LordOfLA

I've never known perfect disk to corrupt disks. I've known O&O Defrag to do so however. I never got a reply from them about it either.

---

rotjong

I'm still using PerfectDisk and have been for ages. I purchased it with upgrade protection for roughly 8 USD a year. I'm not sure the last time I paid for an update and even if I do I believe it's at a far reduced cost. It's well worth it in my book.

I've never had any issues with XP Gold, XP SP1 or XP SP2 using PerfectDisk regardless of version up to PerfectDisk 8. No corruptions or anything.

I haven't used PerfectDisk on Vista or XP SP3 yet. I would expect that PerfectDisk 9 will likely work with Vista better. I don't know that for a fact but it would seem logical.

dreamliner77

I use perfect disk and the only problem I have is that the boot time defrag hangs. It appears to conflict with the Drive Image 7 / Ghost pqi service.

---

ghayes

PerfectDisk uses Microsoft's defrag APIs (part of Windows) which ensures that all defrag activity is performed in a Microsoft safe and supported manner. No defragment actually "moves" files around. They all request via the FSCTL MoveFile() API to have a file "moved" and it is the file system that actually "moves" the file - returning control back to the defragmenter when complete. During the file "move" process, the file system performs read verification on source clusters, free space verification on target clusters and write verification on target clusters and if any of these steps fails then the file system will reject the file "move". In addition, if the read or write verification fails then CHKDSK is automatically configured to run on next reboot and an entry is written to the System event log. I would look in the System event log to see if you see any entries around this time from disk or ntfs indicating issues with the drive.

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP 2003-2007
Windows File Systems
Disclaimer: I work for Raxco Software, the maker of PerfectDisk - a commercial defrag utility, as a systems engineer in the support department.

Tarun

I used to like PerfectDisk, but now I'm liking Diskeeper more and more. PerfectDisk did do a nice job and I would notice some speed improvements in certain aspects. Aspects like programs loading a slight bit faster which in turn made some large games (World of Warcraft for example) to load objects slightly faster.

I made the switch to Diskeeper for several reasons. One being that Diskeeper is also entirely user-mode - no kernel mode drivers (less chance for something to go wrong). Another big reason is because Diskeeper it uses the Win32 native API for all defrag calls (since they helped Microsoft write it). It has a lot of great features and I find that I don't have to defrag anywhere near as often as I did when I used PerfectDisk.

---

American Zombie

I assume you did not read the post right before yours.

Bman

I couldn't find any log relating to my problem. I might not have understood correctly though. I will wait till the next time I do a defrag and then see if it happens again, if it does I will search for logs, or figure something else out.

---

Tarun

PerfectDisk uses the API, but they are not the ones that helped Microsoft develop the API used.

You were saying about reading?

---

perris

I'm pretty sure they didn't help write or design the actual nt api's, I think they helped with the user api's so microsoft wouldn't have to get involved in supporting the product but I am not exactly sure which wags first, the tail or the dog

GetVolumeBitmap, GetRetrievalPointers, MoveFile, GetVolumeData, ReadMFTRecord are sort of semi documented...don't know the entire story here

there were/are some "secret" api's which are always running NT, using these makes fewer calls and is almost always faster.

I'm pretty sure they didn't help write those but to be fair am not exactly sure...could you link me to a semantic article making the claims?

if Greg comes back I hope he tells us the real history, and does perfect disk use the user api's or the "secret" api's...the problem with using "secret" api's is the fact that microsoft could and would deliberately change those api's because they are supposed to be secret

on the other hand, if microsoft endorsed a product, even if it used those 'secret' api's then they obviously wouldn't change them...or would they, just to corner the market and produce a more efficient product?

would like to see some first hand information on this diskeeper legacy stuff with fragmentation

---