Which Disk Defragmenter?

Go back and read what I said, because you are twisting my words. No one said anything about utterly pointless in the context you are suggesting. Read what I meant first before commenting so you get the facts straight about what I was saying, then come back and talk, not rant...

On a side note for reg cleaners I've used JV16 since the day JV16 was born. In that period of time with every version they ever put out I have never, ever seen any performance gains with it, so please don't call me not knowledgeable, because I've used reg tools for 10 years in the past on a daily basis to know better, along with a view others that never did anything too.

Go to Microsoft and ask them why they didn't put a registry cleaner in Windows by default if it's so important?

Consider what you are saying here, Microsoft makes a Registry that can drag a system down, but doesn't put in a tool to deal with this?

Here's the garbage that reg cleaners tout to people:


After a long period, after installing and uninstalling a lot number of applications, your Windows registry will contain a large number of obsolete entries. These will significantly increase the registry size and thus will slowdown your computer, because Windows will need more time to load, search, and read data from registry.


This information is false advertisement, a huge registry no matter if they are legitimate or illlegitimate entries will not slow down the computer.

Now you said Reg Cleaners, if you mean Reg Defrag, well that's a bit of a different scenario, and compacting a regsitry can improve performance a little.

 

If I come across some...

 

Read it again. He's asking for the links.

 

Sorry I don't keep bookmarks for everything I deal with...

If I come across something I can think of I'll pass it this way...

 

Don't look at me, i'm not asking anything. But implying he's drunk while misinterpreting him, well..

 

Yep my bad, LOL... I saw 'Please do' thinking in my mind, 'Please don't'

Ok got it all straight, if I find something, but no guarantees...

 

As far as I understand your C:\ defrag works just fine since you choose to install O&O immediately after your OS installation, and then keep monitoring , offline defraging and so on..

Makes sense to me but what happens if one chooses to install O&O one year after the OS installation, does the Complete/Name(offline) work just as fine ? I reckon not ...

Would you be so kind to tell me what's your C:\ fragmentation now (%) and make a screenshot of the program with Cluster tab on focus ?

Thank you,

K

 

I initially tried O&O after removing PD 2008 and complete/name and complete/modified worked fine as well.

Here is a print screen of my O&O.

 

I'm seeing an analysis difference quite large with UD2008 compared against 4 other apps:

O&O says I'm 1.64% fragmented
Puran says I'm 2.0% fragmented
SmartDefrag says I'm 0.72% fragmented
UD2008 says I'm 14.91% fragmented
Windows DK says I'm 1% file fragmented

UD2008 always shows a 13%-15% range even after running it, clearly something looks wrong here with it's results.

Here's some screenshots:

http://img235.imageshack.us/my.php?image=47406275xq8.jpg
http://img233.imageshack.us/my.php?image=99468625rc6.jpg
http://img88.imageshack.us/my.php?image=29023101dd3.jpg
http://img236.imageshack.us/my.php?image=90852531ll2.jpg
http://img225.imageshack.us/my.php?image=29280326xu4.jpg

I sent disktrix an email, I'd like to hear what they have to say. The program seems to be in question over it's accuracy with it's analysis.

 

Anything over 10% should make some impact on the disk I/O so I would doubt its accuracy as well.

 

After playing around with the free version of UD, I assumed the difference in the defrag reports is that UD reports on all the files. That is, even the locked files that are not able to be defragmented while the other programs do not.

 

There you go, possibly a reason...

Well SmartDefrag is garbage, here is what it did on a defrag and optimize:

http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=98968068uh7.jpg

What is wrong with that picture?

If you know, then you know not to use this product, and all I can say is these people don't even understand hard drive A+ basic computing...

 

Try updating to the latest build/version first. If the problem still persists, I recommend you contact Raxco technical support: http://www.raxco.com/support/ .

I use PerfectDisk 2008 and I have never encountered this problem. I regularly download files >2GB thru torrent and PerfectDisk could handle them just fine.

This could be because of another running background program. StealthPatrol will run only if the computer is "idle", meaning no other background program is running and using up processor resources. If you could not find and/or disable this background program, then I recommend you use PerfectDisk's screensaver mode instead (you could configure PerfectDisk 2008 to use both).

 

I just ran it again tonight and the same thing happened. I only ran it twice this time so my MFT didn't get fragmented like the last time. The free version worked again, as it should. Has anyone else ever had a problem with Recency (Last Modified) defrags?

 

Looking at your original post you say you had big gaps. Do you have both respect high performance and respect archive checked ?

 

DasFox,

Please let us know if you hear anything back from DiskTrix. They have been very silent for the last several months. They were supposed to have released an update with a boot time defrag feature months ago.

Many thanks,

Silver

 

Ok no problem, people also need to be aware of that SmartDefrag and take note of that screenshot I posted above for it, total junk software...

Actually slowed my system down on bootup 10 seconds. Well I must admit, it's the first time I've seen a defrag app make a change, a change for the worst and slowing a system down.

Total rubbish there 600% claim of speedup....

As they say in the UK, UTTER BOLLOCKS!

 

In the previous incident I had archive checked (only a few hundred MB of files) but no high performance. This time I had both unchecked.

 

My understaning is that both should be checked - that is if you want the important stuff to go to the outer edge and the unimportant to go to the centre to be archived. Then you set performance at say 30 days and archive at 31 days and pick an option like file /folder.

 

You can check both if you need both. It's irrelevant in this case since I just want to consolidate by modifed date - something UD2008 does poorly, UDFree does adequately, and O&O Defrag does perfectly.

 

Interesting. I did it your way and it worked just fine. Sorry have no idea why modified date is not working for you as it does for me.

 

Also try boot time defrag, in some cases it helps defrag even more, including metafiles such as $MFT (AFAIK).

 

Smartdefrag... as in IObit SmartDefrag, the free defrag software. And that is a screenshot of his C partition analyzed by UD after being defragmented by SmartDefrag.

 

Yes, but it puts it at the slowest part of the disk instead of the outer edges.