Diskeeper Vs PerfectDisk

[bruinator]

Not sure of your OS but since vista, there is no need for a dfragger anymore.

[Tweety.Abd]

Diskeeper is much better.

[insanos]

Diskeeper for ever B)

[iih1]

Diskeeper is much better.

Absolutely Agree Diskeeper more Reliable for me, have compared

Perfect Disk resident in memory, will consump some mb of your CPU RAM

just for monitoring on system. before i'm uses Perfect Disk now switch to Diskeeper

Portable Auslogic Diskeeper Latest version 5.1.0.0 Date code Dec 1, 2014 [6.43 MB]

Changelog

Clean From Malware / Spyware no Ads nor Adware Scanned By Norton Security 2015

No needed to install Downloaded, Double Click on it Done.

Screenshot

[galaxyquestor]

For my experience with defrag tools they tend to fall down the same lines as registry cleaners.

These things trick people into believing they are actually doing something.

The more you run them the more you drain the life out of your devices.

if your drive is that sluggish then replacing it with a new one will solve that :P

SONAR - Unfortunately, as you are transferring byte by byte, you will only transfer a fragmented hard drive when you transfer to a new hard drive. It takes MUCH longer - and causes errors sometimes - to attempt to copy your data to the new drive, if the old drive is fragmented.

If the drive is defragmented, it simply means that instead of the read head having to go from one platter, to another, to the middle of one drive, to the end of another, and to have to assemble the program from all of these scattered pieces in order to run it, the head only has to move extremely short distances - on the same platter (generally), and to assemble the program and/or data in the same location on the disk.

Bringing all folders into contiguous space on the drive prevents this "scattered seek time," and this makes the drive, the read-write heads, and the data access times extremely fast.

Why buy a new hard drive?

If your computer is slowing down, just make it easier on it to do its job: DEFRAGMENT your hard drive, the data on it, your registry, and your computer will run like new, most often.

You've been wasting a lot of money on hard drives. ANY defragmentation is better than NO defragmentation.

Please research this - it is very important to you and a peppy computer that operates at its most efficient.

Your hard drive is a library. In a library, why do they have a system of putting similar books together, by subject?

To make it much faster for you to gather data on that subject.

What if the books were scattered, helter-skelter, throughout the library?

It would take you forever to gather the information you need. Same principle on the hard drive. Saves power, ram, read-write seeks, spin count and CPU usage. There IS no down-side to defragmenting.

you aint gonna convince me no matter how many times you try to explain it.

I never said to take the data to the new drive that would be stupid, you would use it as a backup drive only.

I'm not sure I was clear enough about "moving data."

Are you saying that if your hard drive is wearing out, or running really slow, you wouldn't transfer it's data onto the new replacement drive?

What I was saying is that if it's running slowly, defragmenting it may fix the problem (and even if you are dumping the hard drive, it's better to defragment the data on it before transfer) - whether you are moving data from one drive to another, or trying to read or write data in the course of computer use.

I was speaking about the movement of data on a single drive, as you use programs, from platter to platter, or from partition to partition, and how it becomes scattered about.

I'm not trying to sell you anything, Sonar, LOL.

Forgive me for disagreeing - there is no agenda or "pushing" on my part - but my first hard drive was 50 Mb and cost 250.00, and I have kept apace of vertical data stacking technology, terabyte platters, and SSds - and use them all.

I have been studying hard drives and their development for about 40 years - started out about the same time as Steve Gibson ( https://www.grc.com/default.htm ) - author of "Spin-Rite" - which holds up well even today, because platter-based drives haven't really changed much since they were invented. Bigger, yes, and faster, with some redundancy and hardware improvements - but they're the same mechanisms.

There are a great many utilities, and a wealth of info about hard drives there.

I have always done a great deal of "data churning" on my hard drives - and it's just too much for Windows to keep up with (My main O.S. is Windows 7 x64).

Even a large capacity drive isn't immune to fragmentation, as files (from video editing, audio production, and appz/movies/music downloading and subsequent movement to another drive or partition), will unavoidably fragment - which on a larger capacity drive, actually makes it WORSE - the heads have to seek faster and travel farther [especially on multi-platter disks] to assemble either the program your are attempting to first piece together in order for it to run, and the scattered bits of data it is attempting to alter).

While it's true that hard drives run faster now, the laws of physics still apply - if the pieces of data that belong together have to be sought out a few bytes at a time, over a broad area, instead of being read as a contiguous block, your hard drive will wear out faster, and run slower.

Faster doesn't mean the drive isn't working extra-hard to gather the pieces the OS needs to pull together to work properly, quickly, and direct the programs installed in it.

That's a lot of whipping across the platter to find scattered pieces of data. And it will wear it out much faster.

It's mechanical movement, subject to the same laws as all mechanisms are: Newton's Law; friction, micron-calibrated calipers moving across a magnetic medium, re-arranging pieces, or trying to read data as it moves.

SSds are different - but any platter-based drive is basically just data scattered across a magnetic medium - like an eight-track tape, or a cassette.

IF you are engaging in a lot of "cache thrashing", or alteration of the MFT, a good defrag. utility becomes very important.

The MFT will also become fragmented in time (depending on your use) - leading to skipped data, data write errors, and other program problems, as the heads try to travel fast enough and far enough to get you what you are asking for..

3rd party defrag utilities only run when you want them to, so it doesn't really "hog any processing power": it can be set to only run on boot, with (depending on the utility), incredible speed.

Additionally, most can have their process priorty-level changed to make them cease with no activity, go low with other processes, or suspend its process on other program usage.

IMHO, a good defrag is one of the only really essential utilities that exists on (and For) windows.

I thought my "Library" example was a good analogy, but evidently it wasn't.

The (EXTREMELY important) things that most third-party defrag utilities have, which Windows' native defrag does not have, are the ability to perform "boot-time" defrags (important for defragmenting system files in use and locked under normal use), and the ability to "consolidate free space", packing into contiguous blocks the data belonging to a program, or the program itself, and leaving no pieces scattered around.

It is VERY different from a registry cleaner, because it doesn't remove anything - it simply puts the pieces within easy reach of the program attempting to access them, and eases the movement of the read/write head across the platter(s). Some will even defragment the registry itself.

If we had to play an old 331/3 record, that was fragmented like a hard drive - we would have had to manually find the sequence for the notes in a song by lifting the needle, and putting it down on every part of the record to find the different parts that made it so pleasing.

"Packing" (or "packetizing") the pieces of your files - programs and their associated data - in contiguous, easily-accessed blocks, can never be anything but beneficial to a platter-based drive, no matter how fast it is.

If I've failed to convince, that's o.k. - it's only words.

Just trying to help.

My drives get used really hard - and last a long, long time (I still have that 50Mb drive in a box with about 70 others, of different sizes and ages, all still useable - but slower, or too small, or with stuff I want to keep). Respect.

[Dce3480]

Diskeeper :tooth: With the *newest* TrialReset I might add.. :dribble:

[dcs18]

It used to be a competition of sorts between Diskeeper and PerfectDisk. In recent years, Diskeeper led the way marginally.

However, with the introduction of the latest V-locity - the gap has widened and there is no catching Diskeeper (now Condusiv.)

[viggen66]

Even though I always liked better Diskeeper, Perfectdisk has a fix and can work continuosly whyle Diskeeper still has no working solution, but Diskeeper for me was always a better software

[AEK21]

just download auslogics disk defrag portable and run it once per week or so, does the work no additional .exe files running all the time and it isn't really proven that diskeeper makes the pc faster, if you need a directory defragged more often then you just defrag only this directory before burn an iso file maybe