I have been using IOBit's Smart Defrag for some time now, and recently installed their latest version, 2.0.1. Every so often, I check Windows (XP) defragmenter and it always said I didn't need to defragment. However, I had Windows defragmenter do an analysis and it came up with a whopping 3,972 fragments AFTER SMART DEFRAG HAS FINISHED A FULL DEFRAG! Is there something wrong with the new Smart Defrag version, or is this a difference of opinion between two programs (how can their be a 'difference of opinion' about whether a file is or is not fragmented??).

1. Smart Defrag For Windows 7 X64

I've never come across this question in this direction. Mostly people ask why a 3rd party tool finds file fragments that Windows, always Vista or 7, isn't finding. The Vista defrag does not affect fragments larger than 64 megabytes, as it would put more strain on the hard disk and take longer than it is worth in terms of performance benefit. I don't know if the IOBit program uses the same rationalle as the Vista or 7 defrag, but that makes sense to me. At any rate it illustrates how there can be a difference of opinion over whether a file is fragmented. Well, as mentioned in my original post, I still use XP (not Vista or 7) on my desktop, so it's XP's defragger that's in question. I probably do have some fragments larger than 64MB (which actually strikes me as kinda small, given the bloated size of Windows' files), but I can't reconcile that with SD saying I have NO fragments and WD (Windows defragger) saying I have 3,972.

If WD ignores 64MB fragments and SD defrags everything (don't know that it does and there's no setting for that), why does SD say I have no fragments while WD identifies 3,972? I.e., it should be the other way around; SD should see and go after ALL the fragments while WD would ignore some and would therefore report FEWER fragmented files than SD. Click to expand.I'm glad it works well for you. I downloaded and installed it just to try it out. My drive had already been defragged twice before I installed it, so I didn't expect it to find many fragmented files, and it didn't: 32 with 123 fragments. I then told it to defrag those files. It took 28 minutes to defragment 32 files.

Just under 1 minute per file. This is the slowest speed I've ever encountered in a defragmenter - slower than Windows defragger, which is saying a lot. Smart Defrag would have dispensed with this many fragmented files in about 2 minutes. So I have uninstalled it. I, nonetheless, appreciate your mentioning it because it gave me a chance to try another program.

Smart Defrag For Windows 7 X64

Click to expand.I've been wondering the same thing. Windows is the OS and they provide a defragger that (presumably) is designed to make Windows run as efficiently as possible. The 3rd-party defraggers promote two things: Speed and optimization. In my tests, there is no doubt that Smart Defrag is much faster than WD (Windows Defragger). And it also purports to 'optimize' the files by moving those accessed most frequently to the outer tracks of the drive. But I have no evidence that my programs open quicker after a SD defrag than they did before.

That may be due in part to the fact that while my laptop has Win 7, my desktop has XP SP3 with 2GB RAM, an E8400 Core 2 Duo CPU, and a 500GB 7200RPM Seagate HDD - a relatively fast machine. I don't really encounter anything running slow except Firefox, but it seems like every time it's slow, it's the site, not the browser. All of this still doesn't answer my fundamental question: How can a 3rd-party program like Smart Defrag say that everything is defragged while Windows' defragger says I have 3,972 defragmented files!?

74 related questions. Watch video IObit Smart Defrag 4 optimizes your PC to take full advantage of SSD performance while. The Smart Optimize tool analyzes your system and. Windows XP/Vista.

Hi DK Taber, This issue comes up every so often. IMO, the reason for the discrepancy is that different defrag utilities use different parameters and different algorithms to determine how bad a disk is fragmented. Some limit the size of the files the address, others stress the amount of free space, while others stress file placement ('the closer they are to the center, the faster they will be accessed'), etc. So you are bound to end up with various different reports. Also, the built-in can't address all files (like system files that are in use when Windows is running) but if I recall correctly it will still report them (I haven't used WDD in a while so I'm a bit foggy on what it does or won't do); some of the freebies seem to ignore and not count files they are not designed to address, so maybe the discrepancy is what files get counted.

This is probably why most defrag programs will disable the built-in when installed. Probably the only way to get a meaningful answer would be to ask the makers of Smart Defrag why their defragger says one thing while WDD says something drastically different (that is a large disparity). On the other hand, the point of using third party defragmenters was brought up. Personally I prefer to use a third party defrag program because they run automatically and the better ones make it possible to defrag while using the computer (their resource use is minimal) and they tend to be much faster. Here is a recent Top 10 Reviews side-by-side comparison of the best defrag programs around: Check it out.

Meet, greet and chat via the new and improved EA Messenger and then set up a tournament or play NHL® 06 head-to-head using EA SPORTS intuitive matchmaking system. Battle your way to the top of the world at the ultimate online sports gaming destination *INTERNET CONNECTION required for online play. During speed burst players push the puck ahead to break past opponents, while stopping and turning creates real-time ice trails Creation Zone Create a player allows you to get in the game with the new analog facial sculpting controls. Nhl 06 pc game. Create an NHL team in your hometown and build a dynasty, or edit any player in the league with an all-new player editor EA SPORTS™ Online Take your game online and challenge opponents anywhere in the world via a PC, PlayStation®2 or Xbox® Live! Add black eyes, and scars to put fear in the eyes of your opponents.

You can click on each of the product images and get a detailed analysis of each program and why it scored as it did. The top placers are all automatic; The gold medalist won because the testers could not tell it was running even though they were using the computer while it was defragging (there was virtually no resource hit on the machine while defragmenting). It was also the only program that prevents fragmentation.

Read the review. Most of these products offer a free, fully functional trial so you can get the ones that makes sense to you and try them on your system before buying; really the bottom line is which one you (and your system) are happiest with. PS: I do recall seeing a comparison between a paid program and the WDD built-in a while back. It was interesting, but IMO no surprise because they are two different types of products (from what I recall the third party program totally out-performed the built-in in all respects - it better if it costs money, right?).

I will try to find that review and if successful I will post the link to it here. The built-in really is designed for casual occasional users, kind of like Paint for casual photo re-touching or Word Pad for occasional note writing. Of course, Paint does not compare to PhotoShop, neither does Word Pad compare to Word, but they were not meant to either - they are designed for occasional 'better-than-nothing' use (I would pity anyone who decided to use Paint or Word Pad for professional use.). This article focuses on Win7/Vista defrag and explains the difference in XP. ' The different design decisions across Windows XP and Vista reflect this evaluation of the typical hardware & software environment used by customers.

Ultimately, when thinking about defragmentation, it is important to realize that there are many additional factors contributing towards system responsiveness that must be considered beyond a simple count of existing fragments.' Conclusion (For Win7):'Best practices for using defragmentation in Windows 7 are simple – you do not need to do anything! ' Lots more detail here. This thread got me curious, so I downloaded and installed both Smart Defrag 2 and Diskeeper lite (free versions).

I already had Defraggler installed as its the program I've been using for quite a while. So I ran a defrag with Defraggler (took about 5 minutes) then ran Diskeeper. Analysis detected 1 fragmented file.

Ran Smart Defrag which detected 63 fragmented files and took about 15 minutes to defrag. Reran Defraggler and detected no fragmented files.

Ran Diskeeper again and it detected 1 fragmented fie. After I unstalled Diskeeper (it replaced the windows defrag in Computer Management) I ran analysis with the windows defrag tool. It found no fragmented files. In using Defraggler, if one defrags the fragmented files ONLY, (you can do that with Defraggler) the defrag time is very small. Defragging the entire disk is another matter. Just my small contribution to this controversial topic.