Whats the Quality of the Vista defrag tool?

dekard

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 1, 2004
Messages
2,188
Yes, I know the XP defrag tool left much to be desired. Yes, I love Diskkeeper on my Xp Systems. Now, with that out of the way... Has anyone analyzed the performance of the Vista defrag tool? I'm getting sketchy details here and there but they sound promising.
 
CyberCecil said:
I was under the impression that Vista's defrag tool was made by Diskkeeper.
it wouldn't suprise me.. they have made the recent defrag tools for MS. No telling how many features made it into the final release though. Thats what I want to know.
 
the vista defrag tool seems...weird. I don't like how it doesn't tell you anything...it just kinda goes and does its thing.

I noticed it took a significantly longer time on my disks than the xp one does, though, so maybe it's doing something different/better...
 
I know its supposed to do more than just defragment. Also, relocate programs based on usage patterns and intelligently optimize the drive. All part and parcel of diskkeeper's normal functions.
 
dekard said:
it wouldn't suprise me.. they have made the recent defrag tools for MS. No telling how many features made it into the final release though. Thats what I want to know.

The only options for the defrag that I can find are just the ability to schedule the defrag and to defrag now. I don't see any advanced options unfortunately.
 
CyberCecil said:
I was under the impression that Vista's defrag tool was made by Diskkeeper.

IIRC the current microsoft defrag program is basically Diskkeeper lite.
 
So, its been a few months, any updates to this thread? I for one have been using the tool and have been pleased with what I've seen, basically just solid defragmenting based on usage patterns. I'm sure its not doing as good of a job as a commercial, specialized product but I've really got no reason to complain since it works fine.

I do wish there was a way to expose more of what the product is doing behind the scenes, but Microsoft is obviously not interested in that.

Regarding the comments that it runs slower than the XP version, I believe thats a feature as it is actively slowing or stopping based on disk activity. This is done to present less of a noticeably slowdown to the user.
 
Back
Top