![]() ![]() My free choice would be puran defrag HANDS DOWN. and 2 because it is a tiny footprint and uses very little resources without the added junk others include. i own paid lic's which to be honest i would have never paid for going in knowing the level of service they provide. I use disktrix currently mainly for 2 reasons. why do i need a system optimizer or a "free space" button etc. i personally dont want a defragger to have every thing under the sun included just like many are doing with av's now. i turned off EVERY option for any kind of auto anything and also killed it on startup and it still each time you run it starts the procc's over again and then they continue to run after that. O&o i find i actually like but like pd11 why does it need to run all the things when not being used. ![]() there is NO WAY its defragging the mft and pagefile etc in a matter of like 3 seconds flat which is about how long it takes on the three pc's i tried it on. also personally i dont think the boot time does much of anything. there is simply a defrag and a quick defrag. I just tried the newest defraggler beta and to be honest i think it *could* be a GREAT free alternative BUT it offers nothing in the way of any kind of placement. i also found the newest pd11 imo to be pretty slow to defrag again imo. even if you turn off auto defrag with pd11 it still consumes memory and runs procc's in the backround just sitting there. ![]() ![]() For anyone really gung-ho about a substitute for Vista's I'd probably suggest it there as well, or at least the Google searches for comparative research.The main thing i dont like about perfect disk as well as diskeeper and a few others is all the running procc's in the backround even while they are not being used. On earlier versions of Windows I'd vote for Perfect Disk merely on the result of my past "x vs x", "x better than *", and "x compared to *" Google queries (try the wildcards). (See the article for possible misconceptions.)īack to the original question: If you merely want to replace this scheduled task with a good defrag tool then my recommendation is for the Windows one already in use, at least on Vista. I believe this is verifiable by simply running the utilities in question and noting that the reported fragmentation is within practical performance levels. (Although by all means if you wish to target highly specific performance sensitive problem files and directories with the likes of contig as mentioned you should do so.) The system scheduled idle defrag (find it in Task Scheduler->Microsoft->Windows->Defrag) is more than capable of keeping up with system fragmentation and a manual defrag has little benefit of significance. I'm putting forward that a 3rd party defrag tool is entirely unnecessary. The NTFS file system is quite an improvement over FAT32 in this regard, and this TechNet blog article discusses some of Vista's improvements in particular: Don’t judge a book by its cover – why Windows Vista Defrag is cool (nonpartisan I know ). The necessity of a good 3rd-party defrag tool isn't quite what it used to be, though they're of course still hotly peddled as cure-alls beside generic system cleaners. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |