Click here for important information about

Best Free DeFrag utility any recommendations?

May 8, 2010 at 15:55:51
Specs: Windows XP
I was looking at

and they recommended

Has anyone tried this program or have other suggestions?


See More: Best Free DeFrag utility any recommendations?

May 8, 2010 at 16:15:33

Report •

May 8, 2010 at 17:18:00
Something wrong with Windows defrag?

Defraggler 1.18.185

Report •

May 8, 2010 at 19:08:33
Kinda partial to UltraDefrag found here:

Report •

Related Solutions

May 10, 2010 at 14:44:43
UltraDefrag is open source that seems like a good thing. I am not sure which to choose.

Report •

May 10, 2010 at 14:54:34
It's no big deal anymore.

23 Ways To Speed WinXP Without Defrag ( 3 pages )
"While it was true that defragmenting helped older PCs, it no longer applies. Today we have 7200-RPM (rotations per minute) hard-disk drives with improved seek and latency times; many also contain an 8-MB cache
buffer. Let's not forget Windows XP's ultra-efficient NTFS (NT File System). For PCs, servers, and workstations equipped with these innovations, defragmenting no longer makes much improvement, if any, to system performance."

Report •

May 10, 2010 at 15:08:35
"While it was true that defragmenting helped older PCs, it no longer applies. "

This may be a popular opinion on the web but it is not based on anything factual.

It does not matter how sophisicated the file system is if it doesn't write contiguous files [like netware does] the file system will fragment. NTFS can fragment to the point of never being able to boot. I have personally seen it happen.

Saying a drive can't fragment because of the file system is like saying the driver of a car isn't responsible if the car engine locks up because the driver never put oil in the car.

Report •

May 10, 2010 at 18:28:59
MaximumPC Holiday issue 2008 page 34

"One of the most venerable suggestions for improving disk performance is to defrag your hard drive regularly. The science of defragging is sound. By putting all the bits of a file or application in sequential order on your drive, the drive should have to do less work (and spend less time) to access those files. Thus: faster performance. Well, in pratice it's not really true. Today's hard drives are fast enough to make fragmentation largely irrelevant, and our benchmark tests have repeatedly borne this out: On moderately fragmented drives, defragmentation will offer negligible to no perforance increase. For seriously fragmented drives (think 40 percent or more), especially running XP or older OSes, defragmentation can help, but don't expect the world. As for third-party tools, there's no real evidence that they're any more effective than Windows built-in defragger."

The three most important things in computing:
1. Backups, 2. Backups and 3. Backups.

Report •

May 11, 2010 at 05:16:00
Hi wanderer,

I'm glad you said that. So I didn't need to.

Helping others achieve escape felicity


Report •

May 11, 2010 at 15:53:39
"It does not matter how sophisicated the file system is if it doesn't write contiguous files [lke netware does] the file system will fragment. NTFS can fragment to the point of never being able to boot."

I had already mentioned the defrager I use.

As XP's own defrag does a good job, I used that extract from the 3 pages of info, to help Klawdek in his decision of what to choose.
Reading on, it says this & of course a lot more.
Still, defragmenting remains an important task. Why? For one, power consumption and heat can be directly related to a fragmented hard drive. When the computer's operating system requests data, if a file is not contiguous, then extra seeking on the disk may be required. But a more important consideration is disk failure. Should a hard drive fail, the likelihood of successfully recovering data from the dead or damaged drive improves significantly if the data is contiguous rather than randomly scattered about the drive platters.

Report •

May 11, 2010 at 18:10:16
Johnw your posts in these forums have been helpful.

I was just addressing the web urban myth of you don't need to defrag anymore.

And M2, always good to hear from you :-)

Report •

May 11, 2010 at 18:43:50
Thanks wanderer.

Report •

May 12, 2010 at 00:46:10
Like trainor, because I like to know the in's & out's of different programs, I have tried out many defrag programs over the last 10 years, installed Dirms & Buzzsaw on many, many comps for about 4 years, Nothing wrong with them, just the initial install, is time consuming.
Have been using the Auslogics Disk Defrag Screen Saver version on every comp I have fixed for the last 8 months, it is install & forget, if it is interrupted during defrag, next quite time, it restarts where it left off.

Here is my info & on what I played around with.



MyDefrag (formerly JkDefrag)
MyDefragPowerGUI (formerly JkDefrag)

Portable Defraggler

Auslogics Disk Defrag Screen Saver

Auslogics Disk Defrag



Power Defragmenter

DefragMentor Lite CL

Diskeeper Lite

Puran Defrag Free Edition

Sysinternals' free PageDefrag > Win2K/XP

O&O Defrag 2000



Quicksys DiskDefrag
Portable Quicksys DiskDefrag



Portable DefragNT

WinMend Registry Defrag


Description of the New Command Line Defrag.exe Included with Windows XP
Running XP's Disk Defragmenter from the command line
How to Defragment Your Disk Drive Volumes in Windows XP
Add Defrag As A Context Menu Item
Add Defragment to the Right-Click Menu for a Drive
How to Automatically Defragment Files in Windows XP
Defrag Multiple Hard Drives At Once In Windows
Defragment Your System Files (Pagefile and Registry) in Windows XP

Report •

May 12, 2010 at 02:23:06
Defrag complimenting Decrypt:

Just a thought if what you want is also disk security.

Defrag will move things to be contiguous and your encryption tool may work a little faster.

For good security we must also clean unused HD space, because there is still recoverable information on the newly freed space.

To keep an HD tidy and wipe all previous footprints, best do this final housekeeping step a full multi-pass free space wipe.

If you use a full and secure (ha ha) algorithm with multiple passes D O D type; as in BCWIPE, Blowfish... it can take literally days.

With the gigantic GB/TB HDs available maybe your HD will get mechanical fatigue jumping about looking for bits of fragmented files during such a large number of hours.
Hence value of an initial defrag.

Just a thought


Report •

May 12, 2010 at 07:08:42
Johnw, one of your comments starts with "Like trainor" -- I am Trainor - I came here this morning to see further comments and notice that my comment was removed.

I mentioned that my choice, after considerable research and trying several out, was Puran Defrag. Maybe thought I worked for the company or something, which I don't.

Report •

May 12, 2010 at 15:29:04
"I am Trainor - I came here this morning to see further comments and notice that my comment was removed."

Don't know what happened there Trainor, I would think it was a glitch in the system.

Report •

May 12, 2010 at 16:35:52
Just a little point:

Re post #5, Second link, Page 2, Item 6. Disregard the nonsense about emptying your Prefetch folder.

See the third link which explains the true situation (Prefetcher Fix heading).

What's the time?

Report •

May 12, 2010 at 16:59:48
Kinda off topic, but is there any good utilities to clean Slack Space. As for defraging I agree that it needs to be done but the argument is does it need to be done as often as some people think.

Fragmentation occurs because of cluster sizes being to small to hold a contiguous file so it writes the rest of the file in the next available block big enough to hold the remains. That could be any where on the drive. It then uses a special bit to flag the sector where the rest of a file is stored and any space not used becomes slack space. Bad for performance bad for file recovery just all around bad.

The thing is once you defrag a drive where at least 90% of it is contigous and you are not deleting or installing large files then it should stay relativitly healthy for a long while. Yes there are temp files and Internet cache but these are small files and they tend not to fragment as much. I am interested in what others think. We only defrag drive like once every 6 months or so.

Report •

May 12, 2010 at 19:55:36
"Kinda off topic, but is there any good utilities to clean Slack Space."

NT Registry Optimizer
Registry Optimization for Windows NT/2000/XP.
The program works by recreating each registry hive "from scratch", thus removing any slack space that may be left from previously modified or deleted keys.

Sysinternals' free Contig

Slack Space

You can use utilities like this, be carefull.

In addition to cleaning up the browser's cache, cookies, history, recent document list and custom entries, UltraWipe can also wipe free space, DRAM and much more! 98/ME/2000/XP.

Incinerator add several useful utility functions as well, including: - The ability to shred disk free space on any local drive including hard disks, floppy, Zip and other fixed or removable media. - The ability to destroy the contents of Windows System folders such as the Internet Explorer history and Windows temp. - The ability to completely destroy the contents of any given folder including remote network folders. - The ability to schedule specific events for protecting any folders or files on a One Time, Daily, Weekly or Monthly basis. Incinerator is the easiest and least intrusive file shredding solution available. Windows XP / Vista.

Report •

May 12, 2010 at 20:04:44
Hey ace, slack space doesn't have any of the "bad" qualities you describe.
I would describe it more as "limbo" space because at any time it may be fully occupied [like at the beginning of a file] or only partly full [like at the end of a file].
It would be great if you could size the cluster size to the mean average of the entire disks file sizes but in reality this is not practical.
The industry decided a long time ago that smaller cluster size with faster disks was the way to go. All OS's followed.
Just thought you should know.

PS. trainor, My apologies but perhaps I may have removed your post as spam. We get a number of "contributions" related to the subject by folks that are targeting those audiences for their products. Thanks for posting back.

Report •

May 13, 2010 at 06:15:17
Ike Peters, I appreciate the info on Ultra Defrag! Trying it out and am impressed. I like open source and that Ultra Defrag shows a graphical representation of the drive like it did on older generations of Windows. The disk optimization seems an added bonus.

Thank you Wanderer and Johnw. I've been visiting this forum for many years and think very highly of it. I figured it was something like that.

Report •

May 13, 2010 at 07:11:50
Glad to be of assistance.

Report •

May 13, 2010 at 07:57:12

Re: your post (#7)

Interesting quote and no doubt an interesting article but if you have a lot of data on a drive and you never defrag it, as wanderer said, it can, and likely will, eventually stop your system from working properly.

Considering the fact that running defrag takes no real effort on the part of the user, I have to wonder why a person wouldn't run it once every month or so!?!?

With regard to the topic at hand.....

I've used Norton defrag since back when my computer was a 486 running DOS. I've stuck with it because it used to be the best defragger out there. In fact, the defrag utility in Windows 9x/ME actually was made by Norton. But unlike the Norton defrag, MS never updated it so it never improved it stayed static and the Norton defrag was much faster by the time 98 came out.

Nowadays, I don't bother installing it anymore. The defrag utility in XP works just fine. Obviously, the more data you have on a drive, the longer it'll take to defrag but as a rule of thumb, and out of long standing habit, I start a defrag before I go to bed so that it's done in the morning.

I remember when it took 6 hours to defrag a 212 MB hard drive with 200 MB's of data on

The only thing I'm annoyed about is I can no longer move the swapfile to the front of the drive. It used to be you could with Norton but the last version of Norton System Works I bought just wouldn't do it even when I told it to. XP's defrag doesn't even have that as an option.

Report •

Ask Question