<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title><![CDATA[Paragon Total Defrag 2010 Special Edition (English Version) comments:]]></title>
<link>https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/paragon-total-defrag-2010-special-edition-english-version/</link>
<description><![CDATA[free licensed software daily]]></description>
<language>en</language>
<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:33:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
<atom:link href="https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/paragon-total-defrag-2010-special-edition-english-version/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link>
<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
<generator>FeedWriter</generator>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Fubar]]></title>
<link>https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/paragon-total-defrag-2010-special-edition-english-version/#comment-103517</link>
<description><![CDATA[I looked into the MFT issue in more detail.  Since the MFT zone doesn't include the MFT itself, it's not reporting free entries in the MFT.  Decreasing the size of the MFT would involve internal compaction of the MFT; defragmentation generally just involves the physical file.  I could try to test what happens, but for me it's a total non-issue.  Vista is only allocating 200 MB max for the MFT zone, and most of my MFT's are small compared to that.  Of course, the MFT zone can be used for files if no other free space is available.  I have a full 2 TB drive with only large files.  Its MFT is 768 KB.  A full 300 GB drive with mostly large files but some small files has an MFT of less than 100 MB.  While that's large compared to the 2 TB drive's MFT, it's small compared to the MFT zone, and both are nothing compared to the drive capacity.  Another nearly full 300 GB drive with some large files but mostly a great many small files has a less than 500 MB MFT.  That's also nothing compared to the drive capacity.  A 4 GB virtual drive has a 64 KB MFT.  As far as I'm concerned, there's just no reason to worry about MFT size.]]></description>
<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:33:59 -0500</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/paragon-total-defrag-2010-special-edition-english-version/#comment-103517</guid>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fubar]]></dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Fred]]></title>
<link>https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/paragon-total-defrag-2010-special-edition-english-version/#comment-103516</link>
<description><![CDATA[#30 &amp; #54 - iamafever 

#30 - Your remark is completely immaterial to the comment I made. I NEVER said anything about having an issue of storage, I made a comment about the coding of the program. Regardless of what it contains (Linux ISO, etc), having a program that large for a simple defrag function shows it could be coded better or distributed in a better way - possibly in modules. Perhaps you should learn to pay attention to what people actually say, not what you assume they say.

#59 - Then I saw your second comment in which you proved yourself to be a total prat. Smart-ass comments are completely useless and provide nothing toward the discussion whatsoever. If you can't say anything useful, save us all the time of having to read your next comment by NOT posting the next time.]]></description>
<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:32:49 -0500</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/paragon-total-defrag-2010-special-edition-english-version/#comment-103516</guid>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fred]]></dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Fubar]]></title>
<link>https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/paragon-total-defrag-2010-special-edition-english-version/#comment-103515</link>
<description><![CDATA[#69, Spammy, OK, I analyzed all of my drives with PerfectDisk.  The <b>free</b> space inside each MFT reserved zone, not the size of the zone itself, was 200 MB on every drive (except for a tiny virtual drive, which was about 125 MB).  Therefor, either Vista or PerfectDisk is keeping the MFT's small.  If your MFT's aren't shrinking automatically, it may be due to fragmentation within the MFT.

#86, Alt Brown, PerfectDisk defrags the MFT's safely, and there are almost certainly other defragmenters which do.

If you're using a defragmenter which uses the Microsoft Defragmentation API, you can safely pull the plug on the computer during defragmentation.  Of course, you should run a disk check after interrupting any disk operation, to fix up the file tables.  For those of you running Paragon, are you comfortable pulling the plug during defragmentation (in any mode)?]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:41:50 -0500</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/paragon-total-defrag-2010-special-edition-english-version/#comment-103515</guid>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fubar]]></dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Eddie Dick]]></title>
<link>https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/paragon-total-defrag-2010-special-edition-english-version/#comment-103514</link>
<description><![CDATA[Paragon Total Defrag 2010 Special Edition is by far the best defrag tool I have ever used and I have pretty much used all of the free ones. Thanks for the download. I can definitely tell a difference in my pc!]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:22:42 -0500</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/paragon-total-defrag-2010-special-edition-english-version/#comment-103514</guid>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eddie Dick]]></dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Alt Brown]]></title>
<link>https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/paragon-total-defrag-2010-special-edition-english-version/#comment-103513</link>
<description><![CDATA[I've used several commercial and free defraggers and, despite pontification to the contrary, if you install/uninstall/move large programs/files, they do work. I settled on Ultimate Defrag (public), just for expediency - none faster. BUT due to operations described earlier on a Vista laptop and remaining large files, UD (nor Vista) would defrag the MFT nor would the disk get below 15% frag. Like #83 I was not crazy about the time/speed, especially after 45 mins leading to an error in Safe Mode (default). So gave the "Fast Mode" a shot. Yes, it defragged the MFT in about 10 mins, but the drive itself (70GB) took 2½ hours! After restart, UD analysis was .019% frag. PITA, but like all Paragon software so far, it works. Thanks again!]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:23:44 -0500</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/paragon-total-defrag-2010-special-edition-english-version/#comment-103513</guid>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alt Brown]]></dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Fubar]]></title>
<link>https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/paragon-total-defrag-2010-special-edition-english-version/#comment-103512</link>
<description><![CDATA[#69, Spammy, what misinformation?  If the developer posts inadequate or incorrect information on their website, that's their problem.  No, I don't have to try software which can brick your computer in an instant.  Absolutely nothing is more dangerous to your PC than a defragmenter, you're explicitly giving it permission to rearrange potentially everything on your disk volumes.  Paragon shouldn't allow an unsafe mode, period.  Power, hardware, and software, including the defragmenter itself, can flake out at any time for any reason.  Why should I take Paragon's word that their "safe" mode is safe?  Do they use the Windows Defragmentation API like every other decent defragmenter?  They don't say so, and obviously if they're using a Linux boot disc, that version doesn't.  Does Paragon support layout.ini and VSS?  Again, they don't say so, which leads me to suspect that they don't.  If you're happy with it, fine, but it's not for me.  As for the MFT, I remember one volume with little data that had a huge MFT.  As the disk filled, the MFT shrank.  I don't know whether that depends upon what version of Windows you're using, or whether PerfectDisk did it when needed, but the MFT definitely shrank, big-time.

#51, harpo2448, 2007 comparisons are useless, it's almost 2010.  Gibson Research?  SpinRite?  That was useful a quarter-century ago or whatever, but it's useless on modern drives.  Same for their firewall testing.  Actually, one of the links here mentioned SpinRite, and it did nothing to predict or prevent a drive failure, which is exactly what one would expect.

#64, mike, I find it interesting that you're all for cleaning the registry, which does nothing, yet you see little value in defragmenting the disk, which does impact performance, especially the pagefile.  Using a disk doesn't "wear it out", the heads don't contact the disk, and the drive motor normally keeps the disk spinning while the computer is on.  You can change that with power management, but nobody can stand the drive startup delay (also, the cycling is far worse for the drive).  I'm not saying that you have to use PerfectDisk, I listed the features which I look for in a defragmenter, and most free ones don't have the features I desire.  I certainly don't claim that PerfectDisk has the ultimate optimization algorithm, merely that it's good.  As you say, the best algorithm depends upon how you use your data.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:31:24 -0500</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/paragon-total-defrag-2010-special-edition-english-version/#comment-103512</guid>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fubar]]></dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Ben]]></title>
<link>https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/paragon-total-defrag-2010-special-edition-english-version/#comment-103511</link>
<description><![CDATA[Installed well on my XP SP3
but where is my registration information in the program ?

Sorry, but I can't find it so I don't know - for sure - if the program is registrated :(]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:50:55 -0500</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/paragon-total-defrag-2010-special-edition-english-version/#comment-103511</guid>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben]]></dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Jeanette]]></title>
<link>https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/paragon-total-defrag-2010-special-edition-english-version/#comment-103510</link>
<description><![CDATA[Don't install this unless you got 3 hours to defrag where you can't use you PC.  It boots into DOS and three hours later it came back to Windows after the defrag.

