Windows 7 64-bit defragger

[kendall.a]

I realize that this forum is a public forum. However, for those of you who are editors, I want to remind you of a lengthy discussion we've had around the subject of Puran:

http://www.techsupportalert.com/free...ighlight=Puran

Please do not use the public forum to open up this debate again! It has been fully debated in the past. This is not the place to bring up this topic again.

I encourage Anupam/MC to delete this post and the one above it in 24 hours (or sooner if they choose).

[Kyuzo]

With due respect, my post was merely an observation on the performance of the program and not necessarily a promotion of Puran. I am not a so-called "fanboy" for the program. I personally vascillate between MyDefrag and PD Free. When the comments section was open in the review section, posters were encouraged to visit the forum to discuss freeware. I did not realize the discussion was only for approved freeware. There is a large thread created a year ago or more wherein I, Anupam, MidNight Cowboy and others discussed many defraggers (Puran included) civilly. I would not have offered my opinion had Midnight not posted (just above mine) regarding the acceptability of polite and rational discourse on this program.

I do commend George on his honesty and bravery. It makes me trust his reviews (if any) that much more.

Perhaps the Orwellian admonishment "All freeware is equal, but some freeware is more equal than others" should be posted at the forum's head.

May I also add that such a knee-jerk reaction to mere mention of a program might cause skepticism in the impartiality of a review website. Publicly referring editors to areas not available to other visitors might only reaffirm that distrust.

I apologize if I have offended anyone with my views. It was never my intention. Kyuzo.

[Anupam]

At present, I am quite OK with the discussion, and the posts. No one is debating on Puran yet, and the discussion is quite good actually. Puran maybe good because we have heard that now from some users. It's not considered on Gizmo's only because they spammed the site so much, they just put the team off.

After that, we have always maintained that if an editor takes over the category and feels that Puran should be there in the list, then it will be. Till then, there is no problem in discussing Puran, or other defragmenters... until the time that Puran fanboys start coming and spamming here, or trolls start again to include in the list and all that crap. Until then, I think I am quite OK with Puran being discussed here.

[George.J]

Continuing what Kyuzo just now mentioned, the intention wasn't to start discussing about Puran, but I was just referring to the part where a single "good" product missed a place on our review, due to the spam postings by whomever concerned, not necessarily the developer.

[Kyuzo]

On a lighter note, I'm starting a thread on SlimCleaner. Please don't bring "P" up in it. Slim has it's own defragger!

Warmest Regards, Kyuzo

[rikishi19]

On the Win 7 64 bit system I use, I ended up just using the built in Windows defragger. It works perfectly fine and I hardly ever have to use it. Even with my needs of installing such huge software now and again, the fragmentation never gets very high compared to the older XP system I had, maybe Win 7 is better at managing disks somehow (I have no idea?).

However, out of interest, I do use Puran on the older XP system. I used to use defraggler, but I found the optimizing feature of Puran very useful for an older system. Not sure if it makes a noticeable difference or not, but I feel it can't do the system any harm.

Also, with such software that uses these optimization features, I wouldn't recommend changing the defragger you use much (even any defrag program really), as they all have their own algorithms on how they order certain files, so it could really do the system more harm than good continually switching defragger. Find one that works for you and stick to it until a problem occurs with it I say.

[Kyuzo]

I too like to use the built-in Windows defragger sometimes. Especially for the recovery section of my laptop where reset images are stored. Since that's a vitally important item on my disk, I'm apprehensive about using a defrag with optimization. I figure that since the built-in is familiar to the computer developer, it's all right by them.

I tried O&O Free on a friend's older system weighed down by music files and pictures. Since O&O tends to move such files to the spindle, the desktop XP seemed to be more responsive - perhaps because the disk edge was cleaner. O&O is very slow at first, as it moves more files than any defragger I've ever tried (UltimateDefrag being a close second).

I do agree on the switching defrags causing problems. I've found that it seems more a problem with the optimization schemes than the actual defrag. Most of the freeware edges the files while the paid guys and their free variants tend to spread them out. I had Windows fail to start a couple of times during my early XP tests when switching defrags, perhaps due to the file relocation.

[Taurus]

Originally Posted by Kyuzo

II do agree on the switching defrags causing problems. I've found that it seems more a problem with the optimization schemes than the actual defrag. Most of the freeware edges the files while the paid guys and their free variants tend to spread them out. I had Windows fail to start a couple of times during my early XP tests when switching defrags, perhaps due to the file relocation.

Somebody corrrect me if I'm wrong, but I've always read that it's not beneficial to keep switching between defrag utilities\applications because each uses a different set of algorithms and sooner or later they're going to conflict?

[Kyuzo]

I don't know that I've ever seen it written in stone, but in my experience trying defraggers, I would agree with that maxim. You should realize that I do this as an interest and almost a compulsion- I simply like to see how each programmer achieves the desired defragmentation. It's like visiting different restaurants to see how each cook makes chocolate cake- and sometimes the result doesn't agree with you!

In some instances switching defraggers resulted in boot-up problems with my system. It seemed to have more to do with the programs which optimize since they tend to move the files to where the programmer feels they perform best, resulting in large-scale file shuffling.

For instance, when I used P, I tried using MyDefrag, WinUtilities and SlimCleaner's defrags to see how the file placement differed (all four of these are disk-edge consolidators). WinUtilities and MyDefrag would radically shuffle P's work (resulting in a quite-different boot time and a little change in "feel") while SlimCleaner apparently agreed on P's placement and just brushed up P's work (no appreciable change). In another case, I tried a defragger and when I switched to a different brand the result was that Windows would not start (I figured perhaps a corrupted .ini file or similar). I can't recall which two it was (over the years I wish I had documented the results). I don't think it was a problem with either defragger, just switching between the two. Comparing PerfectDisk Free, O&O Free and UltimateDefrag Free with a disk-edge consolidator would probably not be a good idea since the differing algorithms are quite radical.

Before disk imaging it was difficult for me to audition different defraggers. Now if something happens, I just reinstall.

In short (I know, too late), unless you just like auditioning defraggers, when you find one you like you might want to stick with it.

[Anupam]

You can write Puran, it's not a taboo