Recommended Posts

Oh really that is why it says this is the Diskeeper help file then?

It is important to know that having all of the free space in a single, contiguous piece provides very little (if any) performance benefit. Free space fragmented into hundreds of pieces will impact disk performance, but free space that’s in a few pieces should not have any effect on the performance of your disk.

"Our primary philosophy with Diskeeper is improving and maintaining the performance of your computer. The disk drives are the primary bottleneck in your computer's performance. Diskeeper restores the disks to top speed by eliminating fragmentation.

It is a common misconception that a defragmented disk should look very neat and tidy in the Volume Map tab, with solid blue bars all the way across the screen (representing fragmentation-free files) and the rest white space (representing consolidated space).

Clearly, the speed of the volume (meaning how fast you can access the data on it) is more important than the prettiness of the display or the consolidation of all the free space into one place. Free space consolidation might be important if the next file that you plan to create needs to be one gigantic contiguous file, but it has no effect on performance. In fact, the operating system may or may not write the next file into a contiguous location — even if there is a large enough space.

Because of this, when using the "Quick" or "Recommended" defragmentation methods, Diskeeper uses algorithms that achieve the highest speed from your volumes regardless of the arrangement of the free spaces on the disk and on the screen—and it does so without wasting time on excessive consolidation of free space. We simply go for the fastest possible file access times and then stop.

Even so, you might ask why we don't continue and rearrange the files further to get a neat display? Because it takes computer power to do so. We long ago decided that it would be wrong for Diskeeper to consume more of your computer's performance than it gives back. So Diskeeper defragments until the disk is in top shape performance-wise and then stops.

Now this might not be important to you if you like to sit and watch the display as Diskeeper defragments your drive, but it is a very big deal to large corporate data centers and people who depend on their computers for their work. They need all the performance they can get and can't hold up production while the defragmenter works to enhance the "look" of the disk but not improve its performance. This is why Diskeeper is designed to run in the background at the lowest possible priority, giving way to any other program that needs to run. And it is also why Diskeeper stops defragmenting when maximum performance has been achieved.

Of course, for those who want to expend the additional computer resources, the "Comprehensive" defragmentation method is also available. This defragmentation method performs additional processing to further consolidate the free space on your volumes."

The above was part of the manual for Diskeeper 9. Perhaps it's in 10 also. But the steeply price "Pro" version of 10 really directly contradicts this philosophy. The Fast procedure there takes a lot more time than "Comprehensive." It is not merely consolidating free space, it is arranging programs according to use, even when the Comprehensive procedure isn't used. So it gives you maybe 15% greater speed, in their highly optimistic estimate, but it uses computer time lavishly. Either this use of computer time--which is probably happening at night--is terrible or it isn't. Diskeeper can't have it both ways.

Stephen R. Diamond

Here is a good article explaining the differences.

Disk Defragmenters Demystified

Difference of Opinion

Raxco Software Inc. in Gaithersburg, Md., and Diskeeper Corp. in Burbank, Calif., have very different views of storage optimization. Diskeeper, the 800-pound gorilla in the market, advertises ease of use and the simplicity of remote, network-based administration. It advocates automated, daily defragmentation as standard maintenance. Raxco claims that its PerfectDisk does a more thorough job in a single pass, can operate on disks with less free space and offers powerful analysis tools. Indeed, our tests show that Diskeeper does run faster, making daily use less cumbersome, while PerfectDisk is more thorough.

Raxco also touts PerfectDisk's ability to defragment all free space as well as areas containing data. Free space on a disk gets fragmented over time, just as space containing data does. However, defragmenting free space takes extra time. Microsoft Corp.'s Windows Disk Defragmenter focuses only on areas with data.

Diskeeper deliberately chooses to save processing time by not defragmenting free space. PerfectDisk tackles both but takes significantly more time as it unifies free space and consolidates files. Defragmentation time isn't the only trade-off, however. If you defragment only data on a disk that's nearing capacity and then save a file that's bigger than any available chunk of contiguous free space, the operating system will have to fragment the new file right from the get-go.

