• 0

Definitive Best Defragmenter 2008


Definitive Best Defragmenter  

866 members have voted

  1. 1. Your choice?

    • Auslogics
      54
    • DirMS/Buzzsaw
      1
    • Diskeeper
      184
    • JKDefrag
      101
    • Norton Speed Disk
      5
    • O&O Defrag
      119
    • PageDefrag
      1
    • PerfectDisk
      224
    • Vopt
      5
    • Windows Defrag
      97
    • Other (please specify below)
      75


Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Diskeeper for me. All other defragmenters have below par intelligent, automatic background defrgmentation. PerfectDisk comes close, but it isn't efficient in the sense, it uses too much resources over too little time, thus making performance dips quite obvious. With Diskeeper, you won't notice a preformance drop while a defrag is going on, even on very low end PCs. (I've been running Diskeeper for years on my old 450 Mhz box quite comfortably)

Sure, if you do a manual run, you may find PerfectDisk / O&O / UltimateDefrag to be better, but Diskeeper isn't designed to be run manually.

All those benchmarks that are available at present only tests the defragmenters for a single or atmost two sessions or runs. Those tests only show which defragmenter works the best on manual defrags.

Automatic, background defragmentation tests should be conducted over a period of time, like a week or a month; only then can we know which automatic defragmenter is the most efficient. Note that the keyword here is efficient - meaning delivering maximum performance while using the least amount of resources.

Although, fragmentation is highly overrated these days. With large harddrives becoming cheaper and large media files occupying the maximum space, fragmentation isn't much of a problem once your system is well setup. Again, this is highly subject to your enviromnent and your requirements. Database servers might benefit from Diskeeper w.r.t the performance aspect, but home users might find Diskeeper to be overpriced for their general needs.

Personally, I use UltimateDefrag immediately after a fresh format+install. I manually edit the layout.ini to add ntldr, boot.ini and ntdetect.com at the top of the list. (Why doesn't windows add it in the first place?!) Then I go on about adding files that I don't use frequently to the bottom of the drive (driver.cab, sp2.cab, help files, dllcache, and so on), while I move programs that autostart with windows to the top of the drive. Sometimes, I take the assistance of bootvis to figure out the program loading sequence.

Once the manual drive layout optimization is done UltimateDefrag finishes all tasks, I quit it for good and enable Diskeeper. And that's the last time I'll be opening a defragmenter again, untill the next format cycle comes along :)

My personal advice to all readers: Please don't go blindly by the results of this poll. First, assess your situation and decide whether you would *really* benefit from a dedicated third-party defragmenter. Vista users have their work cut out thanks to the builtin automatic defragmenter, but first assess whether it's working well for *you*. Check your fragmentation levels. Are they low on an average or tend to shoot up every time you install something? Do the drives you use frequently have more than sufficient free space? (If so, fragmentation won't be a problem for you.) Fragmentation of audio/video files isn't a big deal since they're always read (played) at a constant speed. 3 or 4 fragments of a 700 MB movie file wont affect your playback experience. Unless of course, you have some other files, like programs installed in the same partition. Then again, it's never a good idea to keep your programs and media on the same partition, for the above and many other reasons. If program loading time is your main concern, then invest in a good flash drive and make use of ReadyBoost. (eBoostr, for Windows XP users.) If low startup time is what you seek, then disable unnecessary startup programs/services and make use of the Sleep / Hibernate features.

Defragmenters can only take you a certain distance in the journey to optimizing your computer.

Don't just jump to conclusions based on some xyz benchmark or personal opinions. Decide for yourself what would suit your scenario the best. On that note, I'd like to say that there is no such thing as a "Definitive Best Defragmenter", just as there is no "Definitive Best Car".

Great post, there is a lot of solid information in there that a lot people don't even consider nowadays.

I also fixed your post (in bold) that kept me laughing as well. :D

I use the normal Windows XP defragmenter.

  • 0

Diskeeper for me. All other defragmenters have below par intelligent, automatic background defrgmentation. PerfectDisk comes close, but it isn't efficient in the sense, it uses too much resources over too little time, thus making performance dips quite obvious. With Diskeeper, you won't notice a preformance drop while a defrag is going on, even on very low end PCs. (I've been running Diskeeper for years on my old 450 Mhz box quite comfortably)

Sure, if you do a manual run, you may find PerfectDisk / O&O / UltimateDefrag to be better, but Diskeeper isn't designed to be run manually.

All those benchmarks that are available at present only tests the defragmenters for a single or atmost two sessions or runs. Those tests only show which defragmenter works the best on manual defrags.

Automatic, background defragmentation tests should be conducted over a period of time, like a week or a month; only then can we know which automatic defragmenter is the most efficient. Note that the keyword here is efficient - meaning delivering maximum performance while using the least amount of resources.

Although, fragmentation is highly overrated these days. With large harddrives becoming cheaper and large media files occupying the maximum space, fragmentation isn't much of a problem once your system is well setup. Again, this is highly subject to your enviromnent and your requirements. Database servers might benefit from Diskeeper w.r.t the performance aspect, but home users might find Diskeeper to be overpriced for their general needs.

Personally, I use UltimateDefrag immediately after a fresh format+install. I manually edit the layout.ini to add ntldr, boot.ini and ntdetect.com at the top of the list. (Why doesn't windows add it in the first place?!) Then I go on about adding files that I don't use frequently to the bottom of the drive (driver.cab, sp2.cab, help files, dllcache, and so on), while I move programs that autostart with windows to the top of the drive. Sometimes, I take the assistance of bootvis to figure out the program loading sequence.

Once the manual drive layout optimization is done UltimateDefrag finishes all tasks, I quit it for good and enable Diskeeper. And that's the last time I'll be opening a defragmenter again, untill the next format cycle comes along :)

My personal advice to all readers: Please don't go blindly by the results of this poll. First, asses your situation and decide whether you would *really* benefit from a dedicated third-party defragmenter. Vista users have their work cut out thanks to the builtin automatic defragmenter, but first asses whether it's working well for *you*. Check your fragmentation levels. Are they low on an average or tend to shoot up every time you install something? Do the drives you use frequently have more than sufficient free space? (If so, fragmentation won't be a problem for you.) Fragmentation of audio/video files isn't a big deal since they're always read (played) at a constant speed. 3 or 4 fragments of a 700 MB movie file wont affect your playback experience. Unless of course, you have some other files, like programs installed in the same partition. Then again, it's never a good idea to keep your programs and media on the same partition, for the above and many other reasons. If program loading time is your main concern, then invest in a good flash drive and make use of ReadyBoost. (eBoostr, for Windows XP users.) If low startup time is what you seek, then disable unnecessary startup programs/services and make use of the Sleep / Hibernate features.

Defragmenters can only take you a certain distance in the journey to optimizing your computer.

Don't just jump to conclusions based on some xyz benchmark or personal opinions. Decide for yourself what would suit your scenario the best. On that note, I'd like to say that there is no such thing as a "Definitive Best Defragmenter", just as there is no "Definitive Best Car".

Well said. I use Diskeeper, I have been for 6 months and it works outstanding.

  • 0

JKDefrag

i add / delete / move around a ton of large files all day long (no not pirated movies :p ) JK being 64-bit helps the speed quite a bit when defraging

and when i use it on my C: i notice huge increases in speed when windows boots and logs on

as well it has lots of different types of defraging and options of what and how to defrag stuff

  • 0

Tried several of the free variants and most were adequate but I found none of them really made much difference but then I tried PerfectDisk 8 and wow!......boot up time and the general responsiveness of my XP machine improved dramatically. Great product and would recommend anyone try the 30 day free trial to see if they notice the difference too. Good to hear version 9 will be here soon too. :)

  • 0

Diskeeper for me. All other defragmenters have below par intelligent, automatic background defrgmentation. PerfectDisk comes close, but it isn't efficient in the sense, it uses too much resources over too little time, thus making performance dips quite obvious. With Diskeeper, you won't notice a preformance drop while a defrag is going on, even on very low end PCs. (I've been running Diskeeper for years on my old 450 Mhz box quite comfortably)

That why I use it. Its just excellent in this regard.

  • 0

The first time I used JKDefrag I thought to myself why would anyone make something with a UI that bad? A year later I tried JKDefrag again and just amaze with the program. Now all my computers are defrag using this program. It's best to run in Safe Mode; in this situation the computer can't be used for anything so there is no point to even sit there and look at the UI to see how ugly it's. The program is simple to use, light, does what it suppose to do without doing anything extra. Definitely one of the best freeware and must have program out there.

  • 0

Voted for Perfectdisk 8... waiting impatiently for 9 to see the changes.

