Best Defrag. Software

Hi

I have being running an evaluation of Diskeeper for defragmenting XP ( HE ) NTFS.

It is great to be able to 'set & forget '. As I am going to have to decide very soon if I should purchase. I would be grateful if anyone knows a better one. Perhaps this is a good as any but I have just noticed that my pagefile which used to be at the end of the screen with nothing behind it has files etc behind it now. The fragmentation is down to 1.0 but never zero !

I moved my page file to a partition & then ran the program but it seemed to leave the PF space as empty space. I would have liked it to bring everything together with as little defragmentation as possible.

I moved the pagefile back as I was not sure if it was wise to keep it away from C. I only have one drive but have it partitioned.

Would be very grateful if anyone could recommend the best software BEFORE I have to buy

 

I have used diskeep for 4 years and love the program. I have experienced the same issue. Try this for a clean defrag.
Go to your C drive, Windows, Prefech folder, delete all files. This is a holding area for Internet Explorer. Empty all files in your recycle bin. Right click on Internet Explorer Icon click properties empty your history,cookies,files. You can also do this by clicking on tools in Internet Explorer, then internet options. Use manual defrag.

Hope this helps

Dennis

 

Hi

Thank you very much for the info. I will do all that you have suggested. I am pleased that you have used this software for a long time.

I always used Norton as part of Systemworks ( with 98se ) but I read that there can be problems with NTFS & XP thus I was trying out Diskeeper.

Hopefully when I do as you have advised I will be able to maintain a neater system ( for a while anyway ! )

Thanks again for the tips. Now to Tipp out the rubbish ! Just one thing - the Prefetch folder - Is it OK to delete these files completely ???? I am guessing they are just file IE gathers and are not needed but just want to be VERY sure

 

You do know that the built in defragger in XP is designed by Executive software, the same people that are charging you for Diskeeper?

 

Hi

I actually thought that it was a trimmed down version of Speedisk ( Symantec ) but didn't realise it was Ex.Software.

The only reason I don't use XP's built in software as any of the books I have ( Including XP Inside Out - MS press ) indicate that the built in version does not do as good a job as a third party thus I sought another program. ( think that is where I read about trimmed down Speedisk ..... )

I know Windows 98se had a built in version which really wasn't up to doing the best job.

I have 3 days left to make my mind up ! I know one thing I want a nice neat drive and need something that does the job for me. I am just good at fragmenting it !

 

Defrag just isn't that important. Sure, it's nice to run it once a month or so, just to keep program files in order, and clean up the free space, but there's nothing to justify spending money on a defragger.
I can think of 20 or 30 other things that are more important to the smooth running of a system.
Save your money, and don't put so much importance on a defrag, go out any buy another 256 meg of RAM instead, and stop wearing out the hard drive reading and writing to the swap.

 

From what I read, XP is designed to do some defragging on the fly while running. And the software is using code written for M$ by the Diskeeper folks.

I run Norton 2002 and have always used the Norton defrag tool. Liked it better than most others. Had to quit using it with XP because no sooner would it get the drive defragged than XP would decide the file placement wasn't what it considered optimal and start moving stuff again. Result was horrible fragmentation.

I'm doing pretty well now staying with the XP built-in one.

If you want a little extra, go to www.sysinternals.com and get a copy of their free app for page file defragging. It gives a very easy way to check the amount of fragmentation in your pagefile and all the registry hives. And you can click to have them defragged at next boot or at every boot if you want. Although to tell the truth, XP seems to keep them in good order by itself. With 2K that wasn't the case.

 

Hopefully, I won't incur anyone's wrath, but I tend to agree with reboot, at least partially. Defrag is discussed more than the topic warrants.

Disks get fragmented because they are mechanical and too slow to read, write, and put things in order at the same time. They do need to be defragmented from time to time or things slow down and the disk drive suffers more wear and tear.

But, having tried many defraggers (VoptXP, OnTrack, Perfect Disk, Diskeeper, Norton, O&O, and probably more I can't remember), the differences between them are insignificant.

It's true that they use different algorithms based on different theories of fragmentation, but the basic idea of preventing single files from being scattered all over the drive remains the same. No matter how "ordered" your disk is after defragging, even the simple act of shutting off the defragger immediately fragments the drive again.

