24 replies to this topic

[Humpty]

Tried out this new defragger and it's quite good but I prefer PerfectDisk 7.Some people are raving about it over at Wilders.

Anyways, some may want to have a look at it.

Widers discussion

Ultimate Defrag page

[mfenech]

I tried it last week. It's very fast, and when I did an analysis check with my windows defrag and O&O afterwards, they were clean. I'm not sure how else to test it.

[fredvries]

I use Defrag 2.25.

It's small, fast and free.

Check here

[Admiral Ross]

fredvries, on Nov 6 2006, 11:16 AM, said:

I use Defrag 2.25.

It's small, fast and free.

Check here

Have to agree this is what I am using now. I just run it from my server to all my machines on my network all at the same time. I use the "-o2 -d 5" it checks the free space and does everything. I'm happy with it. However, I'm always looking for programs and if they do it better then their competitors. That's why I have Virtual PC to beta test everything under the sun when I have the time to do so.

[MajoMo]

fredvries, on Nov 6 2006, 04:16 PM, said:

I use Defrag 2.25.

A good hint. I tried it and is how you said: "small, fast and free". Thanks.

I'm trying a application that can would become a very good option in this segment. It's a Beta version and not in a stable condition yet.

And it's free!

See here: IObit SmartDefrag

[TeeJay3800]

I've posted it before on this forum, but Contig with the Power Defragmenter GUI is what I use for a lightweight defrag program. It's fast and defrags very well.

Contig

Power Defragmenter GUI

[Newhotness]

TeeJay3800, on Nov 6 2006, 08:42 PM, said:

I've posted it before on this forum, but Contig with the Power Defragmenter GUI is what I use for a lightweight defrag program. It's fast and defrags very well.

Contig

Power Defragmenter GUI

I found these kinda confussing, and somehow with all the tweaking i've done to my machine it stopped working all together...i tried another one called buzzsaw or something like that and it wasn't the greatest either. I've been using the built in one for the last month or so, maybe its time to give this one a go...i'll report back if i get around to doing it, but right now busy with exams (and this is all the procrastinating i can afford right now)

[res45]

Its a nice program the 30 day trial give you enought time to play around with it to figure out all the options. I especially like the option of being able to arange whole blocks of files like Windows or My Documents and Program files up to the front of the HD and lesser used folder and archive files down to the slower end of the drive. I hardly ever buy software but this may be one to consider.

[JDPower]

res45, on Nov 10 2006, 12:22 AM, said:

Its a nice program the 30 day trial give you enought time to play around with it to figure out all the options. I especially like the option of being able to arange whole blocks of files like Windows or My Documents and Program files up to the front of the HD and lesser used folder and archive files down to the slower end of the drive.

I like the idea of that too. Not enough to buy it though, and certainly not enough to PAY for the trial version as they now ask you to (admittedly the free trial still appears to be on other download sites)

[Jawbax]

I use System Mechanic Pro V6. It has its own built in defrag utility which also does a nice job.

I like the simply One Button does all feature. Although there are better ways of improving the efficiency of your system, I like this manner because it saves time and everything is in one place.

I simply use that...and CCleaner of course.

[n8chavez]

What then is the difference between Contig and Defrag 2.5? I know they are both command line application but what places one above the other? Defrag 2.5 is good but it creates a rather large log (400 meg +) each time. Contig does not do that.

[jkessels]

n8chavez, on Nov 16 2006, 06:48 AM, said:

What then is the difference between Contig and Defrag 2.5?

I've never used Contig, but looking at the website I would say Contig only does defragmentation. Defrag v2.27 (new version just out today) does a lot more. It optimizes the harddisk (move all files to the beginning, especially directories), reclaims MFT reserved space after disk-full, and maintains a scratch area. The website doesn't say if Contig can defrag very full harddisks and very large files, but it looks like a rather primitive little utility so I doubt it. And finally, the sources of Defrag are available so you can customize it. Oh and by the way, Defrag can be used to defrag/optimize a single file or directory, just like Contig.

n8chavez, on Nov 16 2006, 06:48 AM, said:

Defrag 2.5 is good but it creates a rather large log (400 meg +) each time.

The default for Defrag is a very small logfile. Maybe you are using the "-d 5" option that was mentioned earlier. That's full debugging mode and yes, then the logfile will be big.

[Andavari]

jkessels, on Nov 16 2006, 05:30 AM, said:

The website doesn't say if Contig can defrag very full harddisks and very large files, but it looks like a rather primitive little utility so I doubt it. And finally, the sources of Defrag are available so you can customize it.

Contig to my knowledge is using the built-in Windows defrag util, however it is useful in instances where you sync backups as you'd only have to defrag the backup destination directory before burning it to CD-RW's or copying it to a USB device. The Contig source isn't available and since Microsoft now owns it and other Sysinternals software it's highly unlikely the source will ever be released.

[YoKenny]

I like to use Index.dat Suite to clean up all the index.dat files as they grow over time.

One of the nice features of Index.dat Suite is the ability to schedule a defrag at the next reboot and it runs before the applications are loaded
http://support.it-mate.co.uk/?mode=Product...=index.datsuite

If you install O & O Defrag it replaces Windows defrag application so this breaks the defrag function in Index.dat Suite

By the way, I did not find any difference in speed between the WinXP defrag and O & O Defrag.

[JDPower]

The only free defragger I've ever tried that was significantly better than the Windows one is DirMS-CL. A very thorough defrag

YoKenny, on Nov 16 2006, 01:06 PM, said:

One of the nice features of Index.dat Suite is the ability to schedule a defrag at the next reboot and it runs before the applications are loaded

Wasn't aware of that function in Index.dat Suite, is there much difference between that and safe mode defrag?

[n8chavez]

I'm sorry if this is getting off topic. But I would like to know more about this area. And I must admit I know very little of exact defragmentation procedures. Fiust off, thank you very much for comments regarding Defrag and the -d 5 switch. That was indeed the problem. I like Defrag very much but, this might just be pure curiosity, I am wondering as well about dirms. I have looked at all three, Contig, Defrag, and Dirms (Buzzsaw). As I understand it dirms has a commsnd line version as well as a giu/service driven version. How then is the CL version different from Defrag. I must admit I do prefer dirms cl version because it is easier to see what is going on. But is it as effective. I would think the advantage to using a defragmentation program via command line is that system resources are sparred. Would htat then not be the case using dirms' service driven product(s)?

Please forgive my ignorance in this area.

Nate

[JDPower]

n8chavez, on Nov 16 2006, 09:18 PM, said:

I'm sorry if this is getting off topic. But I would like to know more about this area. And I must admit I know very little of exact defragmentation procedures. Fiust off, thank you very much for comments regarding Defrag and the -d 5 switch. That was indeed the problem. I like Defrag very much but, this might just be pure curiosity, I am wondering as well about dirms. I have looked at all three, Contig, Defrag, and Dirms (Buzzsaw). As I understand it dirms has a commsnd line version as well as a giu/service driven version. How then is the CL version different from Defrag. I must admit I do prefer dirms cl version because it is easier to see what is going on. But is it as effective. I would think the advantage to using a defragmentation program via command line is that system resources are sparred. Would htat then not be the case using dirms' service driven product(s)?

I can't comment on Defrag as I've not used it. Contig didn't seem to do any more than Windows own defrag so I stopped using that. I use DirMS-CL over the GUI version simply because it can be run in safe mode giving the most thorough defrag possible, the GUI version can't. (Just because it doesn't have a GUI doesn't make it less effective)

[YoKenny]

Quote

Wasn't aware of that function in Index.dat Suite, is there much difference between that and safe mode defrag?

Its basically the same as Safe Mode but when the defrag completes it continues on to the full boot

[TeeJay3800]

JDPower, on Nov 16 2006, 03:32 PM, said:

The only free defragger I've ever tried that was significantly better than the Windows one is DirMS-CL. A very thorough defrag

I tried the GUI version of that program and it said I had to register because some features are disabled (although I can't tell whats disabled). When I go to the website it doesn't clarify AT ALL if its free software or not. I don't know if I'm using a trial version, a feature-limited version, or a completely free version. Can you clear this up?

[JDPower]

TeeJay3800, on Nov 16 2006, 11:24 PM, said:

I tried the GUI version of that program and it said I had to register because some features are disabled (although I can't tell whats disabled). When I go to the website it doesn't clarify AT ALL if its free software or not. I don't know if I'm using a trial version, a feature-limited version, or a completely free version. Can you clear this up?

I never registered it, just downloaded and used it. Have you tried using it? Definitely didn't register the command line version, which I would recommend over the GUI version anyway because, as I said, you can't run the GUI version in safe mode. The ability to run a defrag in safe mode (for a more thorough defrag) is essential IMO. I think you pay for the registered version, but it works great as it is. And you're right the site is a bit vague regarding this aspect.