Smart Defrag

Conor_3

No. In fact it's worse as there's no drivers or caching loaded so it takes a chuffing age.

Conor_3

aliEnRIK wrote: »

I completely agree the program is a good one Conor
I just dont think its worth running all the time.
Id say monthly at best. The minute speed increases (Which would be absolutely undetectable anyways) are not worth the drive usage IMHO

I kept it running all the time on the PC it was on as there was no noticable hit and it can go a while without being used. I'd like to say I noticed a speed increase on the computer in question but it had DK10 on it before trying Smartdefrag.

However, for those who have had an installation for a while and rely on Windows built in defragmenter, you will notice a difference after running smartdefrag.

aliEnRIK

Conor wrote: »

However, for those who have had an installation for a while and rely on Windows built in defragmenter, you will notice a difference after running smartdefrag.

Absolutely. I actually do have it myself (Im still undecided between it and Defraggler at the moment)

PROLIANT

I would recommend that you use the NT Defrag utility that ships with Windows, it is designed to do the job well and does what it say's on the tin, there is no proven or logical benefit to go out and buy or use freeware tools for this task....kind of re-inventing the wheel.

aliEnRIK

PROLIANT wrote: »

I would recommend that you use the NT Defrag utility that ships with Windows, it is designed to do the job well and does what it say's on the tin, there is no proven or logical benefit to go out and buy or use freeware tools for this task....kind of re-inventing the wheel.

I found when I first used defraggler, it found a TON of fragmented files that the Vista inbuilt one did not. It also doesnt put the files in any order like the IO one does.
Id have to disagree with you their proliant as surely ANY more files that are defragmented will be of some help (Even if unoticeable), and in some semblence of order even better surely?

Pikeyp

aliEnRIK wrote: »

I found when I first used defraggler, it found a TON of fragmented files that the Vista inbuilt one did not. It also doesnt put the files in any order like the IO one does.
Id have to disagree with you their proliant as surely ANY more files that are defragmented will be of some help (Even if unoticeable), and in some semblence of order even better surely?

Which obviously means the operating system thinks there is no need to optimise these files.

I agree with PROLIANT here .. seems to me some people get obsessive about these sort of things .. if you just let the system get on with it's default settings you can't go far wrong (Vista's SP1 defrag is set up automatically I believe .. as is Windows 7)

and beware the placebo effect ..

aliEnRIK

Pikeyp wrote: »

Which obviously means the operating system thinks there is no need to optimise these files.

I agree with PROLIANT here .. seems to me some people get obsessive about these sort of things .. if you just let the system get on with it's default settings you can't go far wrong (Vista's SP1 defrag is set up automatically I believe .. as is Windows 7)

and beware the placebo effect ..

So let me get this straight. Your saying Windows software is the VERY BEST AT EVERYTHING?

mulldoonuk

Why do i find "Defrag disk fragments" under

Activity
Active Applications

In PC Tools Firewall.

(which i'am very impressed with btw)

aliEnRIK

mulldoonuk wrote: »

Why do i find "Defrag disk fragments" under

Activity
Active Applications

In PC Tools Firewall.

(which i'am very impressed with btw)

because Vista runs all the time by default (which im NOT impressed with by the way)

mulldoonuk

aliEnRIK wrote: »

because Vista runs all the time by default (which im NOT impressed with by the way)

When i highlight it...
the info on the left tells me....

IObit ver. 1.03
Process ID 992