- Platform: Windows 98 / 2000 / Me / XP
- Media: CD-ROM
- Item Quantity: 1
System Requirements
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
Product Description
From the Manufacturer
No matter how powerful your PC is, fragmentation will slow it down--it's just a matter of time. In fact, the harder your system works, the faster fragmentation builds up. Manual, single-pass defrag software simply can't keep up--in order to maintain performance, you'd likely spend more time defragmenting than you will using the computer! Diskeeper automatic defragmenter simply makes the problems of fragmentation go away forever!
Diskeeper 10 Professional Edition provides high-speed automatic defrag along with advanced settings and features that allow you to fine-tune its operation. You can set multiple time schedules per volume and choose from advanced CPU-priority settings--or you can take advantage of the intelligent technology built into Diskeeper 10 to find the best settings. Diskeeper 10 Professional Edition can even proactively protect critical system files against fragmentation, thanks to its exclusive FragShield technology.
Diskeeper 10 Professional Edition: The defragmenter the pros use.
Fortune 500 and corporations rely on Diskeeper 10 Professional Edition to maximize system speed, reliability, and longevity--all factors that save hundreds or even thousands of dollars per machine. Diskeeper 10 Professional Edition is designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. You'll hardly notice when it's active--but you will see the increase in speed and reliability!
Features:
- "Set it and forget it" operation automatically defragments according to the schedule you set--or allow Diskeeper to intelligently schedule itself with Smart Scheduling
- New! Redesigned user interface for intuitive and easy scheduling and configuration
- New! Reporting tracks the progress of Diskeeper over time and displays cumulative defragmentation benefits including disk health, real time performance, and fragmentation statistics
- New! Enhancements to i/o smart, which intelligently monitors drive access during defragmentation, allows transparent background defragmentation so you never experience a performance hit, even during system peak production times
- Boot-time mode safely performs Microsoft-recommended defragmentation of critical system files
- Multi-pass defragmentation maintains maximum PC performance with no long waits or slowdowns or excessive system resource usage
- FragShield dynamically reduces fragmentation of critical system files, maintaining system stability and reliability
- Two schedules per volume, allowing flexible defragmentation customized for your server
- New! File performance defragmentation mode now combinable with all defragmentation methods for an instant performance boost for those fragmented files causing the biggest slowdowns
- Screen-saver mode defragments your drive while your system is idle
- Power management for laptops prolongs battery life by suspending background defragmentation while on battery power
Product Description
Diskeeper 10 provides new adaptive that wrings every last drop of performance out of your machine. It keeps your PC running at peak speed and performance with "Set It and Forget It" simplicity and ease. It's the same defragmenter tool that professionals use to keep their systems running at peak performance. Now you can use it, too - and keep non-networked PCs healthy and running at top speed. Set It and Forget It operation automatically defragments according to the schedule you set Allow Diskeeper to intelligently schedule itself with Smart Scheduling Multi-pass defragmentation maintains maximum PC performance with no long waits or slowdowns or excessive system resource usage Screen saver mode defragments your drive while your system is idle
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product).
