O&O Defrag. You can download trial versions from their sites but as far as I know, there are no freeware ones that can do this particular feat.

One thing to watch out for with most other defragmenters is that they are too simple. In defragmenting files, they may reform them in contiguous blocks but deposit them scattered all over your now fragmented free space. This is self-defeating since it promotes fragmentation for any new files you make, particularly those large audio and video files.

In addition, read up on other techniques to reduce fragmentation such as: using a permanent Windows paging file, partitioning your hard disk (or get a second one) so all your large multimedia files are separate from the OS and other applications that might create files in inappropriate places in your contiguous free space.

One of the these culprits is System Restore. WinXP makes a new System Restore regularly so you really should have your multimedia files in a different drive to Windows and turn System Restore OFF for that drive.

Collapse -
ditto lilocicero's post r.e. Diskeeper
by chucknobucks / August 26, 2005 3:25 AM PDT

I struggled with the defrag problem with XP, alternately using Norton and Windows defrag. Finally broke down and bought Diskeeper.

Works great, with the one small exception of "Set It & Forget It" WILL start up during Game Play and slow or crash the game. Diskeeper's product pitch says that it will not use resources while other applications need them, but every time a game crashed, the diskeeper icon was active in my systems tray. Just turn it off. Maybe the new version fixes this.

Collapse -
speed disk vs XP defrag vs diskeeper
by vinedw / August 26, 2005 6:48 AM PDT

I,ve used all thre and they seemed to work OK, however no-one has asked if when you use defrag and speed disk if you have other norton utilities, especially a norton protected recycle bin. My guess is almost certainly yes.I had a Norton protected recycle bin with 30 GB of information on a 120 GB hard drive. I was practicing using automated system recovery just after using diskeeper to defrag but had to cancel automated system recovery as I didn't have a formatted floppy. On trying to re-run automated system recovery it failed near the end saying I did not have enough hard drive space to complete. When this occured I decided to look again at Diskeeper to see what free space I had. I found that my hard drive was full of fragmented files. Eventually I realised that the norton protected recycle bin had kept the two failed copies of automated system recovery in its protected files and clogged up my hard drive. My guess is that running speed disk keeps the fragmented bits after defragmenting, so whenever you finish doing anything like that, make sure that you empty all the norton protected files then re-boot. Then you can see if Speed disk is actually defragmenting.

Collapse -
Norton's protected recycle bin
by rausdahl / August 27, 2005 2:14 PM PDT


Thanks for the suggestion! I suppose having a bunch of files in Norton's protected recycle bin is one of those things that might be able to impact the defrag process. But it's not the case here -- I turned that feature off from the get-go, because when I delete something, I want it deleted. I did double check it though, and confirmed Norton's recycle bin was empty.

Collapse -
ditto lilocicero's post r.e. Diskeeper
by Themisive / August 27, 2005 6:23 AM PDT

Turn off "Set It and Forget It" or set it for a time when you're NOT using your computer. You should be OK then.

Collapse -
Thats Terribly mis-leading and not true!
by kingdomofjones / August 27, 2005 8:53 AM PDT

I'am not able to provide your post with the quality of veracity as I am unable to allow these comments and intended slights to be marketed as honest.I really do not believe that that is indeed the case.I have used Norton System Works since 2003 and in each and every instance NSW Utilities has been a more efficient utility all the while providing for a natural compliment to Windows processes.I do not know what to suggest other than perhaps a more truthful statement as to the cause of your computers environment,but certainly nothing by design would be provided by Norton SystemWorks as you suggest.The discourse would provide a reason why you need to defragment at all,it has no reason to be as to your claim states however someother tool or diagonistic examination may of in fact produced such a development as you attempted to explain however I know that it should not of been such a result as to be damaging.The folders as you explained if placed that way by a system tool, would of done so without damaging your computer, however what needs to be done is to establish that indeed it is your computing habits that are the cause for your need to defragment and perhaps it is simply the way we compute that has made these software manufacturers so wealthy.I am myself aware that when I run a very good Hard Disk maintenance service that I rely on quite a-bit,I on occassion will defragment my Hard Drive because it looks like "downtown" as a result and for your information I am in very very good condition because one application does what it does and another application does what it does and by the time Iam through I look a-lot smarter for uitlizing the many services that both XP and NSW-Premier-2005 provide for-

Collapse -
Not at all misleading, and it's 100% true.
by rausdahl / August 27, 2005 2:34 PM PDT


Sorry to ruffle your feathers, but it is true. I finally got a response from Symantec and have sent them a couple of documents with several screen prints from Speed Disk and XP's defrag analyzer. They didn't seem to be nearly as surprised or offended as you -- in fact they started out by acknowledgeing some problems. e.g. Here are a couple of comments I've received in e-mail messages from support as we work through this.

COMMENT #1 from Symantec
Please be aware that Speed Disk for Windows XP uses the Microsoft MoveFile API. 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. Please refer to the document provided below to know more on this issue:

Title: 'Your hard drive is still partially fragmented after running Speed Disk on Windows XP'
Document ID: 2001160487067907
> Web URL:

Comment #2 from Symantec
I understand from your message that Speed Disk causes more fragmentation on your drive.

Please be aware that this issue occurs as Speed Disk tries to rearrange the temporary files, which is not desired, and it differs from Windows Defragment program. To resolve this issue, you will need to delete the temporary files from your system, after that try running Speed Disk. Please refer to the document provided below to do so:

Title: 'Deleting Windows temporary files'
Document ID: 2003102413414139
> Web URL:


I have used Symantec Antivirus for several years and never had a complaint. And I wouldn't waste my time placing a bogus problem on a CNET forum -- life is far too short to waste it on things like that.

There's a legitimate discrepancy here. Symantec has seen the XP and Speed Disk reports and is now working with me on it. I'm sorry that bothers you.

Collapse -
Indeed! I Say old chap,"is an about face in order"
by kingdomofjones / August 27, 2005 10:26 PM PDT

This inquiry provides only this assumption and that is that not all processes that are provided by Windows are the better simply because they are provided by Windows.Though this is not so much about anyone process it is also about the tertiary relationship between Windows and the rest of the world.Your retort is welcomed and does allow for an about face though with a reservation and that is indeed it is true from time to time Norton processes have quit before all was said and done and would provide for the Computer less of what would otherwise be expected however that like your argument provides for less rather than more which in turn would allow for the contention made that we could be worse off by using Norton Speed Disk under some circumstances.That is not nearly as much of a problem as the post suggests.The point being if you are invaded by a Virus that is no time to run Speed Disk and further there appears to be a opportune time,that is a point to such a process that is provided for by the process that Speed Disc provides for which would indeed allow for a benefit as to its use and not necessarilly a less than what might be expected.The contention as to your circumstances allow for the Speed Disc to be judged outside of its natural compliment and for that position I can agree that we are not by itself looking at one separate application as such but we are looking at the aggregate and its relationship to the benefit that it would provide.When properly utilized or so it would seem I personally would run Norton Speed Disc with Norton Optimisation and so on so the attempt be made clear as to not only timing but as well effect.It is to further this position that when they are most necessary they are in fact most beneficial.If there is a case in point to assist in an illustration as to this posts contention it is that sometimes Windows Defragmentation will be unable to finish defragmenting and more times than I can count the cause as its less than capability was the fact that its use was not what was called for or even perhaps was not timed to provide the greater liklihood of success and for this exercise now we are talking about Windows and not as such about Windows relationship to the world.In Windows you would be better off running Disc Clean-up prior to any attempt to utilize Disc Defragmenter and it would hold true that with NSW 2005 the same compliment is available but even to a greater degree in both clean-up and perhaps Norton Disc Doctor and even more so Norton Clean Sweep and to the point that Defragmentation is a result of our use of the computer and not the other way around.It is also more or less the end as to its desired purpose and that is the defragmenting of a filing system that may or may not be in need of some organizing so that fragmentation be removed effectively from contributing to the environment in which we practice.Indeed this provides only that neither the post nor this responce is terribly out of line but the place and purpose of our computing habits maybe.The responce as received was very welcomed and it indeed provides for greetings and salutations as to our place at the keyboard.

Collapse -
A little clarification would be helpful
by rausdahl / August 28, 2005 9:17 AM PDT


I had a little trouble following all that, but I "think" you were backing off from some of the accusations in your first message. If so, I appreciate it and want to say "thanks!". But in both your messages, it sounds to me like you're suggesting my computing habits may be the source/cause of any problems I'm having with Speed Disk. i.e.

FROM YOUR 1st MESSAGE: "...what needs to be done is to establish that indeed it is your computing habits that are the cause for your need to defragment..."

FROM YOUR 2nd MESSAGE: "Indeed this provides only that neither the post nor this responce is terribly out of line but the place and purpose of our computing habits maybe."

As I said, I was having a little trouble following your message, so perhaps I misunderstood, but if that is what you're suggesting, perhaps you could clarify what you mean.

The majority of my computing (probably 95-98%), consists of the following:
* Office applications (mainly Word and Excel)
* A music writing app (like Word, but for writing sheet music)
* Storing (and occasional editing) of digital photos
* Capturing analog video, then editing and rendering the digitized video to DVD

The remaing 2-5% of my computing consists of web use. My main need for running defrag software comes from the fact that problem free video work requires large areas of contiguous free space. As a result, most of the the defrags I run are on a hard drives dedicated to video storage and processing. But occasionally, the drive used for the OS, application programs, office documents, and temporary digital photo storage, also gets a little fragmented -- so I run a defrag on that. Finally, on occassion, I run scan disk or an equivalent app to check for drive errors.

The bottom line is that I run the apps noted above and defrag as needed. If you see an issue with those computing habits, please share.


Collapse -
Novice Here Novice There!
by kingdomofjones / August 29, 2005 11:00 AM PDT

What would be the cause if the computer user was not the cause for his own computer and its condition or environment? though this be but a rebut it is not what and why I chose to assume something further and that is the inability to be candid.The question or post was the equal to a gambit and all it was to provide was an argument.That was not the only fallacious argument because as was stated though I have not used DiskKeeper I have used often both Windows XP,Defragmentation as well as Symantec's Norton SystemWorks and both are in there own right very capable.At one time I new not the difference between a browser and a ISP,in fact much of what I was attempting to accomplish fell into the catagory of Novice.What did that mean? It meant that I had a-lot to learn and further I would be better of just listening for the most part.I knew very well as I was being taught and as well as I was to learn that as a rule when you chose to exercise your Operating Systems Utilities there is both a way as well as a time in which to optimize your computers operations.There were times when I would defgagment my hard drive without the benefit of a system clean,getting rid of unwanted files.What this provided was a most genuine feel as to a bloated register which I could say had an effect not only on my computers performance but in the very feel of the mouse for a time therafter.I learned from that very early experience that you just dont defragment if and when but when it provides your computer with it most beneficial result,and that is a Defragmented Hard Drive.The fact is you dont defrag a hard drive with a bloated register and when you do these type of mis-applications you invite furhter error producing results as your testimony has provided for-I will not pull a punch but suggest that we are asked to partipate in what is the equivalent of a lie.I wish to be careful for one reason just because it doesnt scan does not mean it is unworthy and furhter to suggest these types of arguments are both rediculous as well as defamatory.If there is any doubts as to this retort please post.

Collapse -
No further replies :-)
by rausdahl / August 29, 2005 11:59 AM PDT


I'll probably never try to sell myself as an "expert" regarding PCs, but I have had considerable experience (with both Macs and PCs) since getting my first machine in 1988. Over the years, I've worked with a few releases of MS DOS, most of the versions of Windows, as well as a few versions of the Mac OS. I've helped numerous friends resolve problems on their systems (hardware, software, and OS), I've upgraded PCs, rebuilt PCs, and built PCs from scratch. I also spent several years in IT as a programmer, programmer/analyst, and business analyst. So while I don't consider myself to be a PC "expert", I have been around this stuff for quite a while, and have had a good enough understanding to work my way through a variety of problems (mine and others) over the years.

I sense you however are an expert. Unfortunately, I have a little trouble following your logic. Feel free to post as you wish within this topic, but I think we're wasting our time in these discussions, so I'll refrain from further replies to your posts.

