Campaigner

You use the built in defrag tool?

There is. Its called Glary Utilities instead.

Of course, I have that too.  And CCleaner.  Just a glutton.

Doesn't the built in defrag program take to long and use too many resources?

Yes and has no optimizer.

I Use tune up (2011suite )set and forget

All you guys running the defrag programs in the background I have to ask this. Isn't it better to defrag once in awhile weather than have constant defragging? Wouldn't constant background defragging cause premature wear on the drive?

I reg clean regularly.  I strongly disagree with not doing that!  Not from a performance standpoint (although it does do wonders for that), but due to a quirk of MS with the registry.  It seems that if the registry gets too big, it will not load - which means windows will not load!  I found that out on a client's machine 8 years ago.  Microsoft knows about this "quirk"but I have yet to see any KB on it.

As for deleting temporary files, I agree again.  However doing so leaves gaps in the hard disk that defragging nicely optimizes which cuts down on file load times, System paging times, and file seek times (seeking all the pieces parts).

Until Bill Gates can prove to me that defragging is harmful, I will continue to do it.

When I'm on windows (at work mostly) I tend to use MyDefrag: http://www.mydefrag.com/; it uses the internal Windows API, but sorts items into zones, and seems to have a positive effect (especially if I'm using a PC for the first time and the previous user didn't defrag)

Once in a while I use Pagedefrag: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426; it cleans out the pagefile during startup - it tends to be something I use *only* when I first inherit a PC and very occasionally afterwards (In my experience Pagefile crud just doesn't build up that fast).

Linux ext3/4 partitions just don't seem to have defrag issues, I understand it has to do with smarter placement of files on disk - files that need to expand are given extra room, et al, but that seems to obvious to be the whole answer.

Jonnan

What about machines that are still in use but to old and do not have the resources to handle background full time defragging?

Yes constant defragging will in fact cause premature wear of the HD.  That is fact.  Unecessary read/writes = unecessary wear.  That said, it is not a bad idea to force a "defrag" once in a while after software has been uninstalled or files moved deleted so that the filesystem is in a less fragmented state before installing something new.

However, BY FAR the better thing (better than constant defragging) to do with a windows based system is to ensure AT LEAST 20% free space on a drive at all times.  This will ensure less wear and tear on the drive when actually doing a defrag and will also allow for a more continguous file structure to begin with.  I always maintain at least 40% free space on my HD's (if I need more space I buy bigger drives) and this helps to keep my drives fast and clean (defrag is most effective with drives not much more than 50% full).  Drives that are over 60% full are not ever really defragged anyway.  Lots of read/writes only to put one or two sectors of data next to each other?  How's that for wear and tear?  

the Monk

EDIT:  Oh and since like I said the actual result of running a defrag (ie. how continguous or not your filesystem is AFTER a defrag) is directly in correlation to how much free space the drive has to work with I find the windows defrag more than adequate at keeping my drives as organinzed as can be.

PerfectDisk all the way. Tried Defraggler and some others in the past but none come any where near PD