January 28, 2009 at 11:23 pm #28508
Isn't Defragging defragging? What does a stand alone defragging program do that the Windows inbuilt one can't? I did try system mechanic which includes a system defrag tool and it was very fast and worked silently in the background. I have also tried the free program, defraggler, which is made by the CCleaner people. This was very good as well, however is it really necessary to install a million separate programs when they are already included in the Windows operating system?What are the benefits to installing a stand alone disk defragmenter? What do you use?January 29, 2009 at 1:32 am #31019MaraParticipant
I use the freeware version of O&O Defrag software (2000) … their purchase version is wonderful and even faster, but this little free version is a zillion times quicker than the built-in Windows Defrag and so, so easy to use.And while I may be alone in feeling this, I have less trust in Microsoft's defrag than I used to as my poor computer was dragging itself from site to site and just as bad moving between non-online work - and yet, after running the above, it still wasn't improved.January 29, 2009 at 4:48 am #31020
Hi Guys,I have used JK Defrag, for ages,and can't fault it.Packs the Files so much better,than Windows Defrag.Take a screen shot after Windows Defrag,then JK Defrag. No comparison.I honestly think, it is a worthy addition, to the freeware List. 🙂http://www.kessels.com/Jkdefrag/January 29, 2009 at 7:33 am #31021
I've never used anything but the windows defrag. It seems to work, and it gives me a graphical representation of what it does. How accurate that is would be anyones guess, but all i can say is that it seems to work, and i've never had any issues or seen a need to change. I'd also be interested in seeing some real world comparisons, and hearing what others think.
January 29, 2009 at 7:42 am #31022
Well I am just testing the one DSTM mentioned…far out is it fast…I pressed on the .exe file thinking I was installing the program but instead it just started defragging straight away. I have defragged with the Windows one but now that this program is defragging, the computer actually looked like it was really messy. You should give it a go dak…defrag with windows then download this program and do it with that…Or try another one…January 29, 2009 at 8:25 am #31023
The problem I have with comparing them is I have no idea how to compare. I know I can tell the difference in how fast they do the job, but how do I really compare how well they worked? Is the fast one faster because it does less?I have tried some defraggers but they havent had any kind of graphical representation, just a window that says the defrag is complete. I am assuming the one you speak of has, and I will certainly try it out. Again, though, there is no real way for me of knowing how well one has performed against the other is there, unless there is a major performance improvement with the computer? A pretty picture of everything looking good is not necessarily a good guide of whether it actually is, surely? And if it simply informs me .. defrag completed.. as many of them do, what can that tell me either?I suspect the defraggers which work on shutdown or bootup are probably more effective, simply because they can defrag files which are not normally accessible while windows is running. Does this difference actually mean anything though, in real terms, to the speed or reliability of my computer? Is there a point at which you have defragged sufficiently that any further would not gain any real benefit?I'll certainly try this one, and see if it makes any performance improvements, but if you have the answer to how I can tell one is better than the other (other than just taking their word for it), I'd be grateful to hear it. I know I can read reviews and suchlike on the net, but I'd prefer to hear real world experiences than bench tests.
January 29, 2009 at 8:34 am #31024
It really should make your computer faster by streamlining access to frequently used files. I seem to notice it after using that program. I will do a few more tests on it later…and let you know…January 29, 2009 at 8:52 am #31025
View 1January 29, 2009 at 9:01 am #31026
My point there is that the programs which generate the graphic pictures you are seeing are different, therefore the picture is very likely to be different. I don't think its possible to truly compare the pictures and say one is better than the other… just because the graphics look similar doesnt mean they are displaying the same things in the same way if you get my drift…I have a further question myself. Everyone would know that I know XP well and little else, so I've decided to learn more (hard to answer questions if you don't use the software!) and have now installed Windows Vista Ultimate. I used to amuse myself late at night, when I got bored with counting flowers on the wall, by watching the graphical representation of XP defragging. Now, with Vista Ultimate, I've lost that small pleasure in life as it no longer displays a pretty picture.. just text saying its defragging. For those that are using Vista.. is it possible that this just the way it is set in some options somewhere, or is a pretty picture really not an option, and I'll enjoy using the new defragger because it give me a graphic to watch again lol
January 29, 2009 at 11:39 am #31027
I asked about your Question,Dak,regarding Graphics, when defragging in Vista Ultimate.With Vista,the Defrag Graphics are no longer,an option. 🙂January 29, 2009 at 1:56 pm #31028
Thanks 🙂 I am currently trying out the jk defrag. I've misread your previous post, i thought the 3rd screenshot was of the jk defrag window, and hadnt realised that it was the windows analysis of the result. I'm not finding the defrag terribly fast at the moment, and I dont get to see the graphics of the windows analysis so I wont be able to compare the difference, but i'll keep you posted if it seem faster 🙂I hope the graphics are displaying correctly, as the screenshot shows, its an unusual visual.
January 29, 2009 at 2:05 pm #31029
The 3rd view, is a screen shot, of the Hard Drive,after using JK Defrag.JustJanuary 29, 2009 at 2:08 pm #31030
when using jk defrag, did the screen it was displaying look like the one in my screenshot? or is the display corrupted?
January 29, 2009 at 2:19 pm #31031
It does look unusual.Here is mine,in relation to the above screen shot.I would let it defrag,and then look at the Windows Bar,of your Hard Drive.Black: empty Green: regular files, unfragmented Dark green: spacehogs, unfragmented Yellow: fragmented Red: unmovable White: busy Pink: MFT reserved zone (NTFS only) Gray: in use by unknown dataJanuary 29, 2009 at 2:21 pm #31032
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.