Gizmos Needs You

Gizmo's Freeware is Recruiting

 We are looking for people with skills or interest in the following areas:
 -  Mobile Platform App Reviews for Android and iOS
 -  Windows, Mac and Linux software reviews       Interested? Click here



Best Free Disk De-fragmenter

Other Language?
  Read this article in Spanish
In a Hurry?
  Go straight to the Quick Selection Guide

Fragmentation: why it happens

Suppose you are browsing the web, downloading your favorite songs and installing an application all at the same time, how does your system write all these files without any interruption to your activity? Well it's simple: it responds to all applications' write requests (I/O operations) by writing all files at a continuous location on your disk.

Representation of a disk track:

(Fig. 1)

Yellow: Temporary written internet files
Red: Installation (Game)
Blue: Song cache

The purpose of disk defragmenters is to reorganize such files which are supposed to be together. An ideal situation after defragmentation would look like this:

(Fig. 2)

But what happens when you uninstall, delete, or simply clean your temporary files? Imagine yourself uninstalling the application (game) you installed. The disk could look like this:

(Fig. 3)

The white zone is empty space without fragmentation. A disk looking like this will have just a little or even imperceptible impact on performance. In this case defragmentation is needed but not critical.

The last thing you want to see is a hybrid combination. Files very fragmented fig 1 and empty disk space fig3 but instead of contiguous clean sectors you'll find what we call fragmented empty space. And this is what it looks like:

(Fig. 4)

This is the worst case scenario. Overall system performance will be compromised and fragmentation is critical. You should defragment (defrag) or let your defragmenter schedule and execute the defrag process for you.

Standard mechanical HDDs (hard disk drives) will benefit from defragmentation and continuous disk use, because when spinning it keeps remagnetizing the HDD plates. But if you own an SSD (solid state drive) you SHOULD NOT defrag or install any defragmenter application because it will shorten the life of the drive.

So when testing defragmenter software we are going to evaluate it with some parameters:

  • Speed of analysis on fragmented files: Isn't it speed we want from our computer?
  • Speed of defrag
  • Some extras: such as scheduled defrag, shutdown PC when done, etc.
  • Defrag capabilities: why is this placed in last position? Because almost all of today’s defragmenters can perform this task with very similar results.

Well, it's time for action now and let me introduce you to the de-fragmenters.


UltraDefragUltraDefrag is simple yet has a lot of customizable options through text files and scripts via two mouse-clicks. Not only is the defragmentation super fast, but also you are not going to notice it's working! You can keep doing your things while UltraDefrag does what was born to do… defrag. It performs so well you are going to want to carry it in your wallet. A lot of varied boot defrag commands. If your goal is to optimize your system startup at maximum, this is what you need.


MyDefragMyDefrag, JK defrag with a GUI (Graphical User Interface). Bad? No, just awesome!

Unbelievable power user options for everyone without having to configure any script. Just select the option that best suits your needs and it's done. MyDefrag employs an algorithm that places the most used files at the beginning of the disk. This decreases access times because the actuator arm of the hard drive has no need to move to the end of a disk to search a file.

If you don't know what a HDD looks like, please see below:

The trick revealed and a little science.

When you turn off your computer (or Windows shut downs your HDD), the actuator arm has a designated "landing zone" (a specific sector at the beginning of the disk) that remains stationary until the next startup. This is to avoid disk scratch and therefore, data loss (data is read via magnetism, touching surfaces is not required). When turned back on, the closest sector to the actuator arm is already near the "landing zone" (beginning of the disk) so it's faster to read files on that sector than others in outer zones of the disk.

Also, the surface distance travelled is considerably less in the inner sectors of the disk. So, placing files at the beginning of the disk is the best idea.

MyDefrag is not the only defragmenter capable of doing this, as many others include an option. However, MyDefrag achieves this in a much simpler way. This is combined with a good “fast defrag”; the choice of specific options, many others by scripting, and excellent defragmentation methods and simple scheduler options.


