On 16 Jan 2001, at 19:42, Bobby Sutton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Jun: What do you think about the Norton's Utilities, scan disk, speed
> disk(defrag) and system check ? I agree with you about Crash guard, I
> didn't even install it but have had good results with the other programs
> like Anti Virus. Also why would you not use the e-mail protection in AV
> 2000 ? To me it seems like a good preventive program. Would like your
> opinions on the pro's & cons of Utility programs.
I bought NU2000 some times ago, and I find it to be very useful.
I use System Check, which keeps my OS healthy, and I guess is responsible
to the good stability of my computer. Speed Disk is considered better than
the standard one of Microsoft, although I guess that other products are
better. I do not like the fact that Speed Disk does place programs
according to the criteria that more used ones are located in places with
faster access time, but I do not like the fact that the way it places them
does not take into account the chances of fragmentation shortly after
files are changed. Yet, in overall it is a better utility than the
standard defrag.
I found the Norton Unerase to bwe very useful and it saved me from my
mistakes a few times. People with slow computers were complaining that it
is heavy (as it must run in the background), but with my Celeron 400 and
96Mb RAM it is not very heavy.
With my Hebrew enabled Win98, I found that Norton Disk Doctor should not
be used instead of the standard program by Microsoft, in case of improper
shut down. It didn't like files with Hebrew names, when it runs before
Windows is loaded. When it runs from Windows it is very good, but has both
advantages and disadvantages over the standard program that comes with the
OS.
Of course, not all products in the package are useful, and some of them I
never use.
Uzi
http://members.iol.co.il/uzip/
Do you want to signoff PCSOFT or just change to
Digest mode - visit our web site:
http://freepctech.com/pcsoft.shtml
|