Collapse -
Diskeeper Professional 9.0
by kingdomofjones / September 11, 2005 12:05 PM PDT
In reply to: No further replies :-)

The cause as to this responce was perhaps not as important as the reason why it became evident that computing as such or perhaps a windows based pc only can cause such problems as to make necessary the defragmentation of our Hard Drives.With much of the discussion that occurred,which these repective posts will give witness to it became a subject that was teaching me more and more as to what constitutes the make-up of a windows based defragger utility and why exactly is it necessary to defragment at all.The interests shown in the full scale version of Executive Softwares Diskeeper Professional 9.0 was a surprising discovery and I was equally surprised to find myself purchasing the diskeeper software-pro-9.0 a very short time after most of the positioning had occurred with respect to the Symantec utility Speed Disk.The application as was expressed not only here but in and around other quarters was influential enough and it has proven to be a truly excellent defragment utility which as things would have it,I do not feel the need to have to verify or qualify my findings through Speed Disk.However,though I need not look to NSW-2005-Pro for such answers it did not surprise me that I felt that with what I have learned that Speed disk may not necessarily be off by much at all.From time to time and that could literally mean from one scan to the next with just a few minutes between each scan,each scan would produce a slightly different result, even dramatically different from the last.Though why this should occur is a reminder of just how cavalier this worlds idea's are about the computer and our use of it.I did not entirely know but I do feel that when the proportion of computing errors are calculated into a cause effect our abilities as pefect crusaders takes a bit of a back seat to logic and how a computer computes.I can only tell you that the purchase of Executive Softwares Diskeeper Professional 9.0 allowed me a better way and a better ability than just the scaled down version which windows provided for,indeed the full scale version is of a real interest and promises to deliver the goods.The goods being a defragmented hard drive that can actually make for a faster computer as a result.It is well worth passing on the good word because the discussion was worth it.Regards Kingdomofjones

Collapse -
Diskeeper 9.0 is dissappointing
by fishnet555 / February 12, 2006 8:22 PM PST

During my 15 or so years of computer experience, like many others I have been exposed to a variety of defragmenters. Some very good, and others not so good.
Like many of you I bought into Diskeeper mostly because of their high power advertising and such. Bad mistake!
I used their defragger for about two years in total. It literally destroyed my setup twice, requiring fresh operating system installation. It just could not handle the job. I defragged weekly and found it left files scattered all over the disk never really consolidating the free space into a contiguous block at the end of the drive. The only time it ever really worked as it should, was to use the boot-time defrag quite often. My discussions with their tech. staff produced all kinds of gobbledeguck excuses and explanations that were not at all helpful, Diskeeper just could not hack it through the really tough stuff.
As a reult I went looking for a better defragger. I found and tried the Raxco Perfect Disk, I was impressed by its ability to tackle messes that Diskeeper wouldn't even try to unscramble. I have been using Perfect Disk now approximately 4 months, I purchased it because of my immediate favourable results. I use it now to defrag weekly as per my usual schedule. I have been extremely satisfied by the continuing excellent results it achieves. It breezes through my operating system drive in less than 10 minutes and displays and reports a perfectly defragmented drive, with all empty space in one block at the end of the data portion, so new software can install into contiguous empty space. It too can be scheduled to do boot-time defrags that run through all drives and partitions in next to no time. Quite impressive and well worth the cost. Good bye Diskeeper forever!
One last point, I have found by experience that most defraggers work better on drives formatted NTFS and certainly achieve better storage efficiency and compactness as an added bonus.

