Which product is the best disk defragger and optimizer?

[Lemon Jelly]

DILIP - typed:

Ah Paul, maybe you've stopped looking at just about the wrong time.
VoptXP is just about the best defragmenting software I have used yet,
and I have tried all the major ones. They might no have a fancy
website or a flashy interface, but their product speaks for itself.
Nothing beats Vopt for speed yet, IMHO. This might be debatable, but
I would also like to point out that defragging the pagefile, MFT and
hibernate file does not do *anything* to increase performance on my
system - It seems to be more psychological than anything else.
However. I like the way you can cross out folders not to be defragged
in PD 6. Vopt's way of entering the path for exclusion is slightly
more cumbersome.

Also there's just no need at all to rearrange the whole HD when PD
runs it's Smart Placement - In my experience on NTFS drives getting
the frag % down to 0% (loose packing) is perfectly sufficient for
maximum performance. Beyond that, you're wasting your time,
electricity ad causing unnecessary wear and tear to the HD drives.

Also, PD's strategy of pushing their products by putting down their
competitors' products (particularly DK) on their website is downright
cheap and unfair. If your product is so great, allow the customer to
use it and make their own judgment.

I suspect the need to defrag as often as the manufactures declare is
probably overstated. Anyone can produce statistics to "prove" their own
product is better, faster, more thorough, more convenient etc, etc. When
my copy of PD6 becomes seriously outdated (ie MS changes the file system
more than anything else), I may re-evaluate which to buy. DK maybe
better now than when I tried it but it's background defrag on it's
lowest priority setting made XP very unresponsive. It's irrelevant with
PD 'cos it's running in the middle of the night as a task.

If Raxco want to promote their product at the expense of their
competition - that's OK by me; providing they're honest & not pulling
too much wool. If you want an example of sleeves rolled up & gloves off,
read this:
http://www.dvdplusrw.org/pc/pccomparison.html
If they were telling porkies, I'm sure the DVD Forum (which most if not
all the DVD+R manufacturers are member of anyhow) would sue their arses
off!

 

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

Yes, O&O defrag uses Microsoft's defrag APIs. The only defragmenter that
doesn't (NT4 and Win2k) is SpeedDisk.

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows Storage Management/File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

 

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

Charles,

Both PDV5 and PDV6 run at an Idle priority (runs at a CPU priority one level
above the System Idle process). That is because PD requires minimal CPU and
memory resources - it is not necessary to "slow" PD down in order to be able
to work.

You forgot to mention some of the features that Diskeeper doesn't have

- While Diskeeper can defragment the $MFT, it is unable to defragment ALL of
the NTFS metadata (doesn't even tell you about these files)
- Diskeeper can fully defragment the pagefile ONLY if you have a piece of
contiguous free space the size of the pagefile or larger. If you don't,
Diskeeper will not be able to fully defragment (importance of consolidating
free space)
- Diskeeper is unable to defragment the hibernate file
- The defrag options (Quick Defrag, Best Performance, Improved free space)
is a recent addition to Diskeeper. As the Improved Free space option only
occurs slowly over time (and only on a scheduled basis), it is effectively
useless compared to a defragmenter that consolidates free space in a single
pass. Quick Defrag basically runs like PerfectDisks Defrag Only (both
products make little attempt to consolidate free space - concentrating
instead on simply defragmenting files)

Free space consolidation is just as important as defragmenting files (see
above about Diskeeper limitation on defragmenting the pagefile if there
isn't a large enough piece of contiguous free space available). If your
free space is scattered all over the place, new files will have no choice
but to be created fragmented - which we all recognize is a bad thing.

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows Storage Management/File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

 

[Ted]

You forgot to mention some of the features that Diskeeper doesn't have

<snipped>

Sounds like an advertised comparison!

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows Storage Management/File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Using this disclaimer (which is an oxymoron considering your post), seems more like SPAM

 

[Joe User]

Diskeeper blows anyway. The built in defrag in Windows XP is as good as
Diskeeper (more or less). I'll be realistic, Diskeeper is a little more
entertaining to watch. Trying PerfectDisk 6 was thrilling as well. While it
almost looked as fun to play as Diskeeper, the action was a lot slower.

PerfectDisk, Diskeeper and Norton (IMHO) are a little too concerned about
appearance and spiffy icons I guess. These three end up being a pretty hefty
resource hog as well. They all suck when you need resources. Running a
ColdFusion server, running a few browsers, developing a bit of script and
then add the load of Outlook and XP Pro my machine drags along slowly
anyway. Fragged or not, none of these products is making a big difference to
me.

I'd suggest using the one with your OS and then spending the money on 512 MB
of additional memory (and a beer!) and configure your system to load as much
of the OS into memory as you can get away with while allowing some space for
other programs. You be better off than what one of these disk optimizer will
do for you.


"Ted" <"""""""> wrote in message

You forgot to mention some of the features that Diskeeper doesn't have

<snipped>

Sounds like an advertised comparison!

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows Storage Management/File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support

department.

Using this disclaimer (which is an oxymoron considering your post), seems
more like SPAM

 

[Shenan T. Stanley]

Diskeeper blows anyway. The built in defrag in Windows XP is as good
as Diskeeper (more or less). I'll be realistic, Diskeeper is a little
more entertaining to watch. Trying PerfectDisk 6 was thrilling as
well. While it almost looked as fun to play as Diskeeper, the action
was a lot slower.

You do realize where the built in Windows XP defragmentation software came
from, eh? heh

Windows Disk Defragmenter
Copyright (c) 2001 Microsoft Corp. and Executive Software International,
Inc.

(Executive Software - Makers of DiskKeeper...)

 

[Charles C. Drew]

Not an advertised comparison at all. I'm just a user of Diskeeper. I am a
programmer but work in the finance industry. Actually I really wanted to
stay with Norton (pretty screens and detailed info map), but couldn't
because it was too slow, never finished defragging and was making my PC
slower and slower (more and more defragged).

I went to PerfectDisk (shareware version) for a while and finally tried
Diskeeper. Ended up buying Diskeeper. It optimized performance as well as
PerfectDisk but I never had to manually run it to do that. Really like
being able to set execution priority (currently set to slow when run
manually and idle when running in background).

"Ted" <"""""""> wrote in message

You forgot to mention some of the features that Diskeeper doesn't have

<snipped>

Sounds like an advertised comparison!

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows Storage Management/File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support

department.

Using this disclaimer (which is an oxymoron considering your post), seems
more like SPAM

 

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

Yeah, kinda like the plug for Diskeeper that I was responding to

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows Storage Management/File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.



"Ted" <"""""""> wrote in message

You forgot to mention some of the features that Diskeeper doesn't have

<snipped>

Sounds like an advertised comparison!

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows Storage Management/File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support

department.

Using this disclaimer (which is an oxymoron considering your post), seems
more like SPAM

 

[Joe User]

You do realize where the built in Windows XP defragmentation software came
from, eh? heh

Windows Disk Defragmenter
Copyright (c) 2001 Microsoft Corp. and Executive Software International,
Inc.

(Executive Software - Makers of DiskKeeper...)

That doesn't surprize me at all.

Regards.

 

[Steven Deweirt \(MCT\)]

I also preffer Raxco, I tested them all diskkeeper, perfect disk and Q&Q
defrag, Raxco version 6 is great !! realy a big step forward in
defragmentation technology !

"Ted" <"""""""> wrote in message

You forgot to mention some of the features that Diskeeper doesn't have

<snipped>

Sounds like an advertised comparison!

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows Storage Management/File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support

department.

Using this disclaimer (which is an oxymoron considering your post), seems
more like SPAM

 

[Joe User]

I beg to differ. I would bet a 2GHz Win XP system with 64MB of memory and a
100% optimized drive would crawl compared to a 1GHz Win XP system with 512MB
of memory (with as much of the OS packed in to free ram as possible) with
something almost useless like a 50% optimized drive in a general use
situation.

However since there is a defrag in Win Xp already and the kids at
SysInternals rock, you can have your free cake and eat it too.

SysInternals should get lots of money for giving out their most excellent
tools. PageDefrag does the stuff that Windows misses.

http://www.sysinternals.com/ Rocks!

They do have commercial utilities that must be equally great but the cheap
company I work for is not into buying new things that often. We have a
machine running dos 5 (or earlier) here... Finding something this good and
free gives me a little hope for humanity.

 

[Randy Harris]

This thread has been a worthwhile discussion for those of us with less
expertise in the area of defragmentation.

I've been told that it is important to turn off my anti virus software
before defragging. Would you "defrag gurus" be willing to comment on the
value of this?

 

[Steven Deweirt \(MCT\)]

Diskeeper uses/needs multiple passes to perform a good defragmentation,
perfectdisk uses smart placement much better and faster,

I use perfectdisk workstation and server edition version 6, also take a look
at defrag for exchange !!

 

[Charles C. Drew]

Of course that wasn't the only reason. Here are others...

1) Defrag in XP won't defragment directory structures.
2) It won't defrag the page file.
3) It doesn't defrag the MFT.
4) It's slow.
5) It doesn't defrag all files.
6) It really stinks on defragging when you have less than 15% free space.

I hope that makes you feel better about my purchase?



| Charles C. Drew <> wrote:
| > The built in defrag in XP won't let you schedule it to run. You must
| > manually run this one to defrag your PC. It doesn't take long for a
| > machine with even 256 Mb of memory to become affected by
| > fragmentation. I've experienced performance slowdown in as little as
| > a week. This is why I bought a defrag program that could be
| > scheduled.
|
| Guess you should have looked into the problem first, then. If the only
| reason you bought a defrag program was that it could be scheduled, you
| should have searched around a bit:
|
| http://www.compu-docs.com/W2KDfrag.htm
| and
| http://www.winntmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=8276
|
| Or you could download a FREE utility like "AutoIt" and use it to make a
| script like:
|
| ; AutoIt script to defragment primary drive
|
| Run, %SystemRoot%\\system32\\mmc.exe %SystemRoot%\\system32\\dfrg.msc
|
| WinWait, Disk Defragmenter
| WinActivate, Disk Defragmenter
| Send, !ad
|
| SetTitleMatchMode, 2
| WinWait, Defrag, Close
| WinActivate, Defrag, Close
| WinClose, Defrag, Close
| WinWaitClose, Defrag, Close
|
| WinActivate, Disk Defragmenter
| WinClose, Disk Defragmenter
| WinWaitClose, Disk Defragmenter
|
| Which I found at unattended.sourceforge.net, Once created, it is a fairly
| simple thing to make a script to call it and run it at a scheduled time.
|
| Sometimes, I guess, it is easier to throw money at a problem than to
figure
| it out yourself?
|
| --
| Shenan Stanley
| "Just trying to help"
| -------------------------
| How to use XPs Help and Support
| http://tinyurl.com/fltf
|
| How to Use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups
| http://tinyurl.com/fkja
|
| How do I go about posting an informative question?
| http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
|
| How to use Google
| http://www.google.com/help/basics.html
| http://tinyurl.com/fkmc
| -------------------------
|
|

 

[Shenan T. Stanley]

Of course that wasn't the only reason. Here are others...

1) Defrag in XP won't defragment directory structures.
2) It won't defrag the page file.
3) It doesn't defrag the MFT.
4) It's slow.
5) It doesn't defrag all files.
6) It really stinks on defragging when you have less than 15% free
space.

I hope that makes you feel better about my purchase?

I could actually care less about your purchase, that was your decision. heh

But in my opinion, although defragmentation does help, the normal amount of
defragmentation that the built in tools do is plenty good for my customers
who can do a minimum amount on their machines and usually get new ones
within three years, not to mention they can b redone from scratch in an
hour.

In other words, I have seen no arguments that would get me to encourage 95%
of my customers to purchase any form of defragmentation software. heh

 

[Charles C. Drew]

By the way, I do understand that not everyone is inclined to open the PC and
work on its innards. There are others that use their time more productively
doing other things than work on their PCs. Some people would rather someone
else do it and are willing to pay for the privilege.

I would rather spend my extra money on other things like paying for oil
changes instead of doing them myself. Paying for someone to paint the house
instead of doing it myself. We all have our priorities and we all pick our
own luxuries.

I'm not knocking other's for not doing things my way. I do get offended
when others criticise me for not doing things their way. Especially if my
way works for me.

| Charles C. Drew <> wrote:
| > Of course that wasn't the only reason. Here are others...
| >
| > 1) Defrag in XP won't defragment directory structures.
| > 2) It won't defrag the page file.
| > 3) It doesn't defrag the MFT.
| > 4) It's slow.
| > 5) It doesn't defrag all files.
| > 6) It really stinks on defragging when you have less than 15% free
| > space.
| >
| > I hope that makes you feel better about my purchase?
|
| I could actually care less about your purchase, that was your decision.
heh
|
| But in my opinion, although defragmentation does help, the normal amount
of
| defragmentation that the built in tools do is plenty good for my customers
| who can do a minimum amount on their machines and usually get new ones
| within three years, not to mention they can b redone from scratch in an
| hour.
|
| In other words, I have seen no arguments that would get me to encourage
95%
| of my customers to purchase any form of defragmentation software. heh
|
| --
| Shenan Stanley
| "Just trying to help"
| -------------------------
| How to use XPs Help and Support
| http://tinyurl.com/fltf
|
| How to Use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups
| http://tinyurl.com/fkja
|
| How do I go about posting an informative question?
| http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
|
| How to use Google
| http://www.google.com/help/basics.html
| http://tinyurl.com/fkmc
| -------------------------
|
|

 

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

Randy,

Depending on how your anti-virus software is configured to filter, it can
slow down the defrag process (for any defragmenter). If set to filter both
reads and writes, it will filter twice for each file move. If set to filter
just writes, then it will only filter once for each file move. Obviously,
if you filter twice, it takes twice as long.

The defrag APIs that all defragmenters use (except for SpeedDisk under NT4
and Win2k) that actually performs the file moves work well with anti-virus
filter drivers that are also written well. In this day and age, that means
that you should have no problems.

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows Storage Management/File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

 

[Greg Hayes/Raxco Software]

Jeff,

There is no command line defrag in Win2k. It is found in WinXP.

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows Storage Management/File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

 

[Quaoar]

Jeff,

There is no command line defrag in Win2k. It is found in WinXP.

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows Storage Management/File System

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a
commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support
department.

I do not work for Raxco and I will state that PerfectDisk is a very good
defrag, especially its boot, disk locked, options.

Q

 

[TonyG]

But not optimisation

Yes, that will accomplish defragmentation.