|
Customer Reviews
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
43 of 43 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A very superior product!,
By
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Diskeeper 10 Professional - 1 User (CD-ROM)
As a Norton Utilities user for more than 15 years, you can tell that it takes a lot to get me to change utility software. But the Symantec products, as good as they are, seemed to get `fatter' every year and seemed to be al contributor to a slowing PC, so I started playing with alternatives. While you give up some of Symantec's integration, there are simply superior tools out there these days, and Diskeeper is clearly one of them.First, I started trying a number of `trial' versions of various products before settling on Diskeeper. I had just completed a trial period on version 9 and was ready to buy Diskeeper 9 when the new version 10 came out. Since I have not used v9 for a lengthy period of time, I cannot confirm what the various improvements are, but I can confirm that everything that had me ready to buy v9 in the first place is there in v10, plus some. And vs. my tried and true Norton Speed Disk, Diskeeper wins hands down. Some of the key features that Speed Disk cannot match include: 1. Speed: A full manual defrag takes significantly less time with Diskeeper. What used to take hours with Norton was done in less than half the time. 2. Thoroughness: On one of my PCs I ran Norton's Speed Disk just before running the trial version of Diskeeper to see if there was any difference between how the two `saw' the hard drive. After Norton reported a fully defragged disk, Diskeeper clearly reflected some remaining fragmentation that Speed Disk did not. Perhaps the difference is not significant, but Diskeeper clearly found more fragments and handled them. 3. Intellegence: Diskeeper's `Set It and Forget It' feature is so superior to the simplistic scheduling function in Speed Disk. It will defrag quietly in the background on a continuous basis when your PC is not active, keeping your disk less fragmented all the time vs. just defragging on a set schedule. It allows you to select different levels of defragging as well as two different `schedules' so you can do quick defrags all the time to keep things relatively clean and do a deep, comprehensive defrag occasionally to insure the best defrag possible. 4. Communication: The screens for Diskeeper allow both novice and power user to have all the information they want. You can see not only what files are fragmented but which are causing the most performance drag and what level of improvement is possible with a full defrag by Diskeeper. 5. Registry Defrag: Not possible with Speed Disk at all, Diskeeper allows you to run at start up to defrag the important registry files. Since the registry `tells' Windows how to operate and since years of use will cause the registry to often fill with junk, cleaning the registry (not a Diskeeper function - see note below) and defragging the registry (Diskeeper does do this) can help speed your PC up. In fact, this may be more important for many older PCs than defragging the disk itself. Diskeeper 10 now includes a function that helps protect the registry from becoming fragmented in the future, too. Overall, I am thoroughly impressed with Diskeeper. What you give up in Norton Utilities' integration is more than made up for in a superior overall product. Sometimes having software focused on doing one thing well is better than a Swiss Army knife approach and this is such an occasion. And if you are unsure, you can download a trial version and see for yourself before you buy. (FYI, Kudos to Amazon on my purchase. I ordered on Friday, Dec. 30th and had my Diskeeper on Tuesday, the next business day after New Years. And that was using the free freight option!) As a side note on Registry management, specifically registry clean up, I would also recommend TuneUp Utilities 2006 as an outstanding and complementary product to Diskeeper. TuneUp '06 (I think it may be only downloadable from their web site?) provides a ton of tools to speed up your PC along with a true registry clean up utility that, again, blows Symantec away. Having had Norton Utilities on my PCs for years, I was shocked to see how much junk was sitting in my registry that Norton had not cleaned up for years. I do not like to play with the registry on my own, but TuneUp '06 is as easy to use as Norton and it is far more thorough. Again, you can download a trial version to see if it works for you, but the combo of TuneUp '06 with Diskeeper will do more for your registry (and other things) than Norton by a very wide margin.
7 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Effective but dangerous,
By
This review is from: Diskeeper 10 Professional - 1 User (CD-ROM)