This little boy, DiskTune, is not exactly a kid. Despite the use of Windows API to do defragmentation jobs, it's incredibly fast, simple and lightweight. Many useful options just a couple pixels of distance. Direct access to usual options such as Analyze, Defrag (quick), Optimize (rearrange) and Compact (defrag free space). The best thing about DiskTune? The ability to create a shortcut to your desktop and then double-clicking it to run a fully customized defrag. Four words—“one size fits all”.


Defraggler thumbnailPiriform's Defraggler—The first thing that caught my attention when first opening Defraggler was a green word, GOOD. I quickly realized it was telling me about S.M.A.R.T. Status (information provided by the disk itself, reporting temperature etc). This is a great feature and has its own tab on the program for detailed view.

In terms of defragmentation ability, Defraggler is one of the best choices you could make. It performs a very fast “quick defragmentation” with decent file reorganization but if you perform a complete defrag process, which takes longer, you obtain results that are worthwhile. Your files will be together as they should be as solid as a concrete wall. Defraggler also supports scheduling, low priority and boot defrag. Highly recommended.


MyDefragmenterMyDefragmenter, Ultradefrag with a very simple, intuitive GUI plus a full scheduler which has the ability to program defrag while shutting down or starting up computer. Includes a 24/7 support by phone call and online help.


Auslogics Disk Defrag thumbnailAuslogics Disk Defrag is another quality disk defragmentation program. During a fresh installation the installer asked if I wanted to install a Tool Bar and/or change my home page. These were easily de-selected before the installation process began. Auslogics Disk Defrag can be ran from a easy to understand GUI (Graphical User Interface) or you can use the command line tool for more advanced users. Auslogics also optimizes defragmented files and space by defragmenting free space and moving system files to the fastest part of the disk. The software is designed to defrag multi-terabyte volumes. If you choose you can defragment a particular folder or a single file by selecting the file out of a list of fragmented files. The program is set-up for automated defragmentation and will allow you to analyze your disks before you defragment. Auslogics also has a portable version available which can be run directly from your USB drive. Both versions are free and are allow for home or commercial use. The developers also have several articles regarding defragmenting your hard drive including How to defrag your drives the right way: 7 defrag tricks to learn today". This article includes topics such as temporary files and how to prevent the loss of your system restore points. The software only supports 64 bit on Windows 7/8 operating systems. The developers have updated this software twenty-four times in the last thirty four months, eleven of those were in 2012. Needless to say continued development of the product remains strong.  I have used this program on all of my computers for the last couple of years without any issues. Operating systems I have successfully operated on include XP 32bit; Windows 7 32 & 64bit.


Also reviewed but not included:

-Puran Defragmenter

-O&O defrag free edition



Feel free to suggest any software not already mentioned for review.

Quick Selection Guide

Gizmo's Freeware award as the best product in its class!

Runs as a stand-alone program on a user's computer
System files defragmentation. Incredibly fast in all tasks. Power (scripting) features.
Some settings only accessible by configuration file (txt).
681.6 KB
32 and 64 bit versions available
Open source freeware
A portable version of this product is available from the developer.
This version will install on PCs running: Windows XP / 2003 / Vista / Windows7 / XP64 / Vista64 / Windows7 64
Runs as a stand-alone program on a user's computer
For average and power users
Not regularly updated
2.035 MB
32 and 64 bit versions available
Unrestricted freeware
There is no portable version of this product available.
Windows 2000, 2003, XP, Vista, 2008, Win7, and for X64.
Runs as a stand-alone program on a user's computer
Very Fast. Can create shortcut to double click customized defrag.
Windows API. Needs to improve system resources usage
1.06 MB
32 and 64 bit versions available
Unrestricted freeware
There is no portable version of this product available.
This version will install on PCs running: Windows XP / 2003 / Vista / Windows7 / XP64 / Vista64 / Windows7 64
Runs as a stand-alone program on a user's computer
Very solid piece of software. Updated regularly. Now with S.M.A.R.T. monitoring.
No optimization feature yet.
3.6 MB
32 and 64 bit versions available
Unrestricted freeware
A portable version of this product is available from the developer.
This version will install on PCs running: Windows XP / 2003 / Vista / 7 / 8 /
Runs as a stand-alone program on a user's computer
Well recognized Ultradefrag engine. Excellent scheduler.
Not regularly updated.
1.8 MB
32 bit but 64 bit compatible
Feature limited freeware
There is no portable version of this product available.
Windows 7, Vista, Windows XP

