In short: which is better, Diskeeper 7.0 or PerfectDisk 2000 on Windows 2000 (running NTFS, of course)?
I can't seem to find any head to head comparision of these two - which I've come to the conclusions are the best. I often get the comment that PD can do MFT defrag, etc. while Deskeeper 7.0 can't - but, I know it can... Also, I've defragmented in PD and found that an analysis in Diskeeper 7.0 shows PD's defrag has highly fragmented. PD will, however, show no/little fragmentation once Diskeeper has done it's job - but PD also uses an optimal placement algorithm depending on how much you use a certain file - so it'll defrag to what it considers is optimal. Now, I don't care about pretty user interfaces, etc., and I know PD is not any faster then Diskeeper (from sheer experience) in defragging. My question is - which defrag utility offers the most performance out of your hard drive?
I can't seem to find any head to head comparision of these two - which I've come to the conclusions are the best. I often get the comment that PD can do MFT defrag, etc. while Deskeeper 7.0 can't - but, I know it can... Also, I've defragmented in PD and found that an analysis in Diskeeper 7.0 shows PD's defrag has highly fragmented. PD will, however, show no/little fragmentation once Diskeeper has done it's job - but PD also uses an optimal placement algorithm depending on how much you use a certain file - so it'll defrag to what it considers is optimal. Now, I don't care about pretty user interfaces, etc., and I know PD is not any faster then Diskeeper (from sheer experience) in defragging. My question is - which defrag utility offers the most performance out of your hard drive?
Facebook
Twitter