Talk:Comparison of defragmentation software

Untitled
And what about the native Windows one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.56.248.115 (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

IObit's Smart Defrag
What about this? http://www.iobit.com/iobitsmartdefrag.html? Wikipedian192 (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I just added it. Thanks for the tip! – voidxor (talk &#124; contrib) 05:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Max drive size
A different point. Not all of these will work with drives of 2TB and larger. Perhaps table should include the max size which works with the simplest version of the software (Diskeeper has higher price for "professional version" which can handle the larger drives). MackT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt81905427 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

More characteristics
I'd like to see more characteristics for comparison, just like Comparison_of_revision_control_software and Comparison_of_text_editors have lots and lots of tables with everything I need to know.

Things I'm interested in about defrag software are: 217.122.174.9 (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ability to inspect clusters (see which file is in it)
 * See (graphically) in which clusters a file of choice is stored
 * Manually moving a file of choice to another location
 * Sort files by name, dates (create/modify/access), size, etc.
 * High/Low priority file handling (either manually specified, by access date, or both)
 * File exclusion
 * Defragmenting empty space
 * Defragmenting a single file of choice
 * Ability to defragment files longer than 259 characters

Proposed merge with List of defragmentation software
Content is the same and can be explained better in a comparison page FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * actually, content is NOT the same, in that some editing of what's fee (now/later) and what's free (now _AND_ later) is needed. Pi314m (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. IMHO, the correct thing to do is to delete the Comparison of defragmentation software article, as it is full of original research and insignificant trivia. —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This would not be recommended for several reasons. The articles themselves provide the references needed which prevents it from being original research. A good essay which provides a good point is Insignificant. Comparisons are very common and have replaced lists in several areas as well. The comparison in its current state is not so good, but it can be improved. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. First, a sidenote: The "Comment:" prefix is only required when commenting on the original proposal. When you reply to me, you should instead indent your message. That said, you'd be wise to actually check the article before claiming "The articles themselves provide the references needed". —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. My previous comment 'The articles themselves provide the references needed' could have been better worded as it was in reference to the articles which are linked from the comparison and list. (e.g. Diskeeper, Contig... etc..) A large scale cleanup would likely be needed as well in regards to the articles which are listed on the comparison and list. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)