• 0

Definitive Best Defragmenter 2007

Asked by kinetix63,

 Share

Definitive Best Defragmenter  

1029 members have voted

  1. 1. Your Choice?

    • DirMS/Buzzsaw
      2
    • Diskeeper
      289
    • Norton Speed Disk
      8
    • O&O Defrag
      200
    • PageDefrag
      3
    • PerfectDisk
      303
    • Vopt
      9
    • Windows Disk Defragmenter
      141
    • Other (Please specify below)
      74

Question

224 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Apprentice

kyzumi

Posted
Posted

Thank you very much. I wasn't even aware that there were third party softwares for defragmenting (I've been using the windows one for years) so I'm trying the most recommended here.

I have one question though:

For defragmenting improvement I'm thinking about using 2 or 3 defragmenters at the same time degragmenting the same disc. Is there any negative consequence on doing that?

  • 0
Grand Master

ViperAFK

Posted
Posted
Ok. I just realized those defragmenters are much better and faster than the Windows one so I won't have to do that. Thanks

Yeah, and running multiple degraggers would not be a good idea anyway, they all use different algorithms and would mess with each other. especially I would not do it at the same time as that could cause alot of corruption and many problems.

  • 0
Mentor

+orgitnized Subscriber¹

Posted
  • Subscriber¹
Posted

I voted "Other" for UltimateDefrag. I still use PerfectDisk on server and workstations but have been quite fond of UltimateDefrag lately.

It's the only one that even gives me the feel of a faster system. I can boot my machine 3 times in a row to benchmark (before imaging) and use PerfectDisk. Then go back to the image, use UltimateDefrag and see a 3 second boot-time increase.

It might not be such a big deal but it's small, very minimal in appearance and makes things feel snappier. WoW definitely loads faster for me (seconds faster, seriously) and plays better.

That's all the reasoning I need for this poll. PD is still a great choice and I'd recommend it overall - very solid performer for me and have never had any real issues with it, 'cept for the minor failed update attempts from time to time.

  • 0
Explorer

Rifter

Posted
Posted

I voted for the Windows Disk Defragger.

I've used the XP defrag utility for a long time with good results.

Recently, I started using Perfectdisk to see if it was any better, but honestly I can't tell the difference yet.

On his blog donnedwards has been doing a bunch of tests and in the most recent rounds, alternatives to the windows defragger haven't been any better, and sometimes worse. Particularly Auslogic and Diskeeper were worse or only minimally better than the XP defrag. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, his testing methods seem pretty sound and I find the results very surprising.

  • 0
Grand Master

Cloud Constructors

Posted
Posted
I voted for the Windows Disk Defragger.

I've used the XP defrag utility for a long time with good results.

Recently, I started using Perfectdisk to see if it was any better, but honestly I can't tell the difference yet.

On his blog donnedwards has been doing a bunch of tests and in the most recent rounds, alternatives to the windows defragger haven't been any better, and sometimes worse. Particularly Auslogic and Diskeeper were worse or only minimally better than the XP defrag. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, his testing methods seem pretty sound and I find the results very surprising.

interesting, link to the article?

  • 0
Proficient

Vettetech

Posted
Posted
I was using PerfectDisk 8 but it had two processes, PDAgent.exe and PDEngine.exe running constantly in the background, consuming a combined 15,000K. So I received a trial offer today of Diskeeper. I hope I don't run into the same problems with it.

Just kill the processes...........better yet put them on manual. I love PD 8

  • 0
Mentor

EL1TE

Posted
Posted

Diskeeper it's FAST and do it as Default Defragmenter should do, the Auslogics DD is very good, but the interface isn't the best, and needs more options to configure the software.

I've tried O&O Defrag, it's very good, but it's slow sometimes, tested PerfectDisk too, and i will NEVER install it again, it's S.L.O.W.

SLOW analysing, SLOW defragmenting, better stay with Default Defragmenter, it's fast and do it's job.

Tried Piriform Defraggler but it's slow, and was all the Defragmenter i've tested, and my this was my choice: Diskeeper (paid) or Auslogics Disk Defrag (free).

  • 0
Contributor

kilimanjaro

Posted
Posted
On his blog donnedwards has been doing a bunch of tests and in the most recent rounds, alternatives to the windows defragger haven't been any better, and sometimes worse. Particularly Auslogic and Diskeeper were worse or only minimally better than the XP defrag. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, his testing methods seem pretty sound and I find the results very surprising.

I just quickly skimmed through the blog, and I am not sure if it is entirely reliable or objective..seems perfectdisk can do no wrong according to him, but I am not going to argue his opinions.

I'd rather stick with Diskeeper; in my personal experience Diskeeper uses fewer resources, runs smoother, and defrags much faster than Perfectdisk. :laugh:

  • 0
Mentor

Pallab

Posted
Posted

I tried Diskeeper for a month, but then decided to switch back to PD. It doesnt consolidate space and also doesnt properly report metadata fragmentation.

I dont need a defragger that is fast, I need a defragger that is the most thorough - and that is perfect disk.

Ultimately optimization is what matters - not interface, not speed.

@Kyle_Katarn Piriform wasnt there when this pole was created (Jan 2007).

  • 0
Mentor

goatsniffer

Posted
Posted

I prefer O&O.

I was using PerfectDisk but it wuld always leave large files fragmented, mainly steam files :p

O&O defrag anything, and has great options for different types of defrags.

I did like the disk layout of PerfectDisk and it had better Offline defrag.

  • 0

Guest Jeremy of Many

Posted
Posted

I have restarted my defragmenter comparison project.

I have already begun testing various programs.

I hope to reach completion in about 1 month (testing, organizing of information, webpage design and final release).

Mind you our baby boy will be born in 1 month so I cannot guarantee anything.

I feel urged to debunk and clarify many things that a lot of users are unclear or misguided about.

  • 0
Enthusiast

TtamNedlog

Posted
Posted

I just registered here, for the sole purpose of this thread. I found it by way of Google. Anyway, I now have a few things to say. Maybe you guys can let me know if I get the big picture here.

First of all, I've been using DIRMs for about a year or two, and it is a sever improvement over the default WinXP defragger. I don't have Buzzsaw, though, so I don't have a GUI or anything. What I typically do is "analyze" the disk with the WinXP defragger, then run DIRMs from the command line. Afterwards, I re-analyze with WinXP, and notice that the fragmentation is little to none and that all the contiguous files have been moved into one large portion (for the most part). Not a 100% perfect job, but leaps and bounds better than WinXP's default job. Also, I defrag about every 4 months or so on average. No real set pattern, it just depends on how much I foresee myself editing/fragmenting a bunch of files in the near future. If I think I'll be cluttering up my HDD, I won't bother running a defrag until I'm done with all that heh.

Until this thread, I had never heard of DK or PD. Although I don't go searching for defraggers all the time. :p

I'm thinking about getting one of those (either DK2008 or PD8), but I wanted to make sure I got the basic idea. Like a few others have already mentioned, I realize defragging is mostly for peace of mind and prolonging HDD life moreso than improving performance in any noticeable way. But that's where I'm a bit iffy. It seems to me like defragging all the time may put more stress on the HDD than fragmented files do. From what I've gathered, DK is great about constantly defragging files in the background so you never have to worry about it, whereas PD is great about consolodating free space and making sure all the contiguous files are in one large chunk. Both of these methods sound like they put more stress than is necessary on a disk.

You have DK, which is constantly defragging small portions at a time. Yet it leaves free space largely separated, so new files are more prone to fragmentation. On the other hand, when you tell PD to defrag, it does a more thorough job and moves a lot of files around, making sure they are contiguous. I don't know which of these is more stressing on the HDD. With PD, if you just deleted a large 8gig ISO file for example and then ran a defrag, would PD try to move all of your files around to fill in that newfound 8gig gap in your HD? That's a lot of needless file writing and HDD stress, it sounds like. With DK, it's constantly defragging, which is cool and sounds less stressing, except for the fact that most new files will be fragmented because the free space is spread out, meaning DK will ALWAYS be defragging.

PD sounds like a large amount of HDD stress at once, whereas DK sounds like a small amount of HDD stress all the time. Basically the same thing, neither one of them sound beneficial to HDD life.

Should I even bother with either of them? The popular saying "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" is coming to mind here. Whatever I'm doing in terms of HDD care, must be pretty decent because of the two computers I've owned, neither of them had HDD failures. Both of those HDDs were used for over 5 years with no problems. I generally chalk up an HDD failure to brand name. My friend who has had two HDD failures, had Maxtors in both of them. Mine have been Western Digital, and I've had good luck so far. *knock on wood* :)

What do you guys think?

  • 0
Mentor

Pallab

Posted
Posted

Defragging does give a noticable performance boost, For example fold.

As far as hard disk stress is concerned the key here is the frequency of defragging. If you do it very often then yes you are probably decreasing the life of your hard disk. But if you do it once a month or once in two months (when there is actual need for defragmentation) then you are reducing the stress on the harddisk (experienced due to constantly working with fragmented files) and improving its life.

If hard disk life is your only consideration then stick with the default windows one or one of the free ones. But if you do need the little bit performance improvement that thorough defragmentation can provide you grab Perfect Disk.

  • 0
Neowinian

bluegnu

Posted
Posted

I am in 100% Agreement with you, Diskeeper 2007 is an Excellent Product. I use as well, and have been very pleased with the performance improvement for the past 11 months.

Diskeeper 2007. I used PD7 & 8 but Diskeeper just allows you to totally forget about fragmentation. I've been in heated debates on several forums, particularly on Driverheaven where employees from thee two products replied many times with valuable information. I wanted to know which one was better, but of course always got the run-around or "use what you feel is best". So now I just take a step back and realize that if my system runs fast as it does right now and doesn't ever encounter any issues with delays or slowness and my fragmentation level is 0% all the time, then I need not waste time shoving my opinion down others' throats because they don't use what I use. If it works for me, then it's good. It's as simple as that. Does any other defragmenter defrag your HDD completely invisibly in the background without the need for scheduling? I don't think so.

But like most others it would be interesting to find the true performance winner for the sake of argument.

So how should one progress toward this lofty task, and what shall the bake off rules be?

  • Compare the results for each of the different Windows Server Defrag Products on identically configured Servers?
  • Compare the results for each of the different Windows Defrag Products on identically configured Windows XP SP2?
  • Compare the results for each of the different Windows Defrag Products on identically configured Windows Vista Home Edition?
  • Compare the results for each of the different Windows Defrag Products on identically configured Windows Vista Ultimate?
  • And how do they perform on laptops?
  • How do they perform in a Virtual Environment?

  • 0

Guest

Posted
Posted
I am in 100% Agreement with you, Diskeeper 2007 is an Excellent Product. I use as well, and have been very pleased with the performance improvement for the past 11 months.

But like most others it would be interesting to find the true performance winner for the sake of argument.

So how should one progress toward this lofty task, and what shall the bake off rules be?

  • Compare the results for each of the different Windows Server Defrag Products on identically configured Servers?
  • Compare the results for each of the different Windows Defrag Products on identically configured Windows XP SP2?
  • Compare the results for each of the different Windows Defrag Products on identically configured Windows Vista Home Edition?
  • Compare the results for each of the different Windows Defrag Products on identically configured Windows Vista Ultimate?
  • And how do they perform on laptops?
  • How do they perform in a Virtual Environment?

Why the hell would you need to defragment in a virtual environment? Just do it in your actual real installed os!

  • 0

Guest Jeremy of Many

Posted
Posted
Why the hell would you need to defragment in a virtual environment? Just do it in your actual real installed os!

Have you ever used a virtual environment? My Windows XP Professional-flat.vmdk file is 8GB and it is defragmented but the state of the actual environment within the file is a fragmented OS.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to question listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.