• All Community
    • All Community
    • Forums
    • Ideas
    • Blogs
Advanced

Not what you are looking for? Ask the experts!

Kudos0

Norton IS vs Norton 360

In Norton IS 2012 , it does defrag when the system is idle , but what is the difference then ?

Norton 360 does also defrag , but also in idle or actively ?

Replies

Kudos0

Re: Norton IS vs Norton 360

In Norton IS 2012 , it does defrag when the system is idle , but what is the difference then ?

Norton 360 does also defrag , but also in idle or actively ?

Kudos0

Re: Norton IS vs Norton 360

NIS does not defrag - you can google for the  comparision between NIS and N 360

Kudos1 Stats

Re: Norton IS vs Norton 360

Hi IndoNator,

In Chapter 2 of the NIS 2012 Product Manual, it states,


" You can use the Performance window for the following:
....
.
1 To rearrange the organization of files on your
system
Optimizing your system helps you maximize the
usable free space on a disk by grouping files based
on how they are accessed. The Optimize option at
the top of the Events graph lets you defragment
your system.

...

When you use the Optimize option in Windows XP,
Norton Internet Security optimizes only the boot
volume (for example, C:\Windows). Therefore, it
requires less time to complete optimization. However,
when you use the Optimize option in Windows Vista
or Windows 7, Norton Internet Security optimizes the
drive that contains the boot volume. Therefore, it

requires more time to complete optimization. "


HP-Mini 110 -1020NR (netbook) 2GB RAM, CPU N270 @1.60GHz, Windows XP Home, SP3, NIS 2011 18.6.0.29 (installed 12h00 GMT 18-JUL-11) , FF5,IE8
Kudos0

Re: Norton IS vs Norton 360

Thanks RichD,  I stand corrected - I never knew that NIS had that function!

Kudos0

Re: Norton IS vs Norton 360

it says if u use the optimize option in the performance tab , yes i know.

but what does it do when the computer is in idletime , does it defrag or optimize , and what does it optimize , little confusing.

Kudos0

Re: Norton IS vs Norton 360

Hi IndoNator,

When Norton "optimizes" the disk, I think it is simply using the standard Windows utility for defragmentation, but it uses different options appropriate for Windows XP than for Windows Vista or Windows 7.

In your Performance Window, you can check which process is running when the optimization is running by clicking on the yellow CPU peak on the performance graph.  I think you will find that Norton is either running  defrag.exe, or dfrgfat.exe, or dfrgntfs.exe.  All of these are standard Windows utilities for defragmenting the disk (the whole disk, or only part of it, depending on the options used). In my opinion, the Norton optimization function doesn't do anything more than what the Windows defragmentation utility does -- but I might be wrong.  I don't see much evidence that Norton is calling any Norton-specific utility for optimization.



HP-Mini 110 -1020NR (netbook) 2GB RAM, CPU N270 @1.60GHz, Windows XP Home, SP3, NIS 2011 18.6.0.29 (installed 12h00 GMT 18-JUL-11) , FF5,IE8
Kudos0

Re: Norton IS vs Norton 360

but why is there a option in Norton IS 2012 then , if it calls the Windows utility , Windows has a own defragger and it has a scheduler , or am i missing something ?

if u have both on is that then overkill ?

Kudos0

Re: Norton IS vs Norton 360


IndoNator wrote:

but why is there a option in Norton IS 2012 then , if it calls the Windows utility , Windows has a own defragger and it has a scheduler , or am i missing something ?

if u have both on is that then overkill ?


If you schedule the windows program in the windows scheduler and you let NIS do its thing then you may not get over kill but you can generate conflicts which might cause problems. Pick one or the other and let it do its job.

Dick Win 10x64 current current NSBU
Kudos0

Re: Norton IS vs Norton 360

ok , but there are allot of people who dont mess with the settings of Norton.

and also those people do not mess allot with Windows , so then they are both enabled by default , maybe Norton should change that.

because allot of people will not know there will be a conflict , people who not really care about settings , just install and forget.

norton is very user friendly so much novices will install it.

If u install Windows , the defrag scheduler of Windows is on by default , if u install Norton IS 2012 , optimizing when inactive is enabled by default too.

just saying though , maybe it needs a little change , or am i missing something ?

Kudos0

Re: Norton IS vs Norton 360

Hi :)

Interesting thread this.....

Because....of... SSD drives which are NOT meant to be defragged at all....

So if you have an SSD do NOT turn on this function in NIS 12 ...or 360 or Windows....

All the best Brett :)

Kudos1 Stats

Re: Norton IS vs Norton 360


IndoNator wrote:

but why is there a option in Norton IS 2012 then , if it calls the Windows utility , Windows has a own defragger and it has a scheduler , or am i missing something ?

if u have both on is that then overkill ?



The WHY, I understand< is that defragging is taking the pieces of files and joining them up together again into one while optimization is arranging files into locations on the physical disk in accordance with a "game plan" which it is hoped will result in better performance because files needed most will be at the beginning of the disk and the heads will have less travelling to do.

So when Norton refers to optimization it is defragging using the Windows utility (which used in early days to be based on a Symantec product then later one by Diskeeper) but telling the WIndows Defragmenter where to put the files for what Norton believes will improve performance.

This is the Classic belief but I am reliably informed by someone who designed hard drives for several of the major manufacturers that this is no longer an over-riding consderation for efficient data transfer between the disk and the operating system.

For one thing hard drives have enormous caches of solid state memory (many times larger than the total RAM on my first PC) which temporarily holds files called for most frequently. In pulling them off the drive they are defragmented in the process while any delay in finding all the pieces may not matter unless the system wants the file before it has been pulled off the disk.

For another the alogarithms built into the controller of the hard drive does some of the work also.

In addition the classic moving of the drive head to the outside of the disk for safety against head crashes damaging the disk is no longer done (anyone remember the PARK command? <g>) although how they avoid head damage when the clearance between the head and disk is microns still staggers me!

And finally I understand that the NTFS file system used now in Windows and to be replaced by an Advanced system deliberately stores files on the disk in pieces with empty space between them!

So all of that is why I suggest no-one wastes any time worrying about optimum defragging -- the system probably is not affected by doing it anyway.

Don't try to micromanage the system is a good motto ...

Of course I still like watching those little colored squares moving around and seeing all the blank spaces being moved to the end of the disk .... but then I like watching paint dry ....

Hugh
Kudos0

Re: Norton IS vs Norton 360

so i can keep Norton inactivity optimize and Windows defrag scheduler both on ?

and then forget ?

Kudos2 Stats

Re: Norton IS vs Norton 360


huwyngr wrote:

IndoNator wrote:

but why is there a option in Norton IS 2012 then , if it calls the Windows utility , Windows has a own defragger and it has a scheduler , or am i missing something ?

if u have both on is that then overkill ?


[stuff deleted in the interests of brevity]
 

And finally I understand that the NTFS file system used now in Windows and to be replaced by an Advanced system deliberately stores files on the disk in pieces with empty space between them!

So all of that is why I suggest no-one wastes any time worrying about optimum defragging -- the system probably is not affected by doing it anyway.

Don't try to micromanage the system is a good motto ...

Of course I still like watching those little colored squares moving around and seeing all the blank spaces being moved to the end of the disk .... but then I like watching paint dry ....



Hi, Hugh.  My understanding of the two different defrag-processes is as follows:

1. The general-defrag scheduled by Windows7 or Vista defrags the entire drive according to the optimization-pattern which W7 or Vista "learns" from the user's activity.  Scheduled general-defrag in Vista/W7 is enabled by default and can be customized by the user if desired.

2. The general-defrag in Windows XP is not scheduled by default.  It can be scheduled if desired by the user.  Again, the drive is defragged according to the optimization pattern which XP "learns" from the user's activity.  However, in XP the defrag is only triggered by user-request.  Defrag must be manually scheduled by the user if automation is desired.

The only difference between Vista/W7 and XP is the presence/absence of automatic-defrag-scheduling by default.

3. The custom-defrag scheduled by NIS's Optimize gets the boot-file-pattern from the "learning" system in Windows (in this case the startup Prefetch Queue) and moves the files that are used at boot into a contiguous block in the spare-space on the Hard Disk - in the order in which they are loaded by the OS at boot time.

The advantage to this is that during the boot process, there is only one seek to the block of files that are loaded into memory as Windows boots up.  Because the files are also in linear-boot-order, the heads on the Hard Disk never have to seek to another part of the disk during the boot process.  The information needed to boot is loaded smoothly from the disk sectors into the hard disk's working cache - and then bursted from the Hard Disk into the Windows cache for action by Windows itself.

The above saves the "chitter" during the Windows startup process.  Because head seeks are hundreds of times slower than the smooth transfer of data from contiguous-files-in-load-order - the time it takes for Windows to load is shaved by several seconds.

4. The problem with the above scenario is that the files in the Prefetch queue change dynamically as Live-Update and Windows Update and User Activity (learning) modifes those files.  As a result, a scheduled defrag that occurred a week ago and moved the prefetch files into boot-order at that time - is messed up as soon as one of those files is changed.  The new file in the Prefetch Queue is placed willy-nilly on the Hard Disk.  Windows tries to put the file in contiguous sectors, but the file is not loaded in the same place on the disk as the original.  The reason for this is because if the file changed size (got larger) it would be fragmented if this scenario was followed.

5. Optimize "rescues" the file system as the Prefetch Queue's block of files gets fragmented by system updates and/or changes in User Activity.  This custom-defrag reassembles the Prefetch Queue into a contiguous block of files that is read linearly by the Hard Disk heads during the boot process.  Because Optimize runs more frequently than the scheduled-defrags in Vista/W7 - boot performance does not degrade as much as it does for systems without Optimize.

Note: While XP derives the most benefit from Optimize, this does not mean there is no benefit to Vista/W7.  It's just that there is less degradation on a system that is regularly defragged.  Which is why defrag is scheduled by default in the newer Windows Versions.   

6. NIS is programmed to "yield" any-and-all of its background tasks to whatever process is scheduled with a higher priority.  Thusly, when the scheduled defrag starts - Optimize "gets out of the way" and allows the scheduled defrag to do its job.  Once the scheduled-defrag is over - and as far as Windows is concerned there is no defrag happening until the next week - Optimize then gets an opportunity to check the disk and "go to work" if Optimize detects anything that disturbs the Prefetch Queue fileblock's contiguity.  If needed, Optimize then "reassembles" the Prefetch Queue fileblock with the updated files.  Consequently, Boot Performance rises back to the fastest level the system can provide.

The result of all the above?

Don't try to micromanage the system

Yes, that is good advice indeed.  It ain't broke.  Don't fix it.  

Kudos0

Re: Norton IS vs Norton 360

To be honest, I don't know who does exactly what to whom (and I was referring to the Windows 7 system of the OP so far as the automatic defrag was concerned) but I agree with your conclusion with the addition of "try to"

Don't try to fix it.

.... <g>

Hugh
Kudos0

Re: Norton IS vs Norton 360


IndoNator wrote:

so i can keep Norton inactivity optimize and Windows defrag scheduler both on ?

and then forget ?


It's your choice -- I doubt you will ever see any difference.

Maybe if you run a defrag every few months you might and you will feel better ....

Hugh
Kudos0

Re: Norton IS vs Norton 360


huwyngr wrote:

To be honest, I don't know who does exactly what to whom (and I was referring to the Windows 7 system of the OP so far as the automatic defrag was concerned) but I agree with your conclusion with the addition of "try to"

Don't try to fix it.

.... <g>


Can I hear an amen?

Dick Win 10x64 current current NSBU
Accepted Solution
Kudos0

Re: Norton IS vs Norton 360

amen

This thread is closed from further comment. Please visit the forum to start a new thread.