FREE Disk Defrag

Topic

New Reply

Haven’t tried this because I have Raxco but thought it might be useful to someone here:

http://www.auslogics.com/disk-defrag/%5B/url%5D

Reply | Quote

Replies

Thanks for that. Nice interface (although largely geared to selling their $ware stuff) and quite quick. No options like trying to make the free space contiguous, but still nice.

Alan

Reply | Quote

THe best things in life are not always free.

THe keys to good defrag software are:

1. Good GUI
2. Intelligent algorithm for laying out the files.
3. Efficient implementation.

Without knowing the algorithms used, whether boot time defrag was used, etc., I would not choose such software.

Reply | Quote

OK, I’ll bite. Howard, you neglected to explain how the average computer user (me) should analyze the the intelligence of defragmentation algorithms.
J. Till

Reply | Quote

It’s not worth your time.

Stick with the better defrags, i.e. Perfect Disk and O & O Defrag.

It’s highly unlikely that any freebie will come close to those.

If you do wish to experiment, here’s how:

1. At http://www.raxco.com, there are two useful tools provided.

a. One that will scramble the clusters.
b, Another that will attempt to measure how long it would take to read the files on the drive.

2. So, download those tools, and create a scrambled drive.
3. Run the tool that measures reading from the drive.
4. Defrag with, say, Perfect Disk, and examine the remaining fragmentation
5. Again, run the tool that times reads.
6. Recreate the scrambled image.
7. Defrag with, say, the freebie, and examine the remaining fragmentation.
8. Run the tool that times reads.

Ideally, one should use an image backup program that preserves the scrambled state, but I have none to recommend,
as I do not believe that either TI or Ghost puts clusters back in the same locations.

Ideally, this test should be run a bunch of times.
In the end, I would expect the freebie to lose the contest.

Reply | Quote

Howard

I believe you have missed your true calling in life. You should have been a preconceptual scientist!

Alan

Reply | Quote

Well, the scientist in me would like to point out that one should not, witjout due thought, adopt free software.

A good example is the software that is offerred free in books and at web sites. Some of it is very poorly done, and, unfortunately, sometimes incorrect. not to mention poorly performing.

Some examples can be found in the sorting code that I use in http://www/.standards.com/index.html?Sorting%5B/url%5D.
Some of the algorithms are outright awful. Some of the implementations are poor.

So, just because something is free, does not mean that it is worth using.

In the case of a defrag program or a backup program or an AV software or an optical media writing program or …, I would have major reservations about using any free software.

Reply | Quote

Whilst I agree that there’s good & bad code, my experience indicates that both varieties are represented in both free and commercial software. I wouldn’t be so bold as to estimate relative instances, not having sufficient sample data from which to draw any statistically significant conclusions. Bottom line is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating – each pudding being judged in its own right, be it an expensive fancy feast, or a free lunch.

Alan

Reply | Quote

In certain areas the answer is clear:

1. Free AV oft leaves out things such as email scanning, by itself, making the product useless.
2. Backup programs require significant expertise, rarely, if ever reflected in free (or even commercial) software.
3. Defrag software differs only in the GUI, efficiency of implementation, and algorithms used for layout. Much analysis has to lie behind each of these. ALL use the same underlying MSFT Defrag API. Onr can live with a poor GUI and implementatiom, but not with poor algorithms for file layout. It is in this last area that I suspect free software loses.
4. Published examples, on the web, and in certain well known VB /VBA books are oft poor or even wrong. I was very surprised to find out just how bad when I did http://www.standards.com/index.html?Sorting%5B/url%5D as Sorting is perhaps the most widely analyzed area in software with lots of good stuff published.

Reply | Quote

Sorry, but I fail to see how any of your claims make anything clear.

1. Free AV oft leaves out things such as email scanning, by itself, making the product useless.
I quite deliberately opted not to install the e-mail scanning option with my free AV, because it represents nothing more than a redundant overhead, when real time monitoring is operating. E-mail scanning is often regarded as little more than eye candy.

2. Backup programs require significant expertise, rarely, if ever reflected in free (or even commercial) software.
Far too sweeping a comment to answer, particularly in view of the complete absence of any specifics.

3. … Onr can live with a poor GUI and implementatiom, but not with poor algorithms for file layout. It is in this last area that I suspect free software loses.
I suspect you’re correct in that most free defragers won’t offer much (if anything) in the way of file placement options. But since the biggest HD performance hit comes from file fragmentation, as opposed to file placement, such a feature should be regarded as a “nice” extra – hardly something one can’t live without.

4. Published examples, on the web, and in certain well known VB /VBA books are oft poor or even wrong. I was very surprised to find out just how bad …
Sure. But what does this have to do with free or commercial status?

… Sorting is perhaps the most widely analyzed area in software with lots of good stuff published.
No argument there, and understandable too, since there are all sorts of criteria that might determine which algorithm (and implemntation) best suits a particular situation. It’s interesting to note from your website article, the “underperformance” of VBA/ VB6 sorting – from commercial MS software. I wonder if any of the free stuff does a better job?

Alan

Reply | Quote