Jump to content


Defraggler vs. Diskeeper auto- defrag!


2 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   malwarecide

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 27 June 2009 - 10:41 AM

Hi forum members, :rolleyes:

I m planning to switch to Defraggler from my Diskeeper 2007. we all know that auto defrag is the main features of Diskeeper which means it always defrag your hard drive when ever you start your PC. Is this detrimental to hard disk drive? Davey post this:

Quote

My readings and use of each of these Defrag programs lead me to the following conclusions.
I follow Donn Edwards advice for how often to Defrag.
If it takes less than 10 minutes, you are defragging too often.
If it takes more than an hour,you are not defragging often enough.
Defragmenting too often is just as detrimental as not defragmenting often enough.
Major updates,new program installs or old program uninstalls should be followed by use of CCleaner and then a defragmentation.
in this link Will Diskeeper corrupt the hard disk because it always defrag it. :(

thanks in advance... :lol:

#2 OFFLINE   Andavari

    Captain Spectacular

  • Moderators
  • 13,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Shadow Moses

Posted 27 June 2009 - 10:02 PM

View Postmalwarecide, on Jun 27 2009, 04:41 AM, said:

Diskeeper corrupt the hard disk because it always defrag it. :(
I have no idea and that's a question better suited to ask the people who make Diskeeper.

Most defrag programs to my knowledge run through the Microsoft API making them perfectly safe as in not corrupting data. I once read a figure of most of them being something like 99% safe, but make your own assessments on that figure.
Complexity of incoherent design.

#3 OFFLINE   malwarecide

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 28 June 2009 - 10:22 AM

View PostAndavari, on Jun 28 2009, 05:02 AM, said:

I have no idea and that's a question better suited to ask the people who make Diskeeper.

Most defrag programs to my knowledge run through the Microsoft API making them perfectly safe as in not corrupting data. I once read a figure of most of them being something like 99% safe, but make your own assessments on that figure.


thanks for the reply..... ;)