Defraggers for XP

[Guest]

I know this is an old and recurring topic, but I would like to get opinions
on whether a third party defragger -- specifically Diskeeper 9.0 and
PerfectDisk 7.0 -- is actually transparently better (meaning noticable,
transparent, objectively measurable, etc.) than the built-in XP defragger.
Both vendors do a good job of touting the advantages of their software over
the XP defragger. They have good reasons for thinking that their product is
better than the built-in defragger. Diskeeper is much easier to schedule,
PerfectDisk does a better job of consolidating free space, both defrag a
handful of system files that the built-in defragger supposedly doesn't touch,
and so on. Yada, yada, yada. But has anyone here actually taken the trouble
to attempt to measure any performance gains?

By way of disclosure, I have used both programs and like them both. I am
currently using PerfectDisk 7.0. It works fine. When I used Diskeeper 9.0,
it worked fine too. When I used the XP defragger, it worked fine, too.

What's the bottom line difference in performance -- transparent, objectively
verifiable, measurable performance -- between or among these three
defraggers? Has anyone tried to measure any such differences? Does the real
difference, if any, come down to the fact that Diskeeper and PerfectDisk are
much easier to schedule, or is more involved?

TIA
Ken

 

[Linda B]

I think when it comes down to it, the main benefits of a third-party tool
are ease of use and extra features. To be perfectly honest, in my
experience defragmentation is *vastly* overrated in terms of usefulness as a
tech support tool. It takes a *lot* (sh*tload) of fragmentation on a drive
for it to adversely affect performance (i.e. to a noticeable degree), and
*any* defragmentation tool is going to consolidate file fragments (that
being the nature of defragmenting).

Being how actual defragmentation is going to result in a very limited amount
of performance boost to begin with, the degree to which any third party tool
is going to result in faster performance than the XP tool is going to be so
small as to be effectively naught -- in any case, too small to be
measurable.

Long story short (too late, I know), the answer is "no." You should use the
program that has the features you like, and if features aren't important to
you, use the "free" built-in XP tool.

HTH.

LB

 

[R. McCarty]

As the single most common performance degrading issue on almost
every PC I work on I take exception to your "Overrated" statement.

Once defragged and run on a schedule (not defined, as it varies based
on disk use), it most definitely contributes to a computer's performance.

After years of working on DEC VAX systems, which by the way used
Raxco defragmenting software, I think I'm qualified to make that global
statement. As to measurable gains, ask one of the hundreds of people
I've helped with their PCs. Quote "Thanks, It runs like it did when it
as new." A good percentage of that gain was achieved by defragmenting
the disk drive.

 

[Gerry Cornell]

Linda

And that fits your pocket?


--


Regards.

Gerry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FCA

Stourport, Worcs, England
Enquire, plan and execute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Linda B]

Huh? Pocket? Wha?

Linda

And that fits your pocket?


--


Regards.

Gerry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FCA

Stourport, Worcs, England
Enquire, plan and execute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Linda B]

On the machines I've worked on where system performance is bad and
defragging the drive resulted in a noticeable gain in performance, the
drives on those machines have been very heavily fragmented. I do realize
that defragmenting a heavily fragmented drive can result in increased system
performance; what I do not agree with is that defragging a drive can result
in fixing broken programs, finding missing files, fixing OS errors, etc --
what I was commenting on is that I see defragmentation prescribed as a
remedy for wider system problems all the time, when in fact fragmentation
has nothing to do with them. In other words, "as a tech support tool", like
I said before -- I probably should have explained myself a little better.

In any case, my previous advice stands, I think: the third party tools and
the XP tool probably defrag a drive exactly the same.

LB

 

[Leythos]

What's the bottom line difference in performance -- transparent, objectively
verifiable, measurable performance -- between or among these three
defraggers? Has anyone tried to measure any such differences? Does the real
difference, if any, come down to the fact that Diskeeper and PerfectDisk are
much easier to schedule, or is more involved?

The bottom line is that Windows Diskkeeper will not move some file while
Diskeeper 9 can be set to fully defrag the disk (all files) and can also
be set to do things in the background that the one included in Windows
cant. I run DK9 on all our servers and heavy disk use workstations.

 

[Guest]

R. McCarty is right. Of all the bottlenecks on a PC, the HD is one of the
biggest. Anything you you do in that area (3rd party defragmenter) is likely
to (noticeably) improve performance.

 

[R. McCarty]

Thanks for the elaboration.

Just one more point & No, I'm not after the last word.

