![]() ![]() It impacts on the total write ops the drive can reasonably be expected to sustain. Well, yes, just as bad as it is for HDDs. I always shied away from defraging ssd I always thought it was bad for them. Oh and it's also perfect for SSDs etc., which of course fragment just like any other storage medium. The current included defragger does seem to do the job, but my confidence in it is low so I'm very much inclined to take up the offer of the spare seat.Īpparently has no neg impact on speeds and only pos one. ![]() At least until XP (no idea if also later) MS used to license and include a cut-down, very basic version of Diskeeper with the OS. Oh and it's also perfect for SSDs etc., which of course fragment just like any other storage medium.Īs for MS implementing stuff previously provided by 3rd party s/w, yep, they certainly try. Apparently has no neg impact on speeds and only pos one. After that I lost track, but the current version has something new up its sleeve - it doesn't actually defrag after the event, it prevents fragmentation by forcing files to be written contiguously. Oh, Diskeeper Pro up to the XP versions was absolutely brilliant. The Windows defragger does a good enough job in the background (this is the issue with Microsoft implementing certain functionalities that were previously offered by 3rd party utilities into the OS - they're generally not very good, but because they are 'good enough' to most people, they end up killing the 3rd party utility anyway). These days, however, I only have a single HDD (all the rest are SSD/NVMe drives) and that one is only used for backup purposes. I used Diskeeper many years ago and I really liked it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |