Any freeware defragger that doesn't leave blank space on the disk?

[Doc]

I tried the Auslogics defragger and while it does seem to work faster
than the default XP defrag utility, like the XP defragger it still
leaves blank spaces. Is there any such thing as a freeware defragger
that doesn't?

 

[Thee Chicago Wolf]

I tried the Auslogics defragger and while it does seem to work faster

than the default XP defrag utility, like the XP defragger it still
leaves blank spaces. Is there any such thing as a freeware defragger
that doesn't?

Try JKDefrag.

- Thee Chicago Wolf

 

[Poprivet`]

Try JKDefrag.

- Thee Chicago Wolf

You know, you don't necessarily want NO blank spaces
between files. It makes fragmentation occur faster
because anything edited that needs to go to disk can't
possibly by put anywhere contiguously.

HTH

Pop`

 

[Xandros]

The GUI representation of the fragmentation is simply - a representation.
Don't place too much stock in what you see displayed. Run defrag
occasionally and it does it's job. If you want to purchase a decent defrag
program with more options go for Raxco Perfect Disk. But really the Windows
Defrag utility is good enough and serves the purpose fine.

 

[Plato]

I tried the Auslogics defragger and while it does seem to work faster
than the default XP defrag utility, like the XP defragger it still
leaves blank spaces. Is there any such thing as a freeware defragger
that doesn't?

There is nothing wrong with the XP defragger. You are simply wasting
your time finding something new.

 

[Poprivet`]

Excellent point. Unless you're exceptionally well
versed in drive structures and usages it's pretty
pointless to try to finesse them. There ARE some that
allow a little more flexibility in where things get
stored on a disk (inside, middle, end, etc) but unless
you're into something that causes almost instant
fragmentation (like video rendering) 99% of users won't
notice much improvement visually or especailly in time
between defrag needs.

HTH

 

[nobody >]

There is nothing wrong with the XP defragger. You are simply wasting
your time finding something new.

Xp's defrag takes at least 3 times longer (if there's any significant
fragmentation) than JKdefrag. Seems to lay out "tracks" for better seeks
as well.

http://www.kessels.com/JkDefrag/ (author's site)

 

[Thee Chicago Wolf]

There is nothing wrong with the XP defragger. You are simply wasting

Xp's defrag takes at least 3 times longer (if there's any significant
fragmentation) than JKdefrag. Seems to lay out "tracks" for better seeks
as well.

http://www.kessels.com/JkDefrag/ (author's site)

The person who said there's nothing better to look for than the MS
defragger obviously is not informed. I've read the info from the
JKDefrag author and his tool's methodology is far more intelligent
than the MS defrag tool even if it uses the same APIs. I've done side
by side on two freshly Ghosted machines; one using XP defrag and one
with JK defrag. JKDefrag finished faster and the machine was bit
speedier in general.

- Thee Chicago Wolf

 

[Plato]

Xp's defrag takes at least 3 times longer (if there's any significant
fragmentation) than JKdefrag. Seems to lay out "tracks" for better seeks
as well.

So what. Set defrag to run before you go out to do your wash.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

So what. Set defrag to run before you go out to do your wash.

This is a good example of the unfortunate (and spreading) attitude that
instead of the desire for and respect for tight code, efficiency and
compactness in software, the refrain becomes "I have lots of speed and
memory so shit software is fine with me".

 

[VanguardLH]

Xp's defrag takes at least 3 times longer (if there's any
significant fragmentation) than JKdefrag.

Your computer is really that busy while you are sleeping?

 

[Plato]

This is a good example of the unfortunate (and spreading) attitude that
instead of the desire for and respect for tight code, efficiency and
compactness in software, the refrain becomes "I have lots of speed and
memory so shit software is fine with me".

OK. Good point. Personally tho, defrag is something you run before you
go to sleep. Just a difference of opinion I suppose.

 

[Thee Chicago Wolf]

OK. Good point. Personally tho, defrag is something you run before you

go to sleep. Just a difference of opinion I suppose.

If the tools that come with the OS are fine for a person's purpose,
that's cool. But there's nothing wrong with using something that
someone's made that improves upon the process. It's also a no-brainer
to set up a scheduled task that runs "defrag.exe c:" as a weekly event
so you never HAVE to defrag manually. ^_~

- Thee Chicago Wolf

 

[Blinky the Shark]

OK. Good point. Personally tho, defrag is something you run before you
go to sleep. Just a difference of opinion I suppose.

My comment wasn't limited to - or really directed at - defraggers (or you
any more than any other guilty party <g>); it was about the
general phenomenon of everyone having so much CPU speed, RAM and drive
space today that good code isn't a goal anymore.

 

[Plato]

If the tools that come with the OS are fine for a person's purpose,
that's cool. But there's nothing wrong with using something that
someone's made that improves upon the process. It's also a no-brainer
to set up a scheduled task that runs "defrag.exe c:" as a weekly event
so you never HAVE to defrag manually. ^_~

Well, if you have it set as a weekly event, do you also have your
systems set to delete all temp/tmp and expecially temporary internet
files?

ie temporary internet files generally take the most amount of time to
defrag on a HDD.

 

[baynole2]

I tried the Auslogics defragger and while it does seem to work faster
than the default XP defrag utility, like the XP defragger it still
leaves blank spaces. Is there any such thing as a freeware defragger
that doesn't?

http://donnedwards.openaccess.co.za/2007/05/great-defrag-shootout-viii-jkdefrag-v38.html

I know nothing myself about this utility, just FYI.

 

[Thee Chicago Wolf]

Well, if you have it set as a weekly event, do you also have your

systems set to delete all temp/tmp and expecially temporary internet
files?

ie temporary internet files generally take the most amount of time to
defrag on a HDD.

Most people who properly secure their browsers, myself included, set
their IE cache to 8MB and enable the feature to blow away all IE cache
when IE is closed so it's never a problem.

- Thee Chicago Wolf

 

[Mitch]

My comment wasn't limited to - or really directed at - defraggers (or you
any more than any other guilty party <g>); it was about the
general phenomenon of everyone having so much CPU speed, RAM and drive
space today that good code isn't a goal anymore.

Isn't it just amazing that program code has bloated so much?
I just checked a decompression tool (as an example of a simple set of
instructions).
It used to take up something around 50KB file size, for very few types.
It today takes up 11.4 MB, for a few dozen types.
RAM usage is probably more of a difference.
It doesn't seem to be any faster (it is being used on larger files, of
course).

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Isn't it just amazing that program code has bloated so much?

I suppose it was predictable with the dying off (or perhaps "dilution"
would be a better description) of the tight-excellent-code component of
the hacker ethic. Now it's just get-it-out-the-door with no place for
code elegance.

 

[Gordon]

I suppose it was predictable with the dying off (or perhaps "dilution"
would be a better description) of the tight-excellent-code component of
the hacker ethic. Now it's just get-it-out-the-door with no place for
code elegance.

I don't think that's the main reason - in the old old days of the IBM XT the
developer had to write applications that ran in 640k RAM and off a 5.25"
floppy.....
Now with 4GB RAM easily available and 400 GB HDDs common, there's no need
for discipline in code writing....