Computer Hope
Microsoft => Microsoft Windows => Windows 3.x/9x/ME => Topic started by: chivasregal on October 18, 2007, 01:00:42 PM
-
Is it possible to download, install, and run win ME defrag on a win 98 system? If so, can you detail how to accomplish this.
Thanks,
Chivas
-
No. I'm afraid not. I'd imagine though that there is not much difference between the ME and 98 defrag. If you're looking for a different tool you may want to try one of the various other defrag tools out there.
For example: Power Defragmenter (http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/Hard-Disk-Utils/Power-Defragmenter.shtml) *
Otherwise, what's wrong with 98 defrag?
* Edit: The above tool looks to be only for 2k and XP and all the other tools I was able to find were only for 2000 or higher.
-
Diskeeper Lite... (http://majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=1207)
Still Free...the only difference than the free version is the scheduler is crippled.
Works on 98, ME and up...
-
My hat's off you you Patio. I went though several dozen different disk utility pages and came up empty handed with a 9x defrag utility that wasn't poorly rated.
-
chivasregal:
Yes, it's both possible and desirable to download, install, and run win ME defrag on a win 98 system. I've done it and have been running WinMe defrag.exe successfully on my Windows 98 Standard Edition PC for four or five years.
I have two old PCs; one running Windows 98, the other Windows ME.
I'm no longer able to find it on the Microsoft download site. (They simply tell you they're discontinued support for Microsoft 9x/ME.)
I did find it at the following link:
http://www.the-old-sea-dog.net/defrag.html
Download his zip file "win9x-medefrag.zip" to where ever you want on your system. Unzip it, read instructions in "ReadFirst.htm" file, execute them. The command file he asks you to execute "install.bat" contains the following two lines:
ren C:\Windows\defrag.exe defrag.old
xcopy defrag.exe C:\Windows
It assumes your Windows 98 system was installed to "C:\Windows\", the default location. It renames the Win98 defrag file and copies in the new one.
I did the download, unzipped the file but did not execute the command file to install. I examined the "defrag.exe" file included in the zip and it is indeed the same size and version as the one off of my Windows Me installation. In fact all of the file properties are the same except the dates. It is unfortunate that he wasn't able to preserve the file dates. The official file on my installation has the Windows Me system date of 6/8/2000. It looks good and legit to me.
The other option is I could attempt to email you original "defrag.exe" off of my Windows ME system, but other than the dates it looks the same as his.
P.S. I've successfully used Diskeeper Lite v7.0 build 418 on my Windows ME system. Never tried it on Windows 98.
-
Huh. That's interesting dahlarbear, thanks for the follow-up on that. Although I've never tried this the page looks legit and it based off the description of the user using this it apparently is faster than the Windows 98 version.
-
And just a follow up heads up...DKLite does the same re-naming function as well...
I use it on all my machines. And i don't mind not having the schedule function....heck what kinda schedule do i follow every day for example ? ? ?
;D
-
And just a follow up heads up...DKLite does the same re-naming function as well...
Is there some advantage to using DKLite vs the defrag program that comes with Win98SE? If there is, maybe I should use it instead.....
-
Computer Hope Admin:
Yeah, the WinME defrag.exe is noticeably faster on the Win98 system than the original. I never benchmarked it. Maybe twice as fast.
I found a second site for download, but didn't originally include it because it appears they're into some serious tinkering.
http://www.mdgx.com/98-5.htm#WDIW
They did however post this note regarding the Win ME defrag.exe utility:
CAUTION:
This NEWer DEFRAG.EXE does NOT recognize/defragment DrvSpace/DblSpace compressed/doubled drives/partitions!
I'm not concerned because I would never use DrvSpace or DblSpace in an effort to save space and I don't think anyone else would either. You'd just get yourself into trouble. Substituting WinME defrag for Win98 was commonly recommended "back in the day".
-
This is how to install Windows ME defrag under Windows 98 (I was using ME defrag in 98 for years):
http://aroundcny.com/technofile/texts/tec060902.html
-
Is there some advantage to using DKLite vs the defrag program that comes with Win98SE? If there is, maybe I should use it instead.....
WillyW:
Yes, the DKLite defragger is much faster than Win98SE; also faster than WinME. It defrags files but is willing to leave gaps between used clusters rather than taking the time to tightly pack all files into one continuous block of used disk space. Win98, Win98SE, WinME standard defrag.exe tightly packs all files, leaving no gaps between them... dahlarbear
-
Also, "defrag" up to Win 98 version was just faulty application. That's why, many people had problems with running it.
-
I would have installed Diskeeper Lite by this point and had all my drives defragged...
-
Is there some advantage to using DKLite vs the defrag program that comes with Win98SE? If there is, maybe I should use it instead.....
