Every day we offer FREE licensed software you’d have to buy otherwise.

Disk Defrag Pro 4.8.1 Giveaway
$29.95
EXPIRED

Giveaway of the day — Disk Defrag Pro 4.8.1

Disk Defrag Pro helps to defragment and optimize files on your PC.
$29.95 EXPIRED
User rating: 127 (92%) 11 (8%) 103 comments

Disk Defrag Pro 4.8.1 was available as a giveaway on May 15, 2017!

Today Giveaway of the Day
$10.00
free today
TheSage is an off-line comprehensive English dictionary and thesaurus.

Disk Defrag Pro lets you defrag files that are inaccessible during system operation, as well as optimize file placement on your hard drive to ensure faster access and most efficient operation. The multiple scheduling options let you easily maintain consistently high HDD speed.

System Requirements:

Windows XP SP3 (x32)/ Vista SP2 (x32)/ 7 (x32/x64)/ 8/ 8.1 (x32/x64)/ 10 (x32/x64); Hard disk space: 25 MB; Memory: 512 MB; Recommended screen resolution: 1024x700

Publisher:

Auslogics

Homepage:

http://www.auslogics.com/en/software/disk-defrag-pro/

File Size:

12.4 MB

Price:

$29.95

Comments on Disk Defrag Pro 4.8.1

Thank you for voting!
Please add a comment explaining the reason behind your vote.
#30

When this program finishes it optimisation of free space on my spare 1.1TB partition it will have moved everything to the front of the drive... I will have to use defraggler to move all the backup and other large media files back to the end of the drive to free up the faster section of the drive for day to day operations. This is not how defragmenting/optimizing free space is supposed to go... completely reorganising files including defragmenting a 295Gbyte backup image and moving it the front of the drive!

Reply   |   Comment by TK  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)

TK, that is how it is supposed to work. I'm not sure how Defraggler works, as I don't believe I've ever used it. But, it usual practice for any defrag software when optimising free space, to try and move as much data as possible to the start of the drive, so that all the free space is in one large contiguous block at the end of the drive.

Reply   |   Comment by Roger  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)

Roger, to move the free space to the slow part of a hard drive is de-optimizing the free space! Optimal free space is at the front of the drive, so logically to make the free space optimal the existing data should be moved out of the fast access start of the drive to the median or slowest partions of the drives surface leaving the fastest access and throughput for the free space so the drive performs like NEW again!

Reply   |   Comment by TK  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)
#29

TRICKY - easy download - then things went to pot..........installed, seemed to go fine..........then it started scanning without my "ASKING"......but no big deal.......EXCEPT a few seconds later the THRILLING BLUE SCREEN........first scare.......but it booted up so figured out it was a fluke.......so clicked to start it, half a splash screen and the BLUE HIT AGAIN......except this time it didn't want to reboot......plan B........restarted to Safe Mode..........that was a slow process.......thank goodness for REVO...........end of the PLAGUE........as typical of some programs it installed itself all over so it meant
"click here, click there...lost count of how may places it "put itself".........but it's GONE FOREVER.
Just for fun, with an older laptop that just sets.........installed it on the poor thing.........almost the same chain of events.........haven't got it up and running yet......
Bottom line, do you really want to Defrag with this one.......there's BETTER and for free........WHEW

Reply   |   Comment by iwontell  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+1)
#28

Whilst optimizing free space on one of my laptops drives it reports disk activity in the status bar in the order of kilobytes per second yet in reality resource monitor shows the process is using between 150Mbytes/second and 50Mbytes/second moving multi-gigabyte unfragmented files away from their pre-optimised location in the slow end of the drive up to the front of the drive... inacurate status bar information, sub optimal reorganisation of already optimised and unfagmented files, was so slow analyzing my system drive I had to stop the analasis after waiting longer than 30mins!

Reply   |   Comment by TK  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)

TK, another bug, when mousing over blocks in the selected drives analysed disk map it ALWAYS reports "There are 5 files (0 fragments in this block). Click to view files." as long as something is in the block... it does NOT show the real number of files or the real number of fragments in the moused over block and clicking on the block shows the real contents and fragmented state of the contained files.

Reply   |   Comment by TK  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)
#27

I installed it, and it was "supposedly" installed, but, I can find no trace of it on my had drive! Does not show in my list of programs.

What gives????????

Reply   |   Comment by Grampa Jim  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-1)
#26

Hi,
My Recycle Bin is empty but when Disk Defrag Pro anayzes, it finds many files in the bin.
I deleted some old Recycle Bins inside Recycle Bin folder but nothing changed, it still finds the same files.
Any ideas?

Reply   |   Comment by luppusi  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)
#25

oh dear I only have 88Gbyte free on my laptop C: drive and because that is less than 10% of the total volume size this defragmenter thinks it cannot properly defragment the drive... that is laughable! 88Gbytes not enough for Auslogic to work in?

Reply   |   Comment by TK  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)

TK, it used to be quite common for defagmenters to need around 10 to 15% free space in order to work. Of course that is ridiculous when working with large drives, but that is how it has tradtionally been.

As for current requirements of defragmenters in general, I really do not know.

Reply   |   Comment by Roger  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+1)
#24

Probably, no free upgrades or bug fixes.

Reply   |   Comment by Rick_S1  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-5)
#23

I recently evaluated an Auslogics promotion offer for the same product by a competing website. I downloaded it but stopped short of installing it, because of two big red flags. I would like to know if users having taken advantage of GOTD's offer noticed similar things.

I downloaded the Auslogics Defrag Free program which the publisher provides on a permenent basis on its site. It registered positive at Virus Total, with 7 different warnings. Most of them were PUPs (annoyingly enough), but there was also a purported trojan. False positives can happen, but this is highly unusual. Downloads from reputable publishers (which Auslogics is, to a point) don't trigger such warnings.

The Disk Defrag Pro installer specially prepared for that other promotional offer also triggered one Virus Total warning, for a PUP. Another user who installed the product wrote back with a similar claim.

