[Jeremy]

How so?

[techn1976]

oOTNTOo, on Apr 29 2004, 05:51 AM, said:

What is the best defrag program you guys have used?

my vote goes to Diskeeper!

oOTNTOo, on Apr 29 2004, 05:51 AM, said:

And were can i get them to try them out

try www.softpedia.com there might be domos of these... but i always get mine from a special source

This post has been edited by techn1976: 09 March 2006 - 09:20 AM

[sakurage]

mine, the perfect degragger would be PERFECT DISK 7.... the best.

[Maleko]

Well, after reading about 90% of these posts, and after trying Perfect Disk, I gotta say I love it!
Does a superb job in defragmenting, i just gotta give the offline files defrag a try!

Got a question, for those of you who have got it, I am going to buy it this weekend, so was wondering if it is worth getting the upgrade protection? just over £5 for a year, to get any release within the next year free...how likely are they in releasing another version within the next year?

[ZileXa]

isn't this poll and topic a bit useless? a Defragmenter can be tested by objective methods and has been tested, for as far as I know, Perfectdisk was the winner.


(whuaa sorry for the double thing* )

This post has been edited by ZileXa: 22 March 2006 - 06:32 PM

[Jeremy]

I totally agree.
I totally agree.

[husalov]

Indeed...check the PerfectDisk website for their latest comparison with Diskeeper 10. Having read this I wonder what's in those 40 something MB Diskeeper eats of disk space - definitely no efficent defragmenting engine but lots of fancy colors and windows style bloat. As for O&O, there exists a similar comparison which makes it look equally infantile.

[Jeremy]

Ok, I just read that PDF file. Diskeeper 10 absolutely sucks compared to PD7. I'm glad I'm in the right boat.

[DigeratiPrime]

wait your reading pdf on perfectdisks website and concluding its the best? thats a surprise

PD is very good, however I think O&O does a better job. thats my humble opinion.

[Jeremy]

Dig, by experience, everytime I've defragged a driver with PD, several PCs, several drives, regardless of how many file fragments are present, after the defrag, the number of fragged files is 0, with the files, system files, metadata and page file. So how you can get any better than a perfectly defragged drive... is absolutely beyond me. why bother with anything else if you already have the best. I think sometimes people pay no attention to the actual ability of a program and focus entirely on "this guy doesn't use what I use so let's keep the thread rolling with pointless posts". If you wanna use OO, go right ahead. Like I said, I know which boat takes me to shore.

[saugatak]

I've tried SpeeDefrag 3.0 recently on an XP system (don't run on Win2k) and I like it.

It's free and it does the defrag when system is not running and then shuts computer down when you're done. So you can set it once a month, let it work and not worry about leaving computer on all night. Works pretty good too.

[teqguy]

Not to burst anyone's bubble, but in retrospect, the solitary goal of defragmentation is and always will be the same... and as long as we all arrive at the same conclusion, who could honestly care what or how the application derrives this conclusion?

Let's look at it mathematically:

4(2 + 6) will always equal 32, despite whether we distribute 4 into the parentheses and then add, or add what's in the parentheses and then multiply by 4.


Now, if we conclude that no matter what application we use, we will always end up with a drive with no fragmentation, we can deduce that:

- Application X, Y, and Z essentially perform exactly the same function(albeit faster) as the built in Windows defragmenter

- Spending money on said applications is as frivolous as spending money on anti-virus "suites"(definitely the correct nomenclature for them, considering how roomy they become on your hard drive and how well they cozy up to Windows) such as Norton, when there are free applications like ClamWin and Anti-Vir that won't gobble your memory

- If application X, Y, or Z occupy more than a few megabytes and are spread over numerous files and directories, the likelihood of X, Y, or Z becoming fragmented themselves increases tenfold.

Thus, we run into a redundancy issue: if the application is defragmenting itself(specifically, the fragmented clusters it occupies on the drive), it's essentially wasting time... time you originally thought you were saving by buying the application in the first place.


So, in conclusion, the best defragmentation application is one that:

- Can perform the task efficiently and effectively
- Is priced relative to the cost of the tool included with Windows
- Occupies as few clusters as possible


In my experience, the tool that best fits this description is none other than Contig, coupled with the Power Defragmenter GUI(www.excessive-software.eu.tt).

Sure, the GUI might not be very attractive(it's simply a shell for Contig), but because it does two-pass defragmentation, it virtually performs exactly the same task as Perfect Disk or O&O in a relatively short(er) amount of time, all while keeping a profile under 2MB.

This post has been edited by teqguy: 01 April 2006 - 04:44 AM

[Jeremy]

teqguy, on Apr 1 2006, 06:43 AM, said:

If application X, Y, or Z occupy more than a few megabytes and are spread over numerous files and directories, the likelihood of X, Y, or Z becoming fragmented themselves increases tenfold.

Well, of course the defragmenter will be fragmented when it is initially installed on the harddrive because all files are at that point. I don't think any files are written to the disk as full chunks in Windows.

Quote

Thus, we run into a redundancy issue: if the application is defragmenting itself(specifically, the fragmented clusters it occupies on the drive), it's essentially wasting time... time you originally thought you were saving by buying the application in the first place.

Absolutely bogus, because the time it takes to defrag a few MBs about 1.0 - 1.5 seconds.

Quote

So, in conclusion, the best defragmentation application is one that:

- Can perform the task efficiently and effectively
- Is priced relative to the cost of the tool included with Windows
- Occupies as few clusters as possible

PerfectDisk defrags more efficiently and effectively than any other defragmenter I've used. The tool included with Windows comes with Windows so it is free, but it doesn't defrag as E&E as PD, dunno about others.

Quote

In my experience, the tool that best fits this description is none other than Contig, coupled with the Power Defragmenter GUI(www.excessive-software.eu.tt).
Sure, the GUI might not be very attractive(it's simply a shell for Contig), but because it does two-pass defragmentation, it virtually performs exactly the same task as Perfect Disk or O&O in a relatively short(er) amount of time, all while keeping a profile under 2MB.

I'm with you on the GUI part, not as important as the functionality and other aspects. Diskeeper does a 3-pass or so and PerfectDisk did better after 1-pass. Under 2 MB. The filesize isn't so important to me in this case. PD installer is 3.3 MB and the Program Files are 11MB. That's fine for me. Being of as little filesize as possible is not a key factor for it to be a good defagmenter.

This post has been edited by Jeremy: 01 April 2006 - 08:16 AM

[teqguy]

Jeremy, on Apr 1 2006, 06:15 AM, said:

Well, of course the defragmenter will be fragmented when it is initially installed on the harddrive because all files are at that point. I don't think any files are written to the disk as full chunks in Windows.

Yes, but you see, this is where we run into a quandry... should a defragmenter occupy enough clusters where it needs to perform gratuitous maintenance on its own files?

This makes sense with antivirus software, because it allows them to be self-healing... but I don't see the point with defragmentation tools.

Quote

Absolutely bogus, because the time it takes to defrag a few MBs about 1.0 - 1.5 seconds.

Provided you use my reference to "time" as a relative unit of measure, I can see where you come from. However, in order for time to be relative, it must not only be quantifiable in a sense of duration, but also in human value. I can't speak for everyone, so while a second or two(per cluster, mind you) might not seem significant in duration or value, for the sake of argument let's treat time as a quasi-unit of measure:

If total time is equal to time per megabyte multiplied by the amount of space the files occupy, and there are 10-20 more files on a partition with the aforementioned "defragmentation suites" installed, then naturally total time will increase with some degree of proportion to the amount of additional space these tools occupy.

Granted, because these defragmentation tools are faster than our base of reference(Windows Defragmenter), this all becomes irrelevant when the application is actually running.

However, if you look at it in retrospect, larger defragmentation applications do add unnecessary time to the equation, which is simply what my argument was about.

Quote

PerfectDisk defrags more efficiently and effectively than any other defragmenter I've used. The tool included with Windows comes with Windows so it is free, but it doesn't defrag as E&E as PD, dunno about others.

If the end result is the same no matter what tool you use, how do you gauge efficiency?

If it's time of completion, then I hate to break it to you, but PerfectDisk and O&O only manage to shave off a quarter of the time it takes for Windows' defragmentation tool to complete.

I've observed Contig doing two-pass defragmentation completing in almost half the time.

Quote

I'm with you on the GUI part, not as important as the functionality and other aspects. Diskeeper does a 3-pass or so and PerfectDisk did better after 1-pass. Under 2 MB. The filesize isn't so important to me in this case. PD installer is 3.3 MB and the Program Files are 11MB. That's fine for me. Being of as little filesize as possible is not a key factor for it to be a good defagmenter.

You also fail to mention that both PerfectDisk and O&O mandate that their background services be running in order to even access basic defragmentation functionality out of the applications.

To me, this seems unnecessary, considering Windows XP already runs its defragmentation tool in the background when your system is idle(Note: if you're using a defragmentation mode that sorts the files on the drive in order of precedence[ie; the Windows directory first, applications next, etc], then I would disable idle defragmentation, as Windows tends to ruin this type of sorting).

I don't know about you, but the only time I run my defragmentation tool is when I decide it's time to defragment the system(usually after installations/uninstallations, cleaning temp folders, Torrent download completions).

As far as file size is concerned, you shouldn't be solely concerned with its occupancy in reference to that, but also in reference to where these files are. I'm almost certain that both PD and O&O install additional DLLs in the Windows directory, which tends to make the directory ugly if you have numerous other applications doing exactly the same thing.

Furthermore, both defragmentation tools install hundreds of registry entries, which again, is totally unnecessary for a tool that's supposed to be promoting cluster organization.

This post has been edited by teqguy: 01 April 2006 - 02:56 PM

[DigeratiPrime]

well as i said above i use O&O but i have tried PD7. I 'unpacked' the msi's for both using uniextract so i can better see whats being installed and where. imo they're both light enough for me and a mb or two doesnt matter much. I think the argument about the program having to defrag itself is silly in this respect. The same is true for speed, i havent seen any objective tests, and all ive heard is users complaining about differences in the ms, which is probably just user perception until proven otherwise.

I tried contig and the frontend for it and its a good free solution, but these other programs are easier to use, have more options, and a nice UI.

However I would agree that i dislike the dependancies and need to install drivers and run as a service. but the nice thing about MSI's is they uninstall very well

[teqguy]

DigeratiPrime, on Apr 1 2006, 03:21 PM, said:

I tried contig and the frontend for it and its a good free solution, but these other programs are easier to use, have more options, and a nice UI.

It's become my understanding that for the typical user, an application that has tons of features(most of which remain unused) is usually contradictory to usability.

How often does the average joe actually need to connect to a remote computer and defragment its drives using an application installed locally?

DigeratiPrime, on Apr 1 2006, 03:21 PM, said:

However I would agree that i dislike the dependancies and need to install drivers and run as a service. but the nice thing about MSI's is they uninstall very well

The problem, however, is that uninstalling the application is not an option for those who want to use it. So, if you do want to use it, you're either left to keeping the dependencies and drivers loaded, or activating them manually everytime you want to run the application.

Furthermore, upon observation of your sig, the applications you list promote the "modular" or "tinyapps" model of computing, so I don't understand how you're able to appreciate/tolerate applications like O&O, PD, and I'm assuming Norton or McAfee as well.

[DigeratiPrime]

please i know better than to use norton, that was insulting, ive been warning people about that poor software for (about 5-6) years. Use ClamWin, Nod32, or BitDefender. In fact i use no antivirus, because i dont get viruses

To be honest, on my pc i have no programs installed except some hardware drivers and winrar, seriously. i only occasionally defrag, prob every other month, and its never that bad anyway because i use extended partitions and store most of my stuff on a dedicated fileserver here.

I usually roll back my 'system partition' (C:) around the same time using Acronis True Image (which takes less than 2 minutes) thus effectively uninstalling O&O or whatever else. So installing O&O for like an hour and then 'undoing' it, doesnt bother me the least.

I would not use O&O if i did not believe it does a better job than Config and PD. I like the defrag options: Name for my system partition, and Space for my 'bloated' data and program partitions. I would need to hear evidence contrary that proves that O&O is less or equally effective, before i drop it.

[teqguy]

DigeratiPrime, on Apr 1 2006, 05:44 PM, said:

please i know better than to use norton, that was insulting, ive been warning people about that poor software for (about 5-6) years. Use ClamWin, Nod32, or BitDefender. In fact i use no antivirus, because i dont get viruses

Okay, I stand corrected. I'll give credit where credit is due.

Quote

I would not use O&O if i did not believe it does a better job than Config and PD. I like the defrag options: Name for my system partition, and Space for my 'bloated' data and program partitions. I would need to hear evidence contrary that proves that O&O is less or equally effective, before i drop it.

Allow me to reiterate: My argument is not based on the fact that X application is any more efficient or effective than Y application, because the fact of the matter is, unless X or Y is less effective or efficient than our base of reference(Windows Defragmenter), they are, in essence, as effective and efficient as they're going to get.

As far as I'm concerned, we're comparing apples to apples.

However, the point I'm stressing is that it's frivolous to eat the much larger apple Y if a smaller apple X will satisfy your hunger just as easily, because what isn't used isn't necessary, which means it's simply wasteful.

This post has been edited by teqguy: 01 April 2006 - 08:11 PM

[DigeratiPrime]

I am sorry I do not understand. Your saying X or Y applications cannot be more effective than Windows Defragmenter?

I forgot to mention before that i also remove that with nLite.

[Jeremy]

I eat pretty healthy and when I feel full, I stop eating. When I feel hungry again, I try and find something to eat. Judging by the way this discussion is going, I assume you consider yourself fairly intellectual and are confident in the choices you make. Since you like Contig for the reasons you've stated, and I like another defragmenter, you think that your "apple" would satify my "hunger" just as much as PerfectDisk would. Well, I consider this another one of those "shove your opinion/belief/preference down the other person's throat" attempts. As for your concerns about time, I defrag my drives every 2 weeks at least, once a month at most. I usually do this overnight or when I'm spending time with my gf or watching TV/movie. So time doesn't really concern me. The more fragmented the harddrive is, the longer it is going to take. Consider PD has SmartPlacement and Free Space Consolidation, it has to spend even more time making things as organized as possible. This is something I've come to appreciate from PD.
Having said all that, I'm happy with my preference and nothing you can say will change my mind. I'm used to it and love it and recommend it to others. That's all there is to it.
Take a HD, install 20 programs, use them to create 3 files per program, then uninstall all the programs. Do this once per defragmenter tool and tell us all which one results in 0 fragments at the end.