[Jeremy]

I stopped using it at 3.16. I just do not have confidence in the developer's ability to properly code the application.

[RJARRRPCGP]

Jeremy, on Sep 30 2007, 11:55 PM, said:

I stopped using it at 3.16. I just do not have confidence in the developer's ability to properly code the application.

That's a shame! Because my file system appears to be fine after running JKDefrag 3.26 and the author told me that the beginning of the HDD is at the bottom. Also, no error messages from Windows 2000 about corruption, unlike Ultra Defrag, which you need to avoid like the plague!

Ultra Defrag, on the other hand, appears to be using a buggy IO driver and yes, Ultra Defrag does appear to make Windows 2000 peed!

This post has been edited by RJARRRPCGP: 01 October 2007 - 12:51 PM

[MrCobra]

I'm partial to the most recent version of Diskeeper. It's set to keep my system continually defragged without my intervention.

[DickDiver]

Hello

I was for years big fan of PerfectDisk until I realized that its algorithm made me wonder. As said before putting/moving often used files (monitored by a service of PD I guess and optionally by Windows 's boottime defrag ->prefetch) to the outer rings is a good idea as far as I can say to improve file access and bootime of often used files.
But despite this the way to order the other files is well ok but not may be perfect. Good for furhter defragmentations but not for a speedy access. Therefore I went to UltimateDefrag.
I liked its capabilities and methods to defrag. Especially by recency. I respect layout.ini and I put 10% of the other most used data to the outer rings. Rest goes out of the way into the inner ones.
I thought this is the best method to gain best boot performance and app start times on other partitions like my D:\ where I have all my programs and profiles (unattendet Nlite install .

But the I read here about AUTO defrag of UD and tried it out with V1.64.
First, it takes ages on a small 10 gig partition.
Sedond, I notices that files are moved to the outer/fast rings I haven't touched or used for ages ?! How does that come?

I dont know if V1.64 is broken but the file organisation is very mysterious for me. I used auto with 10% most freq. used data to the outer rings and layout.ini respected.

PS: As mentioned I use an unattendet Nlite install of WinXP sp2 pro. I opted for a install without bootime defragmention initiated by Windows own process and disabled it in Nlite. So I checked the reg key for that and they weren't existent. So can that be a reason for this behaviout though I is said that UD works best with win's own bootime defragmention disabled? Though it hasn't an own service to monitor file use as eg. PerfectDisk has?
Does UD refer and relate only on data in win's prefetch dir?

greetz
DD

[cyberloner]

i just tested o&o defrag software...
it have the function as auto defrag ... and use low resources
i just think u guys should go check it out too....
nah it want me to click oneclickdefrag switch... not same as diskeeper 2007/2008
still diskeeper da best

This post has been edited by cyberloner: 27 October 2007 - 07:42 AM

[mamas6667]

K.I.S.S.

Contig 1.54 by Sysinternals/now microsoft owned :-(

PowerDefragmenterGUI 2.0.125 by excessive-software

Copy contig.exe inside PowerDefragmenterGUI's folder and you are ready to use it! place this folder anywhere you like!

Very fast, Freeware. and small 604 KB for both apps

Doesn't install services like other Defragmenters :-)

Avoid anything automatic, it makes computers dumb, ppl too!

This post has been edited by mamas6667: 30 October 2007 - 03:53 PM

[DickDiver]

hello

I am still wondering if UltimateDefrag's auto defrag is broken. Any comments?
Nevertheless, I had a look at Diskkeeper and they say that the 'zone' for fastest file access depends. Well.... But as far as I could see DK depends mostly on automatism. But I cant say that this grasps at eg. 40% free ressources (CPU etc.). I mean when my PC is running I am working, there is no idle time for DK to start working
SO I don't know if DK or O&O is an goog alternative to have fastes file (tools&programms & boottime) access. Not to mention they are expensive. Extreme.

[joe tweaker]

Is there any concensus as to the best defragger which runs on Windows 98/SE???
I'm still using Norton Speed Disk from System Works 2002.
I tried Diskkeeper Lite (the free one) and didn't like it.

[joe tweaker]

Hello? Any other 98/SE users here?

[anonymous_user]

What is the best free defragmentation program for Windows 98 besides D

Defragmenter for Win98SE

[urglik]

Auslogics Disk Degragmenter

[cbosdell]

the defragmenter in TuneUp Utilities 2008 works great!

[Extravert]

None of them.

My favorit defragmenter is the one who cames with Paragon Partition Manager.
Just from a bootable ISO and works like a charm.
It won't defrag on filebase, but on low-level base (a huge difference kind of matter)

[Ludwig Von Cookie Koopa]

I store video clips and sound files and the last time I defraged my HD it scrambled the files.

Defraging aranges the data chunks so that it is in order and thus you have a slightly faster exprience of using your computer. But Files are in chains and thus the defraging moves the cluster at which the file is stored.

[Martin H]

Ludwig Von Cookie Koopa, on Jan 9 2008, 06:39 PM, said:

I store video clips and sound files and the last time I defraged my HD it scrambled the files.
[...]But Files are in chains and thus the defraging moves the cluster at which the file is stored.

Sorry, but that's not correct... Files dosen't get scrambled by defragging them and if they do, then the app is seriously broken. Practically all defraggers makes use of Microsoft's defragging API's, and those API's are 100% safe, as they make sure that every piece of moved data isn't deleted untill it has been first verified to be written correctly. Also, the filesystem can easilly keep track of all files and folders, no matter where they are moved to, as that's what the filesystem is explicitly designed for...

[Ludwig Von Cookie Koopa]

This is me Defraging with the built in 98 defrager. After the few times this occured I quit defragging. My pc runs faster alone without defragging.

[Jeremy]

Ludwig Von Cookie Koopa, on Jan 9 2008, 10:32 PM, said:

This is me Defraging with the built in 98 defrager. After the few times this occured I quit defragging. My pc runs faster alone without defragging.

[Martin H]

@Ludwig Von Cookie Koopa

I was expecting that you where using a NTFS filesystem... Defragging with Microsoft's defragging API's on a NTFS filesystem should be absolutely safe, unless the used app is seriously broken and dosen't make use of the API's propperly. However, something like a power failure can become a problem on FAT filesystems, though...

@All

Anyway, just wanted to say that UltimateDefrag hasn't got that reg-entry dependency anymore, which i posted about previously in this thread, and so now the single exe can run without the need for exporting a regfile

I'm personally still using UltimateDefrag, as it IMHO does a very good job at defragging and optimizing the filesystem and while still being wery slim and unbloated and without needing any extra background processes and last but not least, since the UI drive representation can't be beaten I use UltimateDefrags 'Recency' mode, and leaves the settings as per default, which then mimmicks the fileplacement scheme used by Perfectdisk, as i most preffer that kinda scheme, since it will make feuture defrags faster and since i don't really like to place any files on the most slower part of the harddrive(the inner tracks - called 'archive' in UltimateDefrag), as i'm only using about 10% of the drivespace on my two partitions.

[Jeremy]

Martin H, a well-informed position on the similarities between defragmenters and knowing what is best for the harddrive.
You're alright.

[Martin H]

@jeremy

Thank you very much, my friend

CU, Martin.