The other red flag is : the Disk Defrag Pro version Auslogics offers on its site, outside of any promotional deals such as this one, is sold under a subscription model ; but this is almost completely hidden. You think you're buying a 30 $ product all along, but it's only when cashing out you discover this will be 30 $ per year. Which, regardless of the sneaky and dishonest tactics, is outrageous.

Antivirus programs may justify charging by the year, beacause new malware keeps appearing everyday. But what exactly changes in the way Windows scatters NTFS files on a hard disk platter ?

So my other question is : is the present GOTD offer free for ever, or free for one year, and then you're supposed to pay 30 $ per year ? After all, "The program is available for $29.95, but it will be free for our visitors as a time-limited offer" can mean two very different things : you can download this program during a time-limited slot of 24 hours, then use it for free for ever ; or you can do that, and then there is another time-limited slot of one year, after which the program will stop working unless you pay yearly. Which is it ?

Reply   |   Comment by Clairvaux  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+73)

Clairvaux, after installing Disk Defrag Pro it clearly shows that its a free yearly subscription, im not really happy about it since it wasnt mentioned in description.

Reply   |   Comment by Sileniful  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+1)

Clairvaux, I do agree with you; yearly subscriptions is a growing trend, that I do not like, industry-wide for multiple software types - software types that have never charged a yearly subscription before, but as I said it is a, more than annoying, industry trend.

But here you get the program FREE to use for a year, but no free updates or fixes. GOTD providing the software for a year is standard operating procedure, for them and the developers that participate in giveaways. And yes, you only have 24 hours, from the time they post it, to download, install, and register it.

It is not uncommon for this type of software to register false postives; it's the nature of the beast since it needs access to system files.

I have never had a problem with any of the programs I've installed that have been offered by GOTD. And I've used Auslogics programs, in the past; they are not only top notch, but safe.

Reply   |   Comment by JonE  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)

Clean according to Win10 Defender, GSAM, SAS free, EEK.
PUP according to MBAM2 free.

Virustotal engines that show problems (almost PUA/PUP): AVware , Comodo, DrWeb , ESET-NOD32, Malwarebytes, Palo Alto Networks, Sophos, Symantec, VIPRE.
Metadefender engines that show problems: DrWebGateway and ThreatTrack. Eset and Sophos came clean.
Jotti engines that show problems: Eset and DrWeb. Sophos came clean.
Virscan engines that show problems: Fprot. Comodo, DrWeb, Nod32 (eset), Sophos, Symantec (Norton) came clean.

The problem with PUP/PUA detections is exactly this.
ClamAV is also aggressive about PUP/PUA detections, but it seems those webservices (virustotal, metadefender, jotti and virscan) found the way to disable it.

Scan results:

Virustotal: https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/1c8a86653671023789a536ceeef5ed78b5dec78796c29edaf7c4a8adfea41f5b/analysis/1494868668/
metadefender: https://www.metadefender.com/#!/results/file/ZTE3MDQyOUJrLXdTekZXeVdTa0dmd2NtUERsVw/regular/analysis
Jotti: https://virusscan.jotti.org/it-IT/filescanjob/bsselp4h2u
Virscan: http://r.virscan.org/report/ee76c80881119494237b368250a5ed8c

Reply   |   Comment by xilolee  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)

Clairvaux, I just discovered this was a one year subscription myself and, I looked first. I never, but never subscribe to software (did I mention never).

So, to answer your question, "I would like to know if users having taken advantage of GOTD's offer noticed similar things."

My answer is yes, as far as the subscription, I noticed after I installed the program. So, instead of gaining a loyal customer, I'm now a disgruntled will-never-be Auslogics customer.

Please note that this is not a comment on subscription practices, just my opinion.

Reply   |   Comment by Trasd  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)

Clairvaux,

After installing this I discovered it is a one year (365 day) trial-ware.
Sure one year is better than 30 days, but it's still trial-ware.

Would have liked to know that in advance.
GAOTD usually posts that.
I suspect Auslogics slipped that factoid past the goalies...

I agree with your pup references. Only one virustotal notice on the GAOTD offering version. I was not thrilled to see that.

Reply   |   Comment by Frank Russo  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+3)

Clairvaux, This is not the first time.

Reply   |   Comment by LEN  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)

Clairvaux, here's a bit of software history for you. Most antivirus companies used to sell you a single package, and then for the entire life of that product, if not longer, you got antivirus updates for free.
Then in the late 90s the politicians got in on the act and decided that was somehow deceptive. They weren't targeting antivirus specifically, rather any software that had continuing updates that weren't patches.
So they past a law that basically gave the software companies two choices.

A - Hold the entire funds of the software purchase in some kind of escrow or whatever that they can't touch until a long time later (literally years if I remember right) and some other bizarre stuff I can't recall. This is obvious company suicide. NOBODY has ever chosen that option.

B - So you aren't 'hiding' the cost of the updates, have those charged separately. Several companies were extremely pissed about this, but it at least wouldn't kill the company. Thus began the virus definition subscriptions. Of course, since that was now a separate thing that had to be charged for by law, it increased the bureaucracy involved, which increased the cost, though not by a lot. Then some companies decided that could be a profit center instead of a standard included maintenance thing, and raised subscription prices.

So if you don't like paying for your definitions, you can thank the idiots in DC.

PS: I was working at an antivirus company at the time this happened. We were extremely upset over this. Many of us contacted every politician we could get a phone number for, but it didn't help, they ignored us completely.

Reply   |   Comment by meerling  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)

meerling, Wow, sorry, I really meant to hit the "yes" vote, but my big fingers (tablet) hit "no" and, there is no way to reverse that!

Reply   |   Comment by Trasd  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)

meerling,

This is fascinating. Never heard about that. Now, many major antivirus vendors are not American. You mean they changed their model too, to comply with American law ?

Reply   |   Comment by Clairvaux  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)

Re : malware warnings.

If they are really false positives, the least that could be expected from Auslogics is to do its homework with antivirus publishers, so as to be removed from false flagging.