But Diskeeper product manager Michael Materie claims that splitting files into two to three fragments is not a problem in most cases. "Putting all the free space into a single chunk is only useful for some purposes—for very large files," he says.

According to Raxco CEO Bob Nolan, if you're talking about a workstation with a small hard drive that's half empty and all you're concerned about is data, then any product will defragment it. The differences between the products start emerging "as the disk starts to fill up, as severity of fragmentation increases, and as remaining free space gets increasingly fragmented," he says.

Still, Raxco's approach takes longer, and the incremental value of complete defragmentation is questionable, according to Diskeeper. It opts for a fast but good enough pass to save time. Because of the dynamic nature of storage, the drive is constantly writing and deleting files, and free space is continually changing.

Materie contends that with Diskeeper's free-space engine, "we'll do a comparable job to Raxco, but we'll do it over a period of time rather than all at once."

I still agree with Diskeeper's philosphy of not wasting resources for minimum performance gain. If you really wish you can fully consolidate free space with Diskeeper but it is not the default method for performance reasons.

Here is a good article explaining the differences.

Disk Defragmenters Demystified

I still agree with Diskeeper's philosphy of not wasting resources for minimum performance gain. If you really wish you can fully consolidate free space with Diskeeper but it is not the default method for performance reasons.

True, you don't have to use Comprehensive defrag, but in the $100 Pro version of the product (considerably pricier than Perfect Disk) you do have to use their Faast technology to organize files on the desk for faster access. But this violates the Diskeeper precept that you should strive for an economical relationship between defragmenting time and and degree of completeness of the defrag process.

The two philosophies are this. Diskeeper thinks you should defrag fast and often. Its favored mode is automatic defragmentation with autosensing. PerfectDisk claims that if you unify free space, fragmentation slows down, and you have to defragment less often. Those two positions each at least make sense and are consistent unto themselves. But now DK comes along and says, "Hey, uneconomic use of processing time for deframentation is a bad way to go, EXCEPT if you use it to rearrange things for faster read access BUT NOT if you rearrange them to unify free space for faster write access and anti-fragmentation protection. The positions were consistent until now. Apparently DK has been forced to make a concession to the PD approach, and now its position doesn't hold together.

Stephen R. Diamond

Not even remotely. Arranging files on the disk for faster access time has nothing to do with free space consolidation. Windows Prefetching does this already. Diskeeper is not saying to defragment more often but only when it is necessary and to stop once performance has been optimized with wasting as little processing power as possible. Perfect Disk by default wants to consolidated all the free space, Diskeeper's argument which is valid is that do to the nature of disk access, free space is consistently changing. Perfect Disk advocates would like you to believe that once free space is consolidated it somehow offers massive performance improvements and stops future fragmentation. Once you start deleting files, your "perfect" free space consolidation is not perfect no more and it requires alot of time and processing power to rearrange the whole disk back to maximize free space.

Edited by Mastertech

I didn't say it had anything to do with free space consolidation but rather that it consumed more processing time than free space consolidation. The native defragmenter only organizes a few files. Organizing the entire file system in terms of usage patterns requires putting the files in a particular order, not just in a given space.

Of course Diskeeper advocates frequent defragging. How else to explain the automatic defragmentation, which tries to avert anything but the most nominal degree of defragmentation. It involves defragmenting a work station several times a day.

Stephen R. Diamond

The I-Fast feature has to be turned on and scheduled. It is not part of the real time defragmentation. Don't confuse real time defragmenting with advocating defragmenting more. Can real time defragmentation run more often then scheduled times? Yes but it can also run less if nothing changes on your disk. You seem to miss this point. No were does Diskeeper claim to want to defragment your HD several times a day. The Diskeeper engine only activates if fragmentation levels pass a predefined threshhold. I'm sure you understand this. Don't spin.