Two weeks ago, I ran a manual defrag with PerfectDisk 8. I had about 56 fragments left, I started up Diskeeper right after and turned on auto-defrag, and fragshield. Currently, Diskeeper 2008 is still running, but I've checked on a daily basis with Diskeeper that the amount of fragments on my computer's still going up. I have almost 2000 fragments... which I suppose is ok... but slightly disappointed that it wasn't able to deter fragments on my computer. Also, the constant "defrag" on my harddrive is slightly annoying, it constantly read/writes to my harddrive so my harddrive constantly makes noise. I will continue to use Diskeeper until my trial is over, then I will make a final decision whether I want PD9 or DK.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Millions of users to benefit from Windows 11's new performance boost on Adobe Photoshop by Sayan Sen Despite the advent of AI-generated imagery, Adobe's Photoshop remains one of the most popular tools on this planet. Adobe does not have a publicly reported total user count but it's probably not wrong to assume there are millions. As of 2025, Adobe Creative Cloud has had approximately 41 million paid subscribers, many of whom likely use Photoshop. In addition, more than 166,000 companies worldwide are apparently also using the app. These figures are according to a very recent report by SQ Magazine. Out of them, it is fair to assume that many are probably running Windows. As such, there is good news for these users as Microsoft has announced Photoshop is getting a big 20% performance boost on x86-64 (AMD64) systems and a 13% bump-up on Arm devices. This is definitely great news for them as many have complained about the slow performance and general sluggishness of Photoshop on Windows 11 ever since the advent of the latter back in 2021. If you are wondering how Microsoft managed to do this, the answer lies in a combination of compiler-level optimizations and a technology called Sample Profile Guided Optimization (SPGO). According to Microsoft, Adobe worked closely with the company’s Visual C++ team and adopted the latest MSVC toolchain enhancements together with SPGO to squeeze more performance out of Photoshop’s CPU-bound workloads. Unlike traditional Profile Guided Optimization (PGO), which requires developers to create special instrumented builds and run lengthy training workloads, SPGO gathers performance data directly from optimized release binaries. This means Adobe could collect real-world usage information which gives a major advantage to this technique, as companies could leverage data collected from actual customer workloads rather than only relying on synthetic benchmark runs. In theory, this should allow optimizations to better reflect how users interact with software in the real world. Thanks to this, there are improvements to code layout, function inlining, hot-and-cold code separation, and other low-level tweaks that help processors execute instructions more efficiently. Essentially the compiler is better able to identify “hot” code paths, those which are most frequently executed, and optimize them accordingly.
    • "The 2TB Samsung 990 PRO NVMe SSD hits lowest price in over three months¨ I'd prefer to see the lowest price in over a year
    • Glad these prices are starting to come down, but that is still crazy. I bought the 2TB 9100 Pro (slightly more expensive version with PCIe 5.0) last year for $240.
    • The 2TB Samsung 990 PRO NVMe SSD hits lowest price in over three months by Sayan Sen Yesterday, we covered a really good deal wherein you can get a 4TB TeamGroup T-FORCE G50 NVMe PCIe Gen4 SSD for a low price of just $400 with a special discount coupon. That's just $100 per TB, making it a very good offer during these hard times. The deal is still live, so you can check it out in its dedicated article here if you do not want to miss out. Meanwhile, if you don't have that kind of budget but still wish to buy an SSD for a good price, the 2TB variant of the TeamGroup SSD at $280 its lowest price in over three months. Meanwhile, those seeking 2TB but faster performance can check out Samsung's 990 PRO, which has hit the lowest price also in the last quarter or so, as it's on sale for $370 (purchase links under the specs table down below). Thus, you want a faster drive, get the 990 Pro, or you want more capacity, grab the TeamGroup 4TB linked in the first para. The 990 PRO is a PCIe Gen4 NVMe SSD and still one of the fastest drives available today for under $500. Speaking of fast, sequential reads and writes are rated at 7450 MB/s and 6900 MB/s, respectively. The random throughputs for reads and writes are 1400K IOPS and 1550K IOPS, respectively. The 990 PRO is based on Samsung's 7th Gen V-NAND flash, and it too is TLC. It packs 2 gigs of LPDDR4 DRAM cache, which helps the random performance. The endurance rating for this is 1200 TBW (terabytes written), which should be sufficient for most users. The Samsung 990 PRO is compatible with the PlayStation 5, but if you are going to use the 990 PRO on a PC, check out the Samsung Magician app that lets you track your drive's health, update its firmware, customize various settings, and more. The tech specs are given below: Specification TeamGroup T-FORCE G50 2TB Samsung 990 PRO 2TB Interface PCIe 4.0 x4, NVMe 1.4 PCIe Gen 4.0 x4, NVMe 2.0 Form Factor M.2 2280 M.2 2280 Controller InnoGrit Controller Samsung In-house Controller NAND Flash 3D TLC 3D TLC DRAM Cache None (HMB supported) 2GB LPDDR4 Sequential Read (Max) 5,000 MB/s 7,450 MB/s Sequential Write (Max) 4,500 MB/s 6,900 MB/s Random Read (4K) Up to 600,000 IOPS Up to 1,400,000 IOPS Random Write (4K) Up to 700,000 IOPS Up to 1,550,000 IOPS TBW (Endurance) 1,300 TBW 1,200 TBW MTBF 3,000,000 hours 1,500,000 hours Operating Temperature 0°C to 70°C 0°C to 70°C Storage Temperature -40°C to 85°C -40°C to 85°C Shock Resistance 1,500G / 0.5ms 1,500G / 0.5ms Heatsink Patented Graphene Heat Spreader No Get them at the links below: Samsung 990 PRO SSD 2TB (MZ-V9P2T0B/AM): $369.99 (Sold and Shipped by Amazon US) TEAMGROUP T-Force G50 2TB SSD (TM8FFE002T0C129): $279.99 (Sold by TeamGroup, Shipped by Amazon US) Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • If you can't spell a simple word that 2nd graders learn, your entire argument is suspect.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      Jocimo earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      suprememobiles48 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      Prasann earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Prasann earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      519
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      174
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      90
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      81
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!