Defragging with Windows Defragger

[drybones]

Is there a "better" defragmentation tool available and/or,
are purchased defraggers a "waste" of money?

Thanks for reading and replying,
drybones

 

[Ted Zieglar]

You realize, of course, that the answer to your question is a matter of
opinion. There is no right or wrong answer. You'll have to decide what
makes most sense for you.

You haven't told us anything about how you use the computer in question.
Is it a standalone home PC? Networked? A server? And what applications
do you typically use? All this weighs in your decision.

For a standalone home PC in its typical use (e.g., office applications,
surfing, email/newsgroups) Windows' own defragmenter is all you need.
There's nothing wrong in installing a third-party defragger, but don't
expect to say "wow!" afterwards.

It's a different story if, for example, the computer is a web server
getting lots of hits in a day. In that case, you want some heavy duty
defragging, so a third-party defragger is a very good idea.

My home computer is more than 4 years old, and in all that time I have
relied exclusively on the defrags that Windows own defragmenter performs
in the background. I have manually defragged exactly twice: once after
installing Service Pack 2 and one other time just for the heck of it.
And I use my computer extensively nearly every day.

To see if I was missing out on something, I recently installed
Diskeeper, a highly reviewed (and justifiable so) third-party
defragmenter. (The program has a 15 day free trial.) The first thing I
did after installing the program was to have it analyze my hard disk.

Here's what Diskeeper had to say about my hard disk:

Volume System (C - this is my system partition

"Fragmentation percentage:
Volume fragmentation = 0 %
Data fragmentation = 0 %"

"This is a slightly fragmented volume."

"The overall health of volume C: is not currently affected
by fragmentation due to the low level of fragmentation.
There are no volume health issues related to fragmentation."

Volume Files (D - this is my data partition

"Fragmentation percentage:
Volume fragmentation = 0 %
Data fragmentation = 0 %"

"This is a slightly fragmented volume."

"The overall health of volume D: is not currently affected
by fragmentation due to the low level of fragmentation."

Not bad after 4 years of nothing fancier than Windows defragmenter!

Microsoft's original design goal for Windows XP was to boot to a usable
state in 30 seconds. I do that in 53 seconds...but I also load lots of
software at startup, like my firewall, antivirus and antispyware
programs, among others, that add substantially to startup time. All
things considered, 53 seconds is pretty da*n good. If Diskeeper improved
my startup time, it was by less than I could measure with my watch.

See also "Don’t Become a Defrag Junkie", by Microsoft MVP Hans Michna
http://winhlp.com/WxDefrag.htm

[And for the techies out there who want to know about my paging file,
this was Diskeeper's analysis:

Volume Paging (G

Congratulations! There are no excess file or directory
fragments on this volume. The files on this volume are as
defragmented as possible.]

 

[drybones]

Many Thanks Ted.
I suspected as much but just HAD to ask.
And yes my machine is a Home Desktop that I play games on as well
as the usual internet connectivity and much Word processing.

Files are changing quite a bit with the additional D/L of material and
for games, the addition of modifications sometimes plentiful, etc..

Will continue with MS Defragger. Noticed that you said, "background
defrag". I thought it is best to do defrag while 'not' working the
computer at the same time.

drybones

You realize, of course, that the answer to your question is a matter of
opinion. There is no right or wrong answer. You'll have to decide what
makes most sense for you.

You haven't told us anything about how you use the computer in question.
Is it a standalone home PC? Networked? A server? And what applications do
you typically use? All this weighs in your decision.

For a standalone home PC in its typical use (e.g., office applications,
surfing, email/newsgroups) Windows' own defragmenter is all you need.
There's nothing wrong in installing a third-party defragger, but don't
expect to say "wow!" afterwards.

It's a different story if, for example, the computer is a web server
getting lots of hits in a day. In that case, you want some heavy duty
defragging, so a third-party defragger is a very good idea.

My home computer is more than 4 years old, and in all that time I have
relied exclusively on the defrags that Windows own defragmenter performs
in the background. I have manually defragged exactly twice: once after
installing Service Pack 2 and one other time just for the heck of it. And
I use my computer extensively nearly every day.

To see if I was missing out on something, I recently installed Diskeeper,
a highly reviewed (and justifiable so) third-party defragmenter. (The
program has a 15 day free trial.) The first thing I did after installing
the program was to have it analyze my hard disk.

Here's what Diskeeper had to say about my hard disk:

Volume System (C - this is my system partition

"Fragmentation percentage:
Volume fragmentation = 0 %
Data fragmentation = 0 %"

"This is a slightly fragmented volume."

"The overall health of volume C: is not currently affected
by fragmentation due to the low level of fragmentation.
There are no volume health issues related to fragmentation."

Volume Files (D - this is my data partition

"Fragmentation percentage:
Volume fragmentation = 0 %
Data fragmentation = 0 %"

"This is a slightly fragmented volume."

"The overall health of volume D: is not currently affected
by fragmentation due to the low level of fragmentation."

Not bad after 4 years of nothing fancier than Windows defragmenter!

Microsoft's original design goal for Windows XP was to boot to a usable
state in 30 seconds. I do that in 53 seconds...but I also load lots of
software at startup, like my firewall, antivirus and antispyware programs,
among others, that add substantially to startup time. All things
considered, 53 seconds is pretty da*n good. If Diskeeper improved my
startup time, it was by less than I could measure with my watch.

See also "Don’t Become a Defrag Junkie", by Microsoft MVP Hans Michna
http://winhlp.com/WxDefrag.htm

[And for the techies out there who want to know about my paging file, this
was Diskeeper's analysis:

Volume Paging (G

Congratulations! There are no excess file or directory
fragments on this volume. The files on this volume are as
defragmented as possible.]

---
Ted Zieglar
"Backup is a computer user's best friend."

Is there a "better" defragmentation tool available and/or,
are purchased defraggers a "waste" of money?

Thanks for reading and replying,
drybones

 

[Ted Zieglar]

When doing a manual defrag there should be no other applications open.
In fact, many do their defrags in safe mode.

Windows defragger performs defrags in the background when it detects the
computer is idle. It's not the same as a manual defrag, and certainly
not like a third-party defragger...but it's enough for many people.

I don't want to discourage you or anyone else from manually
defragmenting your hard disk with Windows defragmenter or from using a
third-party program. You're certainly not doing yourself any harm, and
defragmenting is always a good thing. My point was: Don't feel like you
must have a third-party defragger to get the maximum performance from
your computer.
---
Ted Zieglar
"Backup is a computer user's best friend."

Many Thanks Ted.
I suspected as much but just HAD to ask.
And yes my machine is a Home Desktop that I play games on as well
as the usual internet connectivity and much Word processing.

Files are changing quite a bit with the additional D/L of material and
for games, the addition of modifications sometimes plentiful, etc..

Will continue with MS Defragger. Noticed that you said, "background
defrag". I thought it is best to do defrag while 'not' working the
computer at the same time.

drybones

You realize, of course, that the answer to your question is a matter of
opinion. There is no right or wrong answer. You'll have to decide what
makes most sense for you.

You haven't told us anything about how you use the computer in question.
Is it a standalone home PC? Networked? A server? And what applications do
you typically use? All this weighs in your decision.

For a standalone home PC in its typical use (e.g., office applications,
surfing, email/newsgroups) Windows' own defragmenter is all you need.
There's nothing wrong in installing a third-party defragger, but don't
expect to say "wow!" afterwards.

It's a different story if, for example, the computer is a web server
getting lots of hits in a day. In that case, you want some heavy duty
defragging, so a third-party defragger is a very good idea.

My home computer is more than 4 years old, and in all that time I have
relied exclusively on the defrags that Windows own defragmenter performs
in the background. I have manually defragged exactly twice: once after
installing Service Pack 2 and one other time just for the heck of it. And
I use my computer extensively nearly every day.

