![]() ![]() 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. |