Defragmentation software for Win9x

[Multibooter]

I second dencorso. The simplest solution is to use the native WinXP disk defragmenter for all your partitions/drives. That's often what I do with my dual-boot systems. Is there any particular reason you need to do it from Win98?

Multibooter... wants to defragment under Windows 98, his question seems like clear enough to me... I guess he most probably has a reason to ask this (and not another question)

There are several reasons:

1) Win98 uses BIOS info, WinXP gets its own info.

On my old laptop under a 2nd WinXP operating system (named by me "WinXP-NTFS") I defragged with PerfectDisk the FAT32 partition of my main WinXP opsys (named by me "WinXP-FAT32") and then ran sdelete to zero out free space (so that Ghost would create a smaller .gho image file of the WinXP-FAT partition). When I then booted into Win98SE and checked the defragged and sdeleted WinXP-FAT32 partition with Norton Disk Doctor, NDD detected lost clusters and displayed the error msg: "The boot area on this drive contains invalid information about the drive's free space. Windows may report the drive's free space incorrectly or slowly." I speculate that when I run the defragmentation and sdelete of the WinXP-FAT32 partition under Win98 I will not get these errors. In other words: defragging and sdeleting under WinXP somehow caused a minor corruption on my disk, as seen under Win98.

My 10-year-old laptop has a very old BIOS. The 120Gib HDD inside it is reported incorrectly by this old BIOS as 64GB. Maybe PerfectDisk and sdelete under WinXP are using the (correct) WinXP info, while Win98 uses the incorrect BIOS value. For example, the only way that I can create a good clone of the internal HDD (i.e. a clone which is acceptable to System Commander) is to insert a blank HDD into the right-bay HDD module of the laptop and then clone it with the Paragon Partition Manager 9.0 RecoveryCD (Linux-based). When I insert the original or the cloned HDD into a USB enclosure, for example, PartitionMagic under Win98 will report it as a bad disk.

In other words, I am using a 120GB internal HDD, which I shouldn't because the BIOS can handle only a 64GB drive. The 120GB drive is basically bad, but because of the flukes of good partitioning, it has always worked for me. After extensive file copies Win98 often freezes, and then after rebooting NDD fixes up fine the error "The boot area on this drive contains invalid information about the drive's free space." I never had any data loss under Win98 because I used a 120GB HDD with an old max.64GB BIOS. So in my special case, defragging and sdeleting a weird HDD under WinXP may cause problems under Win98.

2) WinXP seems to ignore Long File Name errors during defragmentation. Under Win98 defragmentation stops when an LFN error is encountered. Also, WinXP and Win98 seem to have some incompatibilities with Long File Names/DOS file names in different foreign languages. So defragmenting partitions with LFN errors or strange foreign-language file/directories names may produce different results under Win98 and WinXP

3) If one is interested in an optimized file/directory location when running under Win98, the defragmentation software has to access the Applog data of Win98. This cannot be done under WinXP. So to defrag an opsys in an optimized way, it has to be done under the operating system being defraqgged, and each opsys partition should be defragged while in that specific opsys.

Based on usage patterns stored in \Windows\APPLOG\, file X will be placed in position A with optimized defragging under opsys 1, and then be placed in position B with optimized defragging under opsys 2. What is fast for one opsys, may not be fast for another opsys.

4) FAT32 is the main file system of Win9x. It would be a shame if there were no decent defragger under Win9x for its own main file system, working on a computer with recent hardware.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Multibooter

[dencorso]

Just for the record, here's a link to the Norton Removal Tool 9x, probably the best App from Symantec ever!

AFAIK, this is the last version for 9x, and it doesn't expire, like all previous versions.

It may be useful to help creating the standalone version of Norton Speed Disk. It does a pretty comprehensive job, so take care: it may be able to remove or cripple the standalone Ghost install you've got, so be prepared to put it back, before using the NRT9x.

[jds]

there also offfer defragw.exe which support fat32 when i download it, it turn out to be defragw.exe from winME.

however i already using winme defrag, and its refuse to work with my partition.

that one partition was about 80 GB with 4KBytes/cluster, and also contain a few .nrg files that larger than 3GB in size.

Previously I have seen here recommendations to use the WinME defrag on W98, I know it's supposed to be a lot faster, not sure what other virtues it may have. What error/symptom did you get with it?

Also, is the unofficial 'COPY2GB.EXE' patch relevant here?

Joe.

[Prozactive]

@Multibooter:

Thanks for the long technical explanation. I did not realize you had BIOS HD geometry issues. I've had very limited experience with those but they are obviously very complex and can cause many serious problems especially with defragmentation and similar operations. Yes I knew about the APPLOG impact on Windows defragmentation and I have played around some with the native Win98 (actually WinME replacement) vs. WinXP defragmenters. The WinXP defrag does work somewhat differently from the Win98/ME defrag but not as much as I would've thought. I would classify it as a minor difference. I have not taken the time and energy to analyze the detailed file relocation differences though.

I also appreciated the long earlier detailed discussions on the various disk defragmenters. My all-time favorite defragmenter is still Norton Speed Disk. I've used it ever since the DOS days before Peter Norton sold out to Symantec. The current version I'm using dates from around 1999 to 2000 (pre-WinXP) and it has problems with very large HD partitions, where it completely freezes during scanning. As a result, I have to use the WinXP defragmenter on those drives. I was not aware that the Speed Disk in NSW 2005 was the last version compatible with Win9x/ME and worked so well. If I had known, I definitely would've gotten it. I'll definitely keep my eye out for any old copies. I especially like the customizable defrag available in Speed Disk, where you can specifically arrange the order and locations of various files/directories based upon usage patterns.

[Monroe]

... been doing some searching around for a comparison on Windows Defrag and Norton Speed Disk ... this discussion dates back to 2007 .. some people seem to find the Windows Defrag does a better job than Speed Disk.

Norton Speed Disk vs Windows Disk Defragmenter

by dualcg - January 3, 2007 9:17 PM PST

In Reply to: A Good Habit is Hard To Break: by kingdomofjones

I have been battling a problem that Norton Techs don't seem to be able to help with. I run Windows Defrag, and follow up with Speed Disk. Speed disk always increases the amount of fragmentation. In fact, I can go into speed disk, run analyze, read the percentage fragmentation, run optimize, and end up with an increase in the amount of fragmentation. On the other hand, if I run Speed Disk first, Windows defgrag does a more complete job. Any suggestions?

---------------------------

by caktus - January 4, 2007 12:27 PM PST

In Reply to: Windows defrag vs. Speed Disk by dualcg

Given my experiences and what you have mentioned, I would surely (and do) use the Windows tool.

As far as Diskeeper And Perfect Disk, other than some unnecessary additional functions where the average home user is concerned, the only difference I have seen is that the Windows tool is much faster.

Why spend money when it is best left in your pocket.

---------------------------

by ronalds173 - January 9, 2007 5:29 PM PST

In Reply to: Windows defrag vs. Speed Disk by dualcg

I have noticed the same happening with my computer. I do know that once you defrag with NSW it takes a while before it finally determines how much, if any, is still fragmented. I have also found that I can sometimes get much better results by defraging twice consecutively with either Windows XP or NSW. My hard drive is formatted into two drives and, lately I have noticed that my second hard drive is becoming fragmented in a very short period of time. I have no idea why?

I guess it doesn't really clear anything up ... I mentioned before that I use the ME Defrag with Windows 98SE and then I run Crackup to check on how much my HD is fragmented to know when to defrag again.

Found this interesting article about different defrag software ... Defragmenting software to choose from

http://www.finestdaily.com/how-to/defragmenting-software-to-choose-from.html

...

Edited November 19, 2010 by duffy98

[dencorso]

Also, is the unofficial 'COPY2GB.EXE' patch relevant here?

It should be.... and the simultaneous multiple file copies unofficial shell32 v. 634 should also be so. In any case, just for the record, Win ME defragmenter should be subject to the same limitations than scandiskw, since they depend on the same DskMaint.dll, so it should be good with all partitions smaller than 320 GB or so, and maybe with bigger ones, too.

However, DskMaint.dll is a NE executable (16-bit), and as such, has intrinsic limitations in its use of memory that wouldnt be there if it were a PE executable (Win32).

[Multibooter]

... been doing some searching around for a comparison on Windows Defrag and Norton Speed Disk ... this discussion dates back to 2007 .. some people seem to find the Windows Defrag does a better job than Speed Disk.... quotation: I have been battling a problem that Norton Techs don't seem to be able to help with. I run Windows Defrag, and follow up with Speed Disk. Speed disk always increases the amount of fragmentation

I can confirm this. Vopt v7.22 indicates the number of fragmented files when clicking on the Analyze button and can also display nicely which files are fragmented.

After defragging a partition with Vopt, the number of fragmented files was reduced to zero. When I ran Speed Disk 2005 immediately afterwards with the setting "Unfragment free space", then checked with Vopt the number of fragmented files: defragging with Speed Disk 2005 had INCREASED the number of fragmented files from 0 to 19. With the setting "Full Optimization" (=optimized placement using APPLOG data) the number of fragmented files increased to 29. With the setting "Unfragment files only" the number of fragmented files stayed at 0.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Multibooter

[rloew]

As far as Diskeeper And Perfect Disk, other than some unnecessary additional functions where the average home user is concerned, the only difference I have seen is that the Windows tool is much faster.

I would not recommend Diskeeper. I tested the Windows 9x compatable Diskeeper a couple of years ago. It totally corrupts partitions larger than approx 200GB. I contacted the Company and they said that as far as they are concerned it doesn't support Windows 9x.

[Multibooter]

I'll just throw this one on the table, and see if anyone finds it of use: http://web.archive.org/web/20020203213518/http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/pctech/content/17/19/ut1719.001.html

Actual file needs a bit of googling. http://thedailyreviewer.com/computing/view/defrag-status-104442191

Crackup v1.0 can be downloaded from ftp://ftp.extremetech.com/pcmag/archives/1998/1103/crackup.zip

Crackup v1.0 works Ok under Win98 on a 192 GB partition of a 1TB HDD connected via eSATA. It's an analysis tool, but I like the Analyze feature of Vopt v7.22 much better, Vopt indicates the number of fragmented files on a partition and also the names of the files fragmented.

[Multibooter]

I would not recommend Diskeeper. I tested the Windows 9x compatable Diskeeper a couple of years ago.

Which version?

It totally corrupts partitions larger than approx 200GB.

This wouldn't concern me much. I am limiting all my FAT32 partitions to 192 GB, which is the maximimum size for a FAT32 partition allowed by PowerQuest PartitionMagic 8, they must have had their reasons. Any FAT32 partition above 192GB =196.600.1MB I consider as potentially risky, some software might not be able to handle it correctly. Your experience with Diskeeper just confirms this personal 192GB rule.

By limiting myself to 192GB FAT32 partitions, I also limit the size of HDDs to a max of 1TB, to avoid drive letter overflow. I usually partition my external 1TB HDDs into 4 logical FAT32 partitions of 192GB and the remainder as a logical NTFS partition, with PowerQuest PartitionMagic 8 under Win98SE.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Multibooter

[jaclaz]

Crackup v1.0 can be downloaded from ftp://ftp.extremetech.com/pcmag/archives/1998/1103/crackup.zip

As well as from the http link in the given reference thread:

http://thedailyreviewer.com/computing/view/defrag-status-104442191

http://wittswallpapers.com/Oldies/crackup.zip

jaclaz

[jds]

Also, is the unofficial 'COPY2GB.EXE' patch relevant here?

It should be.... and the simultaneous multiple file copies unofficial shell32 v. 634 should also be so. In any case, just for the record, Win ME defragmenter should be subject to the same limitations than scandiskw, since they depend on the same DskMaint.dll, so it should be good with all partitions smaller than 320 GB or so, and maybe with bigger ones, too.

However, DskMaint.dll is a NE executable (16-bit), and as such, has intrinsic limitations in its use of memory that wouldnt be there if it were a PE executable (Win32).

Thanks for the clarification.

Check. Unofficial 'COPY2GB.EXE' and 'SHELL98.EXE' updates.

Since Multibooter says FAT32 partitions beyond 192G in size may not be safe anyway, that means the WinME defragger (and presumably the W98 one, albeit slower) should be a perfectly good choice (with the above updates).

Joe.

[rloew]

I would not recommend Diskeeper. I tested the Windows 9x compatable Diskeeper a couple of years ago.

Which version?

I don't remember which Version but I believe it was the last version that said it supported Windows 98.

It totally corrupts partitions larger than approx 200GB.

This wouldn't concern me much. I am limiting all my FAT32 partitions to 192 GB, which is the maximimum size for a FAT32 partition allowed by PowerQuest PartitionMagic 8, they must have had their reasons. Any FAT32 partition above 192GB =196.600.1MB I consider as potentially risky, some software might not be able to handle it correctly. Your experience with Diskeeper just confirms this personal 192GB rule.

By limiting myself to 192GB FAT32 partitions, I also limit the size of HDDs to a max of 1TB, to avoid drive letter overflow. I usually partition my external 1TB HDDs into 4 logical FAT32 partitions of 192GB and the remainder as a logical NTFS partition, with PowerQuest PartitionMagic 8 under Win98SE.

The 192GB limit may be related to Windows XP. I have not seen anything in Windows 9x that would limit the use of Partitions to less than 1TiB other than FDISKs 512GiB total Drive limit. I routinely use a 476GB Partition without having any problems. Above 1TiB it gets more complicated, but Windows 98 can support up to 16TiB.

Edited November 20, 2010 by rloew

[Multibooter]

The 192GB limit may be related to Windows XP. I have not seen anything in Windows 9x that would limit the use of Partitions to less than 1TiB other than FDISKs 512GiB total Drive limit. I routinely use a 476GB Partition without having any problems. Above 1TiB it gets more complicated, but Windows 98 can support up to 16TiB.

I view it as a personal prudent rule, not as a clear limitations. Norton Disk Doctor 2004, for example, works Ok under Win98 with 750GB disks with logical partitions up to a maximum of 240GB [=258.177.794.048 bytes]; a 240.5GB logical partition size results in a blue screen.

When I used a 232GB active primary partition Norton Disk Doctor 2004 eventually displayed the err msg "Error on drive J: Invalid Disk Table in Boot Record". After NDD repaired this boot record, the HDD was basically destroyed. Partition Table Doctor v3.5 was able to recover a large part of the data. It looks like it's a problem of the specific software, not of Win98. Maybe 6 years ago the software developers didn't have large capacity drives available for testing.

How do you defrag your HDDs?

Edited November 20, 2010 by Multibooter

[rloew]

How do you defrag your HDDs?

I don't routinely defragment but the Windows ME Defrag can handle it.