After 10+ years of using Diskeeper

[Rubycon]

What do you think?

This software just seems to do a more thorough job.

 

[ncage]

Tried them both and i like diskeeper better. PerfectDisk has a couple of key features missing. Set-It and Forget-It. Also will determine if it should defrag or not depending on System Resource Usage. PerfectDisk pretty much just has a scheduler.

 

[Auric]

O&O is best for control given the user knows how they specifically use volumes. Others focus more upon automated methods which always pale in comparison to manual.

 

[Rottie]

I am staying with diskeeper no reasons for me to switch to other defrag software.

 

[Pabster]

I agree. Been using PerfectDisk for years, it's the best. (IMHO)

 

[corkyg]

And the brand newly released PerfectDisk 2008 is even better! I dumped DK a few years ago because the GUI is so rediculous with all those intermixed vertical bars. I am old school and like the good old Norton Speed Disk format.

PD really shines on defragging NTSF system files and the paging file off line during the boot process.

PD2008

 

[Nothinman]

I can't believe people actually spend money on defrag software.

 

[Rottie]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I can't believe people actually spend money on defrag software.

I cannot believe you never even defrag your hard drive ever since you got a hard drive.

 

[corkyg]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I can't believe people actually spend money on defrag software.

Every now and then it is simply what I call "productive entertainment" when there is nothing else to do. I guess some folks play games for the same reason.

Whenever I clone a drive, I always optimize the source first. For me that is reason enough.

Lastly, it helps the economy by keeping people employed.

 

[Mojoed]

Originally posted by: Rottie

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I can't believe people actually spend money on defrag software.

I cannot believe you never even defrag your hard drive ever since you got a hard drive.

He never said he's never defragged. He's probably using one of the many freeware defraggers out there. HERE is a good one.

 

[Nothinman]

I cannot believe you never even defrag your hard drive ever since you got a hard drive.

Saying absolutely never would be a lie since I used to way back when I first got a computer, but now I just don't care. There is virtually no difference so why waste my time and especially my money?

 

[martensite]

Ha, another defrag thread!
Anyway, I use Diskeeper too, and don't see any need to switch since it does the job just fine.

 

[jadinolf]

Originally posted by: martensite
Ha, another defrag thread!
Anyway, I use Diskeeper too, and don't see any need to switch since it does the job just fine.

Same here. Diskeeper just does it stuff unattended and I just check every few weeks.

 

[HannibalX]

I haven't had the chance to use PerfectDisk yet. I have been using the same copy of DiskKeeper Pro 10 for ever and ever.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I cannot believe you never even defrag your hard drive ever since you got a hard drive.

Saying absolutely never would be a lie since I used to way back when I first got a computer, but now I just don't care. There is virtually no difference so why waste my time and especially my money?

I like perfect disk.

There is a difference.
Try copying a 600MB file that is sequential versus one that has 100+ fragments.
Your also shortening the life span on a HD when it has to read heavily fragmented files.
The drives servo has to work much harder when reading fragmented files.

 

[Nothinman]

Try copying a 600MB file that is sequential versus one that has 100+ fragments.

I have done tests in threads like this in the past and the speed difference always fell into the statistical noise.

According to xfs_fsr the filesystem where I store all of my torrents is 98.77% fragmented. I have 2544448 extents when ideally I should have 31292. But it doesn't make a difference for any of the day to day stuff that I do with that volume.

Your also shortening the life span on a HD when it has to read heavily fragmented files.
The drives servo has to work much harder when reading fragmented files.

That might be a valid argument if the drive wasn't seeking around a lot already to read random files. Just starting any random executable usually causes a dozen or more files to be paged in from disk so unless all of them happen to be layed out just perfectly on disk you're going to be seeking like mad for a second or two at least. And ironically in order for them to be layed out perfectly they would have to be fragmented since binaries are paged in on demand and not read contiguously in one big operation.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I cannot believe you never even defrag your hard drive ever since you got a hard drive.

Saying absolutely never would be a lie since I used to way back when I first got a computer, but now I just don't care. There is virtually no difference so why waste my time and especially my money?

I like perfect disk.

There is a difference.
Try copying a 600MB file that is sequential versus one that has 100+ fragments.
Your also shortening the life span on a HD when it has to read heavily fragmented files.
The drives servo has to work much harder when reading fragmented files.

look up the google study on drive failure.
its not really a factor. age of the drive is a factor in, usage basically wasn't. their sample pool was over 100,000 drives atleast. so its a bit better than anecdotal evidence or a hunch and their study wasn't alone, i forget who did the other.

 

[Rottie]

never mind

 

[KoolDrew]

People still buy defrag software?