• 0

Definitive Best Defragmenter 2012


Definitive Best Defragmenter 2012  

200 members have voted

  1. 1. Your Choice?

    • Auslogic
      26
    • DirMS/Buzzsaw
      0
    • Diskeeper
      24
    • JKDefrag
      8
    • Norton Speed Disk
      0
    • O&O Defrag
      18
    • PageDefrag
      0
    • Vopt
      2
    • Windows Defrag
      32
    • PerfectDisk
      33
    • Defraggler
      43
    • Smart Defrag
      3
    • Paragon Total Defrag
      0
    • Other (please specify)
      11


Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

It's not really necessary with regular disks either. even if another one is better than the windows built in one, it's not gonna matter one iota.

I don't see why these threads are made, it just keeps the illusion alive that people still need to defrag and use third party tools for it.

  • 0

The best defrager is MyDefrag which is the successor of JKDefrag:

Most defragers even slow down the disk...

Benchmark of all Defragers:

http://hofmannc.de/d...chmarks_en.html

MyDefrag:

http://www.mydefrag.com/

MyDefrag is extremely solid because it is based on the standard defragmentation API by Microsoft, a system library that is included in Windows 2000, 2003, XP, Vista, 2008, and Win7. Most defragmenters are based on this API, including the free defragmenter that comes with Windows and many commercial defragmenters. Basically all MyDefrag does is send "move this file to that location" commands to the API. The API is part of the operating system and can safely move almost any file on the disk, without risk and while the computer is in full use.

Right from the MyDefrag site, basically I've seen this statement before and what it seems to say is, no matter what Defrag app you are using it still uses the API from Windows, essentially comes down to how efficient the APP is at sending the commands and how fast it is at doing so. Otherwise you are getting the same result from all defrag apps, except the real-time ones like DIskeeper which prevent the fragmentation on regular HDD's from happening in the first place.

  • 0

Right from the MyDefrag site, basically I've seen this statement before and what it seems to say is, no matter what Defrag app you are using it still uses the API from Windows, essentially comes down to how efficient the APP is at sending the commands and how fast it is at doing so. Otherwise you are getting the same result from all defrag apps, except the real-time ones like DIskeeper which prevent the fragmentation on regular HDD's from happening in the first place.

Not exactly.

The API's expose different routines and not one like "DefragTheDrive" or "DefragTheFile".

Youre able to get the fragmentlocations and place the file on another location or defragment it.

What MyDefrag is doing is, it reads the prefetchdata to know what libraries an app is loading and the lastaccesstimes and even defrags files in a folder to be next to each other.

Also MyDefrag lets you modify/create scripts to defrag the things you want, in your way, or simply share/download good scripts.

  • 0

I know it shouldn't enter into it, but having just installed MyDefrag and after it finished defragging I was faced with a screen looking like this http://www.mydefrag.com/img/Snapshot2.gif - sorry but that is just plain butt ugly and even from a defragger I expect something on my screen which 1) looks good and 2) just from its visual display I can see whether or not my drive needs degragging and on those account5s MyDefrag is a fail.

  • 0
Otherwise you are getting the same result from all defrag apps, except the real-time ones like DIskeeper which prevent the fragmentation on regular HDD's from happening in the first place.

It's not quite that simple - something a lot of people are forgetting is that you can never properly defragment a Windows (or any other OS with the exception of Linux) properly on the fly - the only way to get a full defragment including OS files+hiber+page is to either do it from an external boot source (DVD/CD/USB/Another OS) or by doing it pre-boot which for example O&O Defrag offers.

Also you can select various optimization methods which can boost your gaming performance quite a bit (Complete Name/Access/Modified for example - especially useful in games that have massive number of small files).

  • 0

You really, really should not defrag an SSD. You're simply wearing down the drive for no reasonable benefit of any kind - defragmenters were designed for mechanical drives for a good reason, with a solid storage drive it has none.

  • 0

I used to use perfectdisk but i come to recently realize that the windows defrag has been much optimized since the days of XP (go figure (derp) :p) and now that works just fine for me :)

  • 0

It's not really necessary with regular disks either. even if another one is better than the windows built in one, it's not gonna matter one iota.

I don't see why these threads are made, it just keeps the illusion alive that people still need to defrag and use third party tools for it.

Even NTFS still fragments, and with large HDDs and partitions, defragmentation still matters. (Seriously - how many of you with what were considered *midsized* HDDs back just two years ago - 250GB and larger - broke them up into multiple partitions? Given the small default cluster size of even large NTFS prtitions, there's far less reason to have a multi-partition large drive.)

I actually still don't have an SSD yet (primarily because I haven't finished my Sandy Bridge-based build; I still have, at minimum, CPU and motherboard left to purchase), and an SSD is extremely far down on the list of priority purchases even *after* the build gets done. Further, I've moved from a 500GB (467GB formatted capacity) boot drive to a 1TB (931GB formatted capacity) boot drive - I wouldn't have multiple *partitions* except that 7 x64 has a System Reserved partition by default. Due to the new drive having a far larger on-drive cache (32MB vs. 8MB), I've actually gained in terms of performance, despite the far larger partition size.

Because I have multiple file-types on a single drive/partition, fragmentation affects some file-types more than others - therefore, defragmentation is still a necessary. That's why Diskeeper remains part of my utility arsenal.

That said, looking at the future of Windows, Diskeeper (in fact, all third-party defragmenters) are under siege - Disk Optimizer (in the Windows 8 Developer Preview) is a massive game-changer in that it takes one feature that has been unique to third-party tools (defragmentation of the swapfile and MFT) and brings it back into the main set of options; even more surprising, Disk Optimizer includes multi-pass no-reboot defragmentation - which no third-party degragmentation utility - including Diskeeper - does today.

  • 0

Other.

Not really neccessary these days with evolution of SSDs

There is a benefit when you consolidate free space because some cells that are only half filled can not be "trimmed". If you use PerfectDisk it will fill in all the half filled cells in a unique way that enhances speed and the life of the drive. All this allows the SSD to "Trim" more efficiently.

  • 0

Even NTFS still fragments, and with large HDDs and partitions, defragmentation still matters. (Seriously - how many of you with what were considered *midsized* HDDs back just two years ago - 250GB and larger - broke them up into multiple partitions? Given the small default cluster size of even large NTFS prtitions, there's far less reason to have a multi-partition large drive.)

And windows regularly auto defrags your drives. and you're nto going to notice ANY performance difference, even at the nanosecond level between the different defragmenters.

  • 0

And windows regularly auto defrags your drives. and you're nto going to notice ANY performance difference, even at the nanosecond level between the different defragmenters.

How much money are you willing to bet on that?