WillyW:
Yes, the DKLite defragger is much faster than Win98SE; also faster than WinME. It defrags files but is willing to leave gaps between used clusters rather than taking the time to tightly pack all files into one continuous block of used disk space. Win98, Win98SE, WinME standard defrag.exe tightly packs all files, leaving no gaps between them... dahlarbear
Interesting.
Thanks for commenting.
I assume this means that you have tried all three and are reporting from personal experience?
Broni and Patio : Question - since it is reported that dklite leaves gaps, but is fast -
would it be worth it to dklite a drive first, then come right behind it with regular Win98 defrag?
In other words, since dklite apparently would have done all the work with the little bits and pieces all over everywhere, would Win98 defrag then finish the job by moving all the big files together?
... just something that came to mind as I read the above.....
-
would it be worth it to dklite a drive first, then come right behind it with regular Win98 defrag?
I guess, it may work, but forget about Win98 defrag. It's a piece of junk. You may want to substitute it with WinME defrag, which is much faster.
-
WillyW:
I have tried all three; Win98, WinME, and Diskeeper Lite 7.0 (DKLite) defrag; and I am reporting from personal experience. I installed DKLite defrag on my WinME system and used it for many months. In the standard installation it coexists with the standard WinME defrag. If you access the defrag utility from the "tools" tab of the "properties" dialog of a logical disk, it serves up the DKLite utility. If you access the defrag utility from the Windows Start Menu, as in Start -> Programs -> Accessories -> System Tools -> Disk Defragmenter, it serves up the standard WinME defrag.
I use a small 512 MB USB Flash Drive to port files back and forth. I also use floppy disks for diagnostic tools. I like to keep them defragged for performance purposes. Since my flash drive is pretty full, I prefer to keep whatever space is available in a contiguous block at the end. DKLite did not do this for me and it does not support floppy drives (at least that's my recollection). Since I could never remember to defrag these from the "System Tools" submenu, I would always end up accessing the defrag utility twice before I got the right one. Because of the inconvenience to me I finally uninstalled DKLite.
That said, DKLite worked fine and is much faster than the standard Win9x/ME defrag utilities. The defrag tools for WinXP (obviously not for Win9x/ME systems) also leave "available" cluster gaps in the file system. They defrag files and do a pretty good job of packing them tight, but they won't sacrifice performance (total defrag time) to do it. Nor should they.
I, like you, wondered whether a first pass by DKLite could quickly defrag files while a second pass by the standard Windows defrag (WinME in my case) would finish the job. The answer is yes, it does. But not that fast. Window defrag spends a lot of time sliding file cluster blocks up to close gaps. I should also add that since I defrag regularly, I didn't have a lot of tiny defragged file pieces to put together, so not the best test. But for me it wasn't worth the effort.
Enough already... Try it you'll like it... It works as advertised... dahlarbear
-
Thank you for an update 8) 8) 8)
-
DKLite leaves gaps ...i'm not sure what this is supposed to mean...
-
WillyW:
I have tried all three; Win98, WinME, and Diskeeper Lite 7.0 (DKLite) defrag; and I am reporting from personal experience. ...
Excellent.
Thank you for the information, and your time in posting it.
:)
-
DKLite leaves gaps ...i'm not sure what this is supposed to mean...
I believe it was a characteristic that he did not care for.
...Since my flash drive is pretty full, I prefer to keep whatever space is available in a contiguous block at the end. DKLite did not do this for me ...
-
I have not seen DKLite do this that's why i asked.
-
I have not seen DKLite do this that's why i asked.
Ah. Ok. Understand now.
And thanks for commenting from your experience. That's very intesting.
-
Patio:
I have re-installed Diskeeper Lite 7.0 Build 418 (DKLite) on my HP Pavilion 6736 computer running Windows ME. DKLite works as designed and is an excellent product. I again used it to defrag several of the logical drives (FAT32) on my hard disk and a 512MB Lexar USB Jump Drive (formatted Fat16). I did not benchmark this, but I believe it is faster than WinME defrag.exe. DKLite successfully defragged all of my drives except for the floppy drive which it apparently doesn't support. While I believe it defragged all of the files, the result was not one contiguous block of allocated clusters followed by one contiguous block of free clusters. There were a handful of free cluster "gaps" (six or less) within the range of allocated clusters. Not a big deal, but Win98 and WinME tightly pack all allocated clusters into what appears to be a single contiguous block of allocated clusters followed by the remaining free clusters in a single contiguous block. Again not a big deal. DKLite is an excellent product and I will probably leave it on my system to maintain option of using it. It was removed earlier during a "spring cleaning" of my hard drive.
Any chance this thread could "... go softly into the night".