If you really like this software say thanks to developers - pay for it

Disk Keeper all the way

Diskeeper doesn't work with my WinXP SP2 cause a MMC error...

I'm trying PerfectDisk...

MMC error is fixed in latest diskeeper version... 10.0.608.....
Means it is still the best one

I never defrag and should, I know I know, which is why
I have ended up here.

Diskeeper wins the vote but people complain about "services"
and VBS files to sort it if you use VMware and/or nLite?

I use VMware and nLite quite a lot so, don't use Diskeeper?

Will it interfere with nLite and VMware?

I tried O&O, it was OK I guess but people's votes here
say Diskeeper. I guess I could read all 24 pages of this
thread to find out why Diskeeper is the most popular but
that does not necessarily mean its the best, look at
Backstreet Boys if you want proof that the most popular
isn't always the best

So whats the most effective, Diskeeper?!

I am trying Perfectdisk (#2 here) and it apparently
moves more commonly accessed files to the frint of
the drive... O&O boasts features (they boast, not me)
other defrag tools do not feature, sheesh, its confusing!

I suppose Diskeeper is the best one. BTW I tried the free
Auslogics one and O&O still said it was fragmented after
using Auslogics, hmmmmm....

PerfectDisk 8 vs. Diskeeper 10 (PDF)
Another one.

This post has been edited by Jeremy: Sep 30 2006, 01:57 PM

The first document is very very misleading...for example...


Why does Diskeeper's 'yes" not have the extra quote after it?


Some of Diskeeper's features that are misrepresented:

• Patented File Placement Strategy: Yes. It's called I-FAAST. Did Raxco completely forget about this?
• Consolidate Free Space Defrag: Yes (it's an option - set your secondary defrag schedule to "Comprehensive")
• Defragments with as little as 5% free space: No, but it only needs 10%. 20% or more is recommended, but not required. The document says it needs 15-20... which is wrong.

And both of them are done by Raxco... not a third party group.

Diskeeper really turned me off with versions 9 and 10. First the ugly interface, then the extremely confusing menus and options that made it hard to find what you needed and how to use certain features.

O&O Defrag is great; has a good interface, and does a good job. It doesn't have a boot option, but maybe it's unnecessary.

I need to try out PerfectDisk 8. Version 7 was decent, but didn't seem to defragment as many things as the others.

Hehehe, people try to convince themselves of many things just to feel more comfortable with the program they're using. Please don't interpret that as me saying O&O isn't a good program, I've never used it.
My point is, Boot-Time Defragmenting (system files, page file, metadata, MFT, hibernation file) is necessary on occasion.

Point noted, and promptly discarded. You draw an unreasonable conclusion here, and it appears that you don't even know exactly what is getting defragmented or why you would need to defragment those things. Or I guess "occassion" really means "times that could possibly never occur or would only happen in certain situations".

Perhaps you have just conviced yourself that the magic of boot-time defragging is more than what reality carries. Hmm, or could it be that your current defragging program just sucks? The world may never know.

This post has been edited by Lamer: Oct 5 2006, 02:07 PM

I don't know what gets defragmented? Did you even read the post? The program tells you what gets defragmented.
(system files, page file, metadata, MFT, hibernation file)
I use Diskeeper, and it by no means, sucks.
I take you can't stand to even be suggested by someone else what to do. I don't care if you never run a boot-time defrag. I use my PC everyday and the more programs you install, uninstall, the more you copy, modify, delete files, extract, compress, encrypt, decrypt, etc... metadata fragments especially. Metadata can only be defragmented during what PerfectDisk calls an Offline Defrag, and what Diskeeper calls Boot-Time Defrag. For that reason alone, ocassionally means either once a week, once every 2 weeks, once a month, all depending on how often you do the above-mentioned operations on your computer.

Yeah, uhh, it's telling you what it defragments. You're just applying your own program's stuff to others like it's definitive.

By no means? Ok dude, I guess you have convinced yourself beyond reason.

You didn't tell me what to do. You simply described my viewpoint as a logical fallacy based on self-delusion.

Based on this very limited description, I have concluded that you know very little about how the metadata is placed, how much of it there is, or what kind of effect it has on the system. Basically you are blowing boot-time defragging way out of proportion here.

This post has been edited by Lamer: Oct 6 2006, 06:24 PM

It's not my program, it's one of several good defragmenter applications.


Diskeeper is written by the same people who wrote the defrag API for Windows and it defrags automatically on-the-fly in the background while impacting system performance at a minimal rate. So in other words, it doesn't suck at what it does. There, I didn't use "by no means". Feel better?

Ok, for some reason, you seem to have interpreted what I said as a major insult to your intelligence or pride or whatever, and in return, feel it necessary to attack me with claims that I'm delussional.
When you said:
it seemed to me like you were dismissing it's lack of ability to perform a boot-time defrag to reinforce the reason to use the application. From experience of defragging many harddrives on many machines, boot-time defrag helps. If the defragger can't do a boot-time defrag, then I personally wouldn't use it. If you feel boot-time defragging is pointless, then so be it.


Ohh! You got me! I don't really know much about it, other than that it seems to fragment a lot frequently. You don't have to understand the pH level of citric acid in order to know that eating an orange is healthy for you.
But since you seem to be the expert on all this, I suggest you share your share your prowess. Proceed, master.

This post has been edited by Jeremy: Oct 6 2006, 07:37 PM

Actually, O&O defrag has boot -time defragmentation, it is just now made more automatic and there is no special setup for it.
Plus, it does some great part of metadata defragmentation in online mode(for XP and 2003 only), so offline run is not so often necessary.

