What is the best free defragger?

Scotteq · 01 Jul 2009

Thank you for your example - But XP is not Win 7, so I'm a little confused why you chose that. I'm simply pointing out that the Windows Engineering Team are saying that for Win 7 the best practice is to do nothing.

Among the other changes under the hood in Windows 7 are the following:

Defragmentation in Windows 7 is more comprehensive – many files that could not be re-located in Windows Vista or earlier versions can now be optimally re-placed. In particular, a lot of work was done to make various NTFS metadata files movable. This ability to relocate NTFS metadata files also benefits volume shrink, since it enables the system to pack all files and file system metadata more closely and free up space “at the end” which can be reclaimed if required.

If solid-state media is detected, Windows disables defragmentation on that disk. The physical nature of solid-state media is such that defragmentation is not needed and in fact, could decrease overall media lifetime in certain cases.

By default, defragmentation is disabled on Windows Server 2008 R2 (the Windows 7 server release). Given the variability of server workloads, defragmentation should be enabled and scheduled only by an administrator who understands those workloads.

Best practices for using defragmentation in Windows 7 are simple – you do not need to do anything! Defragmentation is scheduled to automatically run periodically and in the background with minimal impact to foreground activity. This ensures that data on your hard disk drives is efficiently placed so the system can provide optimal responsiveness...

Victek · 01 Jul 2009

Scotteq said:

Thank you for your example - But XP is not Win 7, so I'm a little confused why you chose that. I'm simply pointing out that the Windows Engineering Team are saying that for Win 7 the best practice is to do nothing.

.
I used the defragger in XP as an example because it is the last Windows version that included a disk map. I then talked about why in my experience having a disk map is useful. What was unclear?

Scotteq · 01 Jul 2009

That part is clear - A map is nice to have and nice to look at. What I'm not clear on is why you're using XP as an example in a Win7 conversation since Win 7 doesn't work like that.

The Windows Engineering team are saying they've redesigned how defragmentation operates in Windows 7, and that there is no need for any action because Win 7 Defrags itself in the background on an ongoing basis. And I provided a link to their article explaining what they've done as a reference. Based on this, my own conclusion is that there is no need in a Windows 7 environment for a standalone defragmentation product at all.

Victek · 01 Jul 2009

Scotteq said:

That part is clear - A map is nice to have and nice to look at. What I'm not clear on is why you're using XP as an example in a Win7 conversation since Win 7 doesn't work like that.

The Windows Engineering team are saying they've redesigned how defragmentation operates in Windows 7, and that there is no need for any action because Win 7 Defrags itself in the background on an ongoing basis. And I provided a link to their article explaining what they've done as a reference. Based on this, my own conclusion is that there is no need in a Windows 7 environment for a standalone defragmentation product at all.

.
I understand that what the Windows Engineering Team is saying is good enough for you. I still prefer to use a defragger where I can see for myself how the data is being arranged. Hopefully the Win7 defragger is as good as they say, but how can it can it be assessed?

I2aMpAnT · 02 Jul 2009

DarkNovaGundam said:

My favorite derangement is Command Prompt > Defrag c: -w

Gonna have to agree with that one.

Dinesh · 02 Jul 2009

I use defraggler.

johngalt · 03 Jul 2009

Native Win 7 defragmentation app. 'Nuff sed.

K3VL4R · 03 Jul 2009

dinesh said:

I use defraggler.

I used to use defraggler now I use Smartdefrag it is the fastest one I have seen so far.

Chappy · 03 Jul 2009

Windows defrag works perfectly well, and don't fall for the Registry defrag smoke & mirrors show, the registry doesn't need to be defragged just as it doesn't need some fancy cleaner either. The registry is stored in a few files which add up to less than 60MB in most cases (without logs), it's loaded in less than a second, and orphaned keys are simply ignored and do not cause system slowdowns. Many people make allot of $$$ on things they've convinced users that they need, when in fact it's just another snake oil sale.

The reason another defrag utility will show something different is because it uses a different algorithm than windows (or whatever utility) does. Windows uses a quality defrag utility they purchased a few years ago and at that time it was one of the highest ranked and recommended ones, just let it do it's job and forget about it.

johngalt · 03 Jul 2009

Yup - they are as good as memory optimizers and snake oil.