I am in a quandary; I have skimmed through almost 500+ discussions concerning defragmenting a hard drive but have not found the answer I seek.
I fully understand the need to defrag routinely; read time, access, additional disk space, etc., etc.; however, I am befuddled by the way each defrag tool works and the difference by which each determines what is fragmented.
I have the following defrag tools: Diskeeper 8.0.4, JKDefrag V3.34, Auslogics Disk Defrag 1.4, and Smart Defrag 1.02 in my arsenal. No matter which one I use, any of the others would need to re-defrag after.
JKDefrag creates two/three distinct zones based on file use; as does Smart Defrag. Diskeeper and Auslogics keeps the files in apparent hole-filled areas visually.
So the real question is this, knowing that defrag improves the disc, since there is apparently no standard, how do I know which defrag tool is really better? Which one's are for real? The only thing I know for right now is that JKDefrag is THE ONLY defrag tool in my list that best defrags an almost full drive--others come back reporting that there is not enough space (many 600Meg PST and Zip files with 9Gig of free space (less than 23% free disc)).
Each probably has its own advantage over the others (e.g. Diskeeper defrags multiple disks at once). So how do I know which tool's defrag is really providing an improvement?
Gerry
That defragmenting is not a required procedure and while my neighborhood seemed to do nothing but run defragmenting programs that my bet was the machine's use for something else must have been in the single digit percentile.
Try this. Set it to do it monthly and enjoy using the machine.
Bob
All those defragmenting programs you have would seem to be a little over the top to me, especially for what is now considered to be a minor part of housekeeping in XP. You didn't say in this post what OS you are using, but I see from other posts that you mention XP.
Regular defragmenting was considered to be an essential part of normal maintenance in earlier Windows OSs, (Win 95/98/ME), but it doesn't seem to be so with XP, unless you are constantly installing/uninstalling software on the hard drive, and/or involved in heavy video editing. In such cases the file structure on the disk can become fragmented, but even so and from what I understand, disk access is now much more efficient nowadays that any gains to be had by constantly defragmenting are somewhat limited.
I have had my Dell 8300, (2GB RAM and 220GB HD), for 5 years, and I have defragmented 6 times. I have only ever used the Windows defragmenter.
You have asked why using one defrgamenter still shows up as a hard disk showing fragmenting in the other utilities. While I am no technical expert and don't know the answer myself, I think you have answered that question on your own. Each defragmenter has its own rules, and so will never satisfy the requirements of the other utilities.
I would stick to just one defragmenter if this were me, and forget about the others. Bob says set a schedule to defragment once a month. I would be even less rigorous and suggest once every few months. XP doesn't need such meticulous defragmenting maintenance.
Mark
Thanks for the information guys. The confusion lie in there being a myriad of defraggers, each with their own proprietary method of performing the function. Guess it boils down choosing one (be it ease of use, speed, reliability, or even hypnotic flashing lights--only kidding) and sticking with it.
Gerry
| Forum legend: | |
| Locked thread | |
| Moderator | |
![]() |
CNET staff |
![]() |
Samsung staff |
| Norton Authorized Support team | |
| AVG staff | |
| Windows Outreach team | |
![]() |
Dell staff |
| Intel staff | |