To say it kicks in when fragmentation reaches a "predefined level" is like saying a vehicle's gas mileage isn't excessive because the vehicle doesn't need any fuel until it runs out. That is, the statement is completely irrelevant, since the question being discussed concerns whether the gas consumption (or the "predefined level") is high or low (not whether it is "predefined.") In the case of Diskeeper, the help says it schedules the defrags automatically so that Diskeeper only moves a small number of fragments each time the automatic frag kicks in. It kicks in well before Diskeeper shows any general performance decrement at all.

Stephen R. Diamond

As long as I defrag my drive, I dont care what I use. I will stick with Diskeeper as it has always done fine by me and I like the new updates.

I think that's the right attitude. I think Raxco has taken the same position, saying that if you are defragmenting a work station with a half empty disk, it doesn't really much matter what you use.

But for serious corporate use, I can't see anything that approaches PD. The DK requirement of 20% free space is an outrage.

Each product has its advantages for a particular kind of user. Actually, I'm currently using O &O Defrag 8, because I find I like the flexibility of its screensaver mode, even though I think it is really the least technically advanced of the 3. PD unifies free space; DK is really fast; O * O's virtues lies in its flexibility of modes and conditions.

For the ordinary personal user, the choice, where not one of convenience, seems more like a statement of personal identity than a technical choice, which is why the arguments can become so heated over something as mundane as defragging your disk.

So I admit, my dislike of DK isn't based on its technical incompetence. For many personal users its automatic defragmentation will prove quite convenient. There is purpose to the seeming madness of defragging in the presence of almost nominal fragmentation, in that by taking advantage of time between tasks, the user need lose no time, while avoiding leaving the computer on all night, which some people don't like to do.

My dislike is indeed more of a personal statement, against Executive Software's disregarding the distinction between commercial hype and technical advice. It advises the user that he should use autodefragmentation to clean up his "mild defragmentation." No technical reason to attend to such a mild "problem." Raxco takes a scientific approach to a topic a topic which has a history of snail oil sales, while DK remains with one foot in the exploitation of wives tales and purveying hype as technically well-founded.

I'm still trying to really decide which I like more. Been switching back and forth over the last few weeks. Except for Diskeeper's blazing fast speed I do like PerfectDisk more for almost every reason.

But, one question I hope someone can answer.

I noticed one feature that Diskeeper has that Perfectdisk does not. Diskeeper said my C drive was not as healthy as it could be because the MFT was 99% full and had an easy to use tool to make it larger. It increased its size by like 20 megs and now its only 62% full and Diskeeper now says the drive is perfectly healthy.

Perfectdisk does not have this feature at all. So my question, is the way Diskeeper increased the MFT's size actually useful and or even necessary ? It sounds like a very good thing.

I noticed one feature that Diskeeper has that Perfectdisk does not. Diskeeper said my C drive was not as healthy as it could be because the MFT was 99% full and had an easy to use tool to make it larger. It increased its size by like 20 megs and now its only 62% full and Diskeeper now says the drive is perfectly healthy.

Perfectdisk does not have this feature at all. So my question, is the way Diskeeper increased the MFT's size actually useful and or even necessary ? It sounds like a very good thing.

First of all, effecting this increase is not a difficult thing to do. It can be done by making a small change in the registry, and the procedure is one recommended by Microsoft. But whether DK's diagnosis is correct is something else. MFT fragmentation can have various causes. Ofter the first thing recommended, before increasing the size of the MFT file, is a boot-time defrag with Raxco Perfect Disk. It seems often to solve the problem of MFT defragmentation.

The MFT wasn't fragmented, just 99% full or so it said, which will lead to it fragmenting when it hits 100% full so it said.

Ok, so if I do want to stay with Perfectdisk for good, which I do, how do I see how full it is on my own without using Diskeeper ? Where in the registry do I make it larger if it is ?

The only reason I know of for concern about the size of the MFT file is that if it is set too small, it causes the MFT to fragment. Here's a link to the registry tweak: http://www.tweakxp.com/article38125.aspx

I think you should put in a technical support request to Raxco, telling them what DK reported and asking for their recommendation and take on the problem. Sometimes it is said that increasinng the MFT file is a last resort solution. It may be that Raxco's defragmentation handles the whole business in a better way. Perfect Disk provides the option for it to take over the management of the MFT file. Perhaps it sets it automatically, and you are simply wasting disk space by increasing it. In any event, the MFT file reserved file space is larger now, and it won't revert if you uninstall DK. There's nothing you need do further, if you don't mind the reallocation of space.

But for serious corporate use, I can't see anything that approaches PD. The DK requirement of 20% free space is an outrage.
I think that is nonsense. Diskeeper is even better on servers. Since you want the fastest possible defragmentation with the least amount of resources used.

I think that is nonsense. Diskeeper is even better on servers. Since you want the fastest possible defragmentation with the least amount of resources used.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you actually think that it is acceptable to require 20% space free on a disk, when other products only require 5%?

That was my point. But since you raise the issue, the fact is that only Perfect Disk is Microsoft approved for terrabyte disks. On servers DK is not faster than Perfect Disk. Raxco has data on this. It is simply a mistake to assume that because a product is fast on smaller disks, it will also be faster on large disks.

Do you know how PD's smart placement, it usually does it in one pass? Has anyone seen a case where it is unable to "finish" defragging, as in, all the files are not smartly placed? Could it be because of not enough free space? 15%? I have had PD run 10 times in a row scheduled at night, each taking an hour, and getting to 100%, but it always has left-over fragments, and the files aren't placed like they usually are.

The Diskeeper engine only activates if fragmentation levels pass a predefined threshhold. I'm sure you understand this. Don't spin.

This is incorrect. Diskeeper does NOT automagically wake up and defragment a drive if it exceeds a certain level of fragmentation. What Smart Scheduling does is to compare how much work it took to defragment the drive on this run compared to how much it took on the last run. If there was more work to do, then it schedules itself to run more frequently. If there was less work to do, then it schedules itself to run less frequently. As one of the Diskeeper developers posted in a microsoft.public.win2000.general in 2000:

"Experience has shown that on most volumes, Smart Scheduling eventually 'settles down' to run about once a day."

If Smart Scheduling settles down to run about once a day, how is that different than running a daily schedule?

- Greg/Raxco Software

Microsoft MVP - Windows File Systems

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

I noticed one feature that Diskeeper has that Perfectdisk does not. Diskeeper said my C drive was not as healthy as it could be because the MFT was 99% full and had an easy to use tool to make it larger. It increased its size by like 20 megs and now its only 62% full and Diskeeper now says the drive is perfectly healthy.

Perfectdisk does not have this feature at all. So my question, is the way Diskeeper increased the MFT's size actually useful and or even necessary ? It sounds like a very good thing.

PerfectDisk doesn't have this "feature" because it is not needed :)

A little background on NTFS and how it works. When an NTFS drive is formatted, it creates the $MFT and it contains a fixed number of records that can be used. As files are created, then these records are used. Eventually, the pre-allocated number of records is filled up and the $MFT needs to "grow" - allocating another chunk of file records. Immediately adjacent to the $MFT is created what is called the MFT Reserved Zone. By default, it is 12.5% of the drive and goes from the first record of the $MFT to the first non-free cluster after the last MFT record. If you have a 100GB drive, then the Reserved Zone is going to be 12.5GB - pretty large if you think about it. If you look in Windows Explorer/Properties on a drive, the free space shown is the total of both INSIDE and OUTSIDE of the Reserved Zone.

The MFT Reserved Zone is created specifically to allow the $MFT to "grow" in a contiguous fashion. When the $MFT fills up, it allocates the next chunk from the free space located in the MFT Reserved Zone. NTFS will avoid putting files inside of the Reserved Zone unless you get into a low free space condition. It is not necessary to artifically pre-allocate additional space for the $MFT in order to keep it from growing fragmented.

Since NTFS takes care of this automatically, there is no need to artificially extend the $MFT. However, since most people don't have this level of knowledge of how NTFS works, when they hear about this "feature" in Diskeeper, they think it must be a good thing and worth paying extra money for :)

- Greg/Raxco Software

Microsoft MVP - Windows File Systems

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Do you have any independent tests? The Raxco one sided testing is getting old.

Speaking of independent tests - Computer World did a comparision ( http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopic...105582,00.html)

What is interesting to note is the comparision chart at the end of the article. It provides some interesting before and after statistics.

- Greg/Raxco Software

Microsoft MVP - Windows File Systems

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

^Interesting read and I'm still sticking with perfectdisk, I couldn't care less how long the defrag takes, as long as it is done well.

- Greg/Raxco Software

Microsoft MVP - Windows File Systems

Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Any idea when the next version of perfectdisk will be available?

Edited by slimy

PerfectDisk doesn't have this "feature" because it is not needed :)

A little background on NTFS and how it works.

Thank you. A friend explained that to me yesterday too. I too wasn't really aware how the MFT worked in NTFS file systems and I asked him about this diskeeper 'feature' and he said it was flat out wrong and useless then explained why.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I'm not happy with myself for it, but I've gone and got hold of it. Just another 45 minutes and I'll be Bond, James Bond. In my defence, IO's Hitman series is awesome, and I'm a sucker for 007. So while it might seem a bit simplified compared to Hitman, I'm sure I'll be right at home.
    • Or just check the script yourself ^^. I hate having a Microsoft account tied to my windows install.
    • 007 First Light review: Satisfying spy adventure that James Bond needed by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe I have fond memories of classic James Bond games from the Electronic Arts era. Using high-tech gadgets, sneaking into parties, and dispatching bad guys were wildly exciting activities for my younger self. In recent years, Bond games have entirely disappeared, alongside the super spy genre. Fast forward to 2020, imagine my surprise when IO Interactive announced it had secured the Bond IP to make a game. Considering the studio’s Hitman history, this project is one I keenly kept an eye on. Six years later, 007 First Light is finally here, and after spending time inside this globe-trotting adventure, I can safely say that my excitement for this developer’s take on this universe was not unfounded. IO has taken lessons it has learned from Hitman and combined them with what I would expect from a directed cinematic experience like James Bond. I have refrained from mentioning major plot points to save you from story spoilers in this review. This is an original story that doesn’t tie into any movies, so there isn’t an expectation of knowing the backstory or the decades of movies either. Bond, James Bond When 007 First Light begins, Bond is just Bond. There isn’t a spy angle, fancy gadgets, or even a secret mission. The introductory mission is framed to show how James Bond handled himself and how he does not care about the odds when it comes to saving lives. It’s a gorgeous level as well, showing off an island scattered with cliffs in the middle of a storm. Looking back, this is probably the best-looking level in the game, with IO showing off all its abilities with its custom engine, Glacier. But my favorite ended up being the follow-up to this level. Once the United Kingdom's foreign intelligence agency, MI6, recruits our daring youngster into its super-spy “00” program, training begins. However, instead of treading through the same tutorial missions where the game teaches you to run and jump and drive, IO opted for a montage, and it’s amazing. The scenes cut between Bond practicing and improving his marksmanship, parkour, hand-to-hand combat, and driving as weeks go by in his training. What impressed me here was the lack of any loading screens or stutters as scenes instantly switched to different locations entirely, as if I was watching a movie. This creativity is a trend I noticed in most levels, where there is some sort of gameplay or choreography mechanic being introduced to keep things interesting. Soon, the rest of the cast is introduced, bringing other agents that our favorite secret agent will be working with, the scientists and engineers that build MI6’s spy gadgets, as well as higher-ranking officers that either appreciate or (at best) tolerate Bond’s rebellious attitude. It’s a tight cast, all with incredibly good voice acting and personalities that quickly grew on me. The casting for Bond himself is also an excellent one. From showing his iconic soft spot for women to the condescending smiles that get a rise out of enemies, I had no issues getting immersed into this universe as this new face of James Bond. The missions take place in a wide range of locations as MI6 sends Bond to tackle dangers that are growing everywhere from the UK to Africa. These aren’t unrelated adventures where MI6 is sending secret agents, which is an angle I would love to see in another game, but a part of a bigger conspiracy affecting the entire world. Some of the twists and turns were all too predictable, and the character that Lenny Kravitz played made me cringe a little too much. But all in all, I enjoyed the campaign’s storyline that sets the stage for this new agent joining the illustrious “00” program. Plenty of Possibilities The third-person style of IO Interactive fits this role quite well. Bond is presented as a master at hand-to-hand combat as well as firearms, while also having a knack for being stealthy when required. Most sections of missions have a lot of freedom. This means I could beat up every goon and security guard on the way to an objective, slip past them without sounding a single alarm, or do a mix of both. My sessions usually end up with the third option because I tend to be impatient about waiting for a patrol to move. Drawing from its Hitman genes, the developer almost always gives multiple routes for going through missions. Levels can be massive, sometimes sporting hundreds of NPCs going their own ways and having conversations. If my objective is to break into a security room on the third floor, I could look around for roof access, eavesdrop on conversations to find out where someone lost a key, create a distraction and pickpocket a guard for a keycard, sneak in through the vents, or simply kick down the offending door. I enjoyed the variety on offer, especially because the same solutions didn’t usually show up in different missions. Before heading out into a secret MI6 escapade, the gadget specialist of the branch walks Bond through the organization's latest and greatest achievements. This can be cool little devices like a laser built into the watch, a phone that fires poison darts, or a camera that emits a powerful shockwave. The choice of what can be taken into the mission is up to the player. I could usually find fresh routes or get out of tough situations with a punch or two, so I never had the feeling of missing out by not choosing the right equipment. It’s still a fun practice. Choosing the armaments before a mission enhanced the super spy feeling quite a bit. As I mentioned, stealth comes in as a very viable option for most of the missions, letting Bond sneak past foes or knock them out silently. While it is satisfying to clear entire areas of goons and walk away without any alarms, the way of accomplishing this could have been done better. Bond can lure enemies, sneak up and knock them out, or use a gadget to disorient them before dealing a nasty blow. Bodies cannot be moved or hidden afterward either. It’s a very simple system, which I wish were more exciting to pull off. Perhaps more stealth-orientated gadgets, distraction options, or multi-takedowns could have helped here, I think. Getting caught while attempting to be in stealth does not mean a game over. Other than getting into a fist fight, an interesting twist of 007 First Light is the bluffing option. While an enemy is confused as to what you are doing in a restricted location, Bond has the option to improvise and persuade them that you are exactly where you’re supposed to be. These are fun little dynamic interactions with unique dialog depending on the mission and location, giving a few extra moments for Bond to go past suspicious guards smoothly. It’s the first time I’ve witnessed this system in a game, and I hope to see more. License to Kill Bond isn’t just dealing with security guards or civilians. From time to time, entire gangs of gun-toting mercenaries show up in levels looking to take down our protagonist. It is then that License to Kill mode is activated for Bond, letting him use firearms with no restrictions. I was surprised by just how tight gunplay is in 007 First Light. The weapons feel powerful and satisfying to fire, with single bullets capable of taking down an enemy with a headshot. Ammo is scarce, and enemies don’t drop weapons with full magazines most of the time. This forces a hectic kind of gameplay where I am always advancing towards enemies to take their weapons after they are downed. Things like shooting legs to immobilize, aiming at the hands to make their weapon go flying, blowing up nearby fire extinguishers for cover, and using gadgets to halt a goon in their tracks while I reload, make up enjoyable levels. I had to hold back my disappointment when the enemy count in these action sequences dropped to zero and I had to go non-lethal again. Speaking of action sequences, First Light isn’t just offering sandbox levels to complete at the player’s own leisure either. Each level comes with specific linear and directed scenes to move the story forward and put Bond in tight situations. These usually end up with high-octane chases or driving sections, offering the chance to witness chaining explosions, hails of gunfire, and scripted parkour scenes that remind me of Mission Impossible movies more than Bond. Elements like seeing James Bond jump out of a plane without a parachute or drive through buildings in London inside a trash truck were fantastic and always left me at a high point when finishing a mission. The classic James Bond theme is sprinkled in here too, which only happens a handful of times in the game, but at just the right moments. Visuals and Performance Compared to Unreal Engine 5 games we are seeing nowadays, 007 First Light isn’t flexing a huge amount of realism when it comes to graphics. The models, textures, and effects all feel a little dated, with the starting mission that I mentioned being the most visually striking. However, the complete lack of stutters, the hundreds of NPCs that can be on screen without a single hitch, massive sandbox levels, and smooth transitions between them all play a part in making this an immensely immersive and complex experience. The in-engine cutscenes are gorgeous as well, offering an upgraded visual style and model detail over the gameplay sections. Animations are one aspect that jumps out at me about any new game, and First Light has nailed what a third-person action game should feel like. Walking, sneaking, and running all have a heaviness to them that I appreciate. Whenever Bond moves past a wall or a ledge, his arms reach out to lightly hold those structures until he moves away. NPCs actually react to my character and move out of the way. Even during melee combat or takedown animations, the fists impacting a body or a head hitting a wall all have that same weight. Even the more frivolous animations, like catching a gun in midair or chucking an empty one at a goon (yes, you can do that), are satisfying to pull off. Of course, the in-engine cutscene animations are remarkably well done too, with facial animations and the upgraded model details improving my engagement with the characters. I have an AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT 16GB paired with an eight-core Ryzen 7 3700X and 32GB of RAM, with the game running at 1440p resolution. Deciding to completely max out all the graphics options gave me a range of frame rates between 60 and 100 depending on the scene and level. While I did try to enable AMD FSR, which bumped up the frame rates by a good 20% at Quality mode, IO Interactive’s implementation of the technology wasn’t that great. Every corner and edge in levels began shimmering, and I was also seeing smearing issues in fast-moving sections. The title seemingly uses the older generation FSR 3.1 and not the machine learning-assisted FSR 4, leading to these artifacts. Unfortunately, there isn't a way to manually upgrade this right now either. I opted to turn off the upscaling and play the game in native 1440p to avoid problems. I would say the FPS range I was getting was an acceptable one for a single-player action game for my setup. I do wish there were an FOV slider option in the settings. While the camera is far enough back for my tastes in most situations in this third-person adventure, at times the perspective is far too close. When trying to look around quickly and spot targets, I realized I was getting a slight headache at times due to the use of an almost over-the-shoulder close-up camera. Conclusion Being James Bond in 007 First Light is a treat. Traveling around the world chasing conspiracies, using high-tech gadgets disguised as everyday accessories, and improvising on the spot to fool foes all give a fantastic feeling of being a super spy. For an origin story, IO Interactive has done a great job at introducing the character and his motives for doing what he does. The satisfying combat animation and fantastic voice acting are definitely high points, with the License to Kill moments being my favorite. Not being able to move bodies and the simplistic stealth of mechanics does hurt its presentation a little. The NPC logic and intelligence is easy to manipulate and trick, repeating the same actions over and over again if I keep making distractions. The lack of an FOV slider was also a pain (quite literally) at times, and the FSR implementation is quite poor. These are things I hope the studio will improve upon with updates. Even with its faults, IO Interactive and James Bond are a match made in heaven. The studio knows how to make a main character that oozes charm and competency while also leaning heavily into its Hitman experience to make gigantic levels with what looks like hundreds of NPCs roaming around. Being an origin story, IO’s Bond has a way to go before he becomes the highly effective agent we see in the movie world. I am hoping the studio will continue this series alongside its Hitman ventures going forward, just so we get to experience the journey for longer. 007 First Light is available on PC (Steam, Epic Games Store, and Xbox PC), Xbox Series X|S, and PlayStation 5 for $69.99. This review was conducted on the PC version of the game provided by IO Interactive.
