perfectdisk or diskeeper for the boot defrag?

Hi

i used ultimatedefrag 2008 but the boot defrag is buggy

now i want to get out of rid it
and install or perfectdisk or diskeeper

i know they are the best defrag

but i 'm looking for the best boot mft defrag

so i'm talking about the boot defrag
which does the best job?
which does respect the XP mft layout and position ?

i mean which is able to position, place , defrag the MTF like a fresh xp install

thanks
really appreciate your help

have a nice day

 

For me, PD!

 

thanks
did you make some compare between a xp and a xp after pd , i mean the location of the mft (reserved zone) plus the other files?

 

I am not technically astute-enough to know if it is "the best" or "just like a fresh XP install", but I know that PD2008 and now PD10 both "work" and produce report results that show the pagefile and MFT with 0 fragments an contiguously located.

Interestingly enough, though, often the "smart placement" does not really take things to ZERO defrag, but leaves some files with a few fragments.
Multiple passes with boot-time defrags can get absolute zero though.

Basically, I don't even care if my disks are "perfect"; I just want them "darn good" and to have a defragger that doesn't scramble things ! I leave PD10 on "autopilot" all the time.

 

PD usually wins tests and stuff.

Works like a charm on all my systems.

 

shame that pd could be customized like ultimate defrag

i mean pd defines how defrag the partition , and how puts folder and files

 

Yes they call it ''smart '' ,the whole bunch to the outer edge !

PD use the native defrag API in windows so its safe to use but i am questioning if its anything better the shipped defragger with come with windows. With UD some users notice a remarkable improvement. Like to hear if there'r any tests which PD compare to Windows own defragger ?

 

imo pd is much better than diskeeper. i stopped using diskkeeper a long while back and never looked back to it

 

but both diskeeper and perfectdisk are not customizable

i mean they defrag the harddisk how they want
no controll , for example defrag &put first the C:\windows , after C:\programs..and so on

 

I believe that's correct and will just assume it is for now --> I'm still left wondering how much of a difference that really makes. UD, for example, is customizable yet I haven't noticed a discernible increase in speed versus either DK (Pro Premier) or PD 2008.

 

Almost every defragging review compares to the windows built in defragger.

PD puts some files at the end of the disc and others closer to the center.
You can disable this but you cannot change its behaviour.

Benchmarks have shows that the % of fragmentation and the responsiveness of the system show that PD way of placing files works best.

I know it splits the files into different sections
-Boot files
-MFT zone
-Directories
-Page File
-Hibernation file
-Metadata
-other files in 3 levels of modification

PD puts things on the edge that require speed like the page file and boot files

 

As a PD user I fully agree on their strategy but I use O&O as well on my other machine and in that, you can specify your own strategy based on NAME, ACCESS etc. and it also works out well provided you do it right according to the type of data in the drive.

 

and O&O is customizable like ultimate defrag?
has a good boot defrag , i mean safe

 

pd for example put my mp3s in the outracks of the hard disk
and this is stupic
and put the files i need more in the middle of hardisk

did not find any impovements with pd

 

In the few technical comparisons of defraggers I have seen, the results were always stated as something like "X was 30% faster than Y".
That seems like a lot.
But when you look at the data, X had a post-defrag average seek time of something like 100 milliseconds and Y had an average of something like 70 milliseconds. Very few people would really notice a difference that is measured in ANY amount of milliseconds.

So I can imagine seeing a difference if you go from very fragmented to defragmented, but I don't think we should expect to see much difference between disks that have been defragmented with slightly different placement philosophies.
Yeah, faster is always better. But program stability and data integrity is a lot more important to me than a few milliseconds.

Also, it seems as though REfragmentation time would be a very valid concern (although I have seen no test results of that.) Just imagine that you get your disk defragmented to golden perfection, and then you have to edit or update one file that is tightly jammed into its precise spot. Now, the whole file needs to be relocated to a bigger spot. There are different philosophies on that also. Sort of like a disk can be "too perfect" such that any slight change immediately results in a slowdown of futuire operations.

 

Diskeeper is known and I have had a friend have his entire raid array put kaput by Diskeeper's boot defrag. I really would stay away from it.

 

thanks
so pd has the better boot defrag

 

Another vote for PD, i like DK as a product better but their prices arent friendly and so isnt their support. PD on the other hand does a swell job as well n is more friendly on all fronts

 

Yep, offers lots of option and strategies, has the best monitor of all the defraggers so if you don't like to spend time on your PC or if you are a system admin, background defrag automatically defrags large files when they are transferred to the disk and this monitoring takes minimal resources.

 

I use Diskeeper 2009 Pro currently (XP Pro SP3) and have never had any problems with boot-time defrag- it's quick and trouble-free. Diskeeper is a great defragger. In fact, with Diskeeper defragging the MFT online, the fragshield feature, and my fixed size paging file, I can't remember when I last boot-defragged.

BTW, be careful when you interpret the "file placment on a specific location on the drive" claims of any of the defraggers. What they mean is the location on the logical disk not the physical disk. Defraggers cannot place files to a specific location on the physical disk since that's done by the disk controller, not the filesystem. The logical and physical disks are not mapped one to one because of the number of platters, read/write surfaces etc.

 

Im using Puran Defrag since a few weeks and it does its job very well and fast, boot defrag included.

 

I use PerfectDisk 10 for VMware it keeps my VM's defragged as well as the host machine it is the only one I found that has these options; and no trouble with boot defrag.

 

well in short the big brother are perfect disk and diskeeper

what i don't like about them is that they are not customizable

i mean they do what they want to do

for example pd move all my mp3 on the zone more fast of my partition where i have xp

and the programs that i use more and windows files in middle

i can't undestand , now it's more slow then before

 

I have an idea which you may not like. I'm trying it primarily because I'm getting sick and tired of using defrag s/w that (a) is dysfunctional, (b) is completely missing one function or another, (c) costs money, and/or (d) adds overhead.

Remove ALL defrag s/w and use the built-in defrag utility for a few days.....better yet, give it a few weeks. I've decided that I'm never going to find out whether there is ***any appreciable performance advantage on my PCs*** unless I do so.

I'm sure I'll get some disagreement on that suggestion but you will really never know until you give it a shot........and, IMO, it's worth a shot since it costs absolutely nothing.

 

I'll try it with ya. I'll remove PD and UD both right now, lol. Post back in this thread and I'll get an email alert and will post back.