The trimmed down version of Diskeeper that XP uses is just as good as the best of them. That combined with the pagedefrag program available for free from Sysinternals does a very good job. And it can be scheduled as you can see in other posts in this section.

Don't spend the money. Microsoft has a vested interest in making the OS operate as efficiently as possible, and the defragger that they give you works just fine.

If you still want Diskeeper, their free version, Diskeeper Lite, is still available here:
http://www.majorgeek.com/esselbachf...a5d72f72f1611df5354693177e83e8ba089e94b7b6b55

PS. The "empty" space you see in those stylized views of the disk is probably not where the pagefile used to be, but is the MFT (Master File Table), a disk space reserved on NTFS volumes.

 

If I read correctly XP defrag runs in the back ground and works so called on the fly at times.

Am I thinking incorrectly ( again ) or isn't that completely against what we have said for years against stuff running in the back ground ?

If it actually does do this then it is no wonder I have seen so many local machines go through Hard drives so quickly.

While I did have XP I looked at the defrag and it looked to me like it is was fragmented more AFTER defrag than it was before.

Could this defrag action be what kicked us out of our Golf game with our Friend in Canada the night we tried ( but did not succed ). He still has XP and several times this past Tuesday we had to wait for his HD to stop dancing before we could continue. And a couple of times we have had to back out completely and start over after his HD settled down.

Until I get to try it again I see NO USE for XP as home machine. But I do have to get it installed again ( and installed properly and by itself ) before I stand too firm on that thought.

With 98SE I can be up and playing Golf in Canada before XP even gets to the desktop and then still wait at least 2 minutes . But again. I gotta get it installed again where XP and I can meet face to face decide who is Boss.

I will accept any ideas on this as to what I might be able to do to stop this ( what I call unneceaary ) stuff.

And I will also say. As I see it right now XP has got a LLLOOONNGGG way to go to beat this Win98SE.

BillyBob

 

The Indexing Service is the usual suspect behind all that mysterious disk activity. It seems that when MS discovered how bad their Search was, they added another feature, the Indexing Service, to speed searches. It's function makes more sense on nearly full, 200 gig drives than it does on the average machine. This is based on the theory that if you have a lazy guy working for you, then you should hire another lazy guy to get a full day's work done.

AgentRansack solves the search problem. And FasterFindFileIndexer does a better indexing job than XP's, if someone chooses to use that function.

The defragging XP does happens when the system is idle and shouldn't interfere with operation. Hard drives never stop, of course, and defragging is disk-intensive. But it saves wear on the drive later, so it shouldn't have any effect on the drive's life, except to extend it.

The "running in the background" issue is a holdover from the 9x kernel. It is not really an appropriate description of the situation with the NT kernel. XP is not a resources-based OS, but a services-based one. Background processes use little or no CPU when not performing a function.

I don't miss 98 at all, with blue screens, strange lockups, and driver issues. A well-configured XP machine makes 98 look like a horse-and-buggy OS.

 

There is where we differ greatly.

I have had only one or two blue screens in 98 or 98 SE and both were easily fixed with proper drivers.

Please note that I said PROPER drivers not the latest and supposedly greatest drivers. Right now I am running Nvidia drivers that are at least two versions behind. I have to do this to keep same compatable with ALL software. And it only took me two days and four or five tries to find the right ones. But all has been well for several months since.

Improper version or installation of Audio drivers is another thing that has caused me trouble. But that also is not an OS problem.

I did have a couple of lockups. but They were not Windows OS fault Both were caused by not getting the proper updates for software.

An improper version of software was another cause of problems. But again not an SE problem.

Old BillyBob himself caused them all. Very often Windows gets blamed for what it should not be.

BillyBob

 

Speaking of defrag and beating up a Hard drive.

I do not think there is anything that does a better job of overworking a HD than Win98 or 98SE with the Taskmonitor loading and the applog folder loaded heavily.

What took me 5-7 minutes to do with TM loading I can do in 30-40 seconds without it. And that is on the C: drive with only 1.2gig out of 3.6gig used.

BB

 

The best defrag program out there is PerfectDisk, this does a better job than Diskeeper and is much faster too.

 

Raxco's Perfect Disk does do a good job. But, it has no options and uses the formula that boot items should be first on the disk and all the rest should be ordered by last access time. Unfortunately, last access is not usually the most reasonable layout. Games played once get priority over system files that happened to have been unused since the last scan.

Certainly that approach is no worse and no better than the formulas used by other defraggers. But it goes back to my point---any approach to defragging will be better for some things, worse for others. And it depends not only on the OS, but on the very personal habits of the user, things inherently unpredictable.

 

And that is a very good point.

I may like it and it works for me. You may not.

I may not like but you do and it works for you.

I believe that should also apply to the OS as well. It may not be which one is better. But which one is better for the user.

That point has been well made right here in this post by Abraxas and I.

BillyBob

 

That's true, BillyBob. Certainly if someone told me I had to use 98 for the rest of my life, I wouldn't go out and neck myself or anything .

I have no desire whatever to see everyone doing everything alike.

 

Thanks to All for Opinions !

Hi

I have just accessed all the replies this morning. Cetainly makes very informative reading ! ( just as the little screen appeared reminind me that I was almost at the end of evaluation )

I must admit my drive looked a lot better before the defrag. was working in the background. I guess I am just too fussy about being tidy in everything thus the HD doesn't escape my routines !

Yes, I did like the point of extra RAM but I wouldn't have a clue how to get it inside the computer - there would be more than fragments left ! More RAM would be great but as I have only got this I would probably do soemthing to the warranty by installing RAM myself. That said I wouldn't know how to. If I find someone who can - I will certainly spend money on it.

I am going to check out sysinternals as it does sound good in co-ordination with XP Defrag. itself.

I do like the sound of the new version of Diskeeper consolidating free space ......... but on reading everything this would not be free for long ! I know the best way to defrag. is at bootup. I am organised enough ( too much probably ) to run defrag. manually.

One thing I would not have a problem with is games - I do not use any games at all thus the sceanrio of placing them before the system wouldn't happen ( one less thing to worry about ! )

I am definitely going to give all the replies much thought. First reaction is to stay with XP & use sysinternals program too.

I have something to add to my list today - Thanks for all the info. I appreciate all the opinions.

 

Newt:

"I run Norton 2002 and have always used the Norton defrag tool. Liked it better than most others. Had to quit using it with XP because no sooner would it get the drive defragged than XP would decide the file placement wasn't what it considered optimal and start moving stuff again. Result was horrible fragmentation. "

Hey, I have been flumoxed by the constant hard drive activity I have been experiencing, it never stops., I mean never. I booted up about 30 minutes ago and the hard drive is still working away. I thought it might be due to having installed Go Back and it constantly writing to the disks.

But, since reading your post, I'm wondering if it is not XP Home re-defragging itself after I defrag with Norton's Speed Disk. When I see all this hard drive activity and open Services, the only one that seems to be running is Service Host. & I see CPU usage up to 35, 40 percent, even though I have no applications running.

Got an opinion on this?

 

A word or two from experience here.

I find it not to be a good idea to use more than one defrag program. One or the other. But not a combination.

I do use Norton ( if I need to ) to put the swap file at the front of a partition if I have to redo same. But I have not touched it in MONTHS. But as soon as the SD gets the swap file done then it is shut down and ME defrag takes over from then on.

Someone mentioned RAM. The only thing RAM helps with ( as far as defrag goes ) is to keep down the swap file usage. But if the swap file is set to a fixed size that illiminates that problem.

Even in 98 or 98SE. Especially if you have Taskmonitor Loading. And worse yet in ME. And from what I read, it may not be a good idea in XP either.

One thing that I THINK is being forgotten or at least overlooked..

Microsoft is doing everyting in its power to STOP ( or prevent ) us from using 3rd party software.

This is one of the reasons that I did not like ME. I found it VERY hard to gain USER control. I would shut something down and ME would put it back. I do myself do not like that. With SE if I want something gone it is GONE and stays GONE. Never to return unless I bring it back.

There is no way I can comment on the reply by martinr121 but I do have a feeling that he is on the right track. That is the probelm our Friend in Canada has and is what seems to be upsetting our Golf games. If he does have to do a restart it takes him about 10-15 minutes. I can do a restart and be ready to go in less then 5 minutes. Unless I have a bad shutdown then it does of course takes longer.

Yes folks. I do have a lockup once in awhile. But I found that problem to be BillyBob and not SE. ( I get in a hurry ) I have found lockups to occur more frequently if I do not wait 2-3 minutes after starting up before doing anything.

BillyBob