PDA

View Full Version : Defragger for Vista


Drolfrawd
02-24-08, 05:01 PM
I am using Auslogics , but iam not too impressed by it.
Can anyone suggest a really decent defragger for vista!

Light on resources and fast

Thank you

Rakeesh
02-24-08, 07:48 PM
I think the built in one is probably fine. With NTFS, file fragmentation isn't as much of a problem as it used to be with fat32.

mcolbourn
02-25-08, 03:08 AM
I use Auslogics Disk Defrag its free and does a good job imo
http://www.auslogics.com/en/software/disk-defrag

AthlonXP1800
02-25-08, 04:37 AM
I am using Auslogics , but iam not too impressed by it.
Can anyone suggest a really decent defragger for vista!

Light on resources and fast

Thank you

Well I tested all defragment tools for Vista months ago to compared each and found Auslogics is the best one that are very lighter on resources and do same jobs improved performance as Diskeeper, PerfectDisk and others did.

On my 400GB hard drive, Auslogics defragged 300GB used space and completed job in 9 mins so average time is 15 mins. That 20 time faster than Vista built-in defragement tool which completed defragged 300GB in 5 hours, it not fast and unaccepted.

Make sure you download the latest Auslogics version 1.4.11.275.

Drolfrawd
02-25-08, 03:53 PM
THanks to all for your replies. Appreciated.

lduguay
02-25-08, 04:37 PM
I think the built in one is probably fine. With NTFS, file fragmentation isn't as much of a problem as it used to be with fat32.
+1

dxx
02-25-08, 06:08 PM
+1


+2.

I had an argument about unimportant fragmention was on another forum a few months ago. It was depressing. There was me, giving them stats, numbers, real-world benchmark results as well as theory to prove beyond doubt that fragmention meant nothing these days, and yet, they were too stubbornly stuck in their ways to concede that the Ancient Rules Of Computing could possibly be obsolete. They'll be the same people that believe that leaving 20% of a harddisk unused benefits performance, and that swapfiles should be 1.5x the total of physical memory. On the plus side though, they're also the people that offer enough retarded advice to keep me in business, so I'm kinda thankful that their parents dropped them on their heads so many times. Diskeeper forever!

Drolfrawd
02-25-08, 06:28 PM
+2.

I had an argument about unimportant fragmention was on another forum a few months ago. It was depressing. There was me, giving them stats, numbers, real-world benchmark results as well as theory to prove beyond doubt that fragmention meant nothing these days, and yet, they were too stubbornly stuck in their ways to concede that the Ancient Rules Of Computing could possibly be obsolete. They'll be the same people that believe that leaving 20% of a harddisk unused benefits performance, and that swapfiles should be 1.5x the total of physical memory. On the plus side though, they're also the people that offer enough retarded advice to keep me in business, so I'm kinda thankful that their parents dropped them on their heads so many times. Diskeeper forever!

Your reply is good enough for me , I like ways of thinking like yours and the other posters . If something isn't that good anymore then great, I will change , just curious on the swap file ratio, what do you use. i just give it a large number like 4 gig on a seperate drive .