[Havik]

i use tune up utilities 2007 it does more than just defrag, i highly reccommend buying it

[DonDamm]

Hmm. This thread started nearly three years ago and it still is going!! In general, I think defragging is overrated, but I still do it for various reasons. I use it to pack the hard disks I use for TV and Movies. Those are large files and don't change much.

Diskeeper is only so so i've found over time. It works, but is finicky. On those drives I mentioned it won't even attempt it. Also, It can take several if not many passes with diskeeper to get it right. Perfect Disk and Vopt8 can do it in one pass. O&O after some early failures years ago finally got their act togehter and produce a decent app that is on par for the most part with the other two. SysInternals app is also good, but nowhere near as pretty! :^)

I've noticed that Symantec let SpeedDisk die. Too bad that was shaping up to be a good tool. The odd thing about defraggers is that except for boot up times (and I don't do that often except for testing) they all must tie into the same MS api. I've never pulled it apart, but I'm not sure how they all manage to be all that different given the limitations Windows puts on them.

A friend of mine used to run tests when he was the CIO at a big company here in Vienna. As noted, except for bootup times there was little practical difference in the performance of the disks, despite what Diskeeper tries to peddle you. Yes, there is a difference, but not much of a prctical one except in extreme cases of rampant fragmentation and load demand on the drive.

I like the new Vopt8 since they've ironed the bugs out of it and Golden Bow was always one of the most reliable software producers out there. I like the feature of being able to point to a little square and seeing what files are there. Useless, I know, but I like it. The color scheme makes more sense to me than Perfect Disk also, but I like that app as well as O&O. Sigh.

[anonymous_user]

Wheres the "Other" option? anyways i use UltimateDefrag. its small and very flexible.

[RJARRRPCGP]

Famer, on Sep 4 2004, 10:53 AM, said:

this what i use
http://www.geocities...f/DefragNT.html

That defragmenter needs major work! It crashed on me, apparently, because of Windows denying access to a file, because of it being open.
Apparently, it crashes instead of just skipping the file!

Thus I have to say this, DefragNT definitely don't hold a candle to JKDefrag. JKDefrag has a GUI while being just one file!

This post has been edited by RJARRRPCGP: 24 April 2007 - 03:09 PM

[slipk487]

id recommend JKDefrag its free not a resource hog and its automatic also includes a screensaver defrag
http://www.kessels.n...frag/index.html

[Jeremy]

slipk487, on May 3 2007, 01:03 AM, said:

id recommend JKDefrag its free not a resource hog and its automatic also includes a screensaver defrag
http://www.kessels.n...frag/index.html

While it is freeware and open-source, it's nothing spectacular and the basic display view is less than can be desired. I'm not even positive on what sort of file placement (if any) it does after simply defragmenting files.
I've recently realized the importance and necessity of having file placement done after a defrag. I have 3 screenshots that prove this, which anyone can do themselves.

Disk Analyzed
http://img338.images...9590/ud1dw5.png

Disk Defragmented Completely
http://img338.images...3064/ud2ag1.png

File Placement (79% of least used data placed on inner tracks and 21% of most used data placed on outer tracks + Consolidation defrag)
http://img338.images.../418/ud3lc7.png

As you can see, merely having the files defragmented only does half the job. At this point there is still much room for future fragmentation and access time is nowhere near being optimized. And by optimized, I mean having files related by either last access or modification date placed together at the beginning of the HDD inwards.
Having the most used data at the beginning of the disk and the rest of the files out of the way on the slower areas of the disk improves file access time (truthfully by milliseconds, which in reality leads to several seconds of application and game loading).
Then comes the Consolidation method which places files sequentially and thus contiguously (no gaps in between any two given files). This creates the largest area of free space after the most used files for new files to be written. The file may or may not be fragmented when written to this free space, but it won't be fragmented nearly as much as it would be had it been written to a severely fragmented (and non-contiguous) drive where there were many gaps to fill.
Diskeeper is automatic and does file placement, but not always necessarily consolidated. You can defrag with any defragmenter and use UltimateDefrag to view the disk display and see exactly where and how files are placed.
PerfectDisk isn't as automatic, and does do file placement in the same manner, thus future fragmentation is reduced.
UltimateDefrag offers the most flexibility and shows a true drive display and is portable (1 EXE and 2 XML files on my flash drive).

I hope this helps.

This post has been edited by Jeremy: 03 May 2007 - 12:26 PM

[d3v]

i've used diskeeper and O&O side by side for a year and half now and I can confirm O&O is better in every way imaginable as far as defragging goes. O&O wipes the competetion.

[nemesis19]

Well, i use Raxco Perfect Disk 8 to defragment, unlike others, it has its own mechanism to operate silently without any bugs. So far, happy using it and its stable.

[Jeremy]

nemesis19, on Jun 22 2007, 04:00 AM, said:

...unlike others, it has its own mechanism to operate silently...

You're referring to automatic defragmentation, yes? If so, several other defragmenters have this ability. Ashampoo Magical Defrag 2, DirMS, Diskeeper 2007, MST Defrag, IOBit SmartDefrag, and O&O Defrag 8.6 and above.
I haven't tested these defragmenters in depth in regards to automatic defragmenting yet, but if I had to recommend 3 of them, I'd say DK, MST and O&O. There's only one way to know for sure, though...

[RJARRRPCGP]

Jeremy, on May 3 2007, 01:10 AM, said:

slipk487, on May 3 2007, 01:03 AM, said:

id recommend JKDefrag its free not a resource hog and its automatic also includes a screensaver defrag
http://www.kessels.n...frag/index.html

While it is freeware and open-source, it's nothing spectacular and the basic display view is less than can be desired. I'm not even positive on what sort of file placement (if any) it does after simply defragmenting files.
I've recently realized the importance and necessity of having file placement done after a defrag. I have 3 screenshots that prove this, which anyone can do themselves.

Disk Analyzed
http://img338.images...9590/ud1dw5.png

Disk Defragmented Completely
http://img338.images...3064/ud2ag1.png

File Placement (79% of least used data placed on inner tracks and 21% of most used data placed on outer tracks + Consolidation defrag)
http://img338.images.../418/ud3lc7.png

As you can see, merely having the files defragmented only does half the job. At this point there is still much room for future fragmentation and access time is nowhere near being optimized. And by optimized, I mean having files related by either last access or modification date placed together at the beginning of the HDD inwards.
Having the most used data at the beginning of the disk and the rest of the files out of the way on the slower areas of the disk improves file access time (truthfully by milliseconds, which in reality leads to several seconds of application and game loading).
Then comes the Consolidation method which places files sequentially and thus contiguously (no gaps in between any two given files). This creates the largest area of free space after the most used files for new files to be written. The file may or may not be fragmented when written to this free space, but it won't be fragmented nearly as much as it would be had it been written to a severely fragmented (and non-contiguous) drive where there were many gaps to fill.
Diskeeper is automatic and does file placement, but not always necessarily consolidated. You can defrag with any defragmenter and use UltimateDefrag to view the disk display and see exactly where and how files are placed.
PerfectDisk isn't as automatic, and does do file placement in the same manner, thus future fragmentation is reduced.
UltimateDefrag offers the most flexibility and shows a true drive display and is portable (1 EXE and 2 XML files on my flash drive).

I hope this helps.

There have been a major amount of JKDefrag releases!

Apparently, there has been work done on the file placing. The GUI still is the same, but hopefully, that can be improved.

[Jeremy]

Yeah, after seeing the disk display of UltimateDefrag, all defragmenters should have it. The rectangular boxes with the squares just aren't appealing anymore...

[Martin H]

@Jeremy

As i personally really value your oppenion, and have learned alot from reading through old posts of yours, then i would really appreciate if you would please answer a question for me. In the beginning of this thread and a long way through it, then you where recommending and using PerfectDisk. Then suddently on page 18, then you wrote "I use Diskeeper and it [...]", but you didn't mention why you had switched from using PerfectDisk ? So my question is about if you would please tell me what exactly made you switch to Diskeeper ? I have myself for a long time just used the Windows Defragger, but after reading this whole thread through, then i decided that i needed to switch to something better. I am now using PerfectDisk 8 and am really liking it, but as i personally am interessted in using the very best defragging app, then i was wondering about the reason for your switch to Diskeeper ? I'm not personally interessted in automatic defragmenting at all and only want's to do it manually, but i want to use the defragging program which uses the very best techniques for defragmenting, smart file placement and free space consolidation(and what other techniques there else may exist ?), and i'm in doubt about if Diskeeper's techniques is better than PerfectDisk's ? I think that the basic defragmenting operation will probably be pretty much the same in thoroughness between the two apps and just show differences in there efficiency i.e. how fast they do it. Then if Diskeeper also does free space consolidation(i haven't checked yet), then i guess that the big difference between PerfectDisk and Diskeeper is with regards to there file placement strategies. PerfectDisk's SMARTPlacement strategy uses file modification time, wich makes future defragmenting jobs faster and Diskeeper uses files "last opened" strategy, which speedups access time. Which of those two strategies do you feel is most important/best ? And does Diskeeper even do free space consolidation ? Oh, sorry - i can of course google that answer myself... Also, then there is UltimateDefrag, which i haven't investigated that much yet. I know the reports on Raxco's site which compares PerfectDisk 8 to Diskeeper 2007, but i'm just affraid that they are to biased to be completely trusted ?

Thank's in advance.

CU, Martin.

This post has been edited by Martin H: 06 July 2007 - 02:36 PM

[deda]

Diskeeper, doesn't matter the version. I use it since NT 4, works perfectly, you have several options, including pagefile.sys optmization, Master File Table defrag, you can put all folders together, etc.

[Martin H]

@Jeremy

Hmm, i have investigated that Diskeeper does do free space consolidation. On the other hand then i have read the tread you have linked to earlier at 'DriverHeaven', and there Michael himself said that if looking for a manual defragger, then one should look other places than Diskeeper, as it have very little development in that regard, and so since i'm only after a manual defragger, then my choises are down to PerfectDisk and UltimateDefrag. Additionally, then i believe that I-FAAST is only available in automatic mode, which means that i wouldn't get to benefir from it in my situation(I hate having things running in the background and using resources all the time, when it's only going to be used sometimes... And i only have a 1700MHZ Celeron with 256MB RAM also.) Then my choices are down to PerfectDisk and UltimateDefrag. I have read up on UltimateDfrag and i must say that i'm really impressed. It seems like you can choose yourself if wanting to use a file placement strategy that either resembles PerfectDisk's(Last modified) and Diskeeper's(last accesed). Also, it's very small, which also is a big plus in my book(I love resource-friendly apps like fb2k, mpc, NOD32, ImgBurn etc). Do you personally think that UltimateDefrag is as good a defragger as PerfectDisk ?

Thank's in advance, and i apoligise for keeping bugging you, and i really hope that you don't mind

[minotaur]

Hehe, I read that thread at driverheaven too. Probably one of the better defrag threads on the web.
I have used perfectdisk before, and was not particularly impressed by it. I think O&O is better than PD because although it is slower for defrags, it does not make my system nearly unusable when it is running like PD does.

Best blend of resource usage and performance has been Diskeeper pro, and I have no plans to switch to anything else atleast for the current releases. Diskeeper is used on my office network, and I have a license on my home system too. As mentioned in another thread, the autodefrag feature is its best point...truly 'intelligent' set it and forget it, doesnt affect performance if it runs in the background even when gaming.

This post has been edited by minotaur: 11 July 2007 - 07:25 AM

[Martin H]

I'm just interessted in finding out which defragger offers the very best manual strategies for a) defragmenting files b] defragmenting/consolidating free space and c) intelligent file placement. I don't personally care which one is the fastest at doing these things. I have decided to leave Diskeeper out of my considerations, since it's not meant to be used manually(and don't support I-FAAST in this mode). My choises are then between PerfectDisk and UltimateDefrag. I have only tried PerfectDisk untill now, and i really like it, but i am just in doubt about if UltimateDefrag is better, and i always tries to find the very best app for each specific task. After i read that UltimateDefrag lets you decide between using either access time or modification date for it's file placement strategy, then that really made me think about if i was currently just using the second best manual defragging app(PerfectDisk) and that i should switch to UltimateDefrag instead. Since i know that Jeremy has both used PerfectDisk for a long time and also has used and knows about UltimateDefrag, then i really hope that he can tell me which is the best of the two for defragging files, defragging free space and doing intelligent file placement.

This post has been edited by Martin H: 07 July 2007 - 01:55 PM

[celtish]

nuhi, on Apr 29 2004, 12:52 PM, said:

Perfect Disk

I'd try it but there is no version for Win98SE

[#rootworm]

i've used PerfectDisk for a long time and have always touted it as being the best....but i just tried UltimateDefrag and i'm very impressed.

here's my take:

PerfectDisk is for intermediate or corporate users. it has nice enterprise features for an organisation, and it's small footprint makes it attractive to saavy home users.

UltimateDefrag is for power users and features the most configurable defrag options i've ever seen. this is for people who know exactly what files/folders they use the most and don't need an algorithm to place their files properly. (even though it does contain a few different algorithms that do just that)

UD was also smart enough to tell me that i have my NTFS last access attributes disabled (with the option to re-enable) and thus can't organize files according to that attribute.

the disc shaped graph is brilliant, now if only they would make one with the right number of platters for your drive.

[Martin H]

Hi #rootworm

Just wanted to say many thanks for your thoughts about these two apps, i really appreciate it

CU, Martin.

[prathapml]

I hope you do realize that the circular display offered by UltimateDefrag is just that - a circular representation of what was shown in square boxes earlier - and both of them show inner tracks & outermost tracks in their own way & are only approximate representations built for eye-candy.

I repeat, neither of them are showing the true placement (they're as approximate as each other....).