Barring that, the bare minimum would be for them to put up a warning on their website, saying we have false positives with such and such antivirus, don't worry, our product is clean.

Nirsoft does that, because their products are known to regularly trigger false alarms. But Nir Sofer is a lone guy volunteering software for free, while Auslogics is a profit-making business with some clout.

Since Auslogics does not seem to care, and they have shady payment tactics on top of that, concern about malware warnings is perfectly legitimate.

I don't buy the "low-level" story. There are plenty of programs doing low-level things on the system (imaging software, hypervisors, partitioning software...) which do not trigger false alarms with antivirus.

Reply   |   Comment by Clairvaux  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)
#22

Do you need to defrag beyond what the embedded Windows 7 defragmenter does ? Some people say that aggressive defragging is actually detrimental. I've read learned discussions to that effect.

My own Windows 7 always say my volumes are 0% fragmented (and regularly misses scheduled weekly scans). I tried Defraggler by Piriform, and all of a sudden it found 24 % fragmentation. Obviously, we're talking apples and oranges there. Defraggler certainly did something, and it says something about what it's doing, whereas Windows' utility doesn't explain anything. I seem to remember Windows XP at least had an evolutive drive map showing the state of fragmentation. Windows 7 seems to think people are too stupid to try and understand what it's doing.

However, while I couldn't feel any obvious acceleration after applying Defraggler in several (supposedly) clever ways, it did break my imaging Macrium Reflect routine. All of a sudden, an incremental backup which used to take 2 or 3 GB took the same 113 GB that a full backup does.

Macrium expert users say you need to defragment immediately before a full image. However, despite "reducing" fragmentation by 24 %, I did not notice any ulterior shrinking in Macrium images. Any thoughts ?

Reply   |   Comment by Clairvaux  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+17)

Clairvaux, Defragmenting files shouldn't change the size of the files or the image. All it's doing is rearranging the blocks that make up the files so they're all "contiguous".. arranged in order so they're not scattered on the disk. But it wouldn't do any shrinking of sizes since it just moves blocks without changing the contents of the blocks. The issue of conflicting with an automatic imaging program may stem from the imaging program detecting the defragmented files as having been "changed" (I don't know what defragmenting may do to the "archive" bit on a file), so it backs up files which otherwise would be skipped in an incremental image. That is, the imaging program thinks you've updated ALL your files since the last incremental, so it backs them all up.
As far as the strategies used by different defraggers, the base Windows defragmenter may treat "mild" fragmentation differently than Defraggler, and not report it or bother trying to defragment files that aren't badly defragmented to save time versus the very, very slight improvement from defragging files with minor fragmentation, while Defraggler may report ALL instances of fragmentation (possibly in an attempt to make it look like the program is "doing more").
Also, as far as the effects of defragmenting, it's probably a lot less noticeable with the HUGE hard drives in use today versus the much smaller (and thus more critical of fragmentation) hard drives that used to be used. With a smaller drive, it's far more likely you'll be overwriting deleted files much more quickly than on a very large drive that has a LOT of open free space for the operating system to fit complete files into. Unless your disk is very close to being full, there's probably a lot less fragmentation on a large drive so you wouldn't notice as much improvement as in the "good old days".
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!

Reply   |   Comment by BobR  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)

Clairvaux,

"Do you need to defrag beyond what the embedded Windows 7 defragmenter does ?"

The circumference of a disk platter [where data's stored] is less towards the center, more towards the edges -- read/write speeds are not constant across the full storage area. [This used to be more of an issue when drives were slower & much smaller.] If you read the ad copy on the Auslogics product page they talk about having 4 algorithms available, which place different files in the faster portion of hard drive storage. And that's one area where 3rd party defrag apps compete, how well they manage things so that you see a real difference.

Another area where Disk Defrag Pro *may* help is moving files that are in use when Windows is running, & that normally can't be moved.

"My own Windows 7 always say my volumes are 0% fragmented (and regularly misses scheduled weekly scans). I tried Defraggler by Piriform, and all of a sudden it found 24 % fragmentation."

There are 3 things going on when you defrag a drive with 3rd party software... One, data is packed towards the beginning of the drive partition space, rather than scattered across the total storage area. Two, each file is actually stored as a series of small chunks of data, & defrag tries to put those small chunks all in sequence, so the drive head(s) don't have to jump all over the place to read a single file. And 3rd, they'll try to put files that make the most difference to you on the fastest portion of the hard drive partition.

Defraggler may be telling you it has This Much work to do, covering all 3 optimizations. One way you might be able to compare is using, looking at an old fashioned disk map with MyDefrag before & after -- in this case you'd probably just want to analyze in MyDefrag.

"Macrium expert users say you need to defragment immediately before a full image. However, despite "reducing" fragmentation by 24 %, I did not notice any ulterior shrinking in Macrium images. Any thoughts ?"

There are basically 2 kinds of backups -- one that looks at your files & folders, then copies the ones you select somewhere else, and one kind that just copies the raw data on the partition, without bothering to identify which files & folders that data belongs to. It shouldn't matter in either case where the data's located on the drive surface, though a file backup of a defragged drive might be faster than one that's badly fragmented.

Incremental disk/partition image [raw] backups OTOH are a sort of hybrid... the software wants to copy raw data but can't do it from the start of the partition to the end, like it normally would, but has to figure out what changed, and only backup those parts. To reduce the penalties of having to do that extra work, e.g. taking [sometimes Much] longer, developers come up with different methods of telling what's new & what's not -- it would seem Defraggler broke the logic that Macrium developers use.

Reply   |   Comment by mike  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+3)

Clairvaux, Every Defrag program is going to find different percentages of fragmentation since they all deal differently with the data and sort it differently.

Is this one better than the Windows defrag? Probably. Is it faster than Windows defrag? Probably. This is based on my years of experience with Windows and different defragging programs.

So, give it a try, and then come back and tell us what you think.

Don't worry the Auslogics Defrag software is safe.

Reply   |   Comment by JonE  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+1)

Clairvaux:

There are different perspectives on what constitutes "fragmentation" that I know of.

View 1: Fragmentation is a file being broken into multiple parts of the drive, 5 meg here, 40 meg there, 27 another place, 2 in the last.

Windows Defrag is supposed to minimize and/or eliminate this.

View 2: Combines View 1 with no huge gaps breaking up free space in multiple parts because of of spacing for files that cannot fit into the space. So no: File 1 complete, 5 meg gap, file 2 complete, 2 meg gap, File 3, etc.

I don't know if Windows Defrag addresses this, but a defrag of this nature would have File 1, File 2, File 3...File 36,928, Free space...

I suppose there is a View 3 that also clusters certain kinds of data files or program-affiliated files together on top of View 2. Most defrag tools I've used allow for some part of this in that all photos, for instance, could be forced to go together, or even forced folder orders on the drive.

As to your complete/incremental backup, by running a defrag on the drive and moving files around, it likely reset the archive flags on the files. Incremental backups can be touchy things, depending on the program. Any change to the file triggers the need for the file to be included in the next backup. I'd expect that your program intends a full defrag before full backup (would make backup faster, especially large one), then none for the incremental backups which are only supposed to copy changes in files/changed files.

Reply   |   Comment by PlatZ  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+1)

Clairvaux, I've been using Macrium Reflect for several years now, bought the full version. I'm not an expert but... When you defrag drives, the contents get moved around. When Reflect does an Incremental or Differential backup, it compares what's already in a given sector in the backup, with what's in the corresponding sector on your hard drive. If different, the sector is copied to the backup and the backup size increases. If the same, no new data has to be written to the backup for that sector, and lots of time gets saved by avoiding the write. So, if you do a defrag that moves a significant amount of files to new places, then you might as well do a full backup in Reflect.

If you constantly change or delete files, you need to do a defrag (or rely on Windows) more often. If you mostly add things and use the data without changing it, you might go several months or a year without needing to defrag.

I trust Reflect more than any defrag software - it's not changing the hard drive, just copying data from it. I would do at least an incremental or differential backup BEFORE doing a defrag, then a full backup AFTER. Then many more daily/weekly incremental/differential backups before repeating the whole process.

I hope that helps!

Reply   |   Comment by Mr.Dave  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+3)

Clairvaux, Just a bit of info on defragging. Different programs use different algorithms to calculate optimal defragmentation sequences, so what looks fine to one defragger, might not look fine to another.

Microsoft has used different defragmentation programs for different windows over the years. I can't mention whos was used in which windows, but they do change on occassion. In the past, microsoft didn't actually write their defragger, they just used another companies. I don't have any idea if they've made their own for Win10, but it seems unlikely they'd start making their own now.

Defragging doesn't really reduce space, but it has always been an advisable thing before a full backup or image. The more files are fragmented, the more the drive has to work and the more delays there are when reading or writing a file. Backups do a TON of that. Defragging before backing up gets rid of a lot of that useless runaround and I have seen it change a server backup from 3 hours to under an hour. Of course, that was back in the 90s again, but drives are a bit faster now, and larger as well, but the principle still stands.

As a general note, some programs violate the proper programming rules of windows, and do tricks with some of their files for security purposes. If you defrag those types of files, you tend to blow out your security for that program. It was real common with a particular stock trading program back in the 90s. If you have something like that, find out what needs to be put on the exclusions list. (Most defraggers have exclusion lists somewhere.)
Ok, that's enough babbling about that. Sorry I don't know this giveaways specifics, but I'm sure it's not much different than the others in these general things I've mentioned. :)

Reply   |   Comment by meerling  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+4)

Thank you all for your very illuminating comments. I guess they show that defragmenting is a complex matter, and we shouldn't only rely on what such and such program says about it.

Reply   |   Comment by Clairvaux  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+3)
#21

For those having issues installing, this is mosty likely due to the wrapper used by the GAOTD site. This wrapper uses a type of blocking which can not be read by AV software (it is also used by some viruses to prevent detection) and many security softwares will not let it be used.

I would advise downloading the installer from the official website, https://www.auslogics.com/en/software/disk-defrag-pro/ , and register manually using the serial number found in the text file of the zip downloaded from the GAOTD site.

Reply   |   Comment by Mark  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+31)

Mark,
Thanks - installs fine now

Reply   |   Comment by JJ Juice  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+7)

Hi, you should have given this before we encounter this error. This is GOTD, and i never found any problem in installing the software so far. Thanks for giving the alternative site. There is difference in bytes in both the downloads , i noticed.
Offline defrag is commendable . It defrags quickly.

Reply   |   Comment by jraju  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-6)

jraju, well, GAOTD is having this type of problems for a couple or three years now. So you were lucky to have never had this problems. Most everybody else had. Whem this occurs to me, I disable the anti-virus, download, install and enable again.Works perfectly, 'though many many people would not turn off their anti-virus for nothing. This is too obsessive, but they have their reasons.
mario

Reply   |   Comment by Mario Trzes  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)

Mario Trzes, I had not thought about disabling avast av which i have. But what about the different bytes ? Is it the same available with GOTD offer at your site? Thanks for response. I have given suggestion, which i did not find being considered. Thanks

Reply   |   Comment by jraju  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)
#20

What about the license?
I did register it:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/c2tpwif6fbvu193/AACwhIDhzQf_0t3hqdfmbWkha?dl=0
I did notice something in a screen:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lnhu7vm2qzzpoq0/Hoofdscherm.png?dl=0
More close; just a year??:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uct1b6tm4nas1x2/JaarLicentie.png?dl=0

Reply   |   Comment by Ootje  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+25)

Ootje, thanks for the clarification of a one-year license.

Except for offers with lifetime licenses, GotD almost always indicates the limitation in bold , as the last sentence in its descriptions. Too bad it did not do so with today's offer.

Reply   |   Comment by Suze  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+13)

Ootje,

Great screenshots, very useful, thank you. (And yes, this tends to confirm my worries about this "free" program not working beyond one year, unless you pay yearly ; see my other comments).