Collapse -
Is there a consensus?
by kingdomofjones / June 1, 2006 10:30 PM PDT

I'am of the opinion in regards to the aforementioned Diskeeper 9,Professional that though your experience provides for a pause in any run to the counter it is useful to suggest that the defragger utility that is part and parcel of the Windows make-up is capable.The NSW offer through the "Speed Disk" application though perhaps bering not quite the signature of the authorized Executive Software is as well capable though not as well positioned.I have had some success with "Speed Disk" as a "natural" augment to the Windows defragment utility which until I had found out about the Executive Software identity as to there defragger had so it seems,to have provided some degree of success.The claims made here in opposition to the "Speed Disk" and as well to the Diskeeper Pro 9 are only an indication that the demands made on todays Operating Systems is ever the more in our conscious.There needs to be a basis to which these issues are included because at present, defragmentation when reaching a point will limit your ability to respond and in truth lack credibility as to a particular data base.It seems that defragmentation is an essential tool and service related to the heart of your Operating Systems ability to process information.The more fragmentation the greater the loss and expenditure of time to process data.If there is a consensus it would at least provide for some wider ability to agree as to fundamentals,that is our computers require a good deal of service related care across the board from the Hard Drive to the Registry.It would seem that good computing habits maybe what is essential here and perhaps greater authority in computing matters in general.

Collapse -
Perhaps you should consider an about face
by El Alquimista / August 28, 2005 1:41 PM PDT

I don't think anyone said that Windows' built-in utilities were better than any others just because they were Windos. By the same token, ''Norton'' products by Symantec are not better than others just because of the Norton name.

I have used Norton Utilities and its successors since it first came out about 20 years ago. For most of that time it was essentially my systems right arm, and I would have given up almost any other software to keep it. Unfortunately, times have changed.

After Norton sold his company to Symantec, he stayed on and had some say in the utilities bearing his name. But after he retired -- or possibly quit in disgust -- things have, in my opinion, gone downhill. Yes, I bought System Works 2005; but I have removed it and consider my money wasted. That is probably the last Symantec product I will ever buy. There are alternatives available for each item in that package that are better and cheaper. Even some things in windows are just as good for most users.

So I suggest that you get down off of your horse and look around. Check the reviews and what other users are saying, and consider them with an open mind. Had you had been talking about Microsoft products, I would have sworn you were a Munchkin.


Collapse -
What is your problem ?
by kingdomofjones / June 1, 2006 11:03 PM PDT

Though the discussion had in these quarters was at least somewhat engaging,I'am not terribly sure as to what exactly you are talking about.I know very little about horses and even more so about munchkins.Though I did manage to watch the Great Secretariat win the Belmont and with that the Triple Crown of Horse racing in 1973.I as well know that Buddy Ebsen was the front runner in the auditions to land the Tin Man role in the motion picture "Wizard of Oz" but was replaced late into the shooting because 1.scheduling conflicts(He was on Broadway at the time of the auditions)However the out of hand conceit is without cause,What is your problem?

Collapse -
Thanks to Everyone !!!
by rausdahl / August 27, 2005 2:40 PM PDT

I just want to say "Thanks!" to everyone who has tried to provide insight as to the possible cause of this problem, and/or suggest other products if I can't get the problem with Speed Disk resolved. I'm hoping Symantec will be able to help me work it out. And if they do, I'll post the solution here. But if they aren't able to help me get it resolved, I'll definitely try some of the other options that all of you have so kindly suggested.

Thanks again !

Collapse -
by Papa Echo / August 27, 2005 11:16 PM PDT
In reply to: Thanks to Everyone !!!

Symantec/Norton have not replied ? Perhaps they do not have a solution. Perhaps that's an issue they do not want to fix. How many check with Microsof XP defrag after runnung Speed Disk like you do ?
The solution ? Forget Speed Disk. It does not work for you. Why bother ? (IMHO)

Collapse -
by chuckieu / August 28, 2005 4:46 AM PDT
In reply to: Perhaps..

Over the years I have seen repeated instances of problems
with various parts of Nortons System Works. It is a matter of record. I used Norton for years, and am still a registered user. The amount of resources used and increasing problems caused me to not install a Norton product and use altenates. Not the first company to build a solid reputation, then depart from what got them there. Each user must decide based on empirical evidence and their own experience. FWIW chuck

Popular Forums
Computer Help 51,912 discussions
Computer Newbies 10,498 discussions
Laptops 20,411 discussions
Security 30,882 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 21,253 discussions
Windows 10 1,672 discussions
Phones 16,494 discussions
Windows 7 7,855 discussions
Networking & Wireless 15,504 discussions


Want to see the future of car technology?

Brian Cooley found it for you at CES 2017 in Las Vegas and the North American International Auto Show in Detroit.