Is PerfectDisk 2008 effective?

Discussion in 'backup, imaging & disk mgmt' started by Olio1, May 16, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Olio1

    Olio1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Posts:
    52
    Hi,

    I currently have PerfecDisk 8 and I intend to use the new version... but I read some bad reviews about PerfectDisk 2008. At first glance, it wouldn't be as effective and reliable as the previous version.

    Tia for your comments,
    Cheers

    P.S : My OS is XP Pro SP2.
     
  2. RAD

    RAD Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    Posts:
    332
    I can't compare to previous versions, but I have been using PD 2008 under Vista with SP1.

    It seems to do exactly what it claims, and my disks show up as defragged as possible ( 0%). Sometimes it leaves a few undefragged files, but reports them and I have the option of specifically selecting them for manual defrag. I think sometimes it leaves a few files because of the "smartplacement" algorythm. I can't claim I thoroughly understand it, I just know that it appears to work.

    My computer feels "snappier", but that is a bit subjective. Boot times remained the same, but my drives were already near 0% fragmentation from using Paragon Software's "Total Defrag" previously; which is also a good defragger.
     
  3. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    Effective, very subjective.
    Its smartplacement does reduce refragmentation rates (ive got extensive testing to prove this, I will be writting it when my broken arm is healed) compared to other tools.
    I've been running it since the day it came out without a single problem.

    I would consider what new features PD2008 has and if you feel you will benifit from them.
     
  4. AKAJohnDoe

    AKAJohnDoe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    989
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    Effective = Doing the right thing
    Efficient = Doing it well
     
  5. InfinityAz

    InfinityAz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Posts:
    828
    Location:
    Arizona
    I agree with nickr, if you want the features then upgrade otherwise stick with v8.

    I'm running both v8 (XP) and v2008 (Vista) on different computers and both run great. I'd have no problem sticking with v8 and using the money for something else (i.e., I don't think I'd be giving up much staying with v8 ).
     
  6. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    I didn't upgrade from PD v8.0.54 to PD 2008.
    I never felt any improvement after defragmentation and PD 2008 won't make a difference.
    I can only hope that the next generation of storage devices won't need defragmentation anymore. Until then I consider defragmentation as a necessary evil. :)
     
  7. RAD

    RAD Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    Posts:
    332
    Is this effective enough ?
    PD Capture.JPG

    Closeup:
    StatCapture.JPG
     
  8. Olio1

    Olio1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Posts:
    52
    Thank you all for your comments.
    Regarding the complaints, I read there were some glitches with the offline defragmentation but I guess it was fixed.
     
  9. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,040
    I run PD 2008 on 3 machines here. No glitches at all, and results like posted above.

    Pete
     
  10. Olio1

    Olio1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Posts:
    52
  11. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,056
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    It isn't even necessary- alleged benefits are an illusion.
     
  12. demoneye

    demoneye Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Posts:
    1,356
    Location:
    ISRHell
    try ultimate defrag 2008 and u will see some power :D
    the best of the best :thumb:

    cheers:cautious:
     
  13. Huupi

    Huupi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Posts:
    2,024
    Difference should become clear with an initially heavily fragmented drive after an defragmentation pass.

    most users here watch anxiously their application drive statistics and dont let it go that far.So differences in performance are almost neglectible. ;)
     
  14. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    Depends what you consider necessary (In terms of productivity gains, video editing is known to cause high fragmentation rates and requires frequent defragmentation (or a Linux file system like XFS ;) - which even though has legendary fragmentation resistance has well documented instances of needing defragmenting with the built in defragmentation tool) to avoid productivity losses. Conversely average office worker will probably never suffer from loss of productivity due to fragmentation.

    Can you give an explanation of why you think this ?

    Cheers, Nick
     
  15. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,056
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I have never seen hard scientific evidence of improved disk function that was not performed by either the company producing the product or some entity hired to "test" it for them. As a pioneer in the hard drive industry, today's hard drives do not benefit much from degragmentation. Claims to the contrary are simply unsupported wishful thinking and hype. The burden of proof is on those contending that degfragging a drive is efficacious. I have looked at the "evidence" and there isn't any.
     
  16. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,056
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    If it is "clear" where is the data to support it? Subjective (I think it's faster) feelings are not facts.
     
  17. Huupi

    Huupi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Posts:
    2,024
    As long as Windows can't write in all cases contiguous to disk( its physically impossible)then fragmentation is inevitable.And how fragmentation influenced the write/seek/read times is IMO not a discussion anymore [case closed !]. ;)
     
  18. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,056
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    You are making assertions- no factual content. What you believe is irrelevant.
     
  19. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    I have found plenty of evidence that shows fragmentation is a performance an issue , even on current hardware, here's a few:

    http://www.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de/~loizides/reiserfs/ - shows that certain file systems loose throughput as fragmentation increases.

    http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/03/21/mysql-file-system-fragmentation-benchmarks/ - shows that full table scan performance decreases with increased file fragmentation.

    http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ntfs-3g.devel/124 - clear performance drop as fragmentation increases.

    Donn Edwards testing shows performance improvement from defragmentation.

    Of course these are specific tests, but it does not take long on google to find numerous examples.

    Clear examples above show how much of an issue fragmentation is.
    Why are companies like Hitachi, stating that fragmentation IS an issue and actually have Storage tools which one of the major functions is to reduce fragmentation (http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/Hitachi-optimizes-audio-visual-storage-manager.html) - which is a software solution ?
     
  20. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses
    I upgraded and find it works fine before and after. I run the offline each day and there is no glitch. I'm on xp sp 3 now.

    You should be on build 52 of PD 2008.

    On effective user sees biggest gain on drives which are heavily fragmented as the multiple reads to get a file together take their toll.

    After that the gains are minimal. I know they won't like it but a strapped user could do a trial get the big gain and then not buy but that idea is:shifty:

    In my case I also wanted a vista ready tool in case I get a vista pc.

    BTW and slightly off topic a freind of mine put in xp sp3 did a windows defrag and lost Outlook express and all his settings for OE, what's happening there?

    I suspect M$ didn't adjust the defragger for sp3 but I'm :doubt:
     
  21. Huupi

    Huupi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Posts:
    2,024
    Oke, what is your evidence to the contrary,summing up test,facts to support it.Afterall i already know its just your very personal BELIEVE,perhaps based on bad experiences with defrag.

    For me its easy i just follow the explanations done by the specialists,Microsoft engineers,programmers on diskmanagement related to the filesystem,for me i trust these people,more so because all these different people come to the same conclusion : FRAGMENTING DEGRADE DISKPERFORMANCE !!
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2008
  22. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,056
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    See my post #15 on this thread.
     
  23. Huupi

    Huupi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Posts:
    2,024
    Yes,its the same denial as to effectiveness of defragmenting.

    Something new ? ;)
     
  24. Brian K

    Brian K Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Posts:
    8,634
    Location:
    NSW, Australia
    Bunkhouse Buck,

    You mentioned in house testing that you have performed. In the interests of scientific discussion I'd certainly be interested to see your data on defragging.
     
  25. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,056
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    PC World which has received revenue from some defrag firms states:

    "In the end, the Test Center saw no significant performance improvement after defragmenting with any program. This result flies in the face of the received wisdom that fragmentation hinders performance, though much older PCs (with slower and smaller hard drives) and heavily used servers may benefit more from defragging."

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,113743-page,8-c,utilities/article.html

    Note this testing was done over four years ago, and newer hard drives which have replaced the older ones they mention, would/do show no improvement after defragging.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.