To see if I was missing out on something, I recently installed Diskeeper,
a highly reviewed (and justifiable so) third-party defragmenter. (The
program has a 15 day free trial.) The first thing I did after installing
the program was to have it analyze my hard disk.

Here's what Diskeeper had to say about my hard disk:

Volume System (C - this is my system partition

"Fragmentation percentage:
Volume fragmentation = 0 %
Data fragmentation = 0 %"

"This is a slightly fragmented volume."

"The overall health of volume C: is not currently affected
by fragmentation due to the low level of fragmentation.
There are no volume health issues related to fragmentation."

Volume Files (D - this is my data partition

"Fragmentation percentage:
Volume fragmentation = 0 %
Data fragmentation = 0 %"

"This is a slightly fragmented volume."

"The overall health of volume D: is not currently affected
by fragmentation due to the low level of fragmentation."

Not bad after 4 years of nothing fancier than Windows defragmenter!

Microsoft's original design goal for Windows XP was to boot to a usable
state in 30 seconds. I do that in 53 seconds...but I also load lots of
software at startup, like my firewall, antivirus and antispyware programs,
among others, that add substantially to startup time. All things
considered, 53 seconds is pretty da*n good. If Diskeeper improved my
startup time, it was by less than I could measure with my watch.

See also "Don’t Become a Defrag Junkie", by Microsoft MVP Hans Michna
http://winhlp.com/WxDefrag.htm

[And for the techies out there who want to know about my paging file, this
was Diskeeper's analysis:

Volume Paging (G

Congratulations! There are no excess file or directory
fragments on this volume. The files on this volume are as
defragmented as possible.]

---
Ted Zieglar
"Backup is a computer user's best friend."

Is there a "better" defragmentation tool available and/or,
are purchased defraggers a "waste" of money?

Thanks for reading and replying,
drybones

 

[Alec S.]

Is there a "better" defragmentation tool available?

Sure, there's plenty.

are purchased defraggers a "waste" of money?

Maybe, maybe not. There are free ones and commercial ones. Some are good, some are great, and some are no so. You have to
remember that this is your data being scrambled around the disk so a defragmenter is a critical piece of software. Think of it as
the Transporters in Star Trek; you would only use a transporter that you can be sure is good since it's scrambling your body's
molecules.


If you decide to get a freeware defragmenter, remember that you get what you pay for. There are some free ones that are great and
have a dedicated following, but they are also usually developed by a single person at home as a hobby. They don't have the ability
to test on lots of systems, nor can they afford the time or money to make sure it's perfect.


The best known commercial defragmenter is Executive Software's Diskkeeper. It's been around for a while (it's at version 10 now),
so most of the bugs are worked out. It's more or less one of the safest ones to use now, however even they include a disclaimer
that they are not responsible for any loss as a result of using their software. You should also be aware that Microsoft's own
defragmenter that is included with 2000 and XP, is in fact a copy of Diskkeeper. You'll notice that they look a lot alike because
Microsoft actually licensed a version of Diskkeeper just like they did for several other parts of Windows (they don't write their
own software for everything). As a result, unless you need the newer features of Diskkeeper, Defrag is good enough.

Defragmentation is a slow, boring process and it's best not to use the system while it's happening. The defrag included with XP is
even more boring. The one from older versions (9x) was more interesting. It had a nice graphical, colorful depiction of the blocks
which you could watch being moved around, and see the status and know how close it is to being done. A lot of defragmenters
reproduce this effect.


My personal favorite is Goldenbow's VoptXP. It's a good defragmenter that has the display of the 9x defrag, includes check-disk
options, and a variety of other safety, repair, and cleanup options. It can defrag many partition types and is good at dealing with
many nuances that others don't always take into account like NTFS ADS, temporarily deleting hiberfil.sys to free up space, etc.
It's a great value if you decide to buy one.


The best advice I can give is to pick a few good ones based on reviews. Next, backup any important data, then try them on a test
partition. See how it is, how fast it is, how it feels, the options available, the price, and how safe it is. If you find one you
like, great, if not, then the Windows default is good enough for most purposes.


HTH