Diskeeper VS O&O defrag

[shiby]

Everybody knows a proper hdd defragmentation boost Vista performance.
Among the most outstanding programs are Diskeeper and O&O.

so which one do you guys prefer?
share you exp pls...

Anybody done any test on that?

[Marin85]

Hi,
From my own experience I can tell you for sure that Vista´s built-in defrag utility is pretty good provided you have a HD with good overall performance (for example Hitachi 7k100 or 7k200). However, it didn´t seem to work that well with my old Toshiba 120 GB 5400 rpm (average transfer rate 7-9 MB/s), so for my defrag purposes I always ran Perfect Disk. I still have it installed... Anyway, if you don´t like Vista built-in defrag utility or you don´t trust it much, I would recommend you Perfect Disk (and most definitively over Disk Keeper since the latter one performed comparatively quite disappointing within my Lenovo preloaded XP configuration). I have no experience with O&O. Since there are new versions coming up I would recommend you to install trial editions of each one in question and test them a bit, so you can decide for yourself which one fits you best according to your needs. In the end it´s really a matter of a bit of subjective preference

Good luck

Marin

[johnp126]

I used to run the std one but found that Diskeeper 2008 trial worked well and fragmentation has been an issue in our systems that we deploy. DK 08 is nice bcause it just runs when there are free cycles.. I leave my nb up all night and it always is in good shape i have a 200gb 7200 drive t61p w4gb ram and vista64. we are deploying it via new installs.

[Perdu]

I use O&O. Very happy with it, but I can't compare it to Diskkeeper. I got it on the recomendation of many on this forum.

[hellosailor]

I find the built-in version of Diskeeper to be JUNK. It runs slowly, and it doesn't fully optimize the disc. Just watching the detail display while it runs, you can see gobs of free space that is't used, gobs of file fragments left unmoved, and the process of moving and defragmenting files is done slower than asking a first grader to "sort these blocks by color".

It is MS CripWare, like every defrag tool that MS has shipped "free" in any OS. It's supposed to tease you into buying the full retail product, which all parties claim will do better.

Looking for a better retail solution. In the meantime...you can move the majority of your files to another hard drive, then move them back, and they'll come back defragmented cleaner faster and tighter. (Or, copy, delete, and recopy back, so you've backed up offline at the same time.)

[Superego]

While I can't comments on Diskeeper (haven't used it), I love O&O. I like that there are different defrag options: rearrange your hardware based on name, access date, modified date, or space (I'm curious if diskeeper has any option like that). Also, it's pretty quick. I will say that I'm not a fan of the newer interface. It's not bad, it's just that I'm used to the older one (V8 I think).

[Wiz]

I have never found any defrag tool to give me a performance boost. I i'm not saying there is a waste of time to keep the disk defragmented with this post, but talking about the difference between the built-in defrag tool and others.

When using the built-in defrag tool compared to perfectdisk, diskeeper, ultimatedefrag and O&O i couldn't really see the performance boost some people talk about. There is a lot of theories like where the files should be stored on the disk, what order they should be in, folders first, most used files first, how the files should be sorted and so on. Some of these theories is true and some not, but still i found the difference to be close to nothing.
Many defrag tools can do a lot of things the built-in defrag cannot do, but is it really necessary to waste a lot of time doing all of this stuff......i don't think so. Some defrag methods is pretty slow and the gain is close to nothing if any at all.
So when someone say that the built-in defrag tool is useless i wonder why. For me the whole idea is to keep the computer as fast as possible without wasting time defragmenting the disk 5 times a day. I don't care if a report say that the built-in defrag tool did not defrag 2 files as long as the performance result is the same. I defrag my hdd to keep files defragmented and that way gain performance. I do not defrag my hdd to see a nice report at the end that everything is moved around and everything is perfect unless the performance is noticeable better. Neither do i care much if tools that measure the performance show me a slightly better result unless i notice a better performance under normal use. I think a lot of people look at the reports/test results from tools to find out if the defrag tool do a good job instead of actually think about if the performance is better when using the computer.

So based on my personal experience i find the built-in defrag tool to do a good job since it keep my files defragmented to the extent where there is a performance gain. Neither do i find the built-in defrag tool to be as slow as some people claim.