Solved is Piriform's Defraggler ok to use with 8.1?

Is anyone using this with win 8/8.1?

I used this program all the time with XP, I liked it better than standard windows defragmenter. I just downloaded it and had it analyze my drives - while windows defragment and optimize disks tells me my disks are 0% fragmented, Defraggler gives wildly different values - my SSD is 33% fragmented, and HDD is 19%.

Now, I know that SSDs don't really need to be defragmented, but I am surprised to find that my hard drive was fragmented that much. Are these values real? or is Piriform's software crap?

I haven't actually defragmented with this yet, I want to make sure it won't do more harm than good.

I have used it ones, but it didn't work at all. It made my HDD slower from 9% fragmented to 34% fragmented. (I fixed this issue with the BitDefender defragmenter)

I'm using Auslogics Disk Defrag.

The Big Windows 7 Defragmenter Test - The Benchmarks

Update 1.2: The negative list is now joined by Priform Defraggler 2.18.945 and IObit Smart Defrag 3.1.0. The latter in particular extended the boot time significantly.

Click to expand...

Why not just use the built in?

Built-in takes forever to finish, it has a command interface only and provides no information whatsoever.

But, if it works why pay for something. Years ago I used Norton but once Windows incorporated a defragger that's all I've used.

Because some of those alternatives provide better results. Windows basic tools are just that, basic. They do, what they are supposed to do, but they lack any advanced features and optimizations. Besides there are many free alternatives, no need to pay anything. Windows defragmenter is just stripped down version of Diskeeper, so it is hardly better. I use WiseCare and I like my HDD's files nicely sorted out.

fireberd said:

But, if it works why pay for something. Years ago I used Norton but once Windows incorporated a defragger that's all I've used.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with fireberd. Windows own defragmenter puts Windows files where windows needs them, and after every few boots it puts the files you need to the outside of the disk. It's also Volume Shadow Service(VSS) aware and doesn't nuke your restore points.
If your HDD is extremely fragmented(over 20%) the fastest way to defragment is to make a system image(after using disk clean-up/Ccleaner) and then re-imaging. But a disk only becomes extremely fragmented when on likes to test different software and install/uninstall a whole lot.

fireberd said:

Why not just use the built in?

Click to expand...

I have been. I downloaded Defraggler just to check if the 0% fragmented value that windows gives me, would be corroborated by a 3rd party program.

I installed MyDefrag, which is the most overly-complicated defragment program ever, and ran it on HDD. After first running the "Defragment only" script, and then running the "Data Drive Monthly" script, I think that drive is now more fragmented than ever. Programs all still work, don't seem any slower or faster. Will keep test driving it, see if it ever does a complete job of defragmenting my HDD (1 TB capacity, half full).

I am going to let Windows take care of my SSD, which has my OS on it.

Defragging is pretty much a thing of the past. Windows takes care of it fine, and hard drives are fast enough to make the slowdowns less noticeable. I cannot remember the last time I kicked off a manual defrag.

I've used Defraggler on one pc and it worked great. However on another it caused event log errors each time run it. So, I've quit using it. There are others - currently I'm using MyDefrag and Puran when I am impatient and don't want to wait for MS to defrag.

Guys, Gals, the main advantage of defragging a HD now & then [for me twice monthly] is the ability to find and recover a recently or not too recently deleted file or set of files. In the old days, when I used computer by candlelight, the HDs back then did benefit a little from defragging.

I am starting to think that a 3rd party defragger isn't going to make a noticeable difference, unless it is badly written and screws everything up - which isn't the sort of difference you want.

yu gnomi said:

I am starting to think that a 3rd party defragger isn't going to make a noticeable difference,

Click to expand...

Just defragmenting, not really. But if you gain 1% there, 2% here and so on, it can make quite a difference.
But if you have got a good computer, you do not need to bother with any of it, it is for slow computers.

Pretend your encyclopedias, 100 volume set, was all over the place in your room. Now, picture all volumes, lined up, 1-100. Same space taken up, it's just a tiny bit easier and a tiny bit faster to find a particular volume. Analogies break if stretched, so I better stop here

all right. After running the monthly defrag script again (2nd night in a row), Mydefrag has managed to consolidate everything except "System Volume Information", which I guess is the MFT or the GPT equivelant (if it's different), which is scattered around in unmovable blocks. I have some fairly big games on that drive - Diablo III, Tomb Raider, some others- that do seem to start up quicker.

I had my doubts, but this does seem to have made a small difference.

What are upper frag limit's you guys are considering as "critical" and worth defragmenting ? Even with Win 95/98 and XP with much, much slower drives, less than 15% was considered a non-issue. Since Win7, even with auto defrag turned of I haven't seen any of my drives go over 2-3% and that's with very heavy "traffic" thru them.

yu gnomi said:

I had my doubts, but this does seem to have made a small difference.

Click to expand...

It "seems" to have made a difference. You should have run a stopwatch before and after to see the actual result. People often see what they want to see and gut feels can be deceiving.