CompuServe Thread

Robert, This is personal opinion only. I own both B.A.D. (I forget the version number, I think it's 3.11) and QuarterBack Tools 1.3D. I prefer QuarterBack Tools, not because it may be better at reorganizing than B.A.D. (I don't know if it is, never timed the results) but because it offers so much more than just reorganization. -sja

B.A.D. trashed my hard disk, and I got no response to requests for help, both phone and written. QB Tools hasn't misbehaved; I've had no reason to test their tech support.

> …which is the better disk optimizer; B.A.D. or Quarterbacktools? I have both, but I haven't optimized a floppy since getting a hard drive. When I got my new hard drive, I partitioned the 210 megs into five 42 meg partitions. I then copied ALL of my 40 meg Quantum into two different partitions, and optimized one with QBT 1.3b and one with BAD 3.11. After optimization, both came up slightly faster than the original (the 210 drive is on an ICD AdSCSI 2000; the 40 is on a Hardframe 2000). "Came up" refers BOTH to DiskMaster bringing the files and directories to the screen AND to Workbench opening drawers and bringing up icons. Both came up in about the SAME time (too fast to time, estimate less than 15% difference), but the QBT optimized partition came up with MUCH less drive activity (whether "filewise" by DiskMaster, or "iconwise" by Workbench. I don't know whether BAD 4.0 will improve this; I'll get it but don't have it yet. . . . . . JimDoc <<via WHAP!>>