![]() With W98, you need as little as possible in the systray. It was a significant drain on resources also as it was running in the systray all the time. Diskeeper would schedule a defrag and would suddenly start running and immediately hang the computer. "Set it and Forget it" was the main problem on W98SE. It was awful! I worked with Executive Software on this issue and they agreed that the Lite version works better on W98SE. I was loosing all non-saved work in open windows. It was hanging the OS several times a day. It hangs the OS and I have to resort to c/a/d and then reboot. I have the latest version of Diskeeper and I cannot run it on W98SE. I didn't mean it to sound like I thought you were deliberately lying and you are correct that I did not know the full story. Ok, sorry, I should have said it was just my opinion. I am looking forward to when I can utilize the full version. I will be using the full Diskeeper though on my new box as it is designed primarily for XP. Executive Software even agrees with me and that is why I have a link to Diskeeper Lite latest version even though it has been removed some time ago from Executive Software's sites. So, what you are saying is simply not true. Much of Diskeeper full version cannot even run on W98SE! It is only for NT based OSes. ![]() I have discussed this at length with the webmaster at Executive Software as well as technicians and others there. In fact, the Lite version does the better job on W98SE. Nor does the full version do a better job of defragging. The full version of Diskeeper is NOT faster than the Lite version.I don't know where you got all these ridiculous ideas. Windows defragger leaves 15% fragmentation on my W98SE box, whereas, Diskeeper lite gets it all and leaves 0 fragmentation. Windows defragger is quite inferior to Diskeeper Lite. The lite version is far better for this OS. I do not use the full version as it causes hangs, BSODs, etc. I have both the lite and the full versions of Diskeeper. The only significant difference between the lite and the full version is that the lite version does not have "set and forget it". Is Windows a better or more thorough defragger than Diskeeper Lite? Is that why it runs slower?Īnother thing I like about Diskeeper Lite besides it's speed is that one can work with the computer while it runs, whereas one cannot with Windows Defrag, however, maybe it's better to run Windows defrag from time to time also, maybe when one is sleeping or going to be away from the computer for a while. Approximately the first 30 per cent of the drive was fully defragged when I started the windows defrag and the holes in the rest of it were small. Windows defragmenter is slow, and I probably saved time by running Diskeeper Lite first to get the drive mostly defragged. It found what must have been over 200 little holes left by Diskeeper Lite. Then I rebooted into safe mode and ran Windows (98) defragmenter. Diskeeper is fast, it only took about 12 minutes to finish. I ran a scandisk in safe mode on my 4Gig C drive partition, rebooted into safe mode, and then ran Diskeeper Lite defragmenter on the partition.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |