Talk:Diskeeper

Screenshot title

The title for the screenshot says "Diskeeper 2007", but diskeeper 10 is not 2007, I know that the brand new diskeeper version 11 is diskeeper 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.20.87.111 (talk • contribs) 18:20, November 7, 2006 (UTC)

New Version

There's been a new version of Diskeeper created: version 10. YB 16:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC) See here.

Hey, great, the article's been updated. Nice job, guys! Keep it up! - YB 16:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientology?

For the time being, I'm removing

The company has ties to the Church of Scientology.

This could well be so, but should not be reinserted until a verifiable source is provided. Unlike the rest of the article, this cannot easily be verified by reference to the company's website. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC) Actually, a quick Google suggest there should be plenty of verifiable sources but I don't have the time to do anything about it now. Apparently in the 1990s company once denied technical support to Ciba-Geigy because they produce Ritalin... Dpbsmith (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll provide sources, such as the one you mentioned. Also, on their official website is a link to their CEO's website [1] which has an entire section about his being a member of the Church of Scientology (click on "Humanitarian"). Also, ex-employees has mentioned the company's Scientology related policies [2]. (Entheta 20:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC))

Great update. Just added some internal wikilinks (Entheta 23:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC))

I re-added the mention of Executive Software denying support to the Ritalin manufacturer in 1991, to the Diskeeper Corporation article. -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 06:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how Scientology has any place in this article. It should be talking about the defragging engine, various advances, a history of the product, etc. How it relates to Mr. Hubbard does not have enough merit for 50% of the article. Aeolien 03:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It's of interest because it caused controversy in Germany, because they refused support to a company that manifactured a drug, and because several ex-employees have mentioned how the company owner's Scientology belief affects the company's policies. (Entheta 13:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC))

It's of interest because it is at the core of Executive Software's business. It has been since they purchased Diskeeper from Rick Cadruvi (the author) back in the late 80s. It should be noted that Ciba-Geigy had made a legal purchase of Diskeeper and afterwards, Executive Software decided to 'withhold' support from them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.67.104.4 (talk • contribs) 19:26, December 21, 2006 (UTC)

I have removed one Scientology-related passage, which appeared twice, from the article. My suggestion is if you think there's not enough info on the Diskeeper product itself, that you expand that part of the article. (Entheta 13:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC))

I have removed the scientology part of this page, it has nothing to do with the program itself. --Chicito21154 19:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As a casual user I found the scientology reference interesting and informative. It should definitely be kept in. 24.36.152.141 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It definitely should be kept out, unless scientology specifically influenced the development of this program, and if so then only kept in for the purpose of explaining that. Otherwise is a topic to write about on an article for the company, not it's products. We don't mention that Henry Ford was an anti-semite on a page about the Model-T. Someguy1221 03:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It should defintely be kept back in. The tool is provisionally sold to other organizations based on that company's stand on issues deemed important to the Church of Scientology. That makes it part of their business model and therefore part of the company and the product. Granted, they have the right to sell or not sell me their products. However, I also have the same right based on a complete understanding of the product and the company. Make it a small reference with a for details, see the article on Executive Software (dba Diskeeper Corporation) and move on... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jrbirdman (talk • contribs) 19:55, March 13, 2007 (UTC)

The connections with the Church of Scientology should be left in. The entire company is run based on the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard. They even have positions in the company that are direct parallels to Scientology org positions, such as "Ethics Officer", with a job description that includes such Scientology terms as "Knowledge Reports. The Diskeeper Corporation had a notable fight with the country of Germany due to its connections with Scientology. This should be reported on.Vivaldi (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I know this will sound stupid, but why not make a page ABOUT THE BLOODY COMPANY!!! that is a perfectly legitimate place for this type of information, but a page about a the product should only contain information about said product. sheesh. 142.167.242.94 00:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. For those interested, I've created a page for the company at Diskeeper Corporation (and a redirect for Executive Software). I copied the scientology-related content to the new article. — EagleOne\^Talk 02:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the controversy should at least be mentioned. Without the COS information the article reads like an infomercial. Many people are uncomfortable with the COS, and the CEO Craig Jensen is, by his own admission, a a longstanding member and volunteer minister. The same page talks about how the company headquarters is used for training executives in the "Hubbard Management System." Completely leaving out this information is wrong. The controversy is discussed on the corporate page, but at least a mention should be made here. --Gtcaz 09:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I linked to the controversy in the Diskeeper Corporation article. Let's leave the controversy there. -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 06:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

This article reads like one big advertisement for Diskeeper. The tone of the entire article needs to be changed to be more encyclopedic and it needs to be written in a NPOV. The corporation is notable for its connections with the Church of Scientology and its fight with the country of Germany who insisted that they didn't want software installed by a company that was so closely connected with the abusive and criminal cult of Scientology. Vivaldi (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What about adding the advert tag?

{{Advert}}

--Gtcaz 09:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is SPAM, and should be incorporated into the article on Windows Disk Defragmenter. Donn Edwards 06:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No it shouldn't, it has nothing to do with windows disk defragmenter anymore.... Yes the controbery topic should be brought back, but the rest of it is fine, it provides information about the program which is relavant to the article. 12:18, 20 June 2007 GMT (UTC)

All this whinging about Scientology is interesting but I think unsupported claims about the product are much more important. In particular, the claim that "Diskeeper 2010 intelligently writes files to the hard disk to prevent up to 85 percent of fragmentation from occurring" is "supported" only by a reference to a company brochure. I am not saying it isn't true but shouldn't this be removed unless some actual, independent support for the claim can be found? Or otherwise modify it, e.g. as follows "The company claims that ..." AlexFekken (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please clean up the article and delete unsupported claims. -- intgr [talk] 10:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The claim is now well-supported. I see that you tried to delete the assertion nonetheless; hence I contested you per BRD. This removal deters comprehensiveness while does not affect neutrality. As for your representation WP:PSTS as reason, I don't know what you mean; unless you, like many others are under the wrong impression that citing primary sources is entirely banned! Well, if you are, primary sources are not banned at all. Fleet Command (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, these figures are clearly biased. There is no hint in the paper about what "percent of fragmentation" actually means and no hint about what testing methodology was used to arrive at the figure. There is no universally accepted way to measure fragmentation. It also uses the typical "up to XX%" marketing speak -- yeah, it might be 85% in some ideal circumstances, but it might also be 0%. The claim isn't falsifiable and is intended to be misleading. I don't agree that it adds to comprehensiveness.

No, primary sources are not "banned", but there is some pretty strong language deterring their use. WP:PSTS states: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. [...] A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." -- intgr [talk] 21:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice your reply here. Wow! Anyway, I'm not going to beat the dead horse. Yes, figures are biased but we said that they are biased. It was one biased assertion which I felt readers should know about, especially since we live in century in which people are not deceived by advertisement. After all, stating biased assertions of the company is also part of covering all points of view. But never mind it all now...

However, I am going to return part of your removal which is the citation because it cited previous statements as well. I assume you don't mind.

Fleet Command (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"we live in century in which people are not deceived by advertisement" — You wish! They'll even believe what's written on Wikipedia! :)

But sure, you can add the reference back. -- intgr [talk] 07:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Before you mark this article for deletion, please note that Diskeeper is often reviewed along with other notable defrag software in reputable, independent PC magazines. Some (but not all) of these articles are listed. RitaSkeeter 06:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

VAX Reference

From my understanding, the VAX was a Midrange ('refrigerator size' in the history) not a "Mainframe." Clicking on the Mainframe link there is an informative article, where VAX does not appear to be mentioned. There is a good article about 'minicomputers' (I did not find 'VAX' in that article either). VAX vrs. System36/AS400 was a great rivalry; How about an article: 'The Midrange Wars.' I would not be surprised if many people miss DEC. Maybe there could be a link to the Minicomputer in this article instead of 'Mainframe.' Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtautomation (talk • contribs) 23:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)