They implied in thee article what versions of the OS it applied to. Don't go by the review (not revision) date - from what I have observed it is meaningless.
You are correct, they need to be more clear. Usually MS explicitly says what OS and versions the KB article applies to, sometimes they are not so clear.
To me the Applies To section and the revision date is extremely clear.
Maybe someone would like to post a question with the DisKeeeper folks regarding the accuracy of this Microsoft KB article.
For me the question is merely academic as I use CONFIG.
Well I could be wrong about tyhe diskeeper hritage of Windows 7
I wonder if you can elaborate on this? It seems to me Defraggler is touted by Piriform as being "perfectly safe, uses Windows file copy methods blah blah" and I don't recall any caveats in there.
I like Restore Points myself; they've saved my bunions more than once. But I've had them become corrupted once in a while. So now I can add Defraggler to my list of programs that can hose them-up, along with a couple of Uninstaller programs I've tried?
gene,
For Windows Vista, then one must be cautious.
I have posted a question in their forum re Defraggler and Win 7. I have not received an answer.
If you can get a direct answer from Piriform directly on this matter, then I'd be grateful.
As said for Vista, true, but I've not found a statement re Win 7.
I remember reading back with Vista that Diskeeper was the same as MS defragger but with many more features and enhancements.
Although, I didn't put much wieght into it.
I know we all have our own opinion and prefrences, but I do think 3rd party defragmenters do a better job overall.
But, I've always found Raxco's PerfectDisc to be just right for my needs and prefer it over Diskeeper.
Plus its MS certified & a gold partner which is a good thing IMHO.
It also manages SSDs with a optimize feature, but Diskeeper also has a similar feature.
But to be completely fair, I tried out PD and Diskeeper a long time ago. Ended up choosing PD and have stuck with them, ever since.
So my experience with other defrag software is very limited.
This is all pretty mysterious, and frankly appalling if MS Defrag itself has potential to destroy Restore Points--a lot of people (myself included) rely on these. I think in the Piriform forum was referred http://support.microsoft.com/kb/312067 wherein is stated the following:
It's from 2007, and at top it says "may not apply to your OS" (W7 running here).The System Shadow Copy provider uses a copy-on-write mechanism that operates at a 16-KB block level. This is independent of the file system's cluster allocation unit size. If the file system's cluster size is smaller than 16 KB, the System Shadow Copy provider cannot easily determine that disk defragmentation I/O is different from typical write I/O, and performs a copy-on-write operation. This might cause the Shadow Copy storage area to grow very quickly. If the storage area reaches its user-defined limit, the oldest shadow copies are deleted first
So I'm not sure what to think about all this because it seems that if the simple solution were to stop the Volume Shadow Copy service, run the defrag, then restart VSCS, well Piriform would have incorporated this already?
EDIT: Oops here's another quote about Vista (VSS aware):
So maybe this is not so mysterious after all, unless Piriform hasn't figured this out yet.In shadow-copy-aware defragmentation, defragmentation uses Volume Shadow Copy Service (VSS) in-box software to optimize defragmentation. The VSS software minimizes copy-on-write change blocks. Shadow-copy-aware optimization slows down filling the difference area. This kind of optimization also slows down the reclaiming of old snapshots during defragmentation.
Quote