Running on x64 computer requires download and replace DLLs available at Mydefragmenter website

Auslogics Disk Defrag
Runs as a stand-alone program on a user's computer
Very fast at analyzing and performing a quick defragmentation.
Optimize function could be faster.
5 MB
32 bit but 64 bit compatible
Unrestricted freeware
A portable version of this product is available from the developer.
Win 8 (32 or 64 bit), Win 7 (32 or 64 bit), Vista SP2 (32-bit only), XP SP3 (32-bit only)


This software review is copy-edited by Ian Richards. Please help edit and improve this article by clicking here.

defrag disk, defragment hard disk, disk defragmenter, free disk defrag software.

Back to the top of the article


Share this
Average: 4.1 (204 votes)
Your rating: None


by jack edelson (not verified) on 16. September 2010 - 4:36  (57911)

Auslogics disk defrag is meant to be a very quick tool and does well with windows 7

If you really want control over xp, vista, etc use Ultimate defrag free version. You can even move exe, dll, bat, and startup files to the fastest part of the disk. Also you can still find tune-xp by driver heaven. It will speed boot times to 6 second boot in xp and 10 in vista.

Win7 seems to control it's boot times on its own so if you use Ultimate Defrag always respect the layout ini.

Auslogics is not a toy. It is what it it.. A FAST defragger. If you really wand to defrag drives fully, run a dual boot system and defrag one system from the other...

Again, be careful with win7. It does a good job with it's own boot files.

by JollyMan (not verified) on 20. September 2010 - 6:30  (58140)

I came across your site 2 weeks a go and have been giving everything a try.

The only disapointmen is this Auslogics (v I do not have a huge hardrive (300Gb / 70 Free space) (XP). And each time i set this up to do a complete defrag it crashes some hour after it started. Also I find it very suspicious that when i restart the defrag i goes back to showing the whole harddrive in red as opposed to before it crashed it had 1/4 clean. I would expect that 1/4 to stay clean when i restarted it right?

by 4einc on 26. September 2010 - 4:23  (58452)


I would like to see you bump MyDefrag back to the top of the list. now I understand you have had problems with the program I mention in the past however EVERYONE has, the reason for it is because a few releases in a row the program's lovely screen saver defrag feature was misconfigured, I found that out after doing some detective work of my own and told the man behind MyDefrag about it who have fixed it... However if your looking at things and saying MyDefrag is slow... which it is at times don't get me wrong HOWEVER I would like to take a few seconds of your time to show you how anyone can speed up MyDefrag...
After you install it and you open up the display properties on your desktop in which you can setup your screensaver and anything else you choose... choose the screensaver setting click settings and set things up however you want... HOWEVER the big change I would like you to do or anyone else who complains that MyDefrag is slow is change the "Display" to what is calld "Bouncing Box" then click OK and preview things now I know on my machine which isn't no top of the line thing (p4 with 1.5GB of ram... and 400GB HD... before I discovered this neat trick to make things run faster I noticed that I could leave MyDefrag to run all day and all night and it get no where close to finish.. however changing that one setting, you can rest assure that your PC will be defragged SO MUCH FASTER because it's not shuffling stuff around as all your watching is a bouncing box until things are done then it'll goto any screensaver you have chosen...

Trust me it's worth the time to try this out...

- Shane -

by Aaron (not verified) on 26. September 2010 - 14:43  (58472)

Anyone have an opinion on GlarySoft's Disk Speedup defrag? It doesn't seem to add anything to what Auslogics and others already do, but maybe I'm missing something?

by JollyMan (not verified) on 27. September 2010 - 7:27  (58496)

MyDefrag atleasts posts a message instead of crashing.
(something along the line of) "oups, Your hard drive has too many files to manage."

So I'm guessing that Auslogics also ran into the same problem and has a missing error check. That or it was the 20GB file (virtual machine drive) that it could not handel.

by VanguardLH (not verified) on 3. October 2010 - 19:54  (58982)

There is a misconception that a really long defrag time with a different product than the first one used somehow impugns the first defragger that was used. Since defraggers use different schemes to arrange the sectors based on what the author of that software feels is the best scheme, a defrag with another defragger is going to undo that scheme in preference for that defragger's scheme. So you can end up in a cyclic loop using one defragger to then find another takes longer and then going to another that has to do it all over again and back to the first one that does it all over again and you repeat the loop. Saying that myDefrag takes a long time after using Auslogics is irrelevant as each uses different schemes in how they will plot the files on the platters. Despite some belief that there is a magical one-only perfect defrag scheme, there isn't and each defragger has its own scheme.

I think the other problem is thinking that some particular layout of files on the disk is better than another. Well, if you're concerned about later fragmentation or because it looks prettier then that's your criteria. Mine is best performance when *USING* the operating system. I could care less about some really pretty layout which some defragger tries to convince me is best but results in slowing the actual performance of my host. It's about what is best for *me* to *use* my host, not what is best for the mechanicals of the drive.

I've found that none of these [good and safe] defraggers will completely defrag a drive (if that's your goal). In one case, I had a HUGE file that would not defrag. The problem was that there were "system" files that none of the good defraggers would touch. Turns out they were small journal files used by NTFS. Not even full-functional trials of commercial defraggers would move these files. They were spread all over the disk. This meant there was no contiguous empty space in which to place the huge file. Even boot-time defrags wouldn't move these "system" files to make for a larger contiguous space. The fix was to re-image the partition. By using a logical image (not a physical or sector-by-sector image), the journal files got squeezed together and I finally had the contiguous space needed for placing a non-defragged copy of the huge file. Did I really need that huge file to be completely defragged? No, but this was a test of defraggers to see if they would move those tiny journal files but they didn't so there would still be a perceived "problem" later with ending up with defragged huge files.

As to whether a defragger takes longer than another, or if running a 2nd defragger takes a lot longer after running a 1st defragger, doesn't seem to be a relevant issue. That's just someone complaining that the defraggers use different schemes to plot the files on the platters but who doesn't realize different scheme are being employed. You don't measure the effectiveness of a defragger because another one run afterward will take longer than if you only used that 2nd one (and used its time from its 2nd or 3rd run and not its 1st run). If I tell you to take a bunch of boxes that get sorted according to which are executable and thereafter by those that are function libraries called by the executables and then followed by data files you'll get one order of boxes. If I then tell you to arrange the boxes in the order they are most often used then you'll have to move the boxes all around for the new order. If I tell you to put the MFT and pagefile at the beginning of the platters since access is faster there or later to put them at the middle of the platter where it is maybe it's safer then you end up rearranging all the files around them.

I've yet to see defraggers ALL agree that there is some one-only arrangement of files on the platters that constitutes the most perfect layout. So claiming that myDefrag takes longer after running Auslogics means nothing. That's to be expected. Only if you run defraggers of similar mind in layout will a subsequent run of a different defragger not incur much difference in defrag time.

What's the real objective of doing all the defragging? Wasn't it to up or maintain the performance of your OS (as measured by its responsiveness)? Well, then what do you care if the layout might result in faster fragmentation at a later time? You'll be doing another scheduled defrag by then (or before then as incremental or maintenance defrags) and it won't matter.

by Fool4UAnyway (not verified) on 3. October 2010 - 21:36  (58991)

Yes, indeed, and then there is the story of wear and tear. Defragging might result in less movements or less large movements of the disk's physics (heads), but continuously defragging by itself may result in more of such movements.

One could argue that it would be better or at least good as well, to defrag to another part of the drive each time, that is, if there is space enough. If it's filled less than half. This would at least spread the wear and tear of the drive, but goes against the "obvious" speed logics.

I read about a flash card that has (some of) this "divide and survive" logic, making sure it's not the same part of the card that gets written to time after time.

If a defragger could just move all files in one pass to the correct order immediately on another part of the drive, I guess that would result in less defrag time than having to move all files within the space that is already occupied by most of the files.

Would anyone drive their car in the best way for their car to have the least amount of wear and tear?

by Dave P (not verified) on 3. October 2010 - 22:59  (58995)

check out glarysoft's disk speedup not bad

by VanguardLH (not verified) on 4. October 2010 - 1:47  (58997)

Just to add, users really need some real-world benching to determine if their personal choice for a defragger is doing them any good. For example, discusses not how the particular defraggers rearrange the files or the layout of different area or types of files on the disk but instead focuses on just what do YOU get after the defrag. The whole point of defrag is to improve performance, not because you think some particular scheme matches your idea of what is the perfect layout. From the example article, MyDefrag and Defraggler win. I have to admit that I used to use Defraggler but changed to Auslogics probably because their market blather convinced me rather than me doing any real-world testing to quantitavely prove one was better than another.

I could care less how long a defragger takes to complete its job. No one sits around twiddling their thumbs doing nothing while a defragger is running, and most users schedule the defrag for when they're not even at the host. Complaining that MyDefrag takes so much time after running Auslogics (or pick any two defraggers where you run one subsequently to another) just shows users are oblivously as to why a defragger has to spend so much time undoing the scheme or layout employed by another defragger in order to implement its own preferred scheme or layout.

So the arguments about which is the better defragger shouldn't be arguing about which runs faster or how much work a 2nd one takes to undo the changes made by a 1st defragger. It should be about the POINT of the defraggers which is to regain disk performance - and that's something that has to be measured, not argued about without actual stats. Just remember that, for example, the article that used HD Tune to measure the change in disk performance is a synthetic measure. It doesn't represent how YOU will be using your hard disk's space.

Do I care if one has an immature or uglier UI than another? Hardly since I schedule the defrags because I'm not going to waste my time sitting at the monitor doing nothing but watch some squares change their colors. I'll probably switch back from Auslogics to Defraggler. Why not switch to MyDefrag (instead of switch back to Defraggler)? Because of the following statement made for MyDefrag:

"Windows reserves a percentage on NTFS disks for the MFT (Master File Table), but can place normal files there if the rest of the disk is full. The files will remain there, even when there is enough space again. MyDefrag can look for files in the NTFS reserved areas and move them to normal diskspace, making the reserved areas available again for the MFT."

That shows a misconception of why small files get rolled into the MFT instead of having them as a separate allocation. When the OS does the file lookup, the small file is already there. No further head movement is required. The side for the MFT entry is already larger than the small file so you actually LOSE on disk space by having a separate and oversized allocation for the small file. By moving the small file out of the MFT, the head moves to the MFT to find the file allocation and then move again to go to the separate file. MyDefrag shouldn't be putzing around with files that can be entirely stored within the size for an MFT entry. I didn't find an option to disable from moving entry-sized small files out of the MFT and I'm not interested in modifying their scripts. But if you like MyDefrag then go for it.

There is probably something that defrag users might not realize: a defrag will make larger your image backups. So you might think you are increasing your disk's performance with frequent defrags but you are also consuming more real estate to save your image backups. If you run full image backups and then do incremental image backups to keep your backup storage to a minimum, schedule your defrag to run only before when you schedule your FULL image. If you defrag before an incremental image backup, it will be larger than necessary to record all those clusters you moved around for the files. See which notes "An incremental or differential backup created after the disk is defragmented might be considerably larger than usual. This is because the defragmentation program changes file locations on the disk and backups reflect these changes. Therefore, it is recommended that you re-create a full backup after disk defragmentation." So while you might like to frequently defrag your hard disk, schedule it to run just before you do a FULL image backup and do not run a defrag on those days you do incremental image backups.

by MidnightCowboy on 4. October 2010 - 7:19  (59004)

Long comments like this take up valuable space and quickly push other contributions off the first page. Please continue this discussion (and any others like it) in the forum.

Any further long submissions here will result in all of them being removed. Thank you for your cooperation.

by Loghain (not verified) on 5. October 2010 - 12:04  (59063)

How different are these free utilities from the native Windows defragger? Not much, I think.

From what I can see, they suffer from the same major drawback as the Windows defragger i.e., inability to completely defrag a volume particularly when there are fragmented system files and/or large files present. Agreed, the windows defragger is dead slow, and these utilities may be faster, but none of these are truly automatic set and forget solutions like some of the commercial defrag utilities, and neither do they have shadow copy compatibility mode that protects system restore points (windows defragger doesn't either AFAIK) or advanced customization options.

So, I am a bit puzzled: apart from a nicer GUI, how are these utilities a real improvement over the mediocre in-built defragger.

by Fool4UAnyway (not verified) on 5. October 2010 - 20:16  (59078)

Perhaps a Boot Time Defragging feature may interest you.

by Wilson (not verified) on 5. October 2010 - 22:08  (59086)

Such as Puran?

[Moderators Comment: Commercial software reference removed]

by Fool4UAnyway (not verified) on 6. October 2010 - 19:54  (59127)

What's commercial about the Puran Free Defragger?

by bodis on 6. October 2010 - 20:50  (59128)

Puran is fine. The second defager mentioned only had a trial version.

by rick_mo37 on 9. October 2010 - 9:05  (59299)

I have some pretty serious concerns (to me, anyway) about Auslogics Disk Defrag. On the main GUI of the program is a set of three tabs, one of which is titled "System Health". When the "System Health" tab is clicked a 'scan' is automatically started. This 'scan' apparently reads the disk to three reports (junk files, registry errors and security status) in succession.
The errors are reported with links to 'learn more' which takes a user to the Auslogics web page of either the Boostspeed program or antivirus (re-branded BitDefender) for download and/or purchase.

The problem I have with the System Health scanner is that during the scan there is no disk activity reported in task manager or process explorer. There are no disk in/out reads/writes activity. Secondly, the reports of the junk files or registry errors have no option to see details of the reports, only a link to the web site for the Boostspeed product. And the System Health scan seems to make reports in a way that does not make sense. I scanned and Auslogics reported 23 registry errors. I then cleaned my registry with Ccleaner, JV-16 PowerTools and Acelogix Ace Utilities. None of those programs reported more than just a few registry errors but after cleaning with the three Auslogics still reported 23 registry errors. I would sometimes get Auslics to offer different error totals, but nothing consistent with the other programs on my computer.

Finally, the 'scan' ran too smoothly. Even the top programs have pauses while scanning the registry or for junk files. Auslogics had no such pauses. The scanner moved right along in perfect fashion, exactly the same way every time. I have a strong suspician the "scan" was actually just a plugged in video graphic of some sort that gave the impression a scan was actually taking place. The scan certainly reminded me of the "rogue" antivirus 'scans' I have seen the past few years.

This Auslogics program needs a serious second look. If it actually offers up a 'fake' system scan in order to sell its Boostspeed product via 'scareware' then it certainly cannot be considered a recommended program. Can it?

I first saw information about this activity from Auslogics on a little while back but have been able to confirm that user's comments and concerns.

by Ivan Kolevski (not verified) on 24. October 2010 - 6:00  (60049)

Defraggler v2.0 Beta is available now.

Added complete offline defrag during the boot process with full OS support. Additionally the UI has been improved with a new Drive Map and customizations. Also rearchitected the internal defrag processes to make it faster and more efficient.

Haven't done any tests on it yet. Post your results if you have.


by Jimmy Reynolds (not verified) on 30. October 2010 - 7:40  (60460)

Can you also include in your review ultradefrag found at

Thank you.

by Av_Crazy on 10. November 2010 - 12:35  (60961)

Why isnt puran defrag mentioned ?

by MidnightCowboy on 10. November 2010 - 13:11  (60962)

There was a concentrated campaign from whatever source to promote Puran here - see comment #49223

Our editors choose which software to include in their reviews independently, and any attempt to force this choice is likely to yield similar results :)

by Anupam on 11. November 2010 - 7:11  (61025)

New version of Defraggler, 2.00.230, released yesterday now supports boot time defragmentation.

by Anonymousioioi098 (not verified) on 11. November 2010 - 9:20  (61028)

Defraggler 2.0 supports Boot-Time Defrag ONLY for some System Files!