I have used Diskeeper for several years, and purchased Pro version 10 when it came out. The layout and general operation are very good and there is no competing product thgat approaches its speed, reporting, and flexibility. However, a routine called FragShield is misleading and dangerous to your system as now implemented. It pops up to encourage you to enlarge two critical areas on your hard drive, without explaining the consequences. It enables you to expand and defragment both your Paging files and Master File Table, a most valuable feature, but the dialog boxes are poorly written. Worse, only at the end of a help file is the warning that you can't reduce the size of your MFT without reformatting your drive. The carelessness of the company has brought my 80 GB system hard drive to its knees with an MFT of 10 Gigabytes! Now my defragmentation and backups take hours instead of minutes. If I had chosen the largest *recommended* MFT size, my hard drive would have been inoperable! Here was their response, which did not address all of the perils of the FragShield program:"...The FragShield configuration dialog clearly states "Configure the MFT for the following number of files...". Also, mentions "Recommended MFT size: xxx,xxx file records...". However, I do realize that it could be a problem for certain users and could be misunderstood. I have made a suggestion to the development team regarding this so it could be implemented in the next release. As far as giving you a solution to your large MFT, the only thing you can do is a format of your HD. There is no work-around that could be done to get your MFT to a smaller size unless you reformat your HD. Best Regards, [name withheld]..." I cannot recommend software that so carelessly recks a computer. If they indicate that the needed fixes to FragShield are complete on their website, then by all means get the product.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Going downhill,
By
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Diskeeper 10 Professional - 1 User (CD-ROM)
The purpose of Diskeeper (DK) and other "defragging" programs should be to think about the placement of data sectors on a disk drive, and organize the placement so that groups of sectors that are likely to be accessed at the same time are placed as "closely" as possible to one another on the disk. "Closeness" of sectors on a disk is not a terribly simple property to define, since three positioning coordinates (Cylinder, Head, and Sector on track) are involved, each of which has ramifications on access time which are somewhat different from one another in nature. But for the most part, it suffices to work under the assumption that sectors are "closer" to one another if their Linear Block Addresses (LBAs) are numerically closer to one another. If a sector with an LBA address of N has just been accessed, then the sector with LBA address N+1 can be accessed much faster -- perhaps a thousand times faster -- than sectors elsewhere on the disk. Thus, if we intend to access a whole file at one time, it is best if the sectors that comprise that file occupy LBA addresses N, N+1, N+2, N+3, etc., on the disk drive, where N is the LBA address of the first sector of the file. When the sectors of a file are in that relationship, the file is said to be defraggmented. Most "defraggers" consider it their "job" to reorganize data sectors on a disk so all files on the disk are defraggmented.But their are other goals. For example, if I want to access the file a\b\c\d\e\f\g\afile.txt (where a,b,c,d,e,f and g are directories), then sectors which implement the directories a, b, c, d, e, f, and g must be accessed as part of the process of locating the afile.txt file, in addition to actually accessing the sectors of the afile.txt file itself. Generally, in fact, the positioning of directory sectors is more important that the placement of file sectors, because each directory sector is in the access path to not just one file, but many files, or perhaps many, many, many files as we look at the directories that are closer to top of the directory tree. Defraggers that do "directory consolidation" are generally (but not always) defraggers that recognized in some measure the importance of directory sector placement, and try to do placement activities which improve directory access performance. There are other "defragmenting" goals as well. Once defragmented, a file remains defragmented unless it is updated. If sectors that are essentially "read only" (sectors of executable binary modules, for example) are split off in an area away from files sectors that are updated frequently, the entire "read only" area requires relatively little activity during subsequent defragging runs, meaning that subsequent defragging activity will be confined to the smaller portion of the disk where the heavily updated files reside. This, and related effects, will mean that subsequent defragmentation "runs" will be significantly faster. Diskeeper corporation, generally, has been very slow to recognize *any* of the secondary sector placement goals for sectors, such as "directory consolidation," or the "splitting off" of files which are mostly "read only." (DK has had an offline directory consolidation function for some time, but, if one reads their discussion about it, one finds that they consider the function significant for rather the wrong reason -- namely, to reduce free space fragmentation, rather than improve directory access performance. Unsurprisingly, therefore, DK's choice of directory consolidation location ends up being probably the worst possible choice.) With the introduction of "I-FAAST," DK version 10 (in 2005) is the first version of Diskeeper that gives noticable consideration to any sector placement goal over and above simply defragmenting files and defragmenting free space. Other products, such as Raxco's PerfectDisk, were working on other aspects of sector placement clear back in 2000 and before. Diskeeper claims to have 95% "corporate" market share, and I believe that is probably true. They have focused on many things important to corporations, especially remote installation and administration of their Diskeeper products. Such function may be crucial to large corporations, but means little to home users that are not running farms of servers. Diskeeper's reliability record, in terms of avoiding data corruption of loss, has been very good. I have versions 1, 4, 5, 5.3, 6, 6 2nd edition, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (2007) and 13(?)