[DorianVonRichter]

I use JkDefrag for defragging my comuters and I was wondering if there was anything that might defrag better that it. I don't like the defragger for XP or Vista and that's why I used JkDefrag.

[RootbeaR]

Originally Posted by DorianVonRichter

I use JkDefrag for defragging my comuters and I was wondering if there was anything that might defrag better that it. I don't like the defragger for XP or Vista and that's why I used JkDefrag.

I've not used Jkdefrag, but I always liked the speed of this one:

"Auslogics Disk Defrag was designed to remedy system sluggishness and crashes caused by disk fragmentation. It is optimized to work with today's modern hard disks. Auslogics Disk Defrag is extremely simple to use, does not require any analysis phase and is faster than most of the other disk defragmentation software. It will help you get the maximum performance out of your expensive hardware investments. And, what’s most important, it's absolutely free."
http://www.auslogics.com/disk-defrag

[Squashman]

http://www.defraggler.com/

[Mr. Newton]

Here is what I use and I just let it run by itself,I set a schedule for a full deep defrag and let it do it's thing,once a year for the full deep defrag,,I really forget about it because it does the job I want done.
It works for me.It runs in the background and keeps my system defraged on an ongoing basis.
http://www.iobit.com/iobitsmartdefrag.html

[DorianVonRichter]

Originally Posted by RootbeaR

I've not used Jkdefrag, but I always liked the speed of this one:

"Auslogics Disk Defrag was designed to remedy system sluggishness and crashes caused by disk fragmentation. It is optimized to work with today's modern hard disks. Auslogics Disk Defrag is extremely simple to use, does not require any analysis phase and is faster than most of the other disk defragmentation software. It will help you get the maximum performance out of your expensive hardware investments. And, what’s most important, it's absolutely free."
http://www.auslogics.com/disk-defrag

But it's not free, though, is it?

[RootbeaR]

Originally Posted by RootbeaR

I've not used Jkdefrag, but I always liked the speed of this one:

"Auslogics Disk Defrag was designed to remedy system sluggishness and crashes caused by disk fragmentation. It is optimized to work with today's modern hard disks. Auslogics Disk Defrag is extremely simple to use, does not require any analysis phase and is faster than most of the other disk defragmentation software. It will help you get the maximum performance out of your expensive hardware investments. And, what’s most important, it's absolutely free."
http://www.auslogics.com/disk-defrag

[hrlow2]

I personally use and like the Ultimate Defragger( Free Domain )

[Kenny94]

Originally Posted by Squashman

http://www.defraggler.com/

I like this one. Thanks!

[Sevvie]

I use Auslogics Disk Defrag. It's great and it's free.

[Elvandil]

Originally Posted by DorianVonRichter

I use JkDefrag for defragging my comuters and I was wondering if there was anything that might defrag better that it. I don't like the defragger for XP or Vista and that's why I used JkDefrag.

There is no defragger that is better than all the rest. Defragging is not needed much any more with newer drives and OS's, but any defragger does the job very well. The Windows defragger does just as good a job as any.

Free defraggers:

Swift Disk Defrag
IObit Smart Defrag (Schedule and boot defrag.)
Defraggler
Auslogics Disk Defrag
DefragNT
WinContig
Ultra Defragmenter
Defrag GUI (GUI for native defrag.exe.)
DIRMS 1.2.20 Defragger (command-line)
JKDefragGUI
Disk Idle Optimizer
Power Defragmenter
Diskeeper Lite
O&O Defrag 2000 Freeware
DefragMentor Lite (Boot-time and command-line.)


(PageDefrag is good to use with all the above in XP. It does a boot-time defrag of all the major locked files.)

[hrlow2]

Since each defragger works its own way of laying out the files, it is best to find one that you like and use it exclusively.

[Mr. Newton]

Originally Posted by hrlow2

Since each defragger works its own way of laying out the files, it is best to find one that you like and use it exclusively.

That's it in a nutshell.The perfect answer...

[DorianVonRichter]

I kinda like Piriform Defraggler and Auslogics Disk Defrag. I am leaning more to Aulogics Disk Defrag. I know this is off topic, but what about Auslogics Registry Cleaner? I happened to notice it when I was downloading Disk Defrag. I know that you are supposed to stay away from them, but I have been using the registry cleaning part of Ccleaner for about two years with no side affects.

[DorianVonRichter]

I've made my decision, it is Piriform Defraggler. When Elvandil said that one defragger isn't really better than another, that's what made my mind up. I use Ccleaner and Recuva, which are both from Piriform. I really like those and why not complete the "trilogy". Thanks for the help everyone.

[Elvandil]

Originally Posted by DorianVonRichter

When Elvandil said that one defragger isn't really better than another, that's what made my mind up.

You'l probably find people who disagree (especially all those fake articles about defragging posted all over the net by the good people at Diskeeper), but I'd like them to prove it.

Have a good one.

Registry cleaner? You may not see the bad effects until it is too late. The reason there are so many of them is that they are easy to write. All one need is a set of templates to compare the keys to. If they don't match, they are an "error". Too bad the templates can't possibly cover all the possibilities. The real problem with cleaners is that they are a risk and do absolutely no good whatsoever.

http://forums.techguy.org/6657814-post1.html
http://forums.techguy.org/all-other-...-computer.html
http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=643
http://forums.techguy.org/all-other-...gcure-any.html
http://forums.techguy.org/all-other-...y-cleaner.html
http://forums.techguy.org/all-other-...g-cleaner.html
http://forums.techguy.org/windows-vi...file-lost.html

Even if registry cleaners actually worked and did what they are supposed to safely, what would be the net gain?

I have over 800,000 entries in my registry. So let's say 1 million as a good approximation. So if we also assume that the "speed" of the registry is an inverse relationship, in other words, if it were half as large, it would be twice as fast, how much would this cleaner actually speed things up?

If it found 5,000 "errors" (they aren't really errors, but let's assume they are since the cleaners do), then the increase in the speed of the registry would be 5000/1000000, or 0.005, or 1/2%. So in other words, by running a registry cleaner and remocving 5000 entries (which is more than most find) and risking serious damage to your installation and programs, you have succeeded in increasing the speed by 1/2 of 1% (if it were even true in the first place that registry access speed is dependent on size in this way, which it isn't).

Does that seem worth it to you?

Registry "defraggers" ("compactors") may actually improve your registry access speed, however. These tools do not hack out possibly needed entries like "cleaners" do. They simply rebuild the registry, leaving out blank space and reducing the size. Auslogics may be one of the best since it does the compaction offline on the next machine boot. But it is no longer free.

Free registry defragmenters (compressors):

NTREGOPT - http://www.larshederer.homepage.t-online.de/erunt/
RegCompact.NET - http://www.aplusfreeware.com/categor...egCompact.html
WinASO RegDefrag - http://www.winaso.com/
Free Registry Defrag - http://www.registry-clean.net/free-registry-defrag.htm

You can benchmark your registry access speed to compare it at different times, or after a "defrag" ("compaction") to see if any real improvement in access speed occurred (use identical conditions). The output of regbench HKLM -auto looks like this:

Benchmarking registry root:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE [HKLM] hKey: 0x80000002
/
== Keys in hive : 359169
== Enumeration time : 135625 ms (135.63 secs)
== Total accesses : 100000
== Total access time : 8609
== Time per access : 0.086090 ms
== Keys per second : 11615.75
== Total bytes read : 10000046
== Time to read all : 10157 ms
== Time per byte : 0.001010 ms per byte
== Bytes per second : 990099.00