O&O Defrag vs Defraggler
- Thread starter vgchat
- Start date
- Feb 4, 2016
- 549
I have never used any of them, but I have heard very well Defraggler.
I believe that the best option is the Windows defragmenter own, so for me a defragmentation program is unnecessary!
I even using TunUpe Utilities that have a defragmenter, I prefer Windows, because it is a very good defragmenting
I believe that the best option is the Windows defragmenter own, so for me a defragmentation program is unnecessary!
I even using TunUpe Utilities that have a defragmenter, I prefer Windows, because it is a very good defragmenting
- Jan 31, 2014
- 888
Windows 8 and above is already efficient in defragging the system. It runs automatic defrags on schedule - just forget it but you could also do a manual defrag. The only thing that it cannot do is preventing the fragmentation on-the-fly.
If you want to prevent fragmentation on-the-fly, you could use Diskeeper and PerfectDisk. They redirects writes on the HDD to prevent at least 85% fragmentation.
If you want to prevent fragmentation on-the-fly, you could use Diskeeper and PerfectDisk. They redirects writes on the HDD to prevent at least 85% fragmentation.
- Jun 5, 2013
- 835
Without a shadow of a doubt, O&O.
You can check for more information here: The Big Windows 7 Defragmenter Test by Christian Hofmann
I spent some time developing a defragmenting script for MyDefrag, so I've studied this issue in some depth. In this test, you'll see older versions of the programs you mentioned; and although there may have been improvements on both sides, I can vouch for O&O Defrag, both then and now, whereas I've never been impressed by Defraggler.
If you analyze the test carefully, you'll see that I designed my own MyDefrag script (which also took part in the test) to be both effective in read and write speeds, because that's the balance you'll want. Read speed is closely related to where and in which order relevant data is placed on the disk. Write speed does have to do with the number of fragments that are created/left by the defragmenter, but it's actually more complicated than that. Defraggler moved a lot less data than the winners, so it was a lot faster in finishing the first job (less than 5 minutes versus over one and a half hour for O&O); but it also achieved a performance loss when compared to even the built-in Windows defragmenter. And it's also quite important to note that after moving all this data to set a performance-increasing order, O&O will only have to maintain the order it set, meaning the next time you defragment, it will finish the job much faster than the initial run.
So, to sum it up without getting way too technical, I recommend O&O. I stopped developing my scripts mainly because MyDefrag stopped being developed, but also because O&O Defrag is very good at what it does, and although it offers less configuration options than MyDefrag did, the ones it does offer are more than enough to achieve optimal drive performance, plus it can do things no other competitor can. And if you don't want to touch any settings, the default ones offered by O&O Defrag are more than enough to satisfy your needs.
You can check for more information here: The Big Windows 7 Defragmenter Test by Christian Hofmann
I spent some time developing a defragmenting script for MyDefrag, so I've studied this issue in some depth. In this test, you'll see older versions of the programs you mentioned; and although there may have been improvements on both sides, I can vouch for O&O Defrag, both then and now, whereas I've never been impressed by Defraggler.
If you analyze the test carefully, you'll see that I designed my own MyDefrag script (which also took part in the test) to be both effective in read and write speeds, because that's the balance you'll want. Read speed is closely related to where and in which order relevant data is placed on the disk. Write speed does have to do with the number of fragments that are created/left by the defragmenter, but it's actually more complicated than that. Defraggler moved a lot less data than the winners, so it was a lot faster in finishing the first job (less than 5 minutes versus over one and a half hour for O&O); but it also achieved a performance loss when compared to even the built-in Windows defragmenter. And it's also quite important to note that after moving all this data to set a performance-increasing order, O&O will only have to maintain the order it set, meaning the next time you defragment, it will finish the job much faster than the initial run.
So, to sum it up without getting way too technical, I recommend O&O. I stopped developing my scripts mainly because MyDefrag stopped being developed, but also because O&O Defrag is very good at what it does, and although it offers less configuration options than MyDefrag did, the ones it does offer are more than enough to achieve optimal drive performance, plus it can do things no other competitor can. And if you don't want to touch any settings, the default ones offered by O&O Defrag are more than enough to satisfy your needs.
- Jan 29, 2016
- 812
- Jun 5, 2013
- 835
@ifacedown, unfortunately these on-the-fly defragmenters can actually slow you down; so while they seem good in principle, reality is a little different from that.
As for scheduling, O&O can be scheduled as well.
- Jan 8, 2011
- 22,361
I added a Poll, but left a choice for Other. I would like to recommend upgrading to SSD (OS) + HDD (Files) combo. Depending on your situation, this may or not be possible, but the improvements are outstanding. You could always use Windows Defrag (Optimisation) if you're using a newer version of Windows.
@vgchat What version of Windows do you use?
- Jun 9, 2013
- 6,720
Similar threads
