Tuesday, October 30, 2007

The Great Defrag Shootout XXX: Puran Defrag 3.0

The first version of Puran Defrag was freeware since it was still under development, and version 3.0 now costs $24.95, $5 cheaper than Diskeeper 2008 Home. Is it worth it? I say yes, and it's better than DK 2008.
I have been in contact with the developers at Puran Software, and they asked me to test a beta version of 3.0 to ensure that it could correctly defrag large compressed and fragmented files. The test file was 5GB in size and had over 100 000 fragments. The defrag worked flawlessly.
In order to test the release version, I set it to work on my current messy drive, and it did wonders, moving the directories to the start of the drive, then leaving some free space for temporary files, and then placing the other files after that.
Puran Defrag 3 does not have a facility to view the file layout on your drive, much like Windows Vista. The interface is clear but minimal, and the help file is useful and clear. The image above is made using the $99 version of DK2008, and the directories are clearly visible in blue. Compare that to the "before" image published here, which was the best that DK2008 could give me.
Notice how the light blue directories are scattered all over the drive. Notice too how the large fragmented file has now been defragmented.
Puran Defrag 3.0 does not have a boot-time defrag option, but it gets pretty close with an option to reboot, run chkdsk and then defrag, and then either reboot again or shut down. Its automatic background defrag is not intrusive, and seems to work fine. For a Windows Vista machine this program is a vast improvement over the built-in defragger, and if you want an effective "set it up and leave it alone" option, Puran Defrag is a hot contender.
I gave the first version a thumbs down because it didn't defrag properly. This version has come a long way: it works well, the support is good, and it doesn't get in the way. A definite thumbs up.
Update 10 December 2007: Version 4.0 is now available, and includes a new boot time defrag that works really well, as well as some smaller changes. I'll publish benchmarks once they are ready. This product is well thought out and well engineered.


The Great Defrag Shootout: Part I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV | XVI | XVII | XVIII | XIX | XX | XXI | XXII | XXIII | XXIV | XXV | XXVI | XXVII | XXVIII | XXIX | XXX | winner | all | why

7 comments:

MerleOne said...

Hi,

They just upgraded to V4.0, which apparently add real Boottime defrag (MFT, Pagefile, etc.). Have not tested it yet... So far I like it a lot.

Donn Edwards said...

I like it too. They sent me a beta copy last week to try out. The boot time defrag is the best one I've seen because it does the entire disk, not just system files.

I can thoroughly recommend it. I'm busy doing a benchmark on the new version now that it has been released for public purchase.

phineas said...

I'm trying it as I type. Funny how much I rely on visuals, and this provides none. I do hope they will add a visual/graphic component.

MerleOne said...

Hi,

They just upgraded to V4.5, which displays now the disk map before and after the defrag process (a suggestion I made to them !).

I had a few problems with this new map display on some occasions, but this can be turned off if necessary.

I still find PD4.5 to be quicker than any other solution and the improvement after defrag is real.

Anonymous said...

17 July 2008 Version 5.0 Major update with complete GUI and some algorithm change and many additional features

Michael said...

I wonder about the different strategies of Puran and PerfectDisk (PD). If file placement matters, these programs should provide much different performance. Puran moves recently accessed files to the beginning of the drive, away from free space. PD takes the opposite approach and moves recently modified files to the end of the file block, near free space. PD's approach makes more sense, because recently modified files are the most likely to expand and because using recently modified files is most likely to be associated with creating new files. So far, I find that PD provides substantially greater improvements in speed.

Donn Edwards said...

I *think* that PnD will provide faster speeds, particularly on drives that are more than 50% full, but I have yet to do proper tests on either PnD or PfD.

My goal for 2009 is to benchmark as many defrag products as possible. But it's really slow going running all those tests.


Warning: The NSA and 4 million other sick weirdos with "security clearance" have intercepted this page and know that you are reading it.