Is PerfectDisk 2008 effective?

How many of the files that were fragmented and subsequentially defragmented were including in the benchmarks ?

A proper scientific test would make sure that files to be included in the tests are not defragmented before hand.

They use their own benchmarking tool WorldBench, most of the files used in the benchmarks are the application files themselves (very few data files), which Windows XP will launch via prefectch which is defragmented every 3 days anyhow.

To get meaningful results, you would need to disable prefetch defragging.

Do you have any other examples ?

Have you evidence to back this claim of yours up ?

 

The burden of proof (if you know anything about argumentation or logic) is not with the person denying the claim. The burden of proof is on those making an assertion of truth.

I have seen zero evidence that degragmentation enhances performance. The alleged proof offered by some in this thread is no proof at all. And, nothing personal, but I have run into numerous shills of software companies (and their true believers) that assert defraggers work without ever offering scientific studies that prove their contentions.

 

Where is the proof of your own assertion of truth:
"newer hard drives which have replaced the older ones they mention, would/do show no improvement after defragging" ?

Zero evidence ?
Even your qoute says there is some "insignificant improvement" in a test where HHD performance is insignificant (CPU is most significant).

Here's another:

http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/7/0,1425,sz=1&i=70184,00.gif
from http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1598099,00.asp

I have shown various examples where fragmentation does cause performance loss, which defragmentation would/will fix, it is logical to conclude that defragmentation does improve performance by atleast some amount in atleast some situations.

 

I've been looking for a defragmenter on my Vista SP1 computer for a while. I'm certainly not qualified to express any opinion, whether a defragmenter is improving performance or not. I like to think that for most sandbox/virtual applications, a system should be defragmented in the first place to speed up the transition from real volume to virtual volume.

My 50 dollars question is: Do I need to pay for one? I'm testing JkDefrag-3.34 and PerfectDisk 2008. The results are pretty much the same as with RAD: There was no improvement to JkDefrag (the defragmenting values are the same before and after using PerfectDisk). Boot times are exactly the same using either defragmenter. I do not feel any improvement in Vista's speed, but my computer never seems to slowdown under any load.

I will keep PD 2008 for the full trial and see if in the long run there are any performance gains. So far I see no reason to buy it. Last but not least, defragmenting time was well over 1 hour for a defragmented volume: More or less like JkDefrag.

 

Even though my comments on PD-2008 may have seemed less than "illustrious", there are, IMO reasons for going with paid reputable software as opposed to freeware, even if the freeware is pretty darned good. A lot of the freeware has subtle bugs in it that go unfixed for a long period of time. Just check the user's boards for a lot of these things. Paid professional software has a strong incentive to fix bugs fast. Raxco has already included one bug-fix update since I bought it about a month ago.

Having said that, it all really depends on the specific software. I paid for Acronis True Image, and it is an abomination, but one of my best and most flaw-free softwares is the free IRFANVIEW.

I guess my only point is that I would avoid assuming that freeware is a better bargain just because there is no immediately obvious superiority of the paid software. Be carefiul and do research on user forums, etc.
I know nothing about JKdefrag, so I am not against it at all. Maybe it is great. You could probably get a year or so of free defragging just using the 30-day free trials of all the defraggers out there now.

 

I'm not trying to save money: My XP set up is an all paid one (I believe the greatest advantage of payware is that you are buying support as well).

Lately I've just realized that a lot of applications are redundant, and defragmenters don't seem to have any visible effect on my Vista Computer (I had JkDefrag with XP for more than a year, presumably doing a good job - how can one tell?). Reading what the other posters say about defragmenting hasn't swayed my opinion one way or the other.

 

I installed it to try it out. Previously I've been using Defraggler. Analyzed my disk with PD and it said I had 2% fragmentation and everything was in excellent condition.

I don't need PD when Defraggler seems to give great results

 

Actually, I use Windows XP built in defragger from time to time- although I have licenses for most all of them. Have not found one to be more effective than another probably because none of them do much (if anything) at all. You may be right that performance improves "at least some amount" but from the results of our empirical tests, it is not discernable.

 

I partially tend to agree with your vision,as attested and confirmed by many users around the WWW,defrag makes no difference with current fast systems.

Most mutually agree upon that using it only for office,websearch and stuff,fragmentation is not considered serious and defrag is useless(no discernable effect)Many of these people are in computerbusiness,so their statements are something to consider.

A few exceptions are the disk intensive app. like photo/video editing which can make up for serious fragmentation,but as said even this is doubtfull in the eyes of these experts with the current fast workstations.

Conclusion : if it give you a warm feeling inside,just do your defrag.
Personally i do some heavy photo editing daily,so i defrag sometimes,i think it helps,system seems more snappier but thats just me.

 

I disagree with those who say there is no such thing as fragmentation on any type of system including slow or fast. Vista may have improved file placement, although it still does fragment.

I must say that defragging once and a while should be a custom, but too many times with a new system is not needed.

In conclusion defragging maybe once a week or once a month is a 'good idea', but if you choose not to, it won't cause any harm.

From a person's perspective who tries a lot of software, constantly installing/uninstalling applications, fragmentation is unavoidable.

Perfect disk may help with immediate defragging, where the files that are being written are automatically placed in a defragmented way, instead of defraggin after, but I don't see that to be necessary in the future with newer OSes.

 

Its no question if fragmentation will happen but more in howfar it degrade performance.And in sofar nobody can show scientific evidence to support either view.

With the new SSD disks(solid state),fragmentation will still happen but they act almost with the speed of light so the issues related to the ''old'' ones are gone. Coming soon !!