What's the best free disk defragger, not in Windows, for NTFS andFAT drives/partitions?

Rod Speed wrote:
Cronos wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Nope, the other fundamental question is whether the measured
difference is noticeable. If it isnt, its not worth worrying
about.

Whether you notice or not is beside the point

Like hell if is. If you cant see any difference, there isnt any point
in defragging.

because the benefit is there and is measurable regardless of if you
notice it or not.

Mindlessly silly.

I can't tell if my game is running at 24fps or 30fps but knowing it
is running at 30fps is preferable.

Even sillier.


I have agreed many times with Rod about defragging, but I think this may
be the first time I think his "silly" responses are fully appropriate!

If you don't notice the effect of a supposed improvement, then it
doesn't matter. Defragging may have a /measurable/ effect on some
operations, without being noticeable - in which case, it doesn't matter.

Cronos wrote:
David Brown wrote:

"Microsoft disagrees with you" is as good an argument as "Kermit the
Frog disagrees with you". There are so many bad choices for defaults
in Windows that this is absolutely no indication that defragging is
useful in general, or useful on a regular basis.

But Microsoft is not Kermit the frog and have many very smart people
working for them so I think it might be prudent to give them some
credibility instead of discounting them without understanding why they
have it set to auto defrag once per week. My guess is they do that
because to do it once a week means it is far quicker to keep the HDDs
defragged than doing it once every few months.

Respect and credibility is something a person or company must work hard
to earn, and can quickly loose. MS has worked long and hard to ensure
they have as little credibility with technically knowledgeable people as
they possibly can.

I am /not/ saying that they are always wrong. But you must be very
naïve to assume that what they say is right, without looking for
independent confirmation or proof.

It is generally true that defragging will be faster if the last time you
ran it was a week ago rather than two months ago. But the total time
wasted on weekly defrags over those two months is much more than the
time wasted for a single defrag once every two months. But whether you
do it once a week or every second month, it is still wasted time.

You wanted to know the reason newer Windows defaults to auto defragging
once a week? It's because lots of people, such as yourself, assume that
this is a "new feature" - another "reason" for "upgrading" to Vista /
Windows 7. Companies like DiskKeeper have done a great false
advertising job persuading people that they need scheduled defragmenters
- MS is simply cashing in on their marketing.

David Brown wrote:
Cronos wrote:
David Brown wrote:

"Microsoft disagrees with you" is as good an argument as "Kermit the
Frog disagrees with you". There are so many bad choices for
defaults in Windows that this is absolutely no indication that
defragging is useful in general, or useful on a regular basis.

But Microsoft is not Kermit the frog and have many very smart people
working for them so I think it might be prudent to give them some
credibility instead of discounting them without understanding why
they have it set to auto defrag once per week. My guess is they do
that because to do it once a week means it is far quicker to keep
the HDDs defragged than doing it once every few months.

Respect and credibility is something a person or company must work
hard to earn, and can quickly loose. MS has worked long and hard to
ensure they have as little credibility with technically knowledgeable
people as they possibly can.

I am /not/ saying that they are always wrong. But you must be very
naïve to assume that what they say is right, without looking for
independent confirmation or proof.

It is generally true that defragging will be faster if the last time
you ran it was a week ago rather than two months ago. But the total
time wasted on weekly defrags over those two months is much more than
the time wasted for a single defrag once every two months. But
whether you do it once a week or every second month, it is still
wasted time.
You wanted to know the reason newer Windows defaults to auto
defragging once a week? It's because lots of people, such as
yourself, assume that this is a "new feature" - another "reason" for
"upgrading" to Vista / Windows 7. Companies like DiskKeeper have
done a great false advertising job persuading people that they need
scheduled defragmenters - MS is simply cashing in on their marketing.

Nope, the fools that decide the defaults cant grasp the basics, that unless the user
can detect the difference that defragging makes, there isnt any point in doing it.

On Dec 15, 8:57*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
David Brown wrote:
Cronos wrote:
David Brown wrote:

"Microsoft disagrees with you" is as good an argument as "Kermit the
Frog disagrees with you". *There are so many bad choices for
defaults in Windows that this is absolutely no indication that
defragging is useful in general, or useful on a regular basis.

But Microsoft is not Kermit the frog and have many very smart people
working for them so I think it might be prudent to give them some
credibility instead of discounting them without understanding why
they have it set to auto defrag once per week. My guess is they do
that because to do it once a week means it is far quicker to keep
the HDDs defragged than doing it once every few months.

Respect and credibility is something a person or company must work
hard to earn, and can quickly loose. *MS has worked long and hard to
ensure they have as little credibility with technically knowledgeable
people as they possibly can.

I am /not/ saying that they are always wrong. *But you must be very
naïve to assume that what they say is right, without looking for
independent confirmation or proof.

It is generally true that defragging will be faster if the last time
you ran it was a week ago rather than two months ago. *But the total
time wasted on weekly defrags over those two months is much more than
the time wasted for a single defrag once every two months. *But
whether you do it once a week or every second month, it is still
wasted time.
You wanted to know the reason newer Windows defaults to auto
defragging once a week? *It's because lots of people, such as
yourself, assume that this is a "new feature" - another "reason" for
"upgrading" to Vista / Windows 7. *Companies like DiskKeeper have
done a great false advertising job persuading people that they need
scheduled defragmenters - MS is simply cashing in on their marketing.

Nope, the fools that decide the defaults cant grasp the basics, that unless the user
can detect the difference that defragging makes, there isnt any point in doing it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is no excuse not to backup a drive, but recovery of a corrupted or
damaged drive can often be easier if the files are not fragmented.

The files that often get very fragmented are ones that grow, such as e-
mail inboxes, and documents/spread sheets that have been worked on a
lot. These are often viewed as very importat files to recover.

Do an occasional defrag, and a very regular backup.

Michael

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

unless the user
can detect the difference that defragging makes, there isnt any point in
doing it.


Wise words. And that is also why you should never bother to change the oil
in your car engine either.

wrote:
snip

It is no excuse not to backup a drive, but recovery of a corrupted or
damaged drive can often be easier if the files are not fragmented.


I think the word "often" here is a gross exaggeration. It is
conceivable that a professional recovery service will find it marginally
easier to recover non-fragmented files, but that's about it.

In the good old days of small drives, few files, and plain text formats
then your argument might hold water when piecing together a lost file
from individual disk sectors.

The files that often get very fragmented are ones that grow, such as e-
mail inboxes, and documents/spread sheets that have been worked on a
lot. These are often viewed as very importat files to recover.

Do an occasional defrag, and a very regular backup.

Michael

Bilky White wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

unless the user
can detect the difference that defragging makes, there isnt any point
in doing it.


Wise words. And that is also why you should never bother to change the
oil in your car engine either.

Oil changes /do/ make user-detectable changes, albeit over a long time.
Defragging doesn't, no matter how long you leave it - except perhaps
in that the increased wear and tear on the disk due to unnecessary
defragging may lower its lifetime.

"David Brown" wrote in message
...

Oil changes /do/ make user-detectable changes, albeit over a long time.
Defragging doesn't, no matter how long you leave it - except perhaps in
that the increased wear and tear on the disk due to unnecessary defragging
may lower its lifetime.

Thanks David, I just enjoy yanking Rod's chain from time to time, keep him
on his toes

Bilky White wrote:
"David Brown" wrote in message
...

Oil changes /do/ make user-detectable changes, albeit over a long
time. Defragging doesn't, no matter how long you leave it - except
perhaps in that the increased wear and tear on the disk due to
unnecessary defragging may lower its lifetime.

Thanks David, I just enjoy yanking Rod's chain from time to time, keep
him on his toes

Fair enough - I can understand that!

On Dec 15, 12:48*pm, David Brown
wrote:
wrote:

snip



It is no excuse not to backup a drive, but recovery of a corrupted or
damaged drive can often be easier if the files are not fragmented.

I think the word "often" here is a gross exaggeration. *It is
conceivable that a professional recovery service will find it marginally
easier to recover non-fragmented files, but that's about it.

In the good old days of small drives, few files, and plain text formats
then your argument might hold water when piecing together a lost file
from individual disk sectors.



The files that often get very fragmented are ones that grow, such as e-
mail inboxes, and documents/spread sheets that have been worked on a
lot. *These are often viewed as very importat files to recover.

Do an occasional defrag, and a very regular backup.

Michael- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If the FATs are lost all fragmentation information is also lost.

If the MFT has been overwritten, or lost, then all fragmentation is
also lost.

On a large fragmented disk, a large file can have many fragments - a
few hundred for e-mail files. These are not easy to join together by
hand, or by program.

About 1/3rd of my data recovery jobs do require a raw recovery mode
where there is no fragment information available. The automatic
recovery rate on non defragged drives does decrease.

Data recovery is not a subsitute for good backups. Anything to make
it easier is worth an occasional defrag.

Michael
www.cnwrecovery.com