I can't understand why these two utilities produce such different results. Norton 2002 is supposed to be compatable with XP and yet when I use it and then check the results using the defragger anaysis tool, the latter suggests that the disk is horribly defragmented. Out of interest I tried the defragger the other day out of interest (having bought Norton Utilities partly for the speed disk I haven't used XPs utility for a while) and it stopped defragging when the report stated that the disk was still 34% defraggmented. The defrag report also stated that this was far from satisfactory, but it was the best it could do. I don't understand it! Does anyone else?
One question are you using Fat32 or NTFS to find out double click My computer right click C:\ drive and check what properties say. As you need to know if Norton supports NTFS. If not it will mess your drive up
Just been there and their very first FAQ on the subject 'NTFS Speed Disk 2002' gave me the definitive answer. Speed disk is designed to run on 98se using fat32 and by default on XP using NTFS. It is a bit puzzling that it and the XP defragmenter should deliver such polar results though. As I have said the XP defrag stops 2/3 of the way, says that really isn't good enough, but it cannot do anymore. Weird! Consequently I have asked them if they can spare a moment to let me know why this is. I don't suppose they will, especially as it seems only to be of academic interest. Whatever thanks for all your time and effort woodchip. This place has become my computer University. I ask so much that I travel by many aka's LOL!