Next Generation Emulation banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,936 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
hey guys which free program is the best for defragging the hdd?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,341 Posts
The one that comes with XP sucks, in every situation I've used it in, it's extremely slow, even on hard drives that aren't very fragmented. 2000's defragger seems to be a little better though, in my experience. Besides, I think he's running Windows 98 :p.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,936 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
yes i am on w98se.kirby power defragmentor say windows nt-xp but nothing about w98se:(.
 

·
PCSX2ベータテスター
Joined
·
1,457 Posts
hmm. WindowsXP defrags and moves things around on the harddrive so things are more easily accessable. does power defragger do the samething?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,504 Posts
Seta-San said:
hmm. WindowsXP defrags and moves things around on the harddrive so things are more easily accessable. does power defragger do the samething?
It's faster in my opinion....alot faster
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,936 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
But will it work with w98se?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,583 Posts
You guys realize that Executive Software, the guys that market Disk Keeper, are the ones that wrote the defraggmentation API that exists in 2000/XP, right (notice the similarities in the defrag client)? Almost all defrag software that I know of use this API and should exhibit fairly similar performance.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,341 Posts
FLaRe85 said:
You guys realize that Executive Software, the guys that market Disk Keeper, are the ones that wrote the defraggmentation API that exists in 2000/XP, right (notice the similarities in the defrag client)? Almost all defrag software that I know of use this API and should exhibit fairly similar performance.
I know that but for some reason, the defragger in XP is much slower than Diskeeper (probably to get people to buy it :p). I've defragged someone's computer with the XP defragger and it took it almost an hour to finish, even though it wasn't very bad. Diskeeper has dealt with worse fragmentation on my machine in just a few minutes.

/me remembers the sector by sector problem in the 98 defragger >_<.
 

·
Wind, Life, Eternity
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
Just a few minutes? Maybe you used different defrag method (like no free space defrag). The program alone can't account for such difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
VoptXP

I use VoptXP,loads of options that arnt in other defraggers plus it`s fast as hell works a treat on my dual sata raids.

VoptXP :thumb:
 

·
PCSX2ベータテスター
Joined
·
1,457 Posts
I just tried it. There is no difference as far as i could tell. Only difference i could tell you is that the console output was giving me a headache.

n_w95482 said:
I know that but for some reason, the defragger in XP is much slower than Diskeeper (probably to get people to buy it :p). I've defragged someone's computer with the XP defragger and it took it almost an hour to finish, even though it wasn't very bad. Diskeeper has dealt with worse fragmentation on my machine in just a few minutes.

/me remembers the sector by sector problem in the 98 defragger >_<.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,341 Posts
WindHydra said:
Just a few minutes? Maybe you used different defrag method (like no free space defrag). The program alone can't account for such difference.
I use the normal max disk performance setting, the max free space setting is only available if you schedule a defrag in the program (still takes a small amount of time to do). I've used the normal XP defragger on my computer as well (a while back) and it was super slow.
 

·
Wind, Life, Eternity
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
So you already defragged with the XP defragger, no wonder the diskeeper run is much faster (since many files never frag), especially big files like video or isos which takes forever to defrag.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,341 Posts
WindHydra said:
So you already defragged with the XP defragger, no wonder the diskeeper run is much faster (since many files never frag), especially big files like video or isos which takes forever to defrag.
That was back in 2003 or so that I used the XP defragger. Diskeeper has breezed through first time defrags (new OS install) pretty quickly as well.
 

·
Wind, Life, Eternity
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
First time defrag on an XP install onto a newly formatted drive? No wonder it's fast :p It didn't take long when I did it with the one came with XP.

I think the most special defragger is Norton Speed Disk... according the description it will super frag the free space!?!! wtf oO Anyone tried it?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,341 Posts
:hdbash:

Have you actually looked at what a newly formatted drive looks like? It's fragmented to hell! I'll say it one last time: in my experience, Diskeeper is faster than the XP defragger and at the very least, it has a lot more options, such as page file and MFT defragmentation (and MFT size increasing), putting the folders at the beginning of the drive, and lots of scheduling options.
 

·
NextGenerationGaymulation
Joined
·
2,775 Posts
it's kind of funny they said defrag wouldn't be needed all that much with NTFS
 

·
Wind, Life, Eternity
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
n_w95482 said:
:hdbash:

Have you actually looked at what a newly formatted drive looks like? It's fragmented to hell!
You should try running XP's defragger right after installing XP onto newly formatted partition then. It won't take long since most files are small (I tried). And fundamentally diskeeper is the same as XP's defragger since MS was too lazy to write one and was confident the NTFS don't need defragmentation, so it just bought Executive's :nod: Diskeeper only gives more options, but if you use the same settings they are the same.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top