Bullets 'n' Babes

Are there any completely freeware disk defragmenters out there that you huys know about?

I feel like the one in Vista is a step back from the one in Windows XP, so I'd like to use a better one, but the usuals (Perfect Disk & Diskeeper) only give 30 day trials before you have to buy.

Are there any completely free (i.e. no time limits) defragmentation programs out there that are good & will work on Vista (x64)?

IronMonkey wrote:I feel like the one in Vista is a step back from the one in Windows XP

Really? It's a definite step forward IMO. No pointless interface, you just set it and forget it.

I've not had to run a Disk Defrag since getting Vista, it does it for me. It's far more efficient than the basic one in XP. There are articles out there from MS explaining how they deliberately cut the interface back to concentrate on performance and efficency.

I used to run Diskkeeper on XP but I decided not to install it on Vista as frankly it's extreme overkill for a "Desktop PC", has way too many options you really don't need and the fact it runs in the background means it actually has a negative effect on performance not a positive one.

A decent defragmenter is important on server but a desktop PC with a modern hard disk it's rarely really needed any more. It's still worth running one from time to time but my advice would be stick with the Vista one.

p.s - Sorry I don't know of any free decent ones. There are loads on Google though. This article maybe of use:

http://www.auslogics.com/disk-defrag

JKDefragGUI - http://www.emro.nl/freeware .
I ditched PerfectDisk for it, much faster and seems to do a better job of it.

When I try to use the Windows XP Defragmenter, it just seems to keep restarting. I close down programs and stuff, it's well annoying that it doesn't just know how to keep itself going by now, the Windows 98 one had the same problem for God's sake.

It's not a problem as such but indicative of how defrag works. It needs access to the hard disk and cannot run when things access it. That said it should be much better than on Win98. The Windows 9x architecture really couldn't cope with multi-tasking but the NT architecture can (Windows 2000, XP, Vista).

Do you use the PC while it's defragmenting? Don't. Do you have aggressive Security software running in the background (Anti-Malware: Anti-Virus/Anti-Spyware)?

You could try running it from Safe Mode. You only need to run it once a month, on the outside.

I close running programs and go into CTRL ALT DLT to delete further ones, but there are always ones left running which I daren't close as I don't know what they do. I did indeed try it in safe mode a few days ago, and it did the same thing! Nope I don't use my laptop whilst trying to defragment.

If you're unsure what a program does, type the exe name into Google and see what comes back (i.e - svchost.exe, which is normal and part of the system).

That's what I do. If it's something same to remove I either End Task it or stop it loading in the first place.

An interesting read:-
How file fragments occur in WinXP/2003.

bradavon wrote:A decent defragmenter is important on server but a desktop PC with a modern hard disk it's rarely really needed any more.

Are you really in IT support? Because when you say ignorant shit like this it really calls your words into question.

Hard drive speeds are one of the biggest bottlenecks in a modern computer. Why do you think that people buy overpriced 10,000rpm Western Digital Velociraptors and/or run striped RAID configurations?

And that this relevant to Disk Degragmentation how?

I said "rarely really needed" because that is so.

Are you stupid? Fragmentation increases seek times and thus negatively affects performance.

In the short, defragmentation of HDDs should be performed often. You're totally wrong.

Yeah I agree - even for clueless home users, they should know how to defrag files. I do all my drives once a month.

Seriously, working on other peoples' PCs shows me just how optimised and smooth mine is, even though its no longer a "new" spec (its about 18 months old, self-built).

I was working on a family friend's computer yesterday, and you wouldn't believe how slow it was - it took 2 minutes to open Firefox. TWO MINUTES!

I told them they should defrag it at least once a month and they said they'd never done it before.

Also, they have a 19 widescreen LCD which they were running in 800x600 resolution. I kid you not. I tried to explain that its native resolution was 1440x900 and changed Vista's option to fit, but they didn't like the "small text" and it all looked "too thin", because they were used to looking at a 4:3 resolution stretched to widescreen!

But anyway, thats beside the point. As EvaUnit02 says, fragmentation definitely increases seek times so it negatively affects performance.

EvaUnit02 wrote:In the short, defragmentation of HDDs should performed often. You're totally wrong.

Agreed, never disagreed. The actual difference in reality however is much less. Vista's Defrag tool is much better than XPs, set it and forget it.

IronMonkey wrote:Seriously, working on other peoples' PCs shows me just how optimised and smooth mine is, even though its no longer a "new" spec (its about 18 months old, self-built).

Agreed. Other people's PCs can be such an utter mess, complaining the hardware is slow and old when I'd say a good 60% of the time it's software but of course no one ever wipes and starts again (outside of the Tech arena).

The amount of people who install software after software, never using even half of it and then wonder why things start to get really slow. I'm now incredibly picky about what I install in the first place and what I keep installed.

IronMonkey wrote:Also, they have a 19 widescreen LCD which they were running in 800x600 resolution. I kid you not. I tried to explain that its native resolution was 1440x900 and changed Vista's option to fit, but they didn't like the "small text" and it all looked "too thin", because they were used to looking at a 4:3 resolution stretched to widescreen!

I'm not surprised to hear that at all. Did you try 1440x900 or another widescreen resolution with large text? A friend of mine has a 17" monitor and has it set to 1024x768, everything looks so unsharp and huge.

But 19" WS on 800x600 would look awful, so big and stretched. Did they have the right monitor driver installed? I'm surprised you could even choose such a resolution.

This is much better on Windows 7, there's a clearer way of increasing font size but I doubt most people will use it, as AFAIK it's just the font size and not everything else. I could be wrong.

When my Mum got a 17" monitor I increased the resolution from 1024x768 (her 15" CRTs resolution) to 1280x1024. She moaned it was too small but I knew after a few days she'd not even notice and that's what happened. I bet if I put it back now, she'll moan everything is really big.