You CanNOT Boot-Time Defrag ALL your Hard Disk(s) with Defraggler 2.0!

by Anupam on 11. November 2010 - 14:23  (61037)

OK. Thanks for clearing that up.

by gggirlgeek (not verified) on 12. November 2010 - 1:08  (61056)

Those of us with noisy disks can measure the performance by ear rather than benchmark. I have been using Jkdefrag and its GUI's for a year on an old system. When I neglect it, it sounds like a creaky old house in a wind storm every time I switch browser tabs. I have to reboot once or twice a day. This is basically the sound of the page file being constantly accessed because there is no Ram left.

After a cleanup and optimization with Jkdefrag it's Peace at last! My browser tabs flip fast and squeak-free. I have always cleaned and defragmented, but got mediocre results in the past.

Optimization made the difference. I went ahead and put Win7 on 2 old systems that purr. My system files only take 8.5Gb of their 20Gb partitions so they have lots of room to move around in. That's the key -- space. I set the gaps to 2 or 3% instead of 1%. This setting is called "free space" in MyDefragPower GUI. You'll have to modify the scripts in MyDefrag or Jkdefrag.

The rest of my 500Gb is for my media files, and they don't change as often, so they can be squished in tighter. I still use a 2% gap, but the drive is 80% full and moves just fine -- as long as it's optimized. It really gets whiny and loud when I let the recycle bin get full and neglect my Jkdefrag.

by gggirlgeek (not verified) on 12. November 2010 - 1:30  (61060)

WinContig is a cute little app that will defrag a single file or folder on demand. You know -- for when you're about to zip or iso a large file. They can't be defragmented after zipping.

It's pretty old but running it in XP compatibility mode seems to do the trick in Win7 32bit.

by NativeCoder (not verified) on 30. November 2010 - 19:21  (61836)

Auslogics Disk Defrag has been beaten by the open source UltraDefrag 4.2.0 on my machine.
If others come to the same conclusion this could be our next runner-up in this section.

by keithof4 on 30. November 2010 - 20:57  (61842)

There is a UltraDefrag 4.4.0 available and 5.0 beta out now.I stopped using Auslogics Disk Defrag now that their site is blocked by Commodos DNS And now have been using UltraDefrag It doesn't seem to do a great job at optimizing files leaving a lot of gaps and the boot time scan I'm not completely satisfide.I would like to test the 5.0 when it comes out .Intel then I think I will switch to Mydefrag I think it has always been the best . It may not be that popular because to change some settings you have to edit the script and the last update is much better.

by Av_Crazy on 4. December 2010 - 10:11  (62017)

I have never tried ultradefrag ... looks i will have to give it a try...but will need to uninstall cmt for will do that sumtime later and post my findings

by Fool4UAnyway (not verified) on 11. December 2010 - 23:37  (62317)

Today I installed MyDefrag 4.3.1. It now has distinct scripts for System and Data drives to defragment them for Daily, Weekly, or Monthly reorganizing.

I ran the System Weekly script on my C:\ Windows drive and a Data Weekly on my Programs and Data drive.

Today I clearly experience quicker responses for actions I perform. Programs open quicker, Desktop icons are redrawn quicker etc.

Of course, things could get slower in the next days again, or on the longer term. But I clearly feel like my defragging today has better results than the daily Puran defrags I have been performing up to now. I do not think I will use that when I shut down my PC now, which I have been doing for a long time.

by Bezzo (not verified) on 5. January 2011 - 17:10  (63872)

I just used Puran free to defrag on my Toshiba laptop running Vista Home Premium.After it finished I noticed I had 78 GB free on my C drive where as BEFORE the defrag it hovered around 84. I have deleted all but the most recent restore point and that made no difference. Is this normal? I never had this happen with any other degragmenter or even with Puran if I remember correctly...