Smart defrag vs defraggler.IObit Smart Defrag vs Defraggler : Which is Better?

 

Smart defrag vs defraggler.Is Defraggler better and effective than Smart Defrag ?

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Quicker System Boot Time.Defraggler vs IObit Smart Defrag: Which is Better? () – Appmus

 

Dec 06,  · But if you insist on using a 3rd party one, Defraggler might be slow compared to others, but it is the best, as it uses Windows API’s and copies the data to the side, before moving stuff around, in case of a power interruption, or you cancel the defrag, your data remains intact, because it uses volume shadow service, otherwise known as VSS. As effective defrag software, Smart Defrag helps speedup PC and data access speed. And now it gets even better with all the new updates below. New Defrag Engine supports multithreading for ultra-fast, stable and efficient defrag. Defragment large files to accelerate disk read/write speed and . Feb 20,  · 50, posts. Have used Auslogics Disk and Reg defraggers for ten years. Recently tried Defraggler which seems to find a lot more to defrag, greatly relieving one boot problem traced to slow fragmented HD. Auslogics had found typical % frags whereas Defraggler found 47%.

 

Smart defrag vs defraggler.Solved: Windows defragger vs. Smart Defrag | Tech Support Guy

Dec 06,  · But if you insist on using a 3rd party one, Defraggler might be slow compared to others, but it is the best, as it uses Windows API’s and copies the data to the side, before moving stuff around, in case of a power interruption, or you cancel the defrag, your data remains intact, because it uses volume shadow service, otherwise known as VSS. Apr 28,  · The 3rd-party defraggers promote two things: Speed and optimization. In my tests, there is no doubt that Smart Defrag is much faster than WD (Windows Defragger). And it also purports to “optimize” the files by moving those accessed most frequently to the outer tracks of the ted Reading Time: 8 mins. May 09,  · PerfectDisk, Defraggler, and JkDefrag are probably your best bets out of the 8 options considered. “Intelligent disk optimization” is the primary reason people pick PerfectDisk over the competition. This page is powered by a knowledgeable community that .
 
 
related:
Solved: Windows defragger vs. Smart Defrag
Faster PC & Quicker Access Speed
Is Defraggler better and effective than Smart Defrag ? | MalwareTips Community
Defraggler vs IObit Smart Defrag : Which is Better?

Best Free Disk Defrag Software – Smart Defrag by IObit

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 , other people just like you! Forums New posts Search forums.

What’s new New posts Unanswered threads Latest activity. Members Current visitors. Log in Sign up. Search titles only. Search Advanced search…. New posts. Search forums. Log in. Sign up. Computer problem? Tech Support Guy is completely free — paid for by advertisers and donations. Click here to join today! JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding. Solved: Windows defragger vs.

Smart Defrag. Status This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you’re having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site. DKTaber Thread Starter. Joined Oct 26, Messages 2, I have been using IOBit’s Smart Defrag for some time now, and recently installed their latest version, 2.

Is there something wrong with the new Smart Defrag version, or is this a difference of opinion between two programs how can their be a “difference of opinion” about whether a file is or is not fragmented??

Ent Josiah. Joined Apr 11, Messages 5, I’ve never come across this question in this direction. Mostly people ask why a 3rd party tool finds file fragments that Windows, always Vista or 7, isn’t finding. The Vista defrag does not affect fragments larger than 64 megabytes, as it would put more strain on the hard disk and take longer than it is worth in terms of performance benefit. I don’t know if the IOBit program uses the same rationalle as the Vista or 7 defrag, but that makes sense to me.

At any rate it illustrates how there can be a difference of opinion over whether a file is fragmented. Well, as mentioned in my original post, I still use XP not Vista or 7 on my desktop, so it’s XP’s defragger that’s in question.

I probably do have some fragments larger than 64MB which actually strikes me as kinda small, given the bloated size of Windows’ files , but I can’t reconcile that with SD saying I have NO fragments and WD Windows defragger saying I have 3, Joined Oct 25, Messages There is a good and reliable software that I use to defragment my disks.

It is called Defraggler. Joined Sep 24, Messages 78, I’ve found that the best practice, IMO, is to let windows if that’s the OS; if not, try a third party app decide what’s best for the disk, as that’s the app that is making the calls to the HD in the first place. Stoner Banned. Joined Oct 26, Messages 44, I would imagine that one does not exist. Windows is the OS, so most likely it knows best what file system it needs to optimize HD performance Stoner said:.

I’ve asked many times if anyone has any benchmarks to show a third party defragger more efficient than the Windows app If someone knows of such a benchmark Post 7, specifically. I had that exact question back then, and the answer is that dueling defraggers, just like dueling AV’s, tend to cancel each other out. One sorts and organizes to it’s own system, the other comes along with IT’S system, and see total chaos.

Joined Mar 16, Messages Hi DK Taber, This issue comes up every so often. IMO, the reason for the discrepancy is that different defrag utilities use different parameters and different algorithms to determine how bad a disk is fragmented.

Some limit the size of the files the address, others stress the amount of free space, while others stress file placement “the closer they are to the center, the faster they will be accessed” , etc. So you are bound to end up with various different reports. Also, the built-in can’t address all files like system files that are in use when Windows is running but if I recall correctly it will still report them I haven’t used WDD in a while so I’m a bit foggy on what it does or won’t do ; some of the freebies seem to ignore and not count files they are not designed to address, so maybe the discrepancy is what files get counted.

This is probably why most defrag programs will disable the built-in when installed. Probably the only way to get a meaningful answer would be to ask the makers of Smart Defrag why their defragger says one thing while WDD says something drastically different that is a large disparity. On the other hand, the point of using third party defragmenters was brought up.

Personally I prefer to use a third party defrag program because they run automatically and the better ones make it possible to defrag while using the computer their resource use is minimal and they tend to be much faster. You can click on each of the product images and get a detailed analysis of each program and why it scored as it did. The top placers are all automatic; The gold medalist won because the testers could not tell it was running even though they were using the computer while it was defragging there was virtually no resource hit on the machine while defragmenting.

Read the review. Most of these products offer a free, fully functional trial so you can get the ones that makes sense to you and try them on your system before buying; really the bottom line is which one you and your system are happiest with It was interesting, but IMO no surprise because they are two different types of products from what I recall the third party program totally out-performed the built-in in all respects — it better if it costs money, right?

I will try to find that review and if successful I will post the link to it here. The built-in really is designed for casual occasional users, kind of like Paint for casual photo re-touching or Word Pad for occasional note writing. Of course, Paint does not compare to PhotoShop, neither does Word Pad compare to Word, but they were not meant to either — they are designed for occasional “better-than-nothing” use I would pity anyone who decided to use Paint or Word Pad for professional use Joined Jul 22, Messages 8, Ultimately, when thinking about defragmentation, it is important to realize that there are many additional factors contributing towards system responsiveness that must be considered beyond a simple count of existing fragments.

Joined Apr 26, Messages 5, This thread got me curious, so I downloaded and installed both Smart Defrag 2 and Diskeeper lite free versions. I already had Defraggler installed as its the program I’ve been using for quite a while. So I ran a defrag with Defraggler took about 5 minutes then ran Diskeeper. Analysis detected 1 fragmented file. Ran Smart Defrag which detected 63 fragmented files and took about 15 minutes to defrag.

Reran Defraggler and detected no fragmented files. Ran Diskeeper again and it detected 1 fragmented fie. After I unstalled Diskeeper it replaced the windows defrag in Computer Management I ran analysis with the windows defrag tool. It found no fragmented files. In using Defraggler, if one defrags the fragmented files ONLY, you can do that with Defraggler the defrag time is very small.

Defragging the entire disk is another matter. Just my small contribution to this controversial topic. As Seen On. Welcome to Tech Support Guy! Latest posts. Mouse lags and freezes Latest: plodr 24 minutes ago. Hotspot not working Nokia 3. Android hacked into 1 Viewer Latest: plodr 47 minutes ago. Android Mobile Devices. Software Development. Why won’t msgs download photos that are sent to me? Latest: Ryco Today at AM. Ssd or ram? All Other Software. Members online kevinf80 Wino.