1. Computer problem? Tech Support Guy is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations. Click here to join today! If you're new to Tech Support Guy, we highly recommend that you visit our Guide for New Members.

To Diskeeper or Not to Diskeeper

Discussion in 'Tech Tips and Reviews' started by jgjulio, Feb 12, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement
  1. jgjulio

    jgjulio Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    112
    I have been following the discussion on another post regarding Diskeeper.
    My question: Is Diskeeper a worthy choice to buy to replace the windows defrag utility.
    Will defraging a hard drive every day significantly improve overall performance.

    Thanks
     
  2. Stoner

    Stoner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    44,931
    IMO, depends on which Windows and how the computer is used.
    I use 98se and defrag once a week and feel a slight improvement, not much. If I do it once a month, the machine can be felt slowing down before the defrag.
    I use this computer mainly online and searching out information, some photo restoration.

    My Mother that has a win xp home laptop, plays games and is on line for the news every day. She uses it less than half as much as I do mine. Hers can go 3-4 months without a defrag and I can't tell any difference.
    I've seen her's do uptimes of 1 to 2 months and still be just as responsive.

    So, I suppose 'it all depends'.

    Would I buy Diskeeper? No....I just don't think I or my Mom need it.
     
  3. Skivvywaver

    Skivvywaver

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2001
    Messages:
    13,951
    I have it. It is a good program but I am not sure if I had to do it again I'd buy it. I bought it because I hate waiting for a defrag and I forget to do it until I use my computer and notice it is dragging.

    I'd make a mental note and then forget to do it when I was done. My computer defrags every night at 2 am. It only takes a minute to defrag. I guess it is OK for forgetful people like myself.;)
     
  4. RAM-PAGE

    RAM-PAGE Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,355
    It might sound a bit prejudiced coming from me, but it took me years before spending any cash on top of what I paid for the computer.

    Finally I upped the RAM from 256Mb to 512Mb and noticed a BIG improvement, so added more. (y)

    Then I found out about the maximum amount of RAM that could be fitted and decided to up it to the maximum. Not really worth it, but what the heck. :cool:

    Then I bought Norton Utilities when using Millenium Edition. Both were a waste of money. :mad: (n)

    I had already found out about drive imaging so decided to pay for that too. Excellent! (y)

    Then I finally tried Diskeeper 9 Professional (NOT the Home version) used it, found I had a need to use Frag-Shield and like the automatic defragmentation, which, if I didn't have the computer standing on the desktop, I would probably never notice its working.

    I find that it definitely improves performance, especially the smoothness of operation, but ... well, that is up to you.

    So the extra RAM was well worth while, up to a point.
    Drive imaging is definitely money well spent.
    If you don't mind spending the money, I would go for Diskeeper, but ONLY after you evaluate it for yourself.

    There are other defragmenters around but I would say that this is the best one. I have tried several more of them in the past.

    Raxco's Perfectdisk is good too.

    Diskeeper updates the existing version supplied with XP. If you uninstall DK9 you get your original defrag program back again, so it is worth a try.

    If it came with the operating system I doubt if anyone would even question the idea, and as far as I know it is owned by Microsoft anyway.

    Really every XP user should be getting it as an update, in my opinion. (y)

    (Well, there's no harm in trying!)

    I would evaluate it for yourself, and come to your OWN decision, rather than allow anyone else to dictate to you or try to influence you.
     
  5. jgjulio

    jgjulio Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    112
    Ok I purchased Diskeeper. I am one of those folks that never remembers to defrag his hard drive. Since it is clear that defragging is good and I never do it, then the schedule component alone seems worth it.
    My question: In the scheduling options there is a "continous" setting for everyday. What does that mean.
    If I want it to defrag one time each day how would I set it up.
    Thanks.
     
  6. RAM-PAGE

    RAM-PAGE Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,355
    In the Set it and Forget it group, click on "Set a Custom Schedule." In the Select a Schedule drop-down windows choose "One time".

    Continuous means just that. 24/7.
     
  7. jgjulio

    jgjulio Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    112
    Got it.
    thanks
     
  8. RAM-PAGE

    RAM-PAGE Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,355
    No problem. Let us all know if it helps at all and you see an improvement.
     
