Recommended Apps

[Guest]

[greyowl]

Even though I generally recommend CCleaner, I suspect it has ruined the Windows Installer function on my dad's computer. I'm not sure though. Personally I've used CCleaner hundreds of times without any problems whatsoever.

For secure deleting of files and empty space, check out Eraser. It's also free.

LA

Do you think it was the registry cleanning that may have done the damage?

[LeoniAquila]

Do you think it was the registry cleanning that may have done the damage?

I've been thinking a bit more of it, and I still don't know what've happened, but I'm leaning towards the theory that RegSeeker was the cause of the damage...

LA

[Japo]

I'd be more leaning to think that RegSeeker was the culprit, CCleaner never deleted anything improperly that I know. It's what I use and I don't care that there are programs that delete more, my registry isn't slowing down my computer. Greyowl, when deleting files with any of these programs, be sure to know what you're deleting, since you may miss it later, and remember that erasing the index.dat files is pointless.

For defragmenting I used JkDefrag for a long time, but eventually I found out that if it's really faster than the Windows defragger (even though it uses the same APIs) is because it neglects free space defragging. And once that has bult up, the minute after you've defragged with JkDefrag, any sizeable newly created file will be broken in over 100 fragments. I now use the Windows defragger, that defrags every file on my disc, including the critical system ones, with one sweep, in 15 minutes (not fast enough?). Again I don't care about defraggers with more features, they cause more disc usage than they prevent, and I don't think I'd notice the difference in speed.

[greyowl]

I'd be more leaning to think that RegSeeker was the culprit, CCleaner never deleted anything improperly that I know. It's what I use and I don't care that there are programs that delete more, my registry isn't slowing down my computer. Greyowl, when deleting files with any of these programs, be sure to know what you're deleting, since you may miss it later, and remember that erasing the index.dat files is pointless.

For defragmenting I used JkDefrag for a long time, but eventually I found out that if it's really faster than the Windows defragger (even though it uses the same APIs) is because it neglects free space defragging. And once that has bult up, the minute after you've defragged with JkDefrag, any sizeable newly created file will be broken in over 100 fragments. I now use the Windows defragger, that defrags every file on my disc, including the critical system ones, with one sweep, in 15 minutes (not fast enough?). Again I don't care about defraggers with more features, they cause more disc usage than they prevent, and I don't think I'd notice the difference in speed.

Thanks for the information and advise.

I don't quite understand about JkDefrag.  If there is free space, there would not be anything there to defrag would there.  JkDefrag also optimizes the disk to allow room for temp files on the faster part of the disk and to put apps on the fast part of disk.  Is this of any value?  I am quite interested in your comments because I have been giving JkDefrag a try lately.

[LaserWraith]

Thanks for the information and advise.

I don't quite understand about JkDefrag.  If there is free space, there would not be anything there to defrag would there.  JkDefrag also optimizes the disk to allow room for temp files on the faster part of the disk and to put apps on the fast part of disk.  Is this of any value?  I am quite interested in your comments because I have been giving JkDefrag a try lately.

Yeah, I like JkDefrag.  Could you tell me more about JkD Japo?

[Japo]

Free space must be defragmented, not just occupied space. Imagine that all files are contiguous, but not compacted together, so there are milliards of very small free space fragments instead of few big ones. The next sizeable file that will be created may not fit in one nor two nor ten of the contiguous free spaces, and so even though old files are all defragmented, any new files will be fragmented and so you'll have to defragment soon. If free space was defragmented, newly created files would fit whole, or minimally fragmented, in the big contiguous free space, and so you wouldn't need to defragment again so often.

True story: I have a virtual machine whose virtual disc file was around 1 GB big. JUST after defragging with JkDefrag, I used the virtual machine and so made its HD grow (not much). Result: the HD file was now broken in over 100 fragments (!!); this sent the virtual machine's performance down the drain. Then I decided to give the Windows defragger a shot, and it compacted the file into just 3 fragments, besides otherwise fixing my crippling free space fragmentation (after a long time using JkDefrag). Result: the performance was several orders of magnitude better. Ran Contig after that, and it finished the virtual HD into one single fragment. Now I only use the Windows defragger, only after specific operations that create major fragmentation (such as major installations or, most times, system restores), and that file (now 1.5 GB) and every other, specially the crucial system ones, are kept always defragged.

About the placement optimization, as I said I don't think it's really worth it. Actually there are several sorting criteria you can choose in JkDefrag, and they are mutually incompatible, so you have to choose one. And yet JkDefrag won't tell you which one is best, because nobody knows. And I think nobody knows because there's no discernible diference between using any of them, or using none at all.

[LaserWraith]

Free space must be defragmented, not just occupied space. Imagine that all files are contiguous, but not compacted together, so there are milliards of very small free space fragments instead of few big ones. The next sizeable file that will be created may not fit in one nor two nor ten of the contiguous free spaces, and so even though old files are all defragmented, any new files will be fragmented and so you'll have to defragment soon. If free space was defragmented, newly created files would fit whole, or minimally fragmented, in the big contiguous free space, and so you wouldn't need to defragment again so often.

True story: I have a virtual machine whose virtual disc file was around 1 GB big. JUST after defragging with JkDefrag, I used the virtual machine and so made its HD grow (not much). Result: the HD file was now broken in over 100 fragments (!!); this sent the virtual machine's performance down the drain. Then I decided to give the Windows defragger a shot, and it compacted the file into just 3 fragments, besides otherwise fixing my crippling free space fragmentation (after a long time using JkDefrag). Result: the performance was several orders of magnitude better. Ran Contig after that, and it finished the virtual HD into one single fragment. Now I only use the Windows defragger, only after specific operations that create major fragmentation (such as major installations or, most times, system restores), and that file (now 1.5 GB) and every other, specially the crucial system ones, are kept always defragged.

About the placement optimization, as I said I don't think it's really worth it. Actually there are several sorting criteria you can choose in JkDefrag, and they are mutually incompatible, so you have to choose one. And yet JkDefrag won't tell you which one is best, because nobody knows. And I think nobody knows because there's no discernible diference between using any of them, or using none at all.

So are there any defraggers better than Windows Defragger?  I have to tell the truth: I don't always trust M$'s products.

[Japo]

So are there any defraggers better than Windows Defragger?

I don't know, probably, probably not for free.

I have to tell the truth: I don't always trust M$'s products.

The way I see it, you can't trust MS further than by using Windows as you OS.

[LaserWraith]

I don't know, probably, probably not for free.




The way I see it, you can't trust MS further than by using Windows as you OS.

Anyone know ones that are free, or not?

I know, sad, but I don't want to place too much trust with them. As little has possible. 

[Japo]

Actually the defraggers in Windows aren't developed by MS I think. The one in Win98SE was made by Intel, and the one in 2000, XP and 2003 is a lite version of Diskeeper.

[LaserWraith]

Actually the defraggers in Windows aren't developed by MS I think. The one in Win98SE was made by Intel, and the one in 2000, XP and 2003 is a lite version of Diskeeper.

What about Vista?

[LaserWraith]

Actually the defraggers in Windows aren't developed by MS I think. The one in Win98SE was made by Intel, and the one in 2000, XP and 2003 is a lite version of Diskeeper.

Oh and one more thing: So is Diskeeper a better defragger than Jk because it puts everything in one group?

[eXPerience]

Anyone know ones that are free, or not?

Try Auslogics Disk Defrag
or Iobit Smartdefrag

I know those 2 did a good job here

Xan

[JamesFrance]

Iobit also has defrag as part of their free Advanced System Care, which has recently come out of beta and replaced Advanced Windows Care.

Whether it does as good a job as their stand alone app I don't know.

[eXPerience]

For me the standalone was better then the one integrated in the beta. Don't know if this was updated or not ...

Xan

[Tags:]