Downloaded the Intel Desktop Utilities package, extracted it, then installed Diskeeper Lite on another computer. Nice, clean install, and DK9 looks exactly as the DK9 Pro version I have installed on my computer (except that page file, MFT, and folders file defragmentation are disabled in the Lite version).
DKL9 will not run under W9X-ME.
It would be nice to know if DKL8 would, but I cannot find any "reputable" copies of it. I saw one mention somewhere that it was on an Intel motherboard CD.
DKL9 will not run under W9X-ME.
It would be nice to know if DKL8 would, but I cannot find any "reputable" copies of it. I saw one mention somewhere that it was on an Intel motherboard CD.
Hello asur,
Welcome to the forums.
I really appreciate members who use the "search" engines to find topics and posts.
However, you did reply to a topic that is a little old.
Sounds like you need some help finding a good "defrag" program for W9X-ME.
Can any of our members help "asur" in his situation ?
Best wishes,
davey
DKL9 will not run under W9X-ME.
It would be nice to know if DKL8 would, but I cannot find any "reputable" copies of it. I saw one mention somewhere that it was on an Intel motherboard CD.
Older versions which I once used myself had the very nasty habit of getting slower, and slower after each defrag. To the point where the built in Windows defrag back in my Win98 days was light years faster. I don't know if it was a bug in an old DK version or not, however that issue has made it rather difficult for me to even want to evaluate another version of DK. There's a ton of free defrag tools available nowadays, for Win9x/Me however good luck finding a good one that's up-to-date.
One tip: If you use Win9x look for the WinMe Defrag, it solves many issues, and is floating about somewhere on a download site or two but I won't link to any since I don't know how legal it is.
I use Diskeeper Lite on my old Win98. Downloaded from here http://www.majorgeeks.com/Diskeeper_Lite_d1207.html
When my old (yet still current) PC came with Windows ME, its built-in Windows defrag took 5 to 15 minutes. With XP on this same PC it's an overnight task. Easily +6 hours.
With XP on this same PC it's an overnight task. Easily +6 hours.
What are the system specifications and how full is the hard drive?
On my slow 2.4GHZ XP Home 40GB hard drive that has 84% free defrag only takes about 15 minutes about once per week.
When my old (yet still current) PC came with Windows ME, its built-in Windows defrag took 5 to 15 minutes. With XP on this same PC it's an overnight task. Easily +6 hours.
Corona,
Your problem is that Fat32 files on your hard drive and WDD will only use the old defrag routines and treats everything like Fat32. you need to get those old files dumped or reformatted as NTFS.
That is your only solution. That is why every defrag you try does the same thing.
Maybe start a new topic and we all can learn from it as you do what needs doing. Beleive me I am no expert on this but maybe we all can help you get it done.
Good luck,
davey
P.S. I think it would be worth the effort but I don't know the value of those FAT32 files that you have.
Thanks for the concern but I'm not reformatting my drive (again). I was just stating the consequences of my PC after installing XP. The HP motherboard may be specifically geared for Win 98 & ME. It's an HP Pavillion 9895.
You don't have to FORMAT just convert it:
How to convert a FAT16 volume or a FAT32 volume to an NTFS file system in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307881
So many ?s regarding the benefits of NTFS -> sum up
http://www.tek-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=729
How much RAM does the system have?
I have 512 ram.
I'm not changing it to NTFS (I do know NTFS is a much better system) because I remember why I changed it back to Fat32 in the first place. To run Cool Edit 2000. (Remember that thread I posted about CE2000?) I'm fine with Fat32. I'm no longer 32, but I'm still Fat.
I'm no longer 32, but I'm still Fat.
Corona,you need to get those old files dumped or reformatted as NTFS.
The disk doesn't need to be reformatted to use NTFS, it can easily be converted inside of Windows itself using Windows itself to do it all without losing one file as detailed in the links provided in YoKenney's post. Of course I'd make a whole system backup onto other medium first before attempting it just to play on the safe side.
I'm not changing back to NTFS, I gave my reason in an earlier post. If/When I get a new machine it'll be either Vista (NTFS,WinFS) or Mac or Ubuntu. And I plan on keeping this old machine intact if I can. And if I really feel like splurging I'll also buy an old PC with Win98 SE.
And I plan on keeping this old machine intact if I can.
The same goes for my old Win98 PC which one day I'm going to put a Linux distro on. I tried SLAX yesterday via a Live CD and I was thoroughly impressed with it, of course I like Ubuntu too.
diskeeper pro premier,perfect disk,etc-saves time,automatic,i never encountered any problem..
windows built in defragmenter-safe but it is manualy run
if degragmenting a hd decrease life span of a hd why microsoft built a defragmenter in windows?
diskeeper pro premier,perfect disk,etc-saves time,automatic,i never encountered any problem..windows built in defragmenter-safe but it is manualy run
if degragmenting a hd decrease life span of a hd why microsoft built a defragmenter in windows?
It is necessary for all users to defragment their Hard Drive to eliminate a build up of too many fragments.
This slows processing down when there are too many fragmented files.
The Windows Disk Defragmenter program is sufficient for MOST users and does a good and safe job.
It does not require any special knowledge or constant updating or purchasing on the part of the user.
It can be run to Analyze the Hard Drive to see if the drive needs defragmenting. If it says it needs defragmenting then do so when the PC is not going to be used for awhile. If it says it does not need defragmenting then DO NOT do it. It is that simple.
Many users are misled into believing that constant defragmenting is the best and necessary. This is far from the correct practice as stated above. Constant defragmenting is a waste of time and does put undue strain on your Hard Drive.
The Windows Disk Defragmenter can be run by Start > My Computer > Right click on the Hard Drive icon > select Properties and then selecting the Tools tab.
The Tools tab offers the opportunity to do other Disk related tasks also.
Click on Defragment Now and then select Analyze. This will result in a graphic representation of the disk.
It is not 100% accurate in its depiction due to the limitations represented by the pixel lines on the screen.
It does present you with a general idea of the condition of the disk.
What is MORE IMPORTANT is the message it will give you after Analyzing. This will tell you if you need to Defragment the disk or not.
Simple, simple, simple. Thank you MS. I don't have to be a PC whiz to do a good job of maintaining my PC.
davey
Many users are misled into believing that constant defragmenting is the best and necessary. This is far from the correct practice as stated above. Constant defragmenting is a waste of time and does put undue strain on your Hard Drive.
I throw caution to the wind because I defrag all the time. However; I very easily (too easily) fragment my drives with all the audio and video stuff. I'm currently using in tandem Contig and Windows Defrag via a batch file.
I throw caution to the wind because I defrag all the time. However; I very easily (too easily) fragment my drives with all the audio and video stuff. I'm currently using in tandem Contig and Windows Defrag via a batch file.
In this case you don't fall into the "most users" category.
You have very special needs for your music profession.
YOU are a "PC Wizard" in your own right.
You are capable of taking a few Winternals (Sysinternals) tools and performing just what you need.
I loaded about 42 GB of "static" application data on this PC a week ago.
I have done no defragging but Windows has somehow decided to move it all to the inside of the drive.
It is right where I had planned putting it.
There are no other users with enough knowledge to have done so.
I have no "optimization" screen savers activated.
This is the 2ND time Windows idle time processes have surprised me.
Of course it could be the "PC Fairy" or "Piriform Fairy". I can't believe my luck sometimes.
I deleted about 20 GB of C drive backup from my C drive 2 days ago.
Now I wonder what surprise Windows "optimization" has in store for me.
davey