What is the best defragger?

[andsome]

Opera.

I didn't know that Opera was a defragger???? :D

[Panarchy]

^HAHA! He didn't read the topic...

Anyways, I'm gonna try Diskeeper

PS: PerfectDisk can defrag page file, and can defrag system files (makes you reboot then it defrags it, in a BIOS type screen) you can also make it run at a certain date/time.

[AlanHo]

According to this month's edition of PCW magazine - the top defragger is O&O Defrag 10

I have never heard of it - but there you are, you learn summat every day

Defrag here

[Sunray]

Diskeeper works with Vista.. and I like the automatic defragmentation (it defrags when the comp is idle) so I don't need to worry about scheduling a defrag session.. it just does it as I go along.

I vote for Diskeeper too. Using DK Pro 2k7, not with Vista, but with XP Pro/SP2, and the automatic defrag option is great. I haven't had to do a manual defrag session for a couple of months now after turning on autodefrag. Autodefrag is a convenient solution which IMHO is much better than the semi-automatic scheduling features of others. Best part is, it hasn't locked up, destabilized or messed up any of my other programs when running/idling. Works silently without fuss. B)

[trackrat]

I have been using Auslogics Diskdefrag for a while now, it is free and does a good job.

My brother like Jason.b.c uses Linux so he does not have to defrag.

[Mike567]

I don't defrag.

I don't like windows moving any files which could be a security risk before i can use eraser on them.

[Panarchy]

Can someone show me a screenshot of the latest pro version of Diskeeper and what it shows after a defrag?

Thanks in advanced,

Panarchy

[palindrome]

I don't defrag.

For how long can one not defrag? I am curious since my system which is a few months old is already fragmented and it says i need to. What happens when the drive is already fragmented and we ignore it? I read somewhere that if its badly cluttered and the 'disease' is left unchecked, it proliferates into more disarray leading to other performance issues. Also heard that in worst cases if the drive crashes one cant recover data if its badly fragmented. Am i right?

[-pops-]

If a drive is badly fragmented there is a decrease in performance. I've not known the performance to get so bad that it causes a system to crash but, I suppose it could do in the extreme.

The performance loss due to fragmentation is very gradual and is usually not noticed until you think about a process which was, at one time, completed in (effectively) zero time now takes many seconds.

A performance improvement can definitely be noticed following the defragmentation of a heavily fragmented disk.

In my view, the software that is scheduled to defragment every few hours, or even once a day, is overdoing it. A weekly or monthly defrag is sufficient for most drives EXCEPT drives used for processing, moving and storing large files like video and large audio where a defrag every couple of days may be needed.

[andsome]

I have found that XP seems to fragment more quickly than W98, and needs defragging more frequently. The boot time defrag facility with Diskeeper makes a noticeable difference to speed. :D It's not often that I disagree with pops, I usually look upon him as a guru, but I do find that a once a day defrag with Diskeeper working unseen in the background keeps things moving more quickly. :D

[ɹəuəllıʍ ʇɐb]

Can someone show me a screenshot of the latest pro version of Diskeeper and what it shows after a defrag?

I cannot, as I have "only" Diskeeper 9; the latest version is 2007 (which equals to 11).

I have tried it (2007), but I didn't like it much. 2007 has a new twist - after defragging, it shows all blue = all defragged, when in fact some of the files may still be fragmented. They say that it's because very large files will anyway be read in junks, and cannot be read at once. True, but the blue picture still does not show the full truth. Diskeeper 9 shows exactly what you got.

[andsome]

Can someone show me a screenshot of the latest pro version of Diskeeper and what it shows after a defrag?

I cannot, as I have "only" Diskeeper 9; the latest version is 2007 (which equals to 11).

I have tried it (2007), but I didn't like it much. 2007 has a new twist - after defragging, it shows all blue = all defragged, when in fact some of the files may still be fragmented. They say that it's because very large files will anyway be read in junks, and cannot be read at once. True, but the blue picture still does not show the full truth. Diskeeper 9 shows exactly what you got.

So I believe does Diskeeper 10 which is what I use.

[P;3]

i don't defrag my hard drive at all , never have , never need to....

if you have never tried a defragment , you will not know nor see nor be aware of how slow your comp may have become nor the improvement a defrag makes to the computer's performance and speed

[Watchful]

I have only defraged twice in six years and have not noticed any loss of performance B)

[andsome]

I have only defraged twice in six years and have not noticed any loss of performance B)

Loss of performance can be very gradual and any performance loss may not be apparent. You may well be surprised at the difference it makes. By now it may need several hours to go through, though mine with Diskeeper done regularly takes only a few minutes. I cannot understand why you don't do it, you can carry on using your computer as the defrag occurs.

[Watchful]

Can't see any need for it.

[P;3]

mabe those who have never run a defrag or feel it a waste of time ought to try it to see for themselves the effect of a tidy-up on the comp can make ? you take on updates regularly OF windows? and other protection programs? you perhaps play some games on the comp? how do you think all this activity may be affecting the performance ? I recently changed some programs on my comp and gave it a thorough deframent and tidy up afterwards

those who have not defragmented might find running the tool 'useful'

[rong]

I only defrag maybe once or twice a year and have never noticed any difference in speed, that doesn't mean there isn't any, just that it's insignificant. The other thought is that the more you mess the more chance there is that something could go wrong ;)

[Watchful]

I only defrag maybe once or twice a year and have never noticed any difference in speed, that doesn't mean there isn't any, just that it's insignificant. The other thought is that the more you mess the more chance there is that something could go wrong ;)

I always think if it aint broke, don't fix it B)

[Irene]

I think that it probably depends how much you install and uninstall, and maybe delete saved files (perhaps photographs/movies/music, in particular).

I always use CCleaner to remove any rubbish, then apply Windows Defrag facility to determine whether I need to perform a defrag (certainly not every time) on each drive in turn. After this process on a weekly basis, I do a full system backup onto an external drive.

Again, it probably depends on what you actually use your PC for.... Mine is a mixture (-5% business +95% pleasure). On occasions, I download (hopefully safe) things and maybe after perusing I may uninstall if I decide that it's not for me. Photo's and home created movies sometimes suit or otherwise. In which case, I may delete them.

This sort of activity creates a requirement for the procedures which I follow.

I have no other experience of any other defragger than Windows. I am always open to suggestions....

So convince me. :D

[andsome]

I think that it probably depends how much you install and uninstall, and maybe delete saved files (perhaps photographs/movies/music, in particular).

I always use CCleaner to remove any rubbish, then apply Windows Defrag facility to determine whether I need to perform a defrag (certainly not every time) on each drive in turn. After this process on a weekly basis, I do a full system backup onto an external drive.

Again, it probably depends on what you actually use your PC for.... Mine is a mixture (-5% business +95% pleasure). On occasions, I download (hopefully safe) things and maybe after perusing I may uninstall if I decide that it's not for me. Photo's and home created movies sometimes suit or otherwise. In which case, I may delete them.

This sort of activity creates a requirement for the procedures which I follow.

I have no other experience of any other defragger than Windows. I am always open to suggestions....

So convince me. :D

Windows defragger is a very much dumbed down version of Diskeeper. Diskeeper can run be once only, continuously in the background, or scheduled. The choice is yours. You can also defrag the boot files on start up. I do this once a month and the increase in performance is noticeable. It is worth every penny, and can be tried out free for a period. :D

[Irene]

Windows defragger is a very much dumbed down version of Diskeeper. Diskeeper can run be once only, continuously in the background, or scheduled. The choice is yours. You can also defrag the boot files on start up. I do this once a month and the increase in performance is noticeable. It is worth every penny, and can be tried out free for a period. :D

Well, you persuaded me to take a look. :D

I downloaded it on a trial basis.

I've done the necessary on drive C & D and a boot one too.

You're right!! It does make a difference. :D

I'll see how it goes for the trial period and if it continues to perform as well, I'll buy it.

Next question will be, "where will I get the best price?" ;)

[Panarchy]

Everyone!

Try PerfectDisk!

It has an awesomely cool/easy to use interface.

Try it, then compare it to DiskKeeper!

I think I know which one you will choose (B

[andsome]

Everyone!

Try PerfectDisk!

It has an awesomely cool/easy to use interface.

Try it, then compare it to DiskKeeper!

I think I know which one you will choose (B

As did several others on here, I tried it and kicked it out. I believe it fouled up more than one computer. You will get to love Diskeeper more and more as you get used to it Irene.

[palindrome]

I have found that XP seems to fragment more quickly than W98, and needs defragging more frequently.

I tend to agree with that. My drive is pretty fragged now it does lag and its quite irritating to have to wait for a minute for programs to open. ( which is what pops is referring to i guess) My friend who is a hard core gamer says if the drive is fragmented badly, they cant play games since it stutters and lags.My take is that, we spend so much on the system, to enable speed and quick response etc. It would be a waste of all those resources if the performance was affected by fragmentation!

But i guess it all depends on idividual users, amazed at Pushkin!

Am going to try out the trial version that andsome has suggested.

Thanks all for the responses!