Perfect Disk uses Windows API calls to defrag. But the difference
between Perfect Disk, Diskeeper and O & O is the implementation.
The algorithms used vary between the products. So, the XP Defrag
(which is a scaled down, licensed form of Diskeeper) do not defrag
using the same methodology. The XP defrag does not work with
the $MFT, Pagefile & other core/locked files. For Perfect Disk to
do that, it must run in a pre-GUI session called an Off-Line defrag.
Perfect Disk also consolidates free space, which in effect helps to
prevent/lessen the drive from re-fragmenting. Even "ole" Norton
Speed Disk uses an algorithm different from the products I listed.
You can see this in a real-world environment. Defrag with XP's defrag
tool. Afterwards, defrag with one of the others and you'll notice a
large scale re-placement of files (on a just defragmented drive).
Even within the products themselves are customization options that
modify placement or alter layout based on their interaction with MS's
Prefetcher/Layout.Ini schema.

 

[Gerry Cornell]

Linda

I guess you have a deep purse.

--


Regards.

Gerry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FCA

Stourport, Worcs, England
Enquire, plan and execute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Linda B]

Sorry, Gerry, I'm not following. Could you explain to me exactly *why* I'm
rich? Believe you me, I'd like to know.

 

[Gerry Cornell]

Linda

I was only making the point that many with limited means might do better
to pay for something like more RAM memory than for a marginally better
Disk Defragmenter!

--


Regards.

Gerry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FCA

Stourport, Worcs, England
Enquire, plan and execute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Linda B]

lol... thanks. I needed the point hammered home.

LB

 

[Guest]

I don't question that defragging makes a HD run faster and better. I have
noticed it myself. My question goes more to the narrow question of whether a
third party program like Diskeepr or Raxco is transparently better (i.e.
enough to be noticable to a user) at improving HD performance than the
built-in XP defragger. I am an enthusiastic user of both programs, so I
don't have a dog in the fight other than whether anyone has even tried to
measure the difference, if any, in improvements in performance.

 

[Guest]

I have noticed the same thing (different algorithm for placing files), even
as between the XP defragger and Diskeeper, much less between XP and Raxco.
Now, assuming that Microsoft presumably knows better than anyone else how
files should be defragged and arranged on an XP hard drive, is this a reason
for preferring the XP defragger? Note that the Raxco algorithm (I don't know
about Diskeeper) changes the placement of the layout.ini files on the hard
drive. When I go from Raxco back to native Windows, the first thing it does
is to clear a bunch of space at the beginning of the drive and then moves
other files (presumably prefetch files or layout.ini) to that location. Does
Raxco know something that MS doesn't know, or vice versa?

 

[Linda B]

lol... I'll need to take your word for it -- you obviously know much more
about it than I.

LB

 

[R. McCarty]

About the only technical benchmark would be file access time(s).
Raxco has two tools to measure it with. (1.) A File Access timer
and (2.) A scrambler, to actually fragment your drive for testing.

I've got copies of each program, but can't remember the URL for
downloading. Perhaps those tools would help you lock down a
value.

 

[Guest]

Ken. PC Magazine does their usual (yearly) roundup of utilities like these. I
think they preffered the Raxco Product, if that helps.

 

[Philippe L. Balmanno]

I think when it comes down to it, the main benefits of a third-party tool
are ease of use and extra features. To be perfectly honest, in my
experience defragmentation is *vastly* overrated in terms of usefulness as a
tech support tool. It takes a *lot* (sh*tload) of fragmentation on a drive
for it to adversely affect performance (i.e. to a noticeable degree), and
*any* defragmentation tool is going to consolidate file fragments (that
being the nature of defragmenting).

Being how actual defragmentation is going to result in a very limited amount
of performance boost to begin with, the degree to which any third party tool
is going to result in faster performance than the XP tool is going to be so
small as to be effectively naught -- in any case, too small to be
measurable.

Long story short (too late, I know), the answer is "no." You should use the
program that has the features you like, and if features aren't important to
you, use the "free" built-in XP tool.

HTH.

LB

Maybe for the average joe that does little but email and internet,
strike that I've cleaned up too many average joes computers who never
cleaned temp files and defragged ever. They were ready to trash their
systems after a year and a half. The combination of cleanmgr and defrag
- in what ever form - can significantly help a system that is plagued
with fragmented files. It feels like a crime to charge for these two
simple steps.

 

[Guest]

Thanks. I'll look it up.

Ken. PC Magazine does their usual (yearly) roundup of utilities like these. I
think they preffered the Raxco Product, if that helps.