Windows 7 What is your favorite defrag program?

RAK said:

Let me emphasise, again, that I am totally in favour of defragging. There is no doubt, in my mind, that, with consideration of circumstances, Defragmenation will certainly improve the performance of you hard disk and, subsequently, the computer operation. However, many of the \"thesis\" which support this idea, are based on original, and now outdated, information.
For example, the second link in Kemicals post refers to the XP defrag process. The methods employed today have changed beyond recognition.
Fwiw. busydosg,s link is based on an original white paper written in 2005.
Unfortunately, with the vastness of the Internet today, as many items can be found supporting a view, as those opposing it.
A lot can depend on the program you are using.
Quoting from Kemical \" don't think the 'tightness' of the files is an issue here but putting them back into some order is.. That's the whole point of Defragging a disk.\"
Very true, but they also create contiguous empty space, which also has its impotance.
Some of the cheaper defrag programs merely compact the data. This does not create more space, but I guess it does make the spare space available in one empty sector. It may, because of the compacting, speed up the processes a little, but as it does not reorder the files in continuity, does not do a lot for hard disk wear. The better programs, of course, do try and put everything back as it should be so that, for example, all data etc associated with Acrobat, would be again within the same disk area and make things easier for the hard disk head. But, the downside is that, whilst doing this, it is also thrashing the hard disk considerably. Right or wrong, Microsoft have now avoided this to a large extent, by only allowing their own defrag progam to deal with fragmented files, which are only over a certain size.
Oddly, one of the biggest offenders is Microsoft's install procedure itself. It caches the install files in folders such as \"MsConfig\" etc. The natural instinct is to delete these folders during routine cleaning of your computer. This leaves a useful gap for any subsequent files to plant themselves, and so rapidly leads into even more fragmetation!
I would suggest though, that with todays average installed RAM (usually a lot more than we had in the old XP days) and the use of virtual memory, when working, not so much fragmetation occurs. I honestly feel that, in this instance, Microsoft have got it right.
This was their original blog, published shortly before the release of 7.It makes informative reading.
Engineering Windows 7 : Disk Defragmentation ? Background and Engineering the Windows 7 Improvements

Click to expand...

RAK said:

Let me emphasise, again, that I am totally in favour of defragging. There is no doubt, in my mind, that, with consideration of circumstances, Defragmenation will certainly improve the performance of you hard disk and, subsequently, the computer operation. However, many of the \"thesis\" which support this idea, are based on original, and now outdated, information.
For example, the second link in Kemicals post refers to the XP defrag process. The methods employed today have changed beyond recognition.
Fwiw. busydosg,s link is based on an original white paper written in 2005.
Unfortunately, with the vastness of the Internet today, as many items can be found supporting a view, as those opposing it.
A lot can depend on the program you are using.
Quoting from Kemical \" don't think the 'tightness' of the files is an issue here but putting them back into some order is.. That's the whole point of Defragging a disk.\"
Very true, but they also create contiguous empty space, which also has its impotance.
Some of the cheaper defrag programs merely compact the data. This does not create more space, but I guess it does make the spare space available in one empty sector. It may, because of the compacting, speed up the processes a little, but as it does not reorder the files in continuity, does not do a lot for hard disk wear. The better programs, of course, do try and put everything back as it should be so that, for example, all data etc associated with Acrobat, would be again within the same disk area and make things easier for the hard disk head. But, the downside is that, whilst doing this, it is also thrashing the hard disk considerably. Right or wrong, Microsoft have now avoided this to a large extent, by only allowing their own defrag progam to deal with fragmented files, which are only over a certain size.
Oddly, one of the biggest offenders is Microsoft's install procedure itself. It caches the install files in folders such as \"MsConfig\" etc. The natural instinct is to delete these folders during routine cleaning of your computer. This leaves a useful gap for any subsequent files to plant themselves, and so rapidly leads into even more fragmetation!
I would suggest though, that with todays average installed RAM (usually a lot more than we had in the old XP days) and the use of virtual memory, when working, not so much fragmetation occurs. I honestly feel that, in this instance, Microsoft have got it right.
This was their original blog, published shortly before the release of 7.It makes informative reading.
Engineering Windows 7 : Disk Defragmentation ? Background and Engineering the Windows 7 Improvements

Click to expand...

stueycaster said:

Maybe I need to correct my thinking on defragmenting. I used to get a kick out of watching the W98 defragmenter work. Then I started using XP and I noticed that it would leave quite a bit of free space rather than packing everything tightly the way 98 did. I thought that the free space might help the system to run because it would allow Windows to move stuff back and forth a little while it was running.

Is that a mistake in my thinking? Is it better to pack everything tightly. I did try one third party defrag years ago and I noticed that it packed everything tightly. I thought that might be the wrong thing to do. Now I really don't know how to think about this.

Or am I totally off somewhere in left field.

Click to expand...

john3347 said:

While I do not actually dispute any of the opinions expressed here, I do have some additional comment to add to some of them. First off, in my experience, the benefits of defragmentation is over emphasized by many. The theory is good, but in practice does not really hold true. I do not believe harddrive life expectancy is increased when a defrag requires a harddrive to run (in high gear) for 30 min to two hours and sometimes even longer in order to save a few milliseconds searching for file fragments. (Yes, the milliseconds add up, but never come close to equalling the time consumed by the defrag process) The total wear on harddrive components is much greater during the defrag process than in searching for fragments while opening files or applications. Kinda like spending a dollar to save a dime.

It is my understanding that the hard drive searches (scans) the entire drive searching for fragments when it opens a file or application whether it finds any or not, (there is no "marker" to tell the harddrive that this file is complete or that this file has fragments in other sectors), thus there is no additional search time when drive is fragmented over when not fragmented. The additional time involved is read time and whatever time is required to assemble all the fragments. Is this operation not performed by the computer processor after all the fragments are read into RAM, therefore having no effect on harddrive run time? [Good case for matching harddrive size to harddrive needs. A 1TB harddrive to store 10 GB is wasting more than the difference in original purchase price]

An occasional defrag will often speed up opening of some applications and some files, but the effect is less dramatic than some users perceive. A defrag every month or two - or 6 months - by whatever defrag mechanism is included with whatever OS one is running is sufficient for efficient computer operation.

Click to expand...

pweegar said:

I would like to know what your basing your opinions on? I've been in IT for a long time (10+ years).



I will not enter into a tit for tat discussion on this issue, but I will answer your question that you asked here. I am basing my opinion on experience and observations from computer experience going back to the punch card days (Do you remember punch cards?) Also, I would suggest that your example of moving millions of rows of a database every day is most definitely not a condition that a typical user who would be here on this forum seeking defragmentation advice would be experiencing. I stand by my statement that (for a typical home computer user) an occasional defragmenting is sufficient. Every month or two - and in many cases 6 months - is often enough for efficient computer operation (for a typical user who would be here on this forum seeking defragmentation advice). I have observed that my computers may go 6 months, or more, without defragmentation and still are not fragmented to the extent that windows defragmenter determines them needing to be defragmented.

Click to expand...