Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > IObit SmartDefrag Beta 4.03

Reply
Thread Tools

IObit SmartDefrag Beta 4.03

 
 
G. Morgan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-24-2008
IObit SmartDefrag Beta 4.03 is listed as the #1 download at
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=5318 . Has anyone
experience with this defragger (good/bad)? Would you recommend it?

Thanks.


--

-G
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
VanguardLH
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-24-2008
"G. Morgan" wrote in message
news:d24b6b7da3d2f39f425394326f753bc0np@goofysplac e.com...
> IObit SmartDefrag Beta 4.03 is listed as the #1 download at
> http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=5318 . Has anyone
> experience with this defragger (good/bad)? Would you recommend it?



Be aware that constant defragging of your hard drive can render
useless any incremental backups of your hard drive which are image
backups. By moving the sectors around, you end up forcing your backup
software which is performing an image backup (not a file backup) to
perform a full backup. For example, if you use Acronis True Image
Home to save incremental *image* backups of your hard drive(s), and
after performing a defrag, they warn that the effect would force a
full image backup. That's why they don't recommend doing a defrag
until just before your scheduled full image backup. Logical file
backups would not be affected since it is unimportant and not recorded
as to which sectors were occupied by that file.

So far, the only one that I see extolling this software is the author.
There are lots of download sites that have this software but their
"review" is nothing more than them repeating what the software author
told them to say. Considering who is the registrant for the iobit.com
domain, I wouldn't bother with this software until many months have
elapsed. After all, there isn't much need for it since you can
scheduled periodic defrags using Task Scheduler.

Any process that is running, especially one that consumes any data bus
bandwidth, will have an impact on the responsiveness of your host even
if it runs at low priority (and even if it has a bandwidth threshold
setting). Why wouldn't you schedule the defrag for when YOU are not
using the host? You can already do that. I see nothing but claimed
speed for this product. It doesn't reposition the MFT, defrag the
pagefile, or make any other claims. If you are using NTFS (there are
a few good reasons why you should still use FAT) then defragging once
a month is probably far more than sufficient for an end user's host.
Since you can perform the defrag when you are not using the host, it
is unimportant as to what priority at which it runs or how it impacts
the responsiveness of your host.

You really have a compelling or critical need to be an involuntary
tester of beta software? Yeah, so it's free. That's an excuse for
risking the stability and security of your OS setup and data files so
you can help someone iron the wrinkles out of their software (who can
then later decide to go commercial with it without ever recompensing
you for your labors)? If you believe someone is pointing a gun at
your head to beta test this software, do it within a virtual machine,
or multiboot into a *test* install of Windows (and for which you have
an image to do a full restore back to a baseline state).

Oh, and do enjoy the Google-based advertisements in the beta product.
They claim it is free. No, it isn't. The cost to you is having to
run adware on your host. They are relying on enough boobs using their
software to generate click-through revenue because those boobs went
and bought something through the Google ads. It isn't freeware. It
is adware (go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adware or
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3aadware).


For an example of the so-called atruism of the software author's web
site (iobit.com), take a look at
http://www.iobit.com/iobitsmartdefrag.html#. Why do you think there
is that paragraph on that page? It is to draw users that perform web
searches to their site. Hmm, apparently they also want users looking
for "free porn movies|videos|clips", "Disneychannel.com", "Microsoft",
"AVG", and "Limeware" to find their product's web site. Oh yeah, like
that's a software author that I would trust ... not!

You might also want to visit their forum
(http://forums.iobit.com/forumdisplay.php?f=9) to note how others feel
about their product (thankfully IE7Pro and my added URL blocks
eliminates their intervening and interferring advertisements in their
forum).

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
G. Morgan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2008
VanguardLH wrote:

>"G. Morgan" wrote in message
>news:d24b6b7da3d2f39f425394326f753bc0np@goofyspla ce.com...
>> IObit SmartDefrag Beta 4.03 is listed as the #1 download at
>> http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=5318 . Has anyone
>> experience with this defragger (good/bad)? Would you recommend it?

>
>
>Be aware that constant defragging of your hard drive can render
>useless any incremental backups of your hard drive which are image
>backups. By moving the sectors around, you end up forcing your backup
>software which is performing an image backup (not a file backup) to
>perform a full backup. For example, if you use Acronis True Image
>Home to save incremental *image* backups of your hard drive(s), and
>after performing a defrag, they warn that the effect would force a
>full image backup. That's why they don't recommend doing a defrag
>until just before your scheduled full image backup. Logical file
>backups would not be affected since it is unimportant and not recorded
>as to which sectors were occupied by that file.


That's good information. I'm first to admit I don't do backups as
often as I should, and I have no set scheme to do so. I'm due for a
Ghost snapshot right now.