Seemed to do a good job but way too long for me.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:46:47 -0500</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/paragon-total-defrag-2010-special-edition-english-version/#comment-103510</guid>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeanette]]></dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Steven Avery]]></title>
<link>https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/paragon-total-defrag-2010-special-edition-english-version/#comment-103509</link>
<description><![CDATA[Hi Folks,

Good comments.  If Paragon does not clearly use the Windows API I would pass .. noting Phred's experience #44 and some others I would pass anyway. 

The Windows API is known to be quite solid and safe and there is no reason for a defrag program to reinvent the basics.  What the high-end products do is more in terms of analyzing usage and placement and algoriths about that stuff .. interesting techwise but since disk access is much less a crunch than processing, CPU, stacks, memory, internet response, etc for most apps to me it is of little intereset. Disk access is simply not a bottleneck.  Defragging is good though if done by a light application, it also helps if you have to find a deleted file.

On the light and excellent end .. Defraggler .. Auslogics (if still free) and a number of others. DiskTune actually has some good discussions about how defrag is overdone.  http://www.diydatarecovery.nl/DiskTune.htm 

For me .. light use, once a week or once a month or so, get rid of 30K of fragments. Whether the nanosecond of file placement is worth the extra processing .. I think not. Defraging a lot, ultra-tech, is a solution looking for a problem.

So I will pass on this one.

Shalom,
Steven]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:42:32 -0500</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/paragon-total-defrag-2010-special-edition-english-version/#comment-103509</guid>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steven Avery]]></dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Ron]]></title>
<link>https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/paragon-total-defrag-2010-special-edition-english-version/#comment-103508</link>
<description><![CDATA[Do we need defrag tool other than one shipped with Windows (XP/Vista/7)? 

Yes.  Like many other things, MS has shipped a minimal featured version of a tool.  Starting in XP MS bundled a stripped down version of Diskeeper defrag tool.  (I don' know if it carried on to Vista and 7, or not.)  The bundled tools are adequate for minimal functionality, defrag in this case, but there is freeware and 3rd party software, like Paragon, that do the job better.

Why do we need defrag?  Because the windows file systems, FAT &amp; NTFS, are based on design philosophy from the (late) 1970's which assumes disk space is at a total premium and HD is terribly slow.  Both of which by DESIGN lead to almost instant file fragmentation.  If you want a rude surprise to a HD analysis with a defrag tool right after finishing a fresh Windows install.  Massive fragmentation!

I used Diskeeper free and purchased version in XP, and have used a couple of freeware, most recently Defraggler, on my Vista machine.  I gave Paragon a try since it was a free Full feature version.

I ran Paragon and Defraggler analysis reports (before and after defrag).  Paragon said I had 425 fragmented files, and the map showed about 80% of the sectors as red (fragmented).  Defraggler said I had 405 fragmented files, 4,068 fragments, representing 7% fragmentation.  The difference in number of fragmented files is trivial but the huge difference in representing how many sectors/blocks had fragments is very interesting.  Frankly I am more inclined to believe the Defraggler map more than the Paragon one.  I then ran a Paragon defrag.  Since it was a reboot defrag, to move the directories, I was disappointed to see that there were still 34 fragmented files.  They were files from various apps that there was no reason for them to still be fragmented.

Do I like Paragon, do I recommend using it?  Short answer is YES, inspite of some "issues" discussed below.

Some general Defrag suggestions before going into Paragon:
- before defrag (like any disk intensive operation) do a FULL backup! (especially when testing a new tool like this!)  While moving files around during a defrag, something MAY be trashed and you will need to restore from backup.  If you don't do backups, sooner or later YOU'LL BE SORRY!
- before defrag do disk cleanup to delete any unneeded files.  Tools like built-in "Disk Cleanup" or CCleaner will help with this
- given large HD sizes it now makes sense to make Windows swap file constant size, min and max the same.  Then you can defrag the swap file and it will stay in single contiguous "fragment" and it will no longer contribute to fragmentation of other files.
- when doing a defrag you REALLY REALLY want to have a UPS (battery backup) just in case the power goes out, you don't want your machine interrupted during defrag!

Review of Paragon Defrag:
I decided to keep it for several reasons:
- ability to create bootable "recovery disks" on USB, CD &amp; DVD media.  That's great, makes the tool portable.  
PS: for those of you who are complaining about size, as it has already been pointed out, most of the app size is probably due to the OS (probably a flavor of 'Nix ) that is incorporated in app to build the recovery disks
- ability to move all directories to "front" of drive.  I don't see it in most freeware
- it was able to move some files that were located at the "middle" and some at the "bottom/back" of the drive that other defrag tools have not been able to move.


Observations on the app:
- in general it is a "competent" application.  Compared to other similar tools I've used it has fewer user configurable options, including a few I think are fairly important
- feels like a lot of "wasted" space in the app window since I consider the information on the map the most important element in the whole app window. ie the "task pane" on left side could be done away with (ie move up into menu and button bar)  PS: I just found that it can be "dragged" to float on window so that "Fragment bitmap" has more working space.
- In the "fragmentation bitmap" I would like to see a couple more categories, ie directories, MFT, locked system files (ie swap file).
- you could move the bitmap legend from bottom to top of frame on same line as "Disk usagel of ..." text
- add options to configure tool/button bar, ie: turn off tool/button bar, turn text on/off (I LIKE that buttons have text, some people don't), option to use large or smaller icons
- "Disk Map" at bottom of screen uses a lot of space, make it smaller or move up to button bar or maybe make it into a new tab?
- the "blocks" in the "fragmentation bitmap" could be visually smaller so that they include fewer files in each (see defraggler as an example of this) I think this is the most important info in the app window, so more detail is better.
- I really would like to be able to click on a "fragmented block" and see a list of the files in it, with number of fragments, and have an option to pick one, more or all and defrag them explicitly.
- somewhere there should be an option for user to explicitly specify files and folders to exclude from defrag
- it would be nice to be able to specify process priority, ala defraggler, for online defrag in multi cpu processor.  Might as well max out defrag speed on the one CPU (let hd be limiter)

- initial analysis of disk is VERY fast, less than a minute for my 60gb partition.  It is nice to be able to save the report to disk, but I have a few suggestions.  
- keep the report available in the app after it is generated, ie put report for each drive into a tab of it's own.  
- report format is a little "strange".  Why start with freespace (I would put it last), most people are more interested in file and directory fragmentation than in freespace.  Include "fragmentation %" number for files and directories.  After defrag, report still says freespace has 5700 fragments, but only 36% fragmentation?!?  Are you calling each free block/sector a fragment?  That is counter intuitive (for me).
- I really would like to be able to PERMANENTLY specify a location to save all reports to, other than the current default.
- for the online report I would prefer to see it default to max to min fragments sort order
- I did analysis on a secondary partition, after I closed the report it "jumped" back to "C:" drive.  WRONG, since was planning to work on that other drive not the C:

- I ran the "Check File System Integrity".  It said "The volume has some errors. ...".  So I set Checkdisk with fix parameter to run on reboot.  No errors were found or fixed.  Re-ran your check, it still reported error!  Your check also reports 0 free space, WRONG!

- help file says there are "27 different defrag strategies".  Nice, but what are they?  Help file doesn't say and I don't see that many during defrag setup (or are you saying the combination of those options, 3 x 3 x 3 = 27 are the "strategies").



Directory Placement: First / Last / Do Not Sort
Sort by Size: large / small / Do Not Sort
Sort by Date: Recent First / Recent Last / Do Not Sort

How do the Size and Date options interact? Which takes precedence?

- during the reboot defrag, when the other OS app was running, the user interface SUCKED!  The progress bars didn't work, there was no indication of how long it would take.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:59:23 -0500</pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/paragon-total-defrag-2010-special-edition-english-version/#comment-103508</guid>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ron]]></dc:creator>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>