What program do you use for making screenshots and annotating them ? It seems terrific.

Also, beyond the legitimate worries I have explained elsewhere in this thread, your screenshots show that :

- Auslogics' program does do many more things that Windows' embedded defragmenter.

- Those things are very useful, or at least seem to be as seen from the outside. It remains to be seen whether, in actual use, they are positive, neutral or even detrimental (do they make the PC faster ? are they safe, don't they ever break things ?).

- Auslogics user interface is very good, and takes great care to explain the technical issues involved, and consequences of actions.

This comes in addition to my other comments, and does not negate them.

Reply   |   Comment by Clairvaux  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+1)
#19

Hi, i am having error installing set up exe. i get bex errors. i tried all sorts of tricks, but it fails me all the time. Is there a quick fix to fix this bex error

Reply   |   Comment by jraju  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)
#18

I have been using disktrix for years. Hands down, the BEST defrag out there.

Reply   |   Comment by lovs2build  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-5)
#17

downloaded and followed instructions but when I click run nothing happens ?

Reply   |   Comment by rob  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-4)

rob, Try to check your protection, since the exe will be removed to Quarantine by MalwareBytes AntiMalware Premium. Good luck - and be aware, there's an uninstaller available, 'cause MBAM Premium moves that one to Quarantine.

Reply   |   Comment by Allan  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)

Allan, I agree with your MBAM observations. A user has to give permission in MBAM to get the programs to install. Once DiskDefrag was installed I then ran MBAM which found 76 PUP registry entries. When I removed these entries DiskDefrag stopped working including the shortcut (i.e., it seems to have been removed).

Reply   |   Comment by StephenB  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+7)
#16

Is this a lifetime license? I know no upgrades, etc. etc....

Reply   |   Comment by Kyle  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)

Kyle, this is a 1-year license.

Reply   |   Comment by Mark  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+7)
#15

Installed and registered via the help tab at top of Defrag Pro page. Wizzes through defragmation on any partition/s selected like magic. Quite like the option to defrag free space which was also swiftly done although unsure if it might have been better simply to clean up free space using privazer software (or similar). Also ran the offline defrag available to do defrag prior to boot up. Not sure if that was necessary as it only found one file needed defragmantation!
Nice piece of kit, will keep.

Reply   |   Comment by Sim  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+4)

Sim,

"Also ran the offline defrag available to do defrag prior to boot up. Not sure if that was necessary as it only found one file needed defragmantation! "

This is something I get into a lot with my Windows 10 VMs... When you upgrade builds [about once a week in the Fast Ring of the Insiders program], old Windows files are moved to C:\Windows.old. At the same time you've got installation files that were copied to disk, & not all of them are deleted when it's done. Once I run Disk Cleanup to get rid of that junk, the drive is a fragmented mess. It makes a significant difference to defrag that disk with that copy of Windows not running [I also delete the swapfile.sys & pagefile.sys files].

Now it makes a bigger difference with my VMs, because I can shrink the VHD [Virtual Hard Disk] where the VM's stored by eliminating the free space that comes after all the files/folders. When it needs to the VHD will just grow again. After upgrading builds one of those VHDs might be 30 GB -- afterward only 12, which hints at how badly the drive becomes fragmented.

The space on a normal hard drive partition is a fixed size, so you won't notice the fragmentation that much under the same circumstances, e.g. after upgrading Windows 10 builds. And if you're not running 10, or if you're running a copy that you installed fresh, you won't have the same issues springing from the upgrade process -- Windows system files [the one's you can't move because they're in use] are likely only replaced during updates.

Reply   |   Comment by mike  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+3)
#14

Hmmm. Very Odd
Have used freeware Auslogics Defrag for many years.
When I attempted to install this, received "Failed To Launch the Program" dialog box.
Disabled VPN, still no go.

Reply   |   Comment by JJ Juice  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-3)
#13

Not bad. I wish there were a way to enlarge the font to make it easier to see. It's all so tiny.

Reply   |   Comment by Injeun  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)

Injeun, That goes for me too. I can just read the screen but it really is a pain to hold my laptop up to my nose! ;-)

Reply   |   Comment by bendan  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-2)
#12

Did not install.

Followed the instructions in "readme.txt". Unzipped package, ran "setup.exe." It went right to the "Activated" window without running the installation.

Machine is Windows 10 Home 64-bit.

Reply   |   Comment by Rob  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-2)

Hi Rob. :-)

What antivirus/antimalware/antispyware/antikeylogger/firewall are you using?

You must probably disable them during the download/install, especially if it's one of these: Avast, Avg, BitDefender, Comodo, Kaspersky, Norton/Symantec, pados.hu TinyWall, Zemana antilogger/antimalware.

With Kaspersky, users usually need to start windows in safe mode with networking.

Reply   |   Comment by xilolee  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+1)
#11

I can't install it .... Can anyone help me?

Reply   |   Comment by eliza  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-3)

Hi eliza. :-)

Could you explain better yourself?
What happens exactly?

Reply   |   Comment by xilolee  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+1)
#10

Puran Defrag and Piriform Defraggler are 2 FREE alternatives that work flawlessly on my system. No need of this gaotd.

Reply   |   Comment by Mario  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+12)

Mario,

Auslogics also has a free version of its defragmenting program, which you can download anytime on their site. This does not settle the issue of which free software is better : Windows's own, Auslogics', Defraggler's or others.

The program on offer here is Disk Defrag Pro. That's the paid-for version. You can check the difference with Disk Defrag Free on Auslogics site.

Reply   |   Comment by Clairvaux  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+1)

Hi everybody. :-)

I must add that a portable version also exists on the same webpage of disk defrag free (and I like it).

;-)

Reply   |   Comment by xilolee  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)

Clairvaux,
Used the free one for a long time.......then last time this PRO version was available, that was a mistake.......the dumb Pro infiltrated the freebie and suddenly a NAG SCREEN every time tried to use the free one.....don't know what the PRO had that was so good - I never seen it........they both "left town"......

Reply   |   Comment by iwontell  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+1)
#9

Whilst this software is excellent and gets a thumbs up from me, I personally feel that a subscription model for a software of this kind is ridiculous.

Reply   |   Comment by Mark  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+13)

Mark, You're absolutely right. ALL defragmenters use the Windows defragmenter engine and there is nothing to invent in this regard except the user interface. That's what they do: just a revamping of the user interface. There are lots of free defragmenters available, so don't waste your time with applets like this. Search for "free defragmenters".

Reply   |   Comment by Luis  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+14)

Luis,

While it's possible that third-party programs use Windows defragmenter's engine, they also do things that Windows does not do : defragment one file, one folder, free space or the MFT ; move large, unfrequently used files (such as media or .iso files) at the end of the disk ; show you where one particular file is on the disk ; show you what files are in the most fragmented areas of the disk ; and other things.

This is irrespective of whether they are sold or given out for free. As a matter of fact, Auslogics, which offer for free here their usually paid-for product, also has a permanently free version. Check its manual : it's 19 pages long. I already does much more than the embedded Window defragmenter.

The issue of whether this is useful, good for you or your PC, or even possibly nefarious, is another question.

Reply   |   Comment by Clairvaux  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+1)

Luis, that's simply not true. Every defragmenter works differently. Most defragmenters use the Windows Defrag API. But they all use different defrag algorithms, so the resuts will vary greatly between one defragmenter to the next.

Reply   |   Comment by Roger  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)
#8

Very good defragmenter, for HDD, the SSD only defrag itself after a relatively long time (see never). Otherwise for a big defragmentation in depth, try Contig

Reply   |   Comment by David  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-9)
#7

I would like to know is it safe to use on multi-boot up system?

Reply   |   Comment by jugem  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+3)

Yes, it would have no impact on a multi-boot system.
Windows would only be able to 'see' Windows-compatible partitions, so would only defragment these.

Reply   |   Comment by Chris Locke (CS Computer Services)  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+4)

jugem, that depends if one of the system uses VSS (Volume Shadowcopy Service) and the other does not or uses an incompatible system. If you make changes in the non-VSS operating system to a partition that is supposed to be tracked using VSS in a different operating system then the VSS databases will become inconsistant and you risk trashing data/an operating system if you later try to do a system restore or restore a previous file version using VSS database that may have been altered in a different operating systems operations like defragmentation, or data appended to a file etc.

Reply   |   Comment by TK  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+4)

Chris Locke (CS Computer Services), Thank you for the reply. I got two very different answers.
I asked this question because it says, "defrag files that are inaccessible during system operation."

One user is warning me about Shadow copy, Volume Snapshot Service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Copy

Reply   |   Comment by jugem  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)

TK, Thank you for info.

Reply   |   Comment by jugem  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+1)
#6

Before I scrapped my Win XP computer, I found Auslogics Disc Defrag Pro to be far the best tool for defragmentation. I haven't performed a defragmentation, since I got a new PC with Win 10. I'm under the impression that it is not necessary to defrag "manually", and that Windows 10 does the job for you on the run. But I may be wrong? I suppose that it won't harm my "old fashioned magnetic platters" if I run Auslogics Disc Defrag to see if it will make things work (even) faster, but if anyone here has a different opinion, I would appreciate it.

Reply   |   Comment by Kellox  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+13)

Kellox,

" I'm under the impression that it is not necessary to defrag "manually", and that Windows 10 does the job for you on the run."

Windows 10 does things a little bit differently when it comes to disks than earlier Windows versions, but AFAIK those changes are not really documented. [An example would be if you tried to run a disk check from Windows 7 on a Windows 10 drive/partition -- it'll take forever & may stall, never finishing.] So with the possible exception of after a build upgrade [I mentioned in another comment], IMHO you'll probably be OK as long as automatic defrag is turned on in 10. The question that only you can answer then is if OK is good enough.

Reply   |   Comment by mike  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)

Kellox, sorry to hear you abandoned XP......when "H" freezes over I'll just go Apple........
Tried all the JOKES starting with Vista, 8, 8-1, then 10......all junk and back to my XP with 3 "clones" just in case.........with a hundred million users worldwide I reverted to my XP running 24/7 since 2005 with over 200 programs and several expensive CAD pgms without a HITCH.
Shame on MS........they screwed up........

Reply   |   Comment by iwontell  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-1)

Kellox, Thank you for your feedback. I use three(3) Windows OS, 7, Win 10 preview, and Win 10 Home. All are x32 bits. I got concern and asked this question because I saw, "defrag files that are inaccessible during system operation."

Reply   |   Comment by jugem  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)
#5

This is not the first time we see this tool here at GOTD. I use it regularly on a PC with hard drives, and it definitely works better than Windows' own defrag tool.

Reply   |   Comment by Olaf  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)
#4

No. in case of hdd, this utility is useful. due to the many constraint of default defrag of ms windows, i have been waiting this kind of chance.

Reply   |   Comment by roser  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-1)
#3

Perhaps someone could look at my account and tell me what the problem is with my email link? I have had to re-configure my system lately due to Windows 10 trashing one of my RAID drives. I have had to try different configurations and Windows asks for a PIN each time to verify I am really me. Perhaps this is why the EMAIL link FAILS every time I try it. Could this be the problem? NO link has been sent to my email address for many days now.

Reply   |   Comment by Michael Magrill  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-10)

Michael Magrill, bird
For help of this kind try www.computerhope.com
a perfectly safe site, which may well be able to help and if they do not know the answer they will try to find it. A good site anyway.

Reply   |   Comment by bird  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+12)

Michael Magrill,
DO yourself a favor regardless of the fools at MS........go back to XP........a hundred million users worldwide can't all be stupid.......

Reply   |   Comment by iwontell  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)
#2

What's the use of it? Nowadays SSDs are common in PCs and laptops nad it is not wise to use defragmentation. And if old HDDs are used you still have a better option with build-in defragment tool in Windows (10).
This one's doesn't add much value to the core!

Reply   |   Comment by Keesie  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-34)

Keesie, SSD use is increasing, but there are still plenty of people using hard drives. I rarely encounter a PC with a SSD. I own seven PCs, and only have a SSD in one of them.

Microsoft's defrag tool works very well, but in some cases using third party defrag software such as Auslogics will lead to better disk performance.

Reply   |   Comment by Roger  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+37)

Kessie, SSDs are not that common, all my laptops and PCs have HDDs and I don't know anyone who has them. They are increasing in use but not to the point you say. And as for Win 10 I avoid it like the plague. I will never give up Win 7 for 10.

Reply   |   Comment by Don  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+9)

Keesie, I have several computers, all of which have at least one SSD, because there is no doubt that they are much faster than an HDD when it comes to booting up your computer. However, I only use the SSD for my Windows installation and it's operation; for most other uses the HDD is good enough. All my games are stored on HDD's and I never have any problems running them, even the latest memory eating games.

Also SSD are still limited in size compared to an HDD, plus they are vastly more expensive once you get past the 256GB SSD's. A 1TB SSD can cost almost £300 compared to £50 for an 1TB HDD, that's almost six times as expensive. A lot more expensive than HDD's .

I've been using Auslogics defrag' program for a few years now and have found it efficient and more importantly much better than the default Windows program, and, as it is being offered for free, why are we arguing over it as it's a done deal in my books. Definitely well worth getting. :)

Reply   |   Comment by Hard Water  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+14)

Keesie, this is a different mario than the other Mario in other comments. Anyway, I have a good Notebook, an HP Omen i7, with all the bells and whistles. It has a 128Gb SSD and a 1 Tb HDD. So, yes, I use defraggers, although not that often! Still, today's computers offer quite small SSD's, because they are too expensive.
mario

Reply   |   Comment by Mario Trzes  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)

Don,
RIGHT ON - i did the exercise of 7, 8, 8-1 and 10............THANK GOODNESS I kept 3 Cloned drive.......XP FOREVER - 24/7 since 2005.......MS just can't fix being STUPID.......

Reply   |   Comment by iwontell  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-1)

I forgot that abortion VISTA......that was gone the same week it "hit"

Reply   |   Comment by iwontell  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-1)
#1

One of the best performance upgrades you can get for your PC/laptop is an SSD. These are solid state drives, which are essentially sticks of memory instead of a moving magnetic platter. These are nearly 20x faster than a normal hard drive, so booting up, loading applications and saving documents is a lot faster. Also, as accessing a file is so quick, defragmentation is no longer a problem.
On conventional drives, a program/document could get stored in several locations across the drive, and the drive read head has to read each one sequentially, and wait for the drive to spin round so the sector can be read. This could involve a lot of movement, which defragging tries to prevent. However, the major downside with defragging is that it involves a tremendous amount of disk access. If a drive has a finite life, you are severly reducing that life by the process of running a defrag for several hours.
SSD prices are falling, and for just 49 GBP for a 120 GB SSD, they are a cracking investment.

There are many free alternatives to this Giveaway, but I would stress that if your drive is 'slow' that you feel you could benefit from a defrag, then I would instead suggest you should look at an SSD.

Reply   |   Comment by Chris Locke (CS Computer Services)  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-5)

Chris Locke (CS Computer Services), You got shares in an SSD maker? :-)

Reply   |   Comment by Andrew Pestell  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-8)

No, but use computers all day. That and experience.

Reply   |   Comment by Chris Locke (CS Computer Services)  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+12)

Chris Locke (CS Computer Services), retail SSD's are a data risk, they spare zero bits for ECC data correction or checking so you only find out your data has become corrupted when it IS visibly corrupted or when a program crashes due to the program becomming corrupted, or the output data suddenly makes no sense, remember GIGO, you have to pay through the nose for high end enterprise datastore SSD's to get comparable error correction/detection that you get with conventional hard drives.

Reply   |   Comment by TK  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+4)

Chris Locke (CS Computer Services), Operating on 1Tb hard drive Chris. Sole use of Win 7 operating system only on drive C
partition (48Gb) plus drivers and software to keep C as clean and small as possible. All other stuff is on partitions D E and F.
Would fitting SSD and moving the operating system there be the best way to improve speed? After all the SSD still has to look to the HDD to find the other stuff (movies photos docs etc).
I also use Win 10 sometimes as backups enable me to switch from Win 7 to Win 10 and vice versa in 10 mins or so.

Reply   |   Comment by Sim  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+3)

Andrew Pestell, He must be a geek because only a geek would miss your joke.

Reply   |   Comment by Injeun  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-4)

Sim, An SSD for the OD drive would speed up general operation. You mention 'movies' - watching or editing? If editing, then you can save to the C drive, then move these to the normal HDD when needed. For general documents and photos, then the normal HDD is fine, as these files are generally small anyway.
Hope this helps.

Reply   |   Comment by Chris Locke (CS Computer Services)  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)

TK, The capacity of SSDs is only in the moderate GB anyway - 120 GB, 240 GB. This makes them great for the operating system. There is no worry of data risk here - Aomei Backupper has been given away here many times, so most people have a backup of their operating system and data.
Don't forget the bananas. Everyone needs 5 fruit or vegetables a day.

Reply   |   Comment by Chris Locke (CS Computer Services)  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-1)

Chris Locke (CS Computer Services), erm even if you only use a SSD for the system partition and the program files heirachy and move the user files folders to magnetic storage there is still plenty of mission critical DATA on the system drives, all the appdata/ProgramData heirachy, all the registry hives all the winsxs database all the system volume information VSS databases, as well as a plethora of other databases that consumer SSD leave vulnerable with no error correction/detection built into the design.

Reply   |   Comment by TK  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+5)

You want fun facts about SSDs ? Here are some, based on actual research and testing, which go against the grain :

- SSDs are very reliable, as far as their working life is concerned. In fact, they are incredibly reliable. Their lifetime is much higher than the figures advertised by their manufacturers, it vastly exceeds the needs of a home user, and it is markedly higher than moving drives' lifetime.

- SSDs are much more prone than moving drives to unrecoverable software errors, therefore backups are paramount.

- Enterprise-grade SSDs are not less error-prone than consumer-grade SSDs.

Based on lab testing of 6 SSD drives during one year and a half until they died :

https://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead

And on real-world testing of 10 disk models during 6 years in Google server farms :

https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/fast16/fast16-papers-schroeder.pdf

Reply   |   Comment by Clairvaux  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+3)

In case it helps at all, looking at the comments & ratings...

SSDs are more expensive, can fail without warning, and all the various brands & models are not created equal -- some are much faster &/or reliable than others. They're for the most part impervious to heat, which conventional hard dries are not, and DOAs &/or failures soon after purchase are more rare [with the exception of a few brands] than with conventional hard drives. Because they have no moving parts they're silent, and faster than conventional hard drives. For very long term storage of unchanging data in the enterprise environment, gradual loss of data is something monitored for. Often overlooked are UASP capable USB 3.0 drives &/or housings using SSDs -- if you can get it working performance can be very surprising.

wikipedia[.]org/wiki/USB_Attached_SCSI

The marketplace for conventional hard drives is a mess. Performance & reliability vary by model, & on the whole, the percentage of DOAs & early failures can be pretty high. There are generally 3 grades, cheapest, mainstream, & heavier duty, though determining what class you're buying isn't always easy. Warranties are often a gotcha -- they can be based on the production date, expiring while sitting on the store shelf. Warranty replacements are often remans with questionable lifespans. And they generate heat, which usually has to be taken care of. That said, if you buy a good brand/model you can usually get a decent enough value for the expected lifetime of the drive [which is usually it's warranty period].

While it's common to advertise that a conventional hard drive is compliant with the latest SATA standard, it's often done in a misleading way to imply that you'll actually get that speed with a conventional hard drive -- many SSDs won't even do that. For large video &/or photo files it's faster bouncing from one drive to another, i.e. one for input & one for output, so 2 smaller drives can be better than one bigger drive. Many desktop systems & external drive housings will let you use RAID to speed things up, but it's more expensive because it takes more drives.

If you have a hard drive access light, or use one of the monitoring apps instead, you can get an idea of how often your system is accessing the disk while you're doing whatever you do. The more you're accessing the hard drive(s), the more you'll benefit from a faster drive(s).

Reply   |   Comment by mike  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)

TK, I disagree with you. Even consumer SSDs are very safe to use. I been using a cheap Chinese brand SSD in my main laptop that I use for 100 hours a week, for the last two years, In that time, it's had 31 terrabytes of data written to it.

Not only have I never had any problems with it, but according to it's own Remaining Life Percentage as reported by Hard Disk Sentinel, is at 92%. Because of that, in theory at least, the SSD could last for around 20 years of fairly heavy use.

Reply   |   Comment by Roger  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)

Clairvaux, Not sure I follow. SSDs are far more reliable than normal HDDs, then you say they're far more prone to software errors than normal HDDs. So are they good or are they going to blow my house up? ;)
With love and lemons.

Reply   |   Comment by Chris Locke (CS Computer Services)  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-1)

Chris Locke (CS Computer Services),

Assuming you're not pulling my leg and playing fool, I made it clear in my comment that they are two types of reliability involved :

1. Working life. Difference between working and being kaput, good to be thrown to the bin. In this respect, SSDs are better than hard drives. We know, because this has been measured a) in extreme, real-life conditions, b) on many, many disks (although we don't know the specific number), so the statistical reliability of the test is very high. This is straight from the disks Google use, so you can imagine what that means.

2. Software reliability. It's not enough that the disk spins, or electronically answers commands from the operating system. It's also necessary that it does not thrash files. In that respect, SSDs are markedly worse than hard drives. We also know that from the Google test.

You can look up the details in the original sources. That's why I supplied them. The one pertaining to actual use of disks by Google is a scientific paper, not just a media article.

Reply   |   Comment by Clairvaux  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)

Roger, have you hash checked every single SSD file transaction and verified them? Because with consumer grade SSD you have zero assurances that the data you wrote to the drive is the same as the data you read afterwards! With expensive enterprise SSD's it is possible that they will hash check the read data and have stored sufficient ECC bits to restore a few failed bits like happens with magnetic and optical media and server grade ECC DRAM.

With consumer grade SSD you will not be told that anything has failed because they don't even CRC check sector data!

Reply   |   Comment by TK  –  4 months ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-1)
Add a comment
Facebook comments

iPhone app giveaways »

Remote Drive Pro for Mac Giveaway
Turn your iPhone or iPad into the wireless flash drive for your Mac.
$2.99 ➞ free today
PDF Portable Scanner Pro Giveaway
PDF Portable Scanner - The little app that scans everything* Scan...
$1.99 ➞ free today
Audio Notebook Giveaway
All-Day Audio Recorder, 2x Playback, and Wide-Screen Text Editor.
$4.99 ➞ free today
Active Voice Giveaway
Active Voice is a power of your voice in the palm of your hands!
$9.99 ➞ free today
iWord ! Giveaway
Want to put some words on your photo?
$1.99 ➞ free today

Android app giveaways »

Millimeter Pro - ruler and protractor on screen Giveaway
Millimeter is a screen ruler app.
$1.49 ➞ free today
Lucky's Missing Letter Giveaway
★ Welcome to Lucky's Missing Letter game!
$0.99 ➞ free today
Lucky's Memory Game Giveaway
★ Welcome to Lucky's Memory Game!
$0.99 ➞ free today
A.I Diagnose Skin Giveaway
***PLEASE READ ALL THE FULL DESCRIPTION BEFORE DOWNLOADING***First...
$0.99 ➞ free today
Ampare Check List Free Giveaway
Ampare Check List is a software that was very easy to use that remind...
$0.99 ➞ free today