Was puzzled, different defragmenters w/ different results

I know, I know, I know...same products with different brands produces different results. They have their own style of this and doing that. But what makes me wonder is the way they arranged and optimized the hard drives in the pc.

When I analyzed my c drive using the built-in windows defragmenter it showed up fragmentations and it gives notice to defragment my drive. But then I used Puran Defrag to defrag that drive. After that, I analyzed it again with windows defragmenter..but it still showed up fragmentations and recommended to run a defragmentation. A bit frustrated, I was then thinking that maybe the built-in windows defragmenter will defrag it better, I then run windows defragmenter. After that I analyzed again, but still it was fragmented and some files could not be moved and it still recommend to defrag the drive. I could not believed it that even windows built-in defragger could not completely do the job. Then, I remembered that TuneUp Utilities 2011 has also a defragmenter feature. I have never used it's defragmenter for the reason that maybe other defragger is more better. Anyway, I analyzed the c drive again... using TU and it recommends to run a thorough defragmentation. I just follow what it says and run its defragger. After that I then analyzed the c drive with Windows built-in defragmenter and to my surprised the c drive was completely defragmented, no fragmentation ever. Couldn't believe it that only TuneUp Utility2011 does the job of successfully moving those unmovable files and defragmented everything in it.

I have used several defragmenters and even Puran defrag (the fastest) but none of them could defrag as effectively like TuneUp Utilities 2011. It's the only one I've used that the windows defragmenter says after analyzed - no need to defrag the drive.

I was then thinking now to dump Puran Defrag and only use TuneUp Utilities 2011 defragmenter feature to defrag my drive. But I was also thinking that maybe I could just use Puran Defrag for defragging the Boot Sector. What do you think? Will it be any conflict coz they defrag in a different way?

 

Maybe Puran is optimized your drive, not just defrag. Some optimisation methods is not like putting the files side-by-side. That is why some defragmenters think you need to do a defrag.

 

I would stick to one defragmenter, any more and you'll have conflicting results.

 

Yeah indeed, each of these tools may implement different strategies and different view of what it considers to be fragmented. Test one at a time, stick with whatever you consider best.

 

U didnt try auslogics and defraggler

 

I've been using those also in the past. Yes, they're good and defrag ok.

What I was looking for is a defragmenter/s that after it finish defragging the drive Windows built-in defragmenter's analysis will says that the Hard Drive is ok and there's no need to defrag. I still trust the analysis of the windows built-in defragmenter coz it's the system own organ, nothing less nothing more. Although, I don't use windows own defragmeter coz it's slow and not as efficient and fast like others.

 

-Did you try PerfectDisk?
-Did you try Diskeeper?

If Freeware is Not what you are looking for...

 

I find this too (different results) and agree that settling on one makes the most sense. I have also used one and analyzed with another...sometimes they agree, sometimes not.

 

Don't forget the poor forgotten O&O Defrag

Zone Filing is nice

 

Spruce,

That is what I use...no issues with it at all. Based on many others I have used (paid and free), it tends to be on the slower side BUT the most thorough.

 

Even Windows built-in defrag will flag optimized partitions, which contains no fragmented files but free spaces inbetween as fragmented. Just trust the defragger of your choice.