    • [Price Drop] PDF Expert for Mac v3 is still half off by Steven Parker Today's highlighted deal comes via our Apps + Software section of the Neowin Deals store, where for only a limited time you can save 42% on PDF Expert One-Time Purchase. PDFs remain the best way to transmit documents, but editing them isn't possible with standard Mac software. PDF Expert changes that, allowing you to edit PDF text, images, links, and outlines quickly and easily. Typo in a contract? Easy fix. Need to rework a complete section of a document? No problem. PDF Expert provides a series of essential functions that will transform the way you work with documents on your Mac. It recognizes text and OCR, makes edits, and fills out forms. And with the “Enhance” feature powered by AI, it will fix distortions, remove shadows and improve contrast so that even difficult-to-read documents look great. EDIT Change the text. Easily fix typos, update numbers, or add entire paragraphs Insert images. Update logos in a contract or add a new graph to a report Add links. Enrich your PDFs by linking to other pages or external websites ANNOTATE Highlight the important. Make the most valuable content stand out at a glance Comment on PDFs. Add text to PDFs, insert pop-up notes & write your thoughts in the margins Add stamps. Review documents with our set of stamps or create custom stamps for any workflow ORGANIZE Merge PDFs. Combine multiple files into one PDF document Manage pages. Add, delete, rearrange, or rotate PDF pages with ease Split PDFs. Extract pages from PDFs & save them as separate files CONVERT Convert to PDF. Turn JPG, PNG, Word, PPT, and Excel to PDF PDF to Word. Convert PDFs into editable Word documents PDF to image. Turn PDFs into JPG or PNG images PDF to Excel. Convert PDFs into Excel spreadsheets PDF to PPT. Save PDFs as PowerPoint presentations PDF to text. Convert PDFs into editable TXT files FILL OUT Fill out PDF forms. Easily fill out PDF forms by just clicking on them Sign documents. Add your signature to a PDF in a few clicks. Let customers sign documents with handy one-time signatures Redact PDFs. Blackout or erase confidential information from your documents RECOGNIZE TEXT OCR text in PDF. Recognize the text, so you can search, highlight & copy it Enhance scans. Fix distortions, remove shadows & improve contrast Crop & split pages. Split double-page scans into separate pages & remove undesired margins Good to know: Length of access: Lifetime Redemption deadline: redeem your code within 30 days of purchase Access options: Mac Max number of device(s): Unlimited usage on personal macOS devices Version: PDF Expert 3 for Mac (macOS) Updates: Get continuous support and bug fixes. Additional new features may come at an extra cost. PDF Expert One-Time Purchase normally costs $139.99, but you can pick it up for just $69.97 for a limited time, that represents a saving of $70 (50% off). For a full description, specs, and license info, click the link below. Deal Price One time cost now only $69.97 (was $139.99) Although priced in U.S. dollars, this deal is available for digital purchase worldwide. Support queries If you have queries or need support for any of the Neowin Deals, please use the contact form here. Neowin Deals are managed and sold by StackCommerce who represent Neowin on an affiliate basis. We post these because we earn commission on each sale so as not to rely solely on advertising, which many of our readers block. It all helps toward paying staff reporters, servers and hosting costs. Other ways to support Neowin Whitelist Neowin by not blocking our ads Create a free member account to see fewer ads Make a donation to support our day to day running costs Subscribe to Neowin - for $14 a year, or $28 a year for an ad-free experience Disclosure: Neowin benefits from revenue of each sale made through our branded deals site powered by StackCommerce.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      conkir earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Rising Star
      olavinto went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • One Month Later
      lamborghiniv10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      lamborghiniv10 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Reacting Well
      X-No-file earned a badge
      Reacting Well
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      271
    3. 3
      +Edouard
      75
    4. 4
      Skyfrog
      74
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!