(2009) of Diskeeper, all acquired as shrink-wrapped and new (but many acquired at low prices, at places such as swap meets, Ebay, or dissolution of companies that have gone belly up). I have watched the company's activities over a long period. The improvements between successive versions have generally been minimal, with many releases amounting to no more than allowing the product to run on a new release of Windows. Considering that one is very often merely 99% re-buying what one has previously bought and paid for, upgrade pricing has not been generous by any means. The DK products seem invariably to have truly minimal lifetimes -- for example, DK would have us buy 5 DK retail versions (7,8,9,10,11) over a period (2001-2007) where Microsoft enhanced it's XP product *far* more than Diskeeper corp. enhanced its DK product, but Microsoft did so with service packs that were provided free of charge to the user. When one reads DK's unfailing web site hoopla about "improvements" from version to version, old functionality as often as not is described as "new," and virtually no claimed "performance improvements" that would be measurable have been quantified. Particularly starting with about version 10, what I sense is a company accelerating downhill, from a customer benefit perspective. DK now seems mostly interested in monetizing their dominant position, and seems much less interested in serving their customers. The later property of the company is particularly evidenced by their withdrawal of the (already written and debugged, previously available) product patch update files from their web site, for older (but still perfectly usable and in-use) versions of their products. This cannot be seen as anything other than an attempt to obsolete their older released prematurely, forcing users into new purchases. There is bad news on other fronts as well. In the past, one of DK's better features (IMO), relative to other venders, was their detailed "map" display of the layout and fragmentation status of a disk. In DK version 9, DK introduced a then optional alternative "performance map" to be used in preference to their previous fragmentation map. This was basically a map which displayed fragmented files as though they were non-fragmented, when DK "determined" that the fragmentation of some fragmented files "didn't matter much." To me, this was kind of a thinly disguised attempt to make DK look like it was doing a better defraggmentation job than it was. In DK version 10, the disk map gets much, much worse. The map no longer differentiates between sectors associated with directories and those associated with files. (!!!) Reports also no longer differentiate between file and directory sector statistics. This makes the map "look smoother," but it really means that the map tells you much, much, much less, and in particular hides information about the placement of directory sectors, relative to both other directory sectors, relative to the MFT, and relative to free space. With version 10, *none* of the report data available from DK helps in evaluating when defragging would be useful for directory consolidation reasons. The new "map" really exemplifies the fact that DK doesn't really seem to understand the value of any sector placement objectives, other than simple fragmentation of files. Version 10 introduced "I-FAAST," which is the first sign that DK has actually noticed that sector placement considerations, over and above simple file defragmentation considerations, are important. Good for DK, I suppose, even if they are 5+ years later than other vendors in starting to think about this. Bad for DK, in that you have to pay extra for function of this kind, even though it is include in the "standard" versions of most competing products (for the non-Server DK product, you must opt for the "Premier" edition, for another $50 or so). And bad for DK, because from reviews that I have read that have made attempts to measure the I-FAAST "improvement," reviewers are largely reporting a zero or negative "improvement," relative to the standard Windows XP defragger. And bad for DK, in that Diskeeper's description of what I-FAAST actually does is virtually entirely buzzword gobbledygook which identifies no clear goal, strategy, or plan. Until there is evidence to the contrary, I have to simply regard I-FAAST as handwaving and marketing hype. And also bad for DK, according to reports, since DK 10 removes the standard Windows defragger (perhaps because they don't want people to be able to make a comparison), with some people reporting that they had to reinstall Windows to get it back. Version 10 is also the last DK version that does not include "activation." This is relevant for version 10 buyers, because for thoughtful people who reject activation, it means that DK 10 looses all of its value as a "trade in" for subsequent versions. For those unfamiliar with "activation," it is a mechanism whereby DK (11 and later) take a "fingerprint" of your machine, "phones home" to DK headquarters via the internet to record that fingerprint, and then DK (11 and later) refuses to (re)install a given copy (e.g., a given serial number) of itself, unless DK "thinks" that the fingerprint matches the fingerprint previously sent home. One problem with this is that "fingerprinting" procedure is less that perfect, and "fingerprints" often don't match if any changes have been made to... Read more ›
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
