dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3394
share rss forum feed


evilpeppard
Always Fight For Freedom
Premium
join:2003-08-20
Aurora, CO

[Help] Why not use XP's built in disk defragmenter?

Why should I know use the built in defragmenter with Windows XP?

What will I really gain from paying for another program, except maybe a scheduler (which I could create a batch file for and use with Windows Scheduler)?

Thanks.
--
ASUS A7N8X Deluxe rev 2.0 w/AMD 2800+ Barton, 1GB Matched Corsair DDR400 RAM, WD Raptor 10K RPM SATA HD's in RAID 0, EVGA FX5900 Ultra 256mb NVidia, WinXP Pro


Screen name
Hard To Get, Harder To Hold Onto
Premium
join:2003-02-05
Area 52

1 edit
Hi,

Why not?

Diskeeper from Executive Software is rumored to be from the same company that sold Microsoft the defragmenter they provide in XP. Executive claims their Diskeeper is better as do all the other companies selling defragmenters.

I purchased Diskeeper so that I didn't have to be concerned about doing defragmenting. Heck, I would have given you 15 bucks for a scheduler. Maybe you have a business brewing.

You may want to look at the free nncron (lite) here -

»www.nncron.ru/

If someone knows what they are doing, it may be the tool you are writing about.

Good Luck,

Screen name
--
.sdrawkcab dootsrednu tub sdrawrof devil si efiL


Fobulous
Premium
join:2002-08-14
Missouri City, TX
reply to evilpeppard

Re: [Help] Why not use XP's built in disk defragme

Yes, Diskeeper is excellent. I recently installed this on all my XP boxes and i especially love the Set it and Forget it feature. Granted XP does have the Task Scheuler but Diskeeper Pro is just much better..and so much faster than the XP's built-in cheap Diskeeper Lite.
--
"I see in your eyes, the same fear that would take the heart of me, a day may come, when the courage of men fails, when we will forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day, THIS DAY WE FIGHT!" Aragorn


Cudni
La Merma - Vigilado
Premium,MVM
join:2003-12-20
Someshire
kudos:13
reply to evilpeppard
I don't think you will gain much especially if you are prepared to work the scheduling. This is not say that other reasons for using diskeeper are not valid

Cudni
--
Help yourself so God can help you


Konaguy
Live From Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI
kudos:1
I found Disk Keeper Lite and it is so much better than Windows
Me defrag utility.Plus it is so much faster and easier to use.

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5

1 recommendation

reply to evilpeppard
I have used Diskeeper lite and full on W98SE for a long time. Diskeeper full edition doesn't work well on W98SE if you use Set it and Forget it. So I went back to Diskeeper Lite on that box and defragged about a once a month...that was as frequent as was needed according to Diskeeper.

Then I got a new computer with XP Pro. Within three or four days without Diskeeper Pro, I had 80% fragmentation and 50% reduction in performance! Now with Diskeeper Pro, I have it at "Set it and Forget it" to run all day every day and Diskeeper decides when to defrag. According to the logs, it is defragging three times a day running for about 35 minutes each time. I don't even know it is running as it does it silently in the background and it doesn't affect anything I am doing if I am on the computer at the time. (This was not the case with the full Diskeeper on W98SE where if it would begin to run while I was using the computer it would frequently freeze all open applications and then crash the OS. This is why I recommend Diskeeper Lite for W98 or the full Diskeeper with "Set it and Forget it" set to a specific date to defrag when you will not be on the computer). One of the nicest things about Diskeeper is that you can (at least on W2000 and XP) continue to use the computer while it defrags and there is no need to turn off applications before any defrag.

I think a program like Diskeeper Pro is absolutely necessary for XP. XP fragments very fast....much faster than FAT32 based OSes. Executive Software created ALL defrag programs on ALL Windows OSes for Microsoft. Diskeeper is the real thing. The defragger Microsoft puts in its OSes is a lite version of Diskeeper. Microsoft has said they didn't want to put the full version in the OS.

Executive Software has outstanding tech support also.

There are other excellent defraggers so I think users should check them all out and then get the one that they feel works best for them. I don't think anyone should rely solely on the built in defragger in any Windows OS.
--
"Everything can be taken from a man or woman but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's destiny." Victor Frankl - Man's Search for Meaning


Fobulous
Premium
join:2002-08-14
Missouri City, TX
reply to evilpeppard
well said Mele20 See Profile. I heard that XP files are easily fragmented and utilities like Diskeeper is abosultely necessary for your HDD's health. some people also love O&O tho i never had the chance to try it.


Keizer
I'M Your Huckleberry
Premium,MVM
join:2003-01-20
reply to evilpeppard

Re: [Help] Why not use XP's built in disk defragmenter?

said by evilpeppard:
Why should I know use the built in defragmenter with Windows XP?

What will I really gain from paying for another program, except maybe a scheduler (which I could create a batch file for and use with Windows Scheduler)?

Thanks.

The built in XP defrag utility actually works really well. I use Diskeeper 8 right now, but if I had to have a fall back de-frag, it would be the built in XP de-frag. Nothing wrong with it at all.

Keizer


Vampirefo
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-11
Huntington, WV
kudos:1

1 edit
reply to evilpeppard

Re: [Help] Why not use XP's built in disk defragme

I just use XP's defrag I have run XP over a year and only had about 25% fragmentation. little or no reduction in performance.
--
Spam Officially Legal


notmentat

join:2003-11-10
21334
I agree with Keizer and Vampirefo. The XP defrag utility is more than adequate for most purposes, particularly if you're not inclined to spend money on a defragmenter. Probably the only reason you might want a commercial defragmenter is to defragment things like the page file, and even then, you can simply use a free tool like PageDefrag.


sig
Premium
join:2001-05-05
reply to evilpeppard

Re: [Help] Why not use XP's built in disk defragmenter?

I haven't found that XP fragments faster or with greater impact on performance than W98; actually if anything rather the contrary. I've gone months without defragging XP and not experienced anything like what Mele reports.

Been using XP's defrag without problems. (Used Norton's Speed Disk on W98.)

notmentat

join:2003-11-10
21334
I think another oft-non-mentioned point about the commercial Diskeeper as compared to the built-in XP defragment utility is that the built-in XP defragment utility understands the information XP accumulates about the boot process. As a results, the XP defragmenter moves all boot files together in a contiguous sequence (to speed up the startup process). The commercial Diskeeper does not do this. It just moves files so as to defragment them. I suspect that Microsoft tweaked the original code they obtained from Diskeeper to accomplish this.

(Incidentally, the Win 98 and ME defragmenters also understand the boot process, although they use technology from Norton and Intel to accomplish the same thing.)


purelander
Premium
join:2003-07-11
reply to evilpeppard
i think Mele is referring to file system, ntfs vs fat32, not OS.

i have fat32 WinXP and i defrag only once a year using XP built in disk defrag.
--
To err is human. To really screw up it takes a computer.

notmentat

join:2003-11-10
21334
said by purelander:

i have fat32 WinXP and i defrag only once a year using XP built in disk defrag.

Unfortunately, none of the WinXP/2K defragmenters are able to defragment FAT32 partitions as well as the Win9x/ME defragmenters. The API for defragmenters that Microsoft provides under XP/2k does not allow for the defragmentation of things like FAT32 directories. As a result, I find that I get better results defragmenting my FAT32 partitions by rebooting to 9x/ME and defragmenting them there. (The win9x/ME defragmenters implement their own VXDs that allow them to defragment the files and directories, since there is no API for defragmentation available under Win 9x/ME.)

But if you have an NTFS partition, all the XP/2K defragmenters perform rather well. The XP built-in defragmenter can even defragment (to a certain extent) the MFT in an on-line defragmentation pass.


Cudnii

@in-addr.btopenworld.
reply to notmentat

Re: [Help] Why not use XP's built in disk defragme

"The commercial Diskeeper does not do this. It just moves files so as to defragment them. "
Are you talking about this?
from diskeeper FAQ
"The Boot-Time Defragmentation feature requires enough contiguous free space to contain the directories on the disk volume. For this reason, you should run Diskeeper in one of its online modes before running the Boot-Time defragmentation operation.

Also, keep in mind that there are two directories that cannot be moved safely, even at boot-time. The directories are \Recycler and \Recycled. Because these two directories cannot be moved, the Boot-Time defragmentation operation will likely still leave one or two directories that are not consolidated with the rest of your directories. This will ave no impact on the performance of your system."

Cudni
in anon land till post limit is lifted

notmentat

join:2003-11-10
21334
No I'm not referring to that.

Whenever Windows starts up under normal usage, there are certain files that it always loads (eg, the Windows kernel, certain system DLLs, the device drivers, services, etc). The built-in XP defragmenter (and in fact, also the built-in 98 and ME defragmenters as well) uses the information that Windows accumulates about these files to move such files so that they are next to each other. That way, when Windows starts up, the loading of these files are efficiently managed (since they are all next to each other).

This is done in Win 98/ME using the Intel Application Launch Acelerator (which Microsoft licensed from Intel). In XP, Microsoft appears to have modified the defragmenter they licensed from Executive Software for Win2k so that it will do the same thing.

The commercial Diskeeper does not do this (whether you defragment during boot time or in a normal pass). I know that among the other commercial defragmenters, PerfectDisk will perform such an optimization. I'm not sure about Norton SpeedDisk for XP/2K though (I gave up on SpeedDisk some time back).


Cudnii

@in-addr.btopenworld.
"This is done in Win 98/ME using the Intel Application Launch Acelerator (which Microsoft licensed from Intel). In XP, Microsoft appears to have modified the defragmenter they licensed from Executive Software for Win2k so that it will do the same thing."

Makes sense. Thank you

Cudni
in anon land, post limit imposed


purelander
Premium
join:2003-07-11

1 edit
reply to notmentat

Re: [Help] Why not use XP's built in disk defragmenter?

said by notmentat:
I find that I get better results defragmenting my FAT32 partitions by rebooting to 9x/ME and defragmenting them there.
thx for the tips, i'll try that, in addition to xp built in defrag, i find pagedefrag from sysinternals very useful.

»www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freew···ag.shtml

after more than 11 mths of usage without defrag, my total fragmentation is only 34%, i cant understand those who run defrag in real-time 24/7.
--
To err is human. To really screw up it takes a computer.

notmentat

join:2003-11-10
21334
said by purelander:
thx for the tips, i'll try that

I better qualify my statement: when I defrag under 9x/ME, I usually use a commercial defragmenter. The built-in 9x/ME defragmenter is *slow* (among other things). If you only have the built-in 9x/ME defragmenter, maybe you shouldn't bother.

(Any of the commercial ones will do fine: the commercial 9x/ME defragmenters appears to be more mature than the XP ones, and most, if not all, of them will perform the job well.)


Randy Bell
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Santa Clara, CA
reply to evilpeppard
Norton Speed Disk is quite good on 9X systems. I'm still trying to figure out what it's doing on NTFS systems; it appears to focus more on defragging unused free space rather than files/folders; and also perhaps on optimal placement of files/folders (similar to the Intel defragging logic in 98/98SE). Speed Disk for NTFS will definitely leave more files in fragmented state than the native windows defragger, but after a Speed Disk optimization, new files tend to fragment at slower rate than after a native windows defrag, presumably because Speed Disk optimizes free space available to new files.
--
"But now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor. 13:13)

Tuulilapsi
Kenosis

join:2002-07-29
Finland

1 recommendation

reply to Mele20

Re: [Help] Why not use XP's built in disk defragme

said by Mele20:
Then I got a new computer with XP Pro. Within three or four days without Diskeeper Pro, I had 80% fragmentation and 50% reduction in performance!
How in the heck did you manage to achieve that? I've been running XP(NTFS) for over a year now, and I've no fragmentation worth mentioning and no visible reduction in performance - and I've defragged it but once. If you get 80% fragmentation in a miserable three or four days, there has to be something seriously wrong with your system.

Me, there's no way I'm going to pay for any third-party defragmentation program. Why should I? The built-in tools in Windows do a very adequate job as far as I'm concerned.


Konaguy
Live From Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI
kudos:1

1 edit

"Me, there's no way I'm going to pay for any third-party defragmentation program. Why should I? The built-in tools in Windows do a very adequate job as far as I'm concerned. "


There is a difference between adequate and misrable.In my opinion Microsoft's HD defrag utilities are misrable. They
take too long and get easily interrupted [The screen saver
can interrupt the defrag for crying out loud]. Disk Keeeper
is much better.

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
reply to evilpeppard
>How in the heck did you manage to achieve that? I've been running XP(NTFS) for over a year now, and I've no fragmentation worth mentioning and no visible reduction in performance - and I've defragged it but once. If you get 80% fragmentation in a miserable three or four days, there has to be something seriously wrong with your system.

This was the result of the analysis by Diskeeper the first time I used it on XP. Having used the Lite version mostly on W98SE, I did not realize that performance data collection is turned off by default. So, I didn't tell Diskeeper to collect data on my drives and thus it used predetermined performance data calculations set by research done by Executive Software. It may be that those calculations did not apply that well to my hard drive. I have since had Diskeeper collect performance data so now it uses that to make the calculations regarding percentage of performance lost due to current fragmentation. But unless I turn off Diskeeper for several days, I can't see if there is any difference. This is because Diskeeper keeps the drive as defragmented as is possible at all times so it is impossible for me to ever see any fragmentation on an analysis report (nor any predicted loss of performance due to it) and certainly nothing like that 80% I saw.

I should add that I have had two CPU's from Dell and I installed Diskeeper on both. The first CPU also showed a high level of fragmentation when I installed Diskeeper about a week after getting this new computer. It showed 58% fragmented.

I asked Executive Software about it when I saw the 58% fragmentation on the first CPU Dell sent me. I lost the email response when I had to return the tower, but the tech told me that sort of fragmentation that quickly was normal on XP.
--
"Everything can be taken from a man or woman but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's destiny." Victor Frankl - Man's Search for Meaning


Mats
Here kitty and the chimp. Smash
Premium
join:2002-03-16
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to Mele20
said by Mele20:


Then I got a new computer with XP Pro. Within three or four days without Diskeeper Pro, I had 80% fragmentation and 50% reduction in performance! Now with Diskeeper Pro, I have it at "Set it and Forget it" to run all day every day and Diskeeper decides when to defrag. According to the logs, it is defragging three times a day running for about 35 minutes each time.
that is absurd. i would say Diskeeper Pro is telling you these things just to make itself seem like a useful product. kind of like a auto mechanic who fixes things that do not need to be fixed.

i have been running xp for over 2 years. i have maybe defragged twice. i have formatted it more than i have defragged.

if you are noticing a 50% reduction in performance every 3 or 4 days, then like Tuulilapsi says, there is something seriously wrong with your system.

the XP defragger is fine.
--
Sygate Help Sites!!
KING's Site
Whitehat Security

Tuulilapsi
Kenosis

join:2002-07-29
Finland
reply to Konaguy
said by Konaguy:
They take too long and get easily interrupted [The screen saver can interrupt the defrag for crying out loud]. Disk Keeeper is much better.

These things pose no problem if you only defrag when you need to (instead of defragging, say,weekly as some people do for no valid reason whatsoever), in other words, if you seldom defrag. You could always just turn off the screen saver, too. Who needs one of those? And in any case, defragging in safe mode would be wisest. No matter how "good" your $49,90 third-party defragging tool is, it's not going to do much at all to files that are currently in use (like that screen-saver, which is not extremely useful in my humble opinion) - and in safe mode, of course, only the necessary files are in use.


Konaguy
Live From Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI
kudos:1
I rarely defraged my Hard Drive because it was such hassle
using the Windows defrag utility.Now with Disk Keeper it
is so much more easier and quicker. Booting into DOS to defrag
is a big hassle.

I have my screensaver on so when I'm away from my computer
my monitor is still in use. In regards to the files in use
on my computer running me only two files show up fragmented
the history index and temporary internet files index file after I defrag with Disk Keeper.

Also at least it my experience if I don't defrag my hard drive for a couple weeks.My hard drive is really fragmented.So once a week is completely in line especially
if you go online a lot which dumps a lot of temporary files
on your computer.

»computerhelp.mwsi.net/Computer-R···frag.htm

"The more often you run ScanDisk and Defrag, the quicker they will run, since they have less work to do."

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
reply to Mats
>f you are noticing a 50% reduction in performance every 3 or 4 days, then like Tuulilapsi says, there is something seriously wrong with your system.

You didn't read my reply closely. I don't feel like explaining it again. I took the time to try and explain and the courteous thing would be for you to either put me on ignore or take a little effort and read carefully. There is nothing wrong with this computer. It boots in 3 seconds and performs great.
--
"Everything can be taken from a man or woman but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's destiny." Victor Frankl - Man's Search for Meaning


Mats
Here kitty and the chimp. Smash
Premium
join:2002-03-16
kudos:1
reply to Mele20
said by Mele20:


Then I got a new computer with XP Pro. Within three or four days without Diskeeper Pro, I had 80% fragmentation and 50% reduction in performance! Now with Diskeeper Pro, I have it at "Set it and Forget it" to run all day every day and Diskeeper decides when to defrag. According to the logs, it is defragging three times a day running for about 35 minutes each time.
Mele, are you saying you didn't say what i have quoted above?

i read your reply very carefully. you are saying that Diskeeper pro is saying that your system(within 4 days) was 80% fragmented and had a 50% reduction in performance. if those results were true, i think there is something seriously wrong with your system.

i imagine you say your system is fine because of diskeeper pro. you also say that diskeeper pro is defragging your system(according to its logs) 3 times a day. do you honestly think that is normal?? something is wrong or diskeeper pro is doing things that aren't needed.

but no problem, i will ignore you and your posts like i usually do, since its the courteous thing to do and since i know how to read.

have fun with your system and good luck with it.

Modred

join:2003-06-18
I used to use Diskeeper with WinXP. I found that I was always fiddling with the thing--boot-time defrags, quick defrags, full defrags, screen-saver defrags, and so on. I now use the WinXP defragger and don't notice any performance difference. And, I get a lot more work done, because I'm not fiddling with Diskeeper all the time.

The Win2K defragger was dog-slow and pretty much unusable. On my machines, after the first few defrargs, the WinXP defragger is almost as fast as Diskeeper. Unless you have some special needs, I'd advise that you stick with the WinXP defragger.

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
reply to evilpeppard
>you also say that diskeeper pro is defragging your system(according to its logs) 3 times a day. do you honestly think that is normal??

Yes I do think that is normal. Executive Software says that most workstation computers need to be defragged daily.(Servers need defragging every two to four hours). The best way to determine though the need of the specific computer is to use the Smart Scheduling Feature which automates this process. That is what I have done. I could set it manually and then watched to see how many files are being moved per run. If less than 50 then I would know I was defragging often enough...more than 50 per run means defragging is not scheduled often enough. I just let Diskeeper figure out the schedule as that is much easier. Plus, this way I can take advantage of its smart scheduling which allows Diskeeper to automatically increase or decrease the frequency of defrags according to the current usage patterns. Diskeeper doesn't actually take 35 minutes each time ...it runs as a very low level service so almost any activity stops it...screen saver stops it as well as mouse and typing, etc. Diskeeper Service runs at all times but that is the scheduler keeping track and determining when defrag is needed.

Diskeeper has a different philosphy than do other popular defraggers. It is intended to run frequently, very safely and without pushing users off the disk, so that the disk is kept in an optimum state at all times.

Safety
Diskeeper is designed with SAFETY as the highest priority.

To ensure the safe movement of files on Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 systems, Diskeeper uses mechanisms built into the operating system that were developed and implemented by Executive Software, and fully incorporated into Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003 by Microsoft. On Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows Me systems, Diskeeper uses similar mechanisms used by Microsoft and others.

By using these built-in mechanisms, Diskeeper maintains cache coherency, file security and permissions information, and file content integrity no matter how fragmented the files on the disk are.

The foremost design goal for Diskeeper was to make sure that no data is ever lost. To accomplish this goal Diskeeper uses the following criteria for accessing files:

the contents of data files are never modified under any circumstances

only one file is processed at a time, not the whole disk volume

each processing pass is independent of the other passes

no information is stored on any other device or in a "scratch space"

Diskeeper accesses a file in such a way that no user access can conflict with Diskeeper during the critical portion of the relocation process

file relocation is aborted if any error is encountered, leaving the file in its original state

Diskeeper was designed to err on the side of caution. In other words, it only moves a file on the volume when it is absolutely certain that no data will be lost, including file attributes. The only change to file attribute-type information is the physical location of the file on the volume. None of the file dates are changed and no other fields in the file record header are used to store Diskeeper information.

Diskeeper never defragments or moves files that are specifically stored at a specific physical location on the volume.

If anything causes your computer to crash while Diskeeper is running, or if you abort the Diskeeper defragmentation run in the middle of the file relocation process, no data is ever at risk.

Windows 95/98/Me Note: Stopping or pausing a Diskeeper job through its menus or toolbars is completely safe. Note, however, that in the event of a system crash or other non-standard termination of the Diskeeper process while it is running, it is possible for free space and file information to be stored incorrectly. Executive Software strongly recommends running the Windows Scandisk error checking utility immediately when Diskeeper is stopped abnormally. Scandisk will correct any potential file errors.

Theory of Operation
As used in reference to Windows operating systems, disk fragmentation means two things:

a condition in which pieces of individual files on a disk volume are not contiguous, but rather are broken up and scattered around the volume; and

a condition in which the free space on a volume consists of little pieces of space here and there rather than a few large free spaces.

The effects of excessive fragmentation are twofold as well:

file access takes longer because a file must be collected in pieces here and there, requiring several disk accesses instead of just one; and

file creations take longer because space for the file must be allocated in little pieces here and there instead of just one contiguous allocation.

Before the introduction of Diskeeper, there was no method for completely correcting the problems of file and free space fragmentation on Windows NT computers or in a mixed Windows network.

In designing Diskeeper, the following goals were established:

The product must be completely safe to use.

It must improve Windows system performance. It is not designed to make the disk look "pretty" — it is designed to improve disk performance and, as a result, overall system performance.

It should process live disks without interfering with user access to files.

It should run without operator intervention.

It must defragment all possible files and consolidate free space into the smallest possible number of large spaces.

Performance
When running in the "Set It and Forget It" mode, Diskeeper is designed to run in the background, without adversely affecting performance of your computer. Steps have been taken to assure that by default, Diskeeper overhead has the lowest possible impact on system performance. Diskeeper can be run at the lowest possible priority, using only otherwise unused CPU cycles. Diskeeper was designed in such a way to ensure it will not interfere with other processes on your computer.

However, for cases where you want to defragment disk volumes more quickly, Diskeeper allows you to increase the defragmentation priority. Click here for more information about setting the priority for a Diskeeper defragmentation job.

Process Live Disks
It is not acceptable to force users off the disk while performing routine defragmentation. To do so would be a case of the cure being worse than the disease. Access to fragmented files is better than no access at all.

The best solution is to defragment online with users active on the same disk. Diskeeper was designed with this in mind. During most of the time Diskeeper is processing a file in its online mode, Diskeeper shares the file with any other users that may access the same file. The last step of processing the file, however, involves locking the file for a very brief period, a matter of milliseconds. If another user requests a file that Diskeeper has locked, that request is suspended for the brief period until Diskeeper releases the file. Then the request is serviced. There is never an interruption of either process as a result of this delay.

This solution allows Diskeeper to defragment open files safely, whether they are open for read operations or for write operations.

Note: Due to the Windows NT 4.0 design, directories, MFT and paging files cannot be moved safely on live disks. (NTFS directories can be moved on Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows Server 2003.) Therefore, Diskeeper performs these operations at the only safe time, while the computer is starting up.

No Operator Intervention
In keeping with the design goals, once Diskeeper has been started in the "Set It and Forget It" mode, it runs automatically in the background, without the need for operator intervention. It runs indefinitely, unless told otherwise by you.
--
"Everything can be taken from a man or woman but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's destiny." Victor Frankl - Man's Search for Meaning