| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
The Windows XP Defragger--Is It Good Enough For The Enterprise? | |
|
||
| Time: 10:15 EST/15:15 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
After initial hopes that Windows NT wouldn't need to be defragmented, Microsoft soon recognized that its NTFS was at least just as much subject to fragmentation as FAT file systems. As a result, the company included a free defragmentation utility in both the server and workstation editions of Windows 2000. This entirely manual utility was better than having nothing at all, but proved unsuitable for enterprise deployment. In Windows XP, therefore, Microsoft made a few upgrades to the defragmenter for XP Home, Professional and Server editions in attempt to make it more thorough and less limited in an enterprise setting. This article examines what is new with this built in XP utility and puts it under the microscope to determine if has value in a corporate deployment or should be ignored as a viable solution for network-wide defragmentation concerns. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 206 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:03:18 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3 (62.253.128.4) at 2/27/2002 11:30:57 AM |
| Worked great here - I could feel the difference. |
| #2 By 1642 (205.177.133.222) at 2/27/2002 11:42:37 AM |
| For workstations, it has worked well for me on both Win2k and XP. On the other hand, I thought I would try it out on our server that is running Exchange. That was not a god decision. It did not really hurt Exchange, but it did leave the computer more fragmented than it was to begin. |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/27/2002 12:13:45 PM |
|
Diskeeper wrote the defrag included in Win2k. Basically it was their Lite product which they've always given away for free.
|
| #4 By 10 (12.221.49.44) at 2/27/2002 12:43:58 PM |
|
#4 is right, O&O Defrag v.4 is the best for xp, used it and the built in one and O&O is the better of the 2..too bad M$ doesnt liscense that one.....
http://www.oo-defrag.com/ This post was edited by Tegument on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 at 12:47. |
| #5 By 40 (216.68.248.2) at 2/27/2002 1:21:49 PM |
| Personal, I have tried all the others, and stick with PerfectDisk 2k. In several test, O&O and Norton and Diskkeeper all failed on several heavy fragement machines, in in boot defrag. Perfectdisk worked like a charm. I us Perfectdisk on all my servers, it is a required piece of software for all Windows 2000 servers at where I work. I even use the Exchange plug-in on my Exchange 5.5, which has made major differences on my server. If you have not tried this one, give it a try, it works great. (http://www.perfectdisk.com) |
| #6 By 2960 (156.80.64.157) at 2/27/2002 3:37:06 PM |
|
I would like to purchase the full DiskKeeper package, but unfortunately like several other companies their 'server' version is way, WAY overpriced for a little guy like me running a simple single Win2K File Server at home (just for training and personal file storage).
And, the purposely disable the non-server version so it won't even run in single-machine mode on a Win2K Server Machine. That's cold... So, they don't get my money... This is a problem that lot's of us in the IT business run in to :( VENDORS - Just because someone runs the "Server" version of Windows, does NOT mean we are rich and can toss corporate-sized lumps of money at your feet! We are average IT Joe's who just try to keep polished on our trade! TL |
| #7 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 2/27/2002 9:08:55 PM |
|
One thing I've noticed is that commerical defraggers are often several times faster at defragging than the 2k/XP defragger.
I don't really care... since my system defrags and does its antivirus thang' when I'm sleeping, but still... it can be anoying sometimes. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 206 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:03:18 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