Because I can prove you wrong instantly by comparing, for example, SC2 or BF3 loading times with built-in windows defrag vs O&O.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • I think there will be a 27H1 for actual users of 26H1 The 25h2 supports ARM too : Snapdragon X, Snapdragon X Plus and Snapdragon X Elite
    • Poll: Grand Theft Auto VI price predictions, cast your vote by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe After years of waiting, Rockstar will be solidifying the launch date of Grand Theft Auto VI with the launch of pre-orders next week. While the studio has confirmed a date for this occasion, it is yet to attach a price to the highly anticipated game. So let's see what our readers think it will cost at launch. The Grand Theft Auto VI pre-orders will kick off on June 25 for digital and physical editions. Unless some last-minute changes happen, the release date will be November 19, 2026, across Xbox Series X|S and PlayStation 5. Unfortunately, there's still no information about a PC version from the developer or the publisher Take-Two. Now the question becomes, how much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost at launch? The game is predicted by some analysts to be the biggest launch of an entertainment product ever. With the amount of hype that has been built behind it and with ballooning development costs, Take-Two may price this Grand Theft Auto entry differently from other AAA titles. The current price of a AAA game is $69.99. That norm almost rose to $79.99 before calming down. But with such a massive release, Grand Theft Auto VI may be the game that pushes the boundary again. It's also possible that Take-Two keeps the price relatively low to increase the number of players that jump in early and keep them hooked on Grand Theft Auto Online to spend on microtransactions for years to come. Keep in mind that the below poll is asking for a prediction of the standard edition price, not a deluxe or any other special edition that Take-Two will introduce for additional benefits. Also, there is also the chance of the company splitting up the campaign and online portions. If you think that will happen, put your vote on what you think will be the total cost of the two. Poll Poll: How much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost? $59.99 $69.99 $79.99 $89.99 $100 or more Submit Vote If you have a very specific prediction in mind, sound off in the comments below.
    • Would you please fix your graphics. They are outdated and don't fit the article.
    • The Light of Life? We actually do glow till our Death, study finds by Sayan Sen Image by Rafael Rendon via Pexels A study by researchers at the University of Calgary has found that living organisms produce an extremely faint light known as ultraweak photon emission, and that this glow appears to drop significantly after death. The research was published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry in April 2025 and quickly drew widespread attention, leading to more than 200 news stories about the findings. Ultraweak photon emission (or UPE), sometimes called biophoton emission, refers to tiny amounts of light released by living cells as a result of normal biological activity. A photon is the basic particle of light, and researchers say every living system examined so far, including plants and animals, has been found to emit these photons. The glow is far too faint to be seen by the human eye. “I suppose it has a little to do with people being reminded of auras,” says Dr. Christoph Simon, PhD, one of the authors of the study and a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy in the Faculty of Science. “It is a fact that living beings glow. It’s a very weak glow, but it’s there and visible with very sensitive cameras.” According to the study, the light involved is extremely weak, ranging from 10 to 1,000 photons per square centimetre per second across a spectral range of 200 to 1,000 nanometres. For comparison, a nanometre is one-billionth of a metre and is commonly used to measure wavelengths of light. Detecting emissions at such low levels requires highly specialized equipment. To study the phenomenon, researchers used electron-multiplying charge-coupled device (EMCCD) and charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras. These imaging systems are designed to detect extremely small amounts of light, including individual photons, while minimizing background noise. The technology allowed researchers to capture signals that would otherwise be impossible to observe. The team worked with the Human Health Therapeutics Research Centre at the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) in Ottawa to examine photon emissions in mice. Researchers took two-hour exposure images of the animals before and after death and compared the results. “We saw that the level of light that they emit – this biophoton glow – is distinctly different between living and dead animals,” says Dr. Daniel Oblak, PhD, an associate professor in Physics and Astronomy and the corresponding author of the study. The images showed a clear decrease in photon emissions after death across the entire body of each mouse. According to the researchers, this provided direct evidence that living and dead tissue produce different levels of ultraweak photon emission. “It’s a very small amount and it’s, of course, very tricky to detect,” Oblak says. The study grew out of discussions between Simon, whose research interests include quantum biology, and Oblak, whose work focuses on detecting light for quantum communication experiments. Quantum biology is a field that explores whether processes described by quantum physics, which studies matter and energy at very small scales, may also play a role in living systems. “Since I work as a quantum physicist on light detection for quantum communication, I thought that experimentally we have a lot of the tools to be able to detect the light,” Oblak explains. The researchers also investigated UPE in plants and found that the light changed in response to stress. When plants were exposed to higher temperatures or physically injured, their photon emissions increased. Chemical treatments also affected the glow. Among the substances tested, the local anesthetic benzocaine produced the strongest emission response when applied to injured plant tissue. These findings suggest that ultraweak photon emission is closely linked to biochemical and metabolic activity inside living organisms. Metabolism refers to the chemical reactions that allow cells and organisms to stay alive and function. Because these reactions change when an organism experiences stress, injury or disease, researchers believe UPE may provide a way to monitor those changes. The researchers stress that the glow is a physical and biological phenomenon, not a metaphysical one. Oblak says more research is needed to understand exactly how the light is produced and what information it may reveal about the condition of living tissue. “We must understand what that is to figure out what’s happening,” he says. “If we can understand how that relates to certain influences on the body – stress, diseases – then that could be used as a diagnostic tool.” The researchers believe the technique could eventually help scientists study health and disease without invasive procedures. Because UPE can be measured without adding dyes, markers or labels, it may offer a way to monitor whether tissue is healthy, damaged or alive. In plants, it could help researchers better understand how organisms respond to injury, heat and other forms of stress. While the work is still in its early stages, the study demonstrates that ultraweak photon emission imaging can provide a non-invasive and label-free way to observe biological activity. Researchers say the approach could become a useful tool for studying vitality, stress responses and other important processes in both animals and plants. Source: University of Calgary, ACS publication This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      hhgygy earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      AMV earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      AMV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      512
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      82
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!