![]() Update 1.2: Although WarpDisk's boot optimization is even slightly better than that of MyDefrag 4, the optimization of the overall system, unfortunately, falls by the wayside. Update 1.1: PuranDefrag 7.6 & Auslogics Disk Defrag Pro 4.2.2 & WarpDisk 1.3.21 These defragmenters could break away from the Windows 7 Defragmenter, but not significantly. ![]() Update 1.2: With the new version 17 there were no changes in performance. The latter one, on the other hand, created a striking number of gaps between the files, but they also had little effect on the performance. The former provided slightly better results with the Optimize/Complete method, though. This applies to both the paid (Pro), as well as for the free version. O&O Defrag Pro 16, 17 & Free 14 In this test, too, O&O Defrag performs almost as well as MyDefrag 4.MyDefrag 4.3.1 Although MyDefrag 4 is now over 4 years old, it performed better than any other defragmenter.Therefore, this is more of a list of "defragmenters that are only a little better than the Windows 7 Defragmenter": Significant differences can be observed only for the boot time and Civilization IV. It is difficult to determine a winner for this test, as there are hardly any differences between the defragmenters. The user does not need to worry about anything in that regard. An advantage of the Windows 7 Defragmenter is that it automatically works in the background. In other words, other defragmenters are struggling to make the system noticeably faster. Thus, the Windows 7 Defragmenter is competitive with the other defragmenters. ![]() ![]() Unlike its Windows XP counterpart, it does not perform as well at the boot optimization, but scores in the disciplines defragmentation and consolidation of free space. The Windows 7 Defragmenter does quite a decent job. How good is the Windows 7 Defragmenter actually? After performing the tests, the initially asked questions can now be answered. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |