Advantages of 3rd Party Disk Defragers?

[Dav0s]

whats wrong with the windows one?

 

[nathan]

dont think ive ever defragged my hard drive.

 

[JN]

dont think ive ever defragged my hard drive.

Nor me, but the Windows defragger doesn't actually optimise the location of the files (most used ones at beginning of disk etc).

Also I find you have to run it about 5 times before it fully defrags the disk.

 

[Dav0s]

ah that might be it jim.

i know windows moves them all together (never had a problem doing that, always first time), but i suppose it would be better if more accessed files were on the outside of the disk.

is that the only difference?

 

[Dav0s]

dont think ive ever defragged my hard drive.

used to make a huge difference on my old 20gb 5400rpm drive. doesnt really make a difference now tho.

 

[FarFarAway]

Well I've used a couple and they seem to try to optimise files but every time after I used them my install becomes slower

 

[PV5150]

Usually because the defragmenter compresses the files. I use O&O defrag and it's the best out there imo. O&O allows you to either set the disk defrag for speed (optimised file locations depending on use) or space.

 

[darkorb]

im gonna try O&O

i use the windows one every few days on my HD

 

[PV5150]

Yeah the Windows one is only good if you run it in safe mode, and as Jim said it usually takes a few cracks at it before it gets the job done. I think you'll like the O&O defrag mate

 

[darkorb]

im using O&O, and doing the Access one, since i read more than i write.. ?

 

[NickS]

whats wrong with the windows one?

I use Raxco's PerfectDisk 8 now just cause I don't really like Vista's. I like it so much I use it on all my PC's now, incl. my XP box.

 

[nrage]

Information on Defragmenting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_Defragmenter_(Windows)

What file system are you using FAT32 or NTFS. I believe NTFS file systems do not require defragmenting as often, or at all unless you run it close to full and continue to do a lot of writing/deleting for an extended period.

 

[Dav0s]

pretty sure all mine are on NTFS now, and only one of my drives in anywhere near full.

ive also never had any problems with the XP one, so i think ill stick with that for now

 

[Rastalovich]

It can be a science and lengthy process, for the average user a windows defrag is adequate, but more often than not not something that would stress a pc`s general use outside of being so bad that the pagefile is all over the place.

After an install being extensively old, it`s a good idea.

More intelligent defraggers should look at files u have in terms of how often, if at all, they`re accessed and move them to a more efficient area of the drive surface.

Approximately a 3rd into the drive`s surfaces I believe is where the spin and access is approaching optimum, placing the fat around there, frequently used files next, then less frequent to little used ones next, then never used. All data for files being arranged in order to minimize head movement as much as possible.

Biggest factor for drive performance is the head. Everything else can be compremized by it afaic.

Average user wouldn`t be that critical tho imo.

 

[FarFarAway]

As an addendum to this I've just ran a defrag on Vista. Whilst the interface is appalling, performance (esp speed booting up) has increased a hell of a lot.

 

[Rastalovich]

As well as sucking in implementation, it`s too slow also. Takes 50million times longer than the XP one merely to examine a 5G partition. Have no explaination as to why.

`Man on the inside` also thinks u can successfully stop a microsoft defrag without screwing u`r drive up. This I would rather try on a drive I could care less about, and even then I wouldn`t trust it.

 

[FarFarAway]

Ye stopping the Vista defrag is fine

 

[MikeEnIke]

I wish MS would just use a new filesystem that had no need for a defrag

 

[chudley]

Auslogics defrag is also a good fee one to run.

 

[FarFarAway]

Auslogics defrag is also a good fee one to run.

Tried it on Vista and it made it 20 times slower