For anyone really gung-ho about a substitute for Vista's I'd probably suggest it there as well, or at least the Google searches for comparative research. On earlier versions of Windows I'd vote for Perfect Disk merely on the result of my past "x vs x", "x better than *", and "x compared to *" Google queries (try the wildcards). Windows Defrag vs Smart Defrag By nymoose Jin Smart Defrag General Discussions 1 2 Next of 2 nymoose Members 2 Posted JAs I am a new member can anyone suggest which utility is better to use, Windows or Smart Defrag Thanks enoskype Administrators 12. (See the article for possible misconceptions.)īack to the original question: If you merely want to replace this scheduled task with a good defrag tool then my recommendation is for the Windows one already in use, at least on Vista.
I believe this is verifiable by simply running the utilities in question and noting that the reported fragmentation is within practical performance levels. (Although by all means if you wish to target highly specific performance sensitive problem files and directories with the likes of contig as mentioned you should do so.)
#Windows defrag vs iobit smart manual
The system scheduled idle defrag (find it in Task Scheduler->Microsoft->Windows->Defrag) is more than capable of keeping up with system fragmentation and a manual defrag has little benefit of significance. I'm putting forward that a 3rd party defrag tool is entirely unnecessary. The NTFS file system is quite an improvement over FAT32 in this regard, and this TechNet blog article discusses some of Vista's improvements in particular: Don’t judge a book by its cover – why Windows Vista Defrag is cool (nonpartisan I know ).
The necessity of a good 3rd-party defrag tool isn't quite what it used to be, though they're of course still hotly peddled as cure-alls beside generic system cleaners.
0 kommentar(er)