  9. Bob Cerelli

    Bob Cerelli

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2002
    Messages:
    22,468
    Other than advertising descriptions, and since none has been provided, I've been trying to find some actual performance testing has been done regarding Diskeeper9

    One site that actually had performance data:
    http://www.sysopt.com/reviews/diskeeper/index2.html

    "Benchmarks seem to show Diskeeper 9 offering a slightly better file system improvement compared to the XP defragmenter. The improvement comes at a cost of slower completion time. "

    Mix of user opinions based on features and performance:
    http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11889368~mode=flat

    If anyone else has done similar testing or found similar pages with actual results, it would be good to know.
     
  10. RAM-PAGE

    RAM-PAGE Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,355
    "XP defragmenter performed a single pass, finishing in 5.5 hours. By comparison, Diskeeper's multi-pass method took 10 hours to complete. Was the wait worth it?"

    I find that you always get that on the FIRST run, but ONLY on the first run. Thereafter, for subsequent runs, the time is faster.

    When I tried Perfectdisk I found it to be - painfully - slow by comparison.

    I would hazard a guess that it may well have to do with the particular hardware that people are using, especially in the second link, so there is no true comparison of like with like.

    Drive cache, processor, bus speed and RAM are not mentioned at all.

    XP Defragmenter is produced by Executive Software, the makers of Diskeeper .

    - For the majority of users, the Disk Defragmenter Utility included with XP is sufficient to keep the hard drives in relatively good condition, but it's actually what is known as a Lite, or slightly crippled version, of Diskeeper, a product made by Executive Software. You may have noticed that even after the drive has been defragmented, there are still gaps showing where no files were shown as being present. What are these gaps and why weren't they eliminated by compacting the files to the beginning of the drive? It's due to limitations imposed by the Lite version of Diskeeper supplied with XP.-
     
  11. Bob Cerelli

    Bob Cerelli

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2002
    Messages:
    22,468
    WOW...even if it is that much faster on the first run, I'll take it. Have you confirmed that it is only that way on the first run or just a guess.

    Still waiting for any results you have or other actual test results as well.
     
  12. Bob Cerelli

    Bob Cerelli

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2002
    Messages:
    22,468
    And so on subsequent runs, I would definitely want something that was faster.

    But even that is just the Defrag time performance measurements.

    Maybe to help with your performance documentation on this, to be more specific, what are the better performance performance results the many people are getting? Again, I would assume that if you are making the claim, would by now be a fair of data to back that up. Just haven't seen it.

    1. Since there is the claim of increased performance, what is being increased? Boot time? Time to open various applications? Network throughput? It's got to be something that can be timed. A general sense of things being faster really doesn't offer that much. Then measure that performance before any changes are made.

    2. Only make one change at a time. So if padding the MFT is supposedly what is increasing performance, just do that. Do not do any file cleanups, spyware scans, derfags etc.

    3. Document the current configuration. So if padding MFT is the big performance gain, what was it before and after.

    4. Then measure you performance again and post the results.

    I've looked for quite a while to find something anywhere that would help with this but just haven't found much. In fact the only reason I posted just those two links, is that's all I could come across (other than advertising kind of desciptions).
    __________________
     
  13. Skivvywaver

    Skivvywaver

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2001
    Messages:
    13,951
    Bob, I have it, it is faster than the windows defragmenter. I don't really think it offers much more in performance after defrag but it is allot faster.

    I got the thing so I could forget about defragging once and for all. It is great for that. It actually plugs right in to the windows defragmenter as they are both made by executive software. Is it worth the $29? To me it was but it wouldn't be to others maybe.

    Is it the greatest thing since pizza? Nope. ;)
     
  14. Bob Cerelli

    Bob Cerelli

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2002
    Messages:
    22,468
    Never said it wasn't a good program. I have it too.

    The only issue was claims by rampage that after only padding a MFT that was only 75% full anyway, there was a significant performance increase. This part seemed to need some better performance documentation and I haven't been able to find or been provided any.
     
  15. Skivvywaver

    Skivvywaver

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2001
    Messages:
    13,951
    I did it yesterday for the first time. I benched the machine using HDtach, PCmark, and PCpitstop. There was no real difference in the before and after. There was a 10 point margin in PCmark which can happen if you run it twice anyway. I lost 2 points at PCpitstop, same thing, it could happen in 2 different runs. HDTach was exactly the same.

    I trust what I saw more than what I would read anyway. No difference really for me, but maybe in an abused machine?? Who knows? Not me.:D
     
  16. Sponsor

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 733,556 other people just like you!

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Short URL to this thread: https://techguy.org/329685

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice