What can you say bout O&O Defragmenter v8 Pro?

Discussion in 'backup, imaging & disk mgmt' started by sweater, Jun 5, 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
    Haven't tried this defragmenter yet, on download.com many says it's one of the best (it's made in Germany...:D )...but I doubt if this is really good.

    How long did it stayed and lived in your machine? Did you experience any problem using it? o_O
     
  2. MojoWorkin

    MojoWorkin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Posts:
    60
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    I've used it for the last 6 months, and it does a better job of compacting files into a contiguous block than, say, Diskeeper10.
    It allows for three major ways to defrag, and under "Complete" it has another 3 choices: Access, Name, and Modified
    Where DK10 has FAAST technology, that moves most used files to center of disk, O&O's similar function, is Complete/Access, which does same thing.
    It does take noticeably longer than DK10, (Using Complete/) but I believe it's because of a more thorough job.
    Both DK10 and O&O are good defrags, (I have both) but I'll keep O&O as default.

    Screenie:
    http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y99/drwngflies/OO.jpg
     
  3. mrhero

    mrhero Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    Posts:
    297
    Location:
    Ankara , Turkey
    After a complete/name defrag with O&O 8, my windows xp couldn't boot even at
    safe mode. So I had formatted entire harddisk. I heard something similar in other forums. But many people use it without any problem. Take an image before try it:thumb: .
     
  4. Howard Kaikow

    Howard Kaikow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Posts:
    2,802

    Perfect Disk is better.
    See http://www.perfectdisk.com/products/perfectdisk2k/wp.cfm.
     
  5. MojoWorkin

    MojoWorkin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Posts:
    60
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Can you explain why it's better?
    I tried it, and it had so many services running, I unistalled it.
    Even Diskeeper had less resources used then Perfect Disk.
    O&O less than both of these.
     
  6. berng

    berng Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Posts:
    246
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    Nice of them to write a white paper telling us it is better. :rolleyes:

    I used both and found that defrag result are the same but CPU utilization for DK was 1/4 of PD.
     
  7. Howard Kaikow

    Howard Kaikow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Posts:
    2,802
    Read the papers to which I gave the link.

    AS far as I know, PD has only 1 service running, the scheduler.
    On my system it shows 4192KB used and zero CPU time.
     
  8. yahoo

    yahoo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Posts:
    290
    Location:
    nowhere
    I read the white papers. However, I could not find any clue leading to the claim that Perfect Disk is better than O&O Defrag. I am wondering how you get your conclusion?

    In fact, some Wilders posted testing results of different defragmentation utilities sometime before. The tests were to measure and compare the improvement of access time to various types of files before and after defragmentation with different utilities. It indicated that O&O Defrag > Perfect Disk > Diskeeper > Windows Default in general, where '>' means better. If you do a search, you probably can still find that post.

    I have been using O&O defrag for about two years. I have never had a problem with it. It is easy on resources, fast, and very configurable. It is an excellent software product.

    Before using O&O Defrag, I also tried Diskeeper and Perfect Disk for a while. They all have their own very unique features. IMHO, it is very hard to say which defragmentation utility is better. Just as the choice of a firewall or AV software, it pretty much depends on personal needs and preference. In other words, it is decided by who you are.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2006
  9. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,057
    Besides this thread really isn't about Perfect Disk
     
  10. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    BRAVO. Very well said.

    All preference police, step to the rear. But I guess the OP asked a pretty open ended question (as he often does).:D
     
  11. sweater

    sweater Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,674
    Location:
    Philippines, the Political Dynasty Capital of the
    I have just installed it 3 days ago, well it looks like PerfectDisk 7 and I even thought it also does the same "style" of defragging the drives with O&O has more options and selection. ;)

    I tried the Boot-time defragmentation, and i was surprised that it defrags faster and more faster than i expect. boot-time defrag in PerfectDisk and diskeeper is very very slow. I was wondering what really are defragmented on those boot-time offline defrags. :D coz the speed difference is huge..:cautious: :blink:

    then tried the Complete/name defrag as suggested in help manual...and this was a very slow job. of course I know, it warns me in the beginning that it'll defrag long if used for the first time. and i know that, but it's too long it took up more than 5 hrs...:oops: :p but I think, my pc is now is just more better than before...im not sure yet...and it's hard to judge for now coz this was just few days on my machine.
     
  12. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    O&O Defrag use less resources and much more faster than the others, doesn't break your system with blue screens like PerfectDisk in some system (like on mine), more configurable, with more methods of defragmentation...
     
  13. Howard Kaikow

    Howard Kaikow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Posts:
    2,802

    Read the papers at the Perfect Disk web site.

    You will note that O & O defrag may APPEAR to be be faster, but O & O defrag requires MORE passes to be as effective as Perfect Disk.
     
  14. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    Howard Kaikow,

    do you know how the O&O Defrag Stealth Mode works!?

    That test should be made with the O&O Defrag Complete/Access Method, because the method use by PerfectDisk on that test is the Access Method!
     
  15. yahoo

    yahoo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Posts:
    290
    Location:
    nowhere
    I agree with VaMPiRiC_CRoW.

    PerfectDisk's test is totally misleading. In order to appear superior, PerfectDisk purposely choose to compare with the Stealth Mode of O&O Defrag, which was designed for optimal (least) resource usage instead of least access time, fastest defragmentation, and/or least fragment. The fact is that, there are other four modes available for either fastest defragmentation, least access time, and/or least fragment with better results than PerfectDisk. I always treat such misleading tests performed by vendors themselves as junk. As a user, I would rather believe testing results from third parties or by myself.

    PerfectDisk is using white paper in an evil way. IMHO, their papers should be called Sh*t Paper instead:). PerfectDisk's strategy seems quite successful as there are users believe in such papers.

    Do not take me wrong. I do not work for O&O Defrag or PerfectDisk. I would be happy to pay for PerfectDisk if it can really do a better job. I just do not like what PerfectDisk is doing in order to disguise itself to be the best.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2006
  16. screamer

    screamer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Posts:
    921
    Location:
    Big Apple USA
    I use and am very happy w/ Diskeeper 9 Pro. It's left on set it & forget it mode. Runs from 12midnight -> 1:00AM.
    A few weeks ago I was doing alot of installs & un-installs and the other usual PC stuff. I noticed that my fragmentation was up. I ran a scan and DK came back saying that my stats had not changed. I D/L'd O&O, ran a scan and still the same stats. Finally I found Contig & Pagedfrag <sysinternals.com> There's also a nice GUI to go w/ Contig.exe called PowerDefrag. Ran a boot scan for Pagefile w/ Pagedfrg and my stats were back down to 1.00 fragment per file.
    Point is... no matter how good O&O or Diskeeper are. They can both use a little outside intervention from time to time.
     
  17. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    last i checked it was O&O causing BSODs (so far not on mine or maybe its because of the new v8.5) but each system is different.
    doesnt PD use the modify method? at least its legend goes by modification.

    anyways, now i switched to O&O and i like it very much. having more than one defragmentation method can be handy.
     
  18. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    O&O cleverCache screwed my system, so I don't want O&O Defragmenter either.
    Is the function of a defragger so important? I never noticed any improvement using them.
    So the differences between good defraggers aren't important for me either.
    I just run it regularly because I can't avoid defragmentation forever.
    I choosed PerfectDisk because it excludes the $ISR of FD-ISR automatically, what other defragmenters don't do.
     
  19. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    PD have de quick defrag and their best method that is the Access Method.
     
  20. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    u mean "Defragment Only"? what about the "Smart Placement"?
     
  21. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
  22. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.