>So far, the only one that I see extolling this software is the author.
>There are lots of download sites that have this software but their
>"review" is nothing more than them repeating what the software author
>told them to say. Considering who is the registrant for the iobit.com
>domain, I wouldn't bother with this software until many months have
>elapsed. After all, there isn't much need for it since you can
>scheduled periodic defrags using Task Scheduler.


OMG.. I just did a whois. I think this product may be contaminated
with lead. You're right - no reviews from reputable sources.


>
>Any process that is running, especially one that consumes any data bus
>bandwidth, will have an impact on the responsiveness of your host even
>if it runs at low priority (and even if it has a bandwidth threshold
>setting). Why wouldn't you schedule the defrag for when YOU are not
>using the host? You can already do that. I see nothing but claimed
>speed for this product. It doesn't reposition the MFT, defrag the
>pagefile, or make any other claims. If you are using NTFS (there are
>a few good reasons why you should still use FAT) then defragging once
>a month is probably far more than sufficient for an end user's host.
>Since you can perform the defrag when you are not using the host, it
>is unimportant as to what priority at which it runs or how it impacts
>the responsiveness of your host.


More good information - thanks.


>
>You really have a compelling or critical need to be an involuntary
>tester of beta software? Yeah, so it's free. That's an excuse for
>risking the stability and security of your OS setup and data files so
>you can help someone iron the wrinkles out of their software (who can
>then later decide to go commercial with it without ever recompensing
>you for your labors)? If you believe someone is pointing a gun at
>your head to beta test this software, do it within a virtual machine,
>or multiboot into a *test* install of Windows (and for which you have
>an image to do a full restore back to a baseline state).


I do not have any need to test someone's software for free, especially
*this* type of software. That is why I asked before I even installed
it, it has the potential to do too much damage.

>Oh, and do enjoy the Google-based advertisements in the beta product.
>They claim it is free. No, it isn't. The cost to you is having to
>run adware on your host. They are relying on enough boobs using their
>software to generate click-through revenue because those boobs went
>and bought something through the Google ads. It isn't freeware. It
>is adware (go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adware or
>http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3aadware).


I didn't even notice that.

>
>
>For an example of the so-called atruism of the software author's web
>site (iobit.com), take a look at
>http://www.iobit.com/iobitsmartdefrag.html#. Why do you think there
>is that paragraph on that page? It is to draw users that perform web
>searches to their site. Hmm, apparently they also want users looking
>for "free porn movies|videos|clips", "Disneychannel.com", "Microsoft",
>"AVG", and "Limeware" to find their product's web site. Oh yeah, like
>that's a software author that I would trust ... not!


Heh!

>You might also want to visit their forum
>(http://forums.iobit.com/forumdisplay.php?f=9) to note how others feel
>about their product (thankfully IE7Pro and my added URL blocks
>eliminates their intervening and interferring advertisements in their
>forum).


Looked around there for about five minutes and didn't like what I
read.

Thanks VanguardLH, that was a very thorough and informative reply. I
certainly will NOT be installing this product. I appreciate your
efforts.

--

-G
 
Reply With Quote
 
chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2008
G. Morgan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:d24b6b7da3d2f39f425394326f753bc0np@goofysplac e.com:

> IObit SmartDefrag Beta 4.03 is listed as the #1 download at
> http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=5318 . Has anyone
> experience with this defragger (good/bad)? Would you recommend it?
>
> Thanks.
>
>


The fact of the matter is that there is very little (if any at all) need
to defragment your hard drive any more. Certainly if you use ntfs and
even with fat32 the need is more than usurped by the need to not run
anything in the background that slows your computer down. It has always
been a truth that current software requires all the processing power of
a current computer (esp. with games). Besides you are having your
computer run for (possibly) hours and using (wasting) electricity when
it could be used for the purpose you bought it. If you *really* want to
defragment your hard drive, the one with windows works well enough and
symantec is the company that originally wrote it, so that would be where
to go to get a "better" one. The word better is in quotes because the
only real improvement that could be made is where the tables for where
the files are stored (the FAT in fat32) is. Optimally it would be at the
begining of the drive where the directory is stored, but this only works
if no files are added or deleted *ever* until it's defragmented again.
Something that is not going to make for a very tenable situation.

With NTFS (the above applies only to FAT32) the need is simply not
there due to the fact that the organization is such that defragmenting
is simply not necessary by design.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
advance system care & Iobit security 360 bardeban Computer Support 0 10-12-2009 01:00 AM
Request.Browser.MajorVersion.ToString() returns null on ASP.NET 2.0 Beta 1 and Beta 2 ocn0248@hotmail.com ASP .Net 1 05-02-2005 11:46 PM
install Beta 2 after Beta 1? Mark Oliver ASP .Net 3 01-25-2005 01:39 PM
[ANN] JNIWrapper 2.5 Beta for Windows and JExplorer Beta 3 Eugene Toporov Java 0 07-15-2004 01:15 PM
Beta 70-298 Beta Exam Romila MCSE 1 09-07-2003 11:38 PM



Advertisments