Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

t_hah · Jul 24, 2002, 05:29 PM

<a href="http://macnn.com/news.php?id=15500" target="_blank">http://macnn.com/news.php?id=15500</a>

I used to use TechTool Pro in Os9. It was a must have utility. Sadly in OSX Drive 10 was not doing much, so I did not buy it...yet. Supposedly the new version finally does optimization, and defragmenting. Can someone comment on this please? Is it worth getting this? Will it work well under Jaguar? Basically, is it worth the money?

t

edit: one more thing, can you do all the optimization without restarting, or do you have to boot with some special CD?

[ 07-24-2002, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: t_hah ]

malvolio · Jul 24, 2002, 07:23 PM

When Tech Tool says "optimize," it means "defragment." I'm not sure if Drive 10 is using the terms to refer to 2 different processes or not.
Anyhow, to defragment a disk, you have to be booted up from a different disk (whether partition, external drive or CD).

Vader�s Pinch of Death · Jul 24, 2002, 08:50 PM

The damn upgrade is $39.99! They promised these features from the begining.

Borborygmi · Jul 24, 2002, 10:13 PM

Why do you HAVE to boot from a different disk to defrag? Windows has had this ability for years. Seriously.

CharlesS · Jul 24, 2002, 10:37 PM

Is it as slow as the defrag routines in TTP were?

t_hah · Jul 25, 2002, 01:12 AM

Alright...someone needs to buy it, because we will never find out the answers to the questions above.

t

Spliff · Jul 25, 2002, 02:11 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by t_hah:
 one more thing, can you do all the optimization without restarting, or do you have to boot with some special CD?<hr /></blockquote>Geez, you could just gone to their website and read the description:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> With the introduction of version 1.1, you can now optimize and defragment your Mac OS X drive from within Mac OS X. Plus, we've added a whole host of new repair routines that allows you to find and correct drive problems that other utilities would simply abandon. <hr /></blockquote>

Sharky K. · Jul 25, 2002, 03:36 AM

I recieved v1.1.1 (strange but true) yesterday in the mail.

You can defrag with it. I advise you not to use the cd as startupdisk. My dad's computer crashed (with macOs X ! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> ) while repairing the disk.
I fsck -y'd the cd and he found some errors so...

Just copy the application to an other hard disk with MacOS X, boot from it and all works well.

unfaded · Jul 25, 2002, 04:55 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Borborygmi:
Why do you HAVE to boot from a different disk to defrag? Windows has had this ability for years. Seriously.<hr /></blockquote>Hey, if you had to do it as often as Windows users do, you'd be pissed if you ahd to boot from another drive...

I would.

absmiths · Jul 25, 2002, 10:18 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Borborygmi:
Why do you HAVE to boot from a different disk to defrag? Windows has had this ability for years. Seriously.<hr /></blockquote>Because you can't remap an open file. Defragging will be pretty useless if you can't remap the files that are in use by the system.

absmiths · Jul 25, 2002, 10:19 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Vader�s Pinch of Death:
The **** upgrade is $39.99! They promised these features from the begining.<hr /></blockquote>I'm pretty miffed about this. I might just wait for DiskWarrior X and put my $39.99 toward that.

el_humpo · Jul 25, 2002, 12:35 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by absmiths:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Borborygmi:
Why do you HAVE to boot from a different disk to defrag? Windows has had this ability for years. Seriously.<hr /></blockquote>Because you can't remap an open file. Defragging will be pretty useless if you can't remap the files that are in use by the system.<hr /></blockquote>Exactly! Windows defragging does a crap job. Seriously.

winterlandia · Jul 25, 2002, 01:03 PM

There is nothing wrong with booting a different disk to defrag, it does a better job.

PC defraggers (the good ones, not the crap that comes with the os) do an "offline" defrag too, it reboots and defrags in the middle of the boot process before it opens up files that it can't defrag.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by el_humpo:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by absmiths:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Borborygmi:
Why do you HAVE to boot from a different disk to defrag? Windows has had this ability for years. Seriously.<hr /></blockquote>Because you can't remap an open file. Defragging will be pretty useless if you can't remap the files that are in use by the system.<hr /></blockquote>Exactly! Windows defragging does a crap job. Seriously.<hr /></blockquote>

LightWaver-67 · Jul 25, 2002, 02:49 PM

I just got my RMA# from Micromat (RMA = Return Merchandise Authorization). I am returning this piece of crap ASAP. I paid $69 for this...?

The "Defrag & Optimizer" is the S L O W E S T I've EVER used in my years of computer experience. It is roughly 15x - 20x slower than Nortons. Here's the deal:

I told it to "Optimize" an EMPTY 80GB drive that only had several empty folders that FCP3 uses for scratch space (no files there). It took over TWO MINUTES for it to work on that drive... whereas Speed Disk would have sounded the "Done" chime just after you released the mouse when clicking "Start". I then told it to optimize my 40GB drive that has roughly 15GB of data on it. Again... Nortons used to take about 5-minutes... MAYBE 10-minutes TOPS to defrag that drive.... Drive 10 took AN HOUR!!! A full frickin' HOUR and it claimed that there were only 154 Fragged files!!!

I called them and stated my claims and the "Tech" said: "Well... Optimizing typically DOES take that long, sir..." - I politely explained to him that I have been de-fragging drives for YEARS on MANY platforms and this is BY FAR the slowest I've ever seen. It's almost unusable to me. I have a total of 7-Drives (10 Partitions Total) and there's no way I can waste a WHOLE DAY just to defrag all my drives... that is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. So he said all they can do is refund me. Which they will.

The nerve.

DaveGee · Jul 25, 2002, 03:19 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by LightWaver-67:
I just got my RMA# from Micromat (RMA = Return Merchandise Authorization). I am returning this piece of crap ASAP. I paid $69 for this...?

The "Defrag & Optimizer" is the S L O W E S T I've EVER used in my years of computer experience. It is roughly 15x - 20x slower than Nortons. Here's the deal:

I told it to "Optimize" an EMPTY 80GB drive that only had several empty folders that FCP3 uses for scratch space (no files there). It took over TWO MINUTES for it to work on that drive... whereas Speed Disk would have sounded the "Done" chime just after you released the mouse when clicking "Start". I then told it to optimize my 40GB drive that has roughly 15GB of data on it. Again... Nortons used to take about 5-minutes... MAYBE 10-minutes TOPS to defrag that drive.... Drive 10 took AN HOUR!!! A full frickin' HOUR and it claimed that there were only 154 Fragged files!!!

I called them and stated my claims and the "Tech" said: "Well... Optimizing typically DOES take that long, sir..." - I politely explained to him that I have been de-fragging drives for YEARS on MANY platforms and this is BY FAR the slowest I've ever seen. It's almost unusable to me. I have a total of 7-Drives (10 Partitions Total) and there's no way I can waste a WHOLE DAY just to defrag all my drives... that is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. So he said all they can do is refund me. Which they will.

The nerve.<hr /></blockquote>Please let us know the kind & speed of the Mac you are using...

Did it take an hour to defrag on a 300Mhz G3 CRT iMac? or an hour to defrag on a DualGhz G4? The CPU and Memory in the machine would/could explain alot.

Dave

LightWaver-67 · Jul 25, 2002, 03:36 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DaveGee:
Please let us know the kind & speed of the Mac you are using...

Did it take an hour to defrag on a 300Mhz G3 CRT iMac? or an hour to defrag on a DualGhz G4? The CPU and Memory in the machine would/could explain alot.

Dave<hr /></blockquote>Well... first of all... it never took an hour when I was running OS9 on my old beige G3 266Mhz... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

I have a G4 533Mhz w/ 1.5GB RAM. Again... when I'd speedDisk these SAME DRIVES off of this SAME COMPUTER but booted into 9.2... Norton's was REALLY quick. (no "actual" times to quote)

All I know is... the drive that took about an hour is not the "worst" drive of all 10 partitions. My Video scratch disk is MUCH worse and I bet it will take TWICE as long. There's just no excuse for that kind of performance.

I wish Speed Disk were available for OSX...!!!

foobars · Jul 25, 2002, 03:56 PM

A quick note on how UNIX (well, OSX anyway) de-fragging works vs Windows:

As you may or may not know a HD is made up of thousands of blocks, each one the same size containing the same amount of memory. It's a small amount of memory, so files need to be split up and stored in lots of blocks. The information about waht each block contains what is controlled by the directory part of the disk.

Alright now to the important part: In Windows, when a file is changed or written, the system looks for the first free block on the HD, and just writes to it. On OSX, it will look for the first free contiguous set of blocks big enough to hold the file. If it can't find enough contigious blocks, it'll split the file between two sets or more. So at a fundamental level OSX protects against fragmentation. Of course it doesn't prevent it altogether, but it's way better than Windows.

My point is fsck is all you need, these apps are really a waste of cash.

LightWaver-67 · Jul 25, 2002, 04:28 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by foobars:
So at a fundamental level OSX protects against fragmentation. Of course it doesn't prevent it altogether, but it's way better than Windows.

My point is fsck is all you need, these apps are really a waste of cash.<hr /></blockquote>Not 100% cut-n-dry there...

OSX STILL fragments both files AND disk space... the drive I had it check had roughly 180-ish fragmented files and about 1,700 disk fragments.

This makes sense, because as a file gets moved due to "outgrowing" it's original allocation, it leaves that smaller space available... if other files don't fit it either, then there gets to be lots of fragmented free space... the more fragmentation of free space... the less space for contiguous files as the hard drive reaches capacity.

So... although OSX is MUCH, MUCH better at dealing with file allocation than OS9... it still will fragment. So I don't think defrag and optimization utilities are USELESS in OSX... I just think Micromat's implementation has a LOT to be desired as far as speed.

Oh yeah... FYI... the tech did mention that it actually DID do some "optimization" stuff in the background for each disk... but he wasn't specific about it... he said it did MUCh more than defragging the drive, which is why it takes so long...

Hmmm... either way... that's way too much time for me.

mr. natural · Jul 25, 2002, 10:08 PM

I bought Drive 10 v1.1 and it works fine for me. I optimized my OS X disk (from the cd and it didn't crash my system), and like LightWaver-67, I had similar frag numbers, but it only took about 15 minutes to do the job. No big deal. As I've done with TTP on OS9 I will make it a weekly chore and I expect it will run quicker as part of a weekly maintainance routine. You know you can go eat or make love while it runs (but that is supposing you have a life beyond your computer screens)... 40 bucks and an hour of downtime, get a life!

LightWaver-67 · Jul 25, 2002, 11:41 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mr. natural:
You know you can go eat or make love while it runs (but that is supposing you have a life beyond your computer screens)... 40 bucks and an hour of downtime, get a life!<hr /></blockquote>Well... doing the "quick math"... I have 10 partitions, the smallest of them is a 20GB... even if it took 1/2-hour per drive... that's still 5-hours.

I do have a life... my job IS being behind a computer... and being "down" for 5-10 hours to defrag is NOT gonna happen any time soon. You cannot tell Drive 10 to go and "Defrag all my drives" on a schedule... I'd have to come and launch EACH instance of EACH drive.

Besides... how dare you inform me to "get a life"...? You know absolutely NOTHING about me or how I spend my free time. My whole POINT IS that my time is valuable... I DON'T wanna be behind this monitor 24/7... I work by-day and want to get that kind of maintenance DONE during the day. It would take FOREVER to get it all done at the pace I witnessed today.

It's not "whining" to expect a product to perform "reasonably". I would be just as pissed if Photoshop's Gausian Blur filter were 15x - 20x slower in Photoshop 7.0 or if Lightwave's render times were 15x - 20x slower...

I cannot see, for the life of me, WHAT took an hour to defrag 170 files on a 40GB drive that has PLENTY of room (only about 15GB used). Like I said before... Norton's would tackle that (if not WORSE due to OS9) in about 4-8 minutes... TOPS! If you find that an acceptable speed... then YOU buy it and use it. More power to ya... but I just ran another "test" before posting here:

20GB Drive
11.8GB Used
Contents: all audio files... - .MP3s
When Analyzed: 175 Fragmented files - 92 Free space fragments
Started: 10:52pm exactly ; Ended: 11:37pm exactly

That's 45-Minutes to defrag a 1/2-full 20GB drive...? As I said before... I could run Speed Disk on ALL my drives and be done within an hour. This is rediculous.

shortcipher · Jul 26, 2002, 05:01 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DaveGee:
I wish Speed Disk were available for OSX...!!!<hr /></blockquote>as fas as I know Norton 7.01 (or 7.1 or whatever) _does_ include Speed Disk under OSX. It just got updated so not many people know about it.

mrwalker · Jul 26, 2002, 05:17 AM

Why does everyone have so many drives & partitions? One is fine for me.

BZ · Jul 26, 2002, 05:50 AM

This is the biggest rip off upgrade since... maybe Office 4.0.

They are asking for $40 for a .1 release that makes Drive 10 somewhat useful. I bought it back at the MWNY 01 and used it once.

It sure makes .Mac and 10.2 seem like a good investment.

BZ

ReggieX · Jul 26, 2002, 07:04 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mrwalker:
Why does everyone have so many drives & partitions? One is fine for me.<hr /></blockquote>Simple: we have different needs than you.

LightWaver-67 · Jul 27, 2002, 02:46 AM

The following sound is of ME eating CROW:

< munch - munch - CAWWWW! >

Okay... As bad as I "thought" Drive 10 was... I booted back into OS9.2 and ran Nortons on another volume. It, too, started taking forever. Maybe I just remember Nortons through rose-colored glasses... It took about the same time if not longer to do similar tasks.

Evidently, I may have over-reacted... just ignore me... I know not of what I speak.

Oh... FYI - The new Norton's does NOT Speed Disk in OSX... the marketing blurb leads you to BELIEVE it does by saying that Speed Disk has been re-written for OSX... but it just means that it knows how to deal with an OSX volume... NOT that it can RUN under OSX. It still only runs in OS 8.x -9.x currently. (tricky bastards)

Thanks for being patient with me...

AKcrab · Jul 27, 2002, 03:38 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by LightWaver-67:
The following sound is of ME eating CROW:

<snip>

Thanks for being patient with me...

<hr /></blockquote>You're a bigger man than MOST on these boards. That was a nice thing to do.

Gregory · Jul 27, 2002, 07:22 AM

The best way to optimize is to backup, reinitialize, and restore. Given OS X's higher I/O, and that you need a backup to be safe, I "optimized" using Carbon Copy Cloner between two identical 18GB drives with 14GB full in about 20 minutes. the new clone is bootable and the old drive is now my "backup."

I gave up when Drive10 was one hour into its optimizing. never again. And it wasn't even 25%

Blame Apple for gradually rolling out a new OS and gradually rolling out new drivers, new documentation, and expecting developers to somehow tread water and stay afloat. It's an impossible situation. Every time there is an OS update, something breaks, something changes, drivers have to be rewritten, utilities break.

Also, if there is a problem with the Volume Structure (directory, btree, catalog, inodes, whatever) there is no indication WHAT.

That said, Norton doesn't allow you to disable its File Saver, Volume, Delete Tracking and THOSE will slow down cloning, disk I/O an incredible amount. You'll see 10-30% cpu usage from Norton. So you have to boot with that junk disabled.

CE is doing the same number making users pay for minor upgrades and went back to 1.0 functionality and having to redo and relearn from the ground up.

Sharky K. · Jul 27, 2002, 07:26 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gregory:
Blame Apple for gradually rolling out a new OS and gradually rolling out new drivers, new documentation, and expecting developers to somehow tread water and stay afloat. It's an impossible situation. Every time there is an OS update, something breaks, something changes, drivers have to be rewritten, utilities break.

Also, if there is a problem with the Volume Structure (directory, btree, catalog, inodes, whatever) there is no indication WHAT.

That said, Norton doesn't allow you to disable its File Saver, Volume, Delete Tracking and THOSE will slow down cloning, disk I/O an incredible amount. You'll see 10-30% cpu usage from Norton. So you have to boot with that junk disabled.

CE is doing the same number making users pay for minor upgrades and went back to 1.0 functionality and having to redo and relearn from the ground up.<hr /></blockquote>could you give me an example?
The only thing I know is when Cocoa software is compiled with a newer compiler only available for newer OS it doesn't work with an older OS. But when it is available it works on all future OS versions (that is my experience)

ReggieX · Jul 27, 2002, 02:12 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gregory:
Norton doesn't allow you to disable its File Saver, Volume, Delete Tracking and THOSE will slow down cloning, disk I/O an incredible amount.<hr /></blockquote>WRONG.
<img src="http://www.kabong.ca/macnn/norton.gif" alt=" - " />

LightWaver-67 · Jul 28, 2002, 10:58 PM

Norton's Disk Doctor, Micromat's Drive 10 and Apple's Disk Utility all need to go work-out the rules a little....

I ran Apple's Disk Utility on one of my drives. It verified nicely... no problems found. I then ran Norton's on the same disk... it found "Major" problems with the directory stuff (I know nothing about B-Trees, etc.)... I told it to fix all the problems. It did it. I re-ran the test. No problems found.

I then ran Drive 10 on the SAME disk. It passed all tests. Then I got brave. I told Drive 10 to "Rebuild" the volume. It did it... I ran Drive 10... it still found no errors. I open it up under Norton's again...? It finds "Major" errors again in the Volume's "stuff" (again, forgive me for not remembering the ACTUAL structure problems).

So which is it...? Who is right...? DU finds no problems, DD finds some and "fixes" them, D10 finds no problems AFTER DD, but when I rebuild the volume in D10... D10 thinks it's all-good, but DD sees it as messed-up again.

Enough to make my head spin and my wallet thin.

Anyone have any insight...? are they "both" right but just don't like how the other "does things"...?

Yoda's Erotic Piggyback · Jul 29, 2002, 01:21 AM

Norton is a horrid app and you should NEVER use it to repair any hard drive.

Detrius · Jul 29, 2002, 02:26 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by LightWaver-67:


Oh... FYI - The new Norton's does NOT Speed Disk in OSX... the marketing blurb leads you to BELIEVE it does by saying that Speed Disk has been re-written for OSX... but it just means that it knows how to deal with an OSX volume... NOT that it can RUN under OSX. It still only runs in OS 8.x -9.x currently. (tricky bastards)<hr /></blockquote>Oh... FYI - The new Norton's DOES Speed Disk in OSX... it was released a few weeks ago. It's still a piece of junk (tricky bastards), so I promptly uninstalled the entire system works. But just so you know, it is NOT limited to 8.x - 9.x now. It's an internet update. The version that ships does not have it. You run the internet update and you get it. You ALSO get the disk edit utility as well. Just so you know. It HAS actually be re-written for OS X. I would not advise buying it though. But it is out there.

Detrius · Jul 29, 2002, 02:28 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Yoda's Erotic Piggyback:
Norton is a horrid app and you should NEVER use it to repair any hard drive.<hr /></blockquote>It seems pretty reliable and useful under 9, but It will be a few years before I try it under X again.

LightWaver-67 · Jul 29, 2002, 10:20 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Detrius:
Oh... FYI - The new Norton's DOES Speed Disk in OSX... it was released a few weeks ago. It's still a piece of junk (tricky bastards), so I promptly uninstalled the entire system works. But just so you know, it is NOT limited to 8.x - 9.x now. It's an internet update. The version that ships does not have it. You run the internet update and you get it. You ALSO get the disk edit utility as well. Just so you know. It HAS actually be re-written for OS X. I would not advise buying it though. But it is out there.<hr /></blockquote>Oh...? I downloaded it and installed it TWICE and there is NO Speed Disk to be seen anywhere... Maybe YOU can tell me what I'm doing wrong then.
<img src="http://www.rockkstar.com/nortons.jpg" alt=" - " />

I went to their site... it claims that v7.0 is the latest, and that's what I have. Can you tell me where Speed Disk is...?

LightWaver-67 · Jul 29, 2002, 10:33 AM

Why do I bother typing anymore...?

"This is me eating MORE crow..."

I finally "found" the 7.0.1 updater... (IDIOT)

Installing now. (Don't flame me too hard...) *sigh*

[ 07-29-2002, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: LightWaver-67 ]

forkies · Jul 29, 2002, 10:45 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by LightWaver-67:
I went to their site... it claims that v7.0 is the latest, and that's what I have. Can you tell me where Speed Disk is...?<hr /></blockquote>The newest version of NUM is 7.0.1r085. With the picture you posted you have shown us that your copy isn't current. Use LiveUpdate. It will put a Mac OS X copy of Speed Disk in your Norton Utilities folder (provided it's in your Applications folder).

And to the person having trouble with drive optimization taking forever...
The amount of space remaining on a drive is a HUGE factor in strategically rearranging files (optimizing). Perhaps your drive(s) are nearly full.

Detrius · Jul 29, 2002, 01:59 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by LightWaver-67:
Why do I bother typing anymore...?

"This is me eating MORE crow..."

I finally "found" the 7.0.1 updater... (IDIOT)

Installing now. (Don't flame me too hard...) *sigh*<hr /></blockquote>rats... and I already had a screenshot ready to go... oh well. I'll be nice.

LightWaver-67 · Jul 29, 2002, 05:09 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Detrius:
rats... and I already had a screenshot ready to go... oh well. I'll be nice.

<hr /></blockquote>Shooting fish in a barrel, my friend...

Way too easy since I already professed my idiocy on this matter. Why would that download not be on thier site though...? I had to do the "Live Update" thing to get to 7.0.1 which seems odd to me. Oh well.

I was ready to defend my "position" after searching their site over and over... I was even trying to copy text out of the v7.0 .PDF to defend my position... I'm glad I figured-out the update thingy before getting all "Holier-than-thou" on people. I was truly getting pissed... thinking that Symantec was "misleading" me...

Again... It took me about 25 minutes to force the jack-ass ears back into my skull

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Boondoggle · Jul 30, 2002, 05:58 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I was ready to defend my "position" after searching their site over and over... I was even trying to copy text out of the v7.0 .PDF to defend my position... I'm glad I figured-out the update thingy before getting all "Holier-than-thou" on people. I was truly getting pissed... thinking that Symantec was "misleading" me...
<hr /></blockquote>It is my experience that getting useful information from any company's web site is like pushing a car with a wet rope... An exercise in futility and frustration.

Thumannator · Aug 1, 2002, 12:03 PM

Forgive me for stepping into this discussion so late. I read some article yesterday on ResExcellence.com talking about how poorly X uses swap space!?! I do not totally follow, but I know from playing with Linux a bit that swap space is something UNIX systems use very, very efficiently. However, the article over at ResEx stated that Apple really goofed up this swap space thing and he outlined a hack to fix it essentially. The problem apparently is that as more files are added, deleted, installed, and uninstalled, over time everything gets fragmented as we all know. And because of the way Apple set up this swap space thing, as the drive becomes more fragmented, the swap space doesn't work as well, and the system runs poorly. (this guy's hack creates a seperate partition for swap space, just like if you were running Linux, and the tells X where to find it; since nothing else ever gets written to that partition, the system runs better apparently). Here is the link if you want to check it out for yourself:

<a href="http://www.resexcellence.com/hack_html_01/06-01-01.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.resexcellence.com/hack_html_01/06-01-01.shtml</a>

Okay, so you are wondering how this ties into the rest of the topic? Well, I have always heard it is good to keep a hard drive defragmented. I used TechTool Pro under 9, but I have yet to buy any similar utility for X (because I am a poor college student). My question is can I boot into 9, and defrag my HD (that has both 9 and X on one partition) with TTP? Will that mess up the file and/or file structure of X?

Thanks.