Defragmentation software for Windows XP?

[Ken]

I am aware that there has been lots of debate as to whether defragging
is necessary, but if one chooses to use such software, what is the
latest and greatest in the defrag software wars?

Thanks
Ken K

 

[Unknown]

Best and most trouble free is included with XP.

 

[db.·.. >]

there is no debate
on the benefits of
defraging the disk:

http://onecare.live.com/site/en-US/article/defraghd.htm

here is more tools
offered by microsoft:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/tips/defrag.mspx

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspx

 

[JS]

The defrag wars have pretty much come to an end. Most defragmentation
software use an API named Movefile. Which limits what a defrag tool running
in Windows XP is allowed to do.

"The MoveFile API implements a set of rules for moving files while the OS is
active. By nature, the MoveFile API presents challenges because it requires
that the OS move data 16 clusters at a time. Therefore, even for online
de-fragmentation, utilities that use the MoveFile API must do extra work to
arrange files contiguously. A more serious problem, however, is that the
MoveFile API contains no provisions for moving system files. The inability
to manipulate these system files decreases the effectiveness of
de-fragmentation utilities. A highly fragmented page file, for example,
becomes a huge obstacle because it fragments available free space, and a
de-fragmentation utility cannot find contiguous space to place data files.
To completely understand this problem, you need to look at the
characteristics of specific system files."
Full article:
http://www.vista-xp.co.uk/forums/technical-reference-library/2169-cluster-size-exposed.html

Diskeeper: http://www.diskeeper.com/defrag.asp
This is the full version of what is built into Windows XP and can defrag
system files which XP built-in defrag utility can not.

Free: PageDefrag:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspx

JS
www.pagestart.com

 

[Alec S.]

Full article:

http://www.vista-xp.co.uk/forums/technical-reference-library/2169-cluster-size-exposed.html



That was an interesting read. I still use FAT32 and DOS, so I can fully defrag
(at most it takes a few manual steps). Unfortunately, since most people are
moving to Windows-only-with-NTFS, and the increasing size of hard drives, it’s
going to become more of an issue.

The most important factor in keeping drives unfragmented is partitioning.
Keeping the OS and data separate, and using a dedicated drive for the pagefile
(either physical or logical) will immensely help defragging be faster and more
effective; it will even help avoid needing to defrag at all.

 

[Lil' Dave]

Well, let's see here. Active system files not able to be defragmented,
pretty much the norm if the defragmenter operated within that same MS
operating system and came with the MS operating system. Some pay for 3rd
party defragmenters can though. The vast majority of help provided here
suggests or even says NTFS is best. So, such can't be defragmented by msdos
type of boot disk with defragmenter. Yes, I know. Its one of those
freebies that someone can put together. Can't have that. Same story,
different day (SSDD)

 

[Gerry]

JS

I found this link an interesting read.
http://www.vista-xp.co.uk/forums/technical-reference-library/2169-cluster-size-exposed.html


--
Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[JS]

Thanks but that is the same link I included in my post.

JS

 

[Arno Wagner]

I am aware that there has been lots of debate as to whether defragging
is necessary, but if one chooses to use such software, what is the
latest and greatest in the defrag software wars?

The included defragger is not very good, but should do in
most situations. It also seems it only rarely trashed the disk.
Woth other solutions the riosk may be higher and less reported,
because they see less use.

Arno

 

[beamish]

I am aware that there has been lots of debate as to whether defragging
is necessary, but if one chooses to use such software, what is the
latest and greatest in the defrag software wars?

Thanks
Ken K

Hello,

Pagdfrg,Microsoft sysinternals and Http://www.kessels.com
for JKDefrag, free defrag tool.
Two tools that are free and useful.

take care.
beamish.

 

[CJT]

The included defragger is not very good, but should do in
most situations. It also seems it only rarely trashed the disk.
Woth other solutions the riosk may be higher and less reported,
because they see less use.

Arno

I use Samba to serve up files. That way I never have to defrag.

 

[Gerry]

JS

I was just making clear which of the links you posted I found
interesting, not offering you another. I was surprised that I had not
come across the link before given that it dates from 2004. It is in tune
with my thinking on defragmenting but goes further adding a number of
practical suggestions for ways to work around problems one can
encounter. Thanks again.


~~~~


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[JS]

Sorry, I misunderstood.

As an FYI
It was about 2004 than Norton's Speed Disk defragmenter changed the way it
performed (lost a lot of what I liked). It took some 6 months before
Symantec finally owned up to the fact that they dropped there method of
moving files and started using the Microsoft API named Movefile.

JS

 

[Galen Somerville]

Hello,

Pagdfrg,Microsoft sysinternals and Http://www.kessels.com
for JKDefrag, free defrag tool.
Two tools that are free and useful.

take care.
beamish.

I use Vopt from goldenbow

Galen

 

[Professor Digby]

Best and most trouble free is included with XP.

Most trouble free, perhaps, but not the best. The defrag in XP is just a
lite version of Diskeeper. Perfectdisk is faster and has smart layout so is
better IMO.

 

[Unknown]

How is it better? The objective is to defrag and the defrag program within
XP does exactly that.
Of course if you want to donate money to all the companies selling snakeoil,
be my guest.

 

[Ed Light]

jkdefrag GUI is ok. Be sure to get that GUI version. It's free.
--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org
http://antiwar.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org

Send spam to the FTC at
(e-mail address removed)
Thanks, robots.

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was Friday, December 19, 2008 9:59:49 AM, and on a
whim, Unknown pounded out on the keyboard:

How is it better? The objective is to defrag and the defrag program within
XP does exactly that.
Of course if you want to donate money to all the companies selling snakeoil,
be my guest.

Defrag won't defragment the MFT. Nor can you sort, place files first,
files last, etc. And some programs that do that don't charge either.

Ultimate Defrag has a free version that offers those options and more.
jkDefrag is also good but doesn't touch the MFT. They do what they
claim. No "snakeoil".

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[shawn]

jkdefrag GUI is ok. Be sure to get that GUI version. It's free.

You could also try Defraggler. http://www.defraggler.com/

It can defrag a disk, or a single/set of files from a GUI.

 

[Unknown]

The probability of the MFT requiring defragging is very remote since disk
space is saved for it.
Sorting files to put them first, last or wherever wouldn't save enough time
to be measurable. IE. Perhaps
100 milliseconds in a day. I think it more important to rely on Microsoft
for support, updates etc. than to clutter up
your system with a lot of 3rd party programs.