PowerDefragmenter GUI and Dirms differences...

Discussion in 'backup, imaging & disk mgmt' started by sweater, Mar 19, 2006.

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

    sweater Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,674
    Location:
    Philippines, the Political Dynasty Capital of the
    I have this two defragmenter on my pc. I am glad they're free, and does its job like paid ones out there. It just lacks some colorful candy graphics.

    But, I think, they have some differences in a way they do their work.

    The picture below is the result after I defragment using the PowerDefragmenter GUI (contig.exe) with its PoweMode option selected to defrag my C drive.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. sweater

    sweater Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,674
    Location:
    Philippines, the Political Dynasty Capital of the
    Then, here's the result after I defragment using Dirms with the command line dirms c -q.
     

    Attached Files:

  3. sweater

    sweater Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,674
    Location:
    Philippines, the Political Dynasty Capital of the
    My own conclusion was that... PowerDefragmenter GUI (contig.exe) is very effective in defragmenting files and folders fast while Dirms is very effective in defragmenting the whole drive although its just slow compared to PD GUI. Of course this was just my own opinion, as an ordinary pc user. I didn't use any defragger at all, just this two I've mentioned. I regularly use them, the one for files/folders the other for the whole drive defragging.

    But, I think, any of the two is good enough to be considered a good stand alone defragmenter. And anyone can choose any of them of what he/she like.

    Any comments or reactions can be added, and if you have any suggestions or "more discovery" on using this two great free defragmenter then pls post it here so that others will know.
     
  4. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    I'd like to comment that, from the two pictures, it looks to me like BOTH programs were effective in defragmenting all of the files on the drive because I see no red.

    This is a technicality, of course. The difference is just that Dirms did a better job of "defragmenting" free drive space -- consolidating used drive space more than contig did. I think any resulting differences in drive performance may tend to be perceived in an exaggerated way by the mass of us consumers (including myself:oops: ).

    Perhaps there's just a semantic difference between drive defragmentation and file defragmentation.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.