That all doesn't change the fact that all above mentioned defrag softwares do suck. Because, unless you are running a file server or something like that, constant running of defrag services is just a display of developer's megalomania, nothing more. O&O's five defrag modes are plain ridiculous(at least for home user), PD does the boot file layout in the way that actually decreases performance.
Plus, the self comparative reviews they make, are all ridiculous at best - at the level of what you can read for some internet booster, which would increase the speed by 300%.

At this point, I'm finished posting in this topic because defragmenters have been beaten around as much as IE has when people have debated whether to use that or Firefox. I don't think anyone really knows whatdefrag program is truly the best. Until someone finds a way to properly test each one while working around the countless factors that would interfere, I'm not saying another word here.

The question is - for whom the best? For the manufacturer it is the one that brings more money, and thats what they are. It is all based on the known psychosis that some program will magically enhance your system. That is how all the junk like system cleaners and boosters are sold, and that is how defragmenters are sold to home users too - with not very honest advertising methods.
I am not talking here about servers, where the situation is completely different.

Now, just think about this - you are nLiting your Windows to carefully delete unnecessary services. Then, you agree to run unnecessary defragmenter services?

Most of the tests are made with specially junked disks (not defragmented with Windows defrag, as it should be), defragmenting methods are not clearly explained, etc.
But even with all that - it is quite clear which of defragnmenters is the best and in what.

PD have the best boot-time defrag method, because it properly places MFT and optimizes its size, too.
But its smart placement is a nonsense for home user, and boot file optimization simply does not work - it actually reduces perfomance, compared to Windows defrag.
Then, PD allows to stop its scheduling service(it will auto run when PD starts, if set to manual start), boot file optimization can be disabled (set to 'let Windows manage'), and smart placement can be disabled by altering rare/often modified to 1/0 days.


Diskeeper with its I-FAAST would without any doubt the absolutely best idea, but...again, it is ok for servers, not home user computers. It is a sick idea to imagine that some kind of monitoring would be going on during the normal activity. And Diskeeper's services cannot be simply stopped - you will need then manually start them before starting DK.

If they made it like stand - alone application, where you launched I-FAAST manually, to monitor your system while you are performing those tasks where most speed is necessary, and then used acquired information for manual (or scheduled) defragmenting, it would without any doubt, be the best.

But till then, or when somebody will make nLite for defrag, it will be Windows s..t, that is the best.
Because, at least you can start it when you want, and stop when the job is done. If money is not a concern, stopped PD is a nice thing, too.

Yes, myself and many others are very aware that companies will say anything about products to sell it to consumers, no surprise there. As for system cleaners, the ones that are payware are trash, just copies of each other, same features. CCleaner is THE best because it is freeware and not only removes all Windows junk/cache/temp, but allows you to add folders to remove, has recognition of dozens of third-party tools, allows you uninstall things that don't show up in your Add/Remove, even lets you rename them! Also has a very safe registry cleaner which I use as well.
You do emphasize on how some companies use false-advertising and how most system cleaners are junk, but there ARE good ones, and that's what I like to do... tell their story.


I use nLite to remove a lot more than just Services, and just last night I spent an hour going through every component, Googling things and totally revamped my removal selection. I have kept about 50 MBs worth of files compared to what I kept a year ago, including several Services. I don't agree that defragmenter Services are 'unnecessary'. I use Diskeeper and it adds only one Service, which is set to Automatic. Diskeeper monitors the overall fragmentation level of the harddrive and kicks in the defrag on the fly in the background. The impact this has on system performance is negligable, especially for my system which has 2 GBs of RAM. Considering that, I wouldn't say the Service is useless.
PerfectDisk adds two Services (PDAgent.exe, PDSched.exe) and both of them can be set to Manual without affecting the functionality of PD at all.


I'd like to remind everyone who is paying attention to these topics that regardless of how we all feel about these defragmenters, we really don't know how they are coded and how exactly they interact with Windows. Also, you're statement here is opinionated and biased. It would be nice if someone actually came up with a way to compare defragmenters.


See, I've noticed the opposite when using PerfectDisk in the past. It has actually made my system seem faster.

Yes, as stated above.


Again, your opinion, not fact. Zxian says his PC seems faster over a period of about a month after using I-FAAST. Sick idea? How is it sick? Monitoring does go on, as I've stated above, and it has a negligable affect on system performance, at least those with high hardware specs.


Sure, for you, but not for the typical Joe Blow general user.


lol, you call it s*** and the best at the same time. That's not confusing or anything.
You can configure Diskeeper to either use I-FAAST or not. It's not a feature that is started automatically and gives you hassle to stop/disable, unlike Norton. PerfectDisk is the same way. Diskeeper stops once the job is finished.
Question, are you speaking only from what you have read from other people, or have you actually tried PD and DK? It just seems to me like you're not solid in what you say.

Thanks for that. I just bought DK10 PP and I am very pleased with it, and yes I do not like the service, but it only uses a few MB.


First link is SOOO BIASED!

Just like this: http://www.raxco.com/products/perfectdisk2k/comparedk.cfm.

Yes, it is.
And I have actually sent an e-mail to Raxco, received a response, but it was mostly biased as I expected it to be, even quoting exact references from both the program and the website. I also found it strange how they represent perfectDisk, but were explaining to me how Diskeeper functions and how it doesn't do anything as good as PerfectDisk. I told her that if all she would give me was biased statements, than I would not require anything else from her.

may i know why perfectdisk is better than diskeeper?
diskeeper always use low cpu usage.......

This post has been edited by cyberloner: Oct 11 2006, 01:22 AM