UltimateDefrag - is this the best defragger ever?

OUCH! So, can we expect any positive developments at all in the boot-time module for the UD2009 now in development??

For me (perhaps for others) the robustness on top of controllability of boot-time defrag can serve to differentiate UD further from the competition.

 

Thanks for the quick (and frank) response, Isso! Refreshing, to say the least.

One, and only one, suggestion from me:

"Management" should offer version 2009 of UltimateDefrag FREE to those of us who paid for UD2008 and are experiencing issues with it.

 

crofttk,

We are working with third party developer to fix those issues. I can't promise anything on that matter, sorry.

prius04,

Sorry, this is not in my competence too. All I can is pass your suggestion to the management.

 

Isso,

Please also make them aware that UD crashes when trying to configure it for partitions N:\ and higher.

I emailed you guys multiple times about 6 months ago, and about 2 months ago, and about 3 weeks ago, and I'm still waiting for my first reply.

Why don't you guys just polish your bugs instead of creating something euhm new.

Remember, putting marketing first, and development last will only lure some unknowing customers in, but the rumours will spread fast and furious, and you can put your 'high income' plans in the trashbin.

 

ISSO

Easter here, hello and welcome.

I been a long time devoted user of Ultimate DeFrag and compared to the rest (freewares not withstanding because i don't know whether or not that they could dissect a platter in the same manner as the popular varieties as some like to claim), UD is "PROVEN!" to me a STRONG! performer and with it i have even rescued near death Hard Drives either from the owner's pure neglect or something software related that gummed them up.

I tested your Theory turned Technology with different many UD SubOptions and am thoroughly convinced beyond any doubt of the performance enhancement and probably longer life this app offers. I don't want to sound like a commercial here, and i know it does, but the results i've experienced speak for themselves.

QUESTION HOWEVER

On Boot-Time Defrag, is it your recommendation to move your $MFT on XP 32bit to the end rim of the platter or gradually over time work it to that end.
I discover, and for good reason, a noticable shift when adjusting the MFT slider to the left, but i'm a malware researcher, not a Hard Drive expert, and especially where concerns such a feature packed series of options as UD offers in superior file placement and COMPLETE consolidation of all blocks of data (into empty too) for a dazzling display of hair-trigger response after making the necessary adjustments, that is if you do it right.

Also is it expected after a successful Boot Time Defrag and Adjustment to then set the pagefile into the EXCLUDE column indefinitely after that so that it remains locked in place so to speak after moving it and the metafiles? This is all new to me.

I hope you can offer some advice to my question with a few details because before i was content to just do a RECENCY or simple DEFRAGMENT but am only now finding some absolute POWER and EFFICIENCY when using this product correctly.

Thanks

 

DOSawaits,

The bug with partition letters N: and up has been fixed long time ago, but we haven't yet finished the other features we want to have in UD 2009.
I'll talk to management and probably we'll release an incremental update of UD 2008 with only the major bugs fixed.

I agree to your point on polishing bugs and general marketing. As a developer I can just promise that I'll do my best to have the program bug free.

 

Hi EASTER,

Thank you!

Frankly I'm not an expert in boot time defrag module, as this is the only component that wasn't built by me. But I'll try to answer your questions:

1. It's recommended to place MFT to the position equal to 1/3 of partition size, and to follow it by other system files. This setting apply if you click Reset Defaults on the boot time screen.
2. There is no need to put the pagefile or other system files into the exclude section as they only can be moved on boot time. So once you complete boot time defrag you can forget about MFT, pagefile and other system files.
3. It's difficult for me to give you a general advice to find the best defragmentation technique as it heavily depends on your system configuration, installed software and your priorities. But I normally use the following method: Consolidate defrag with all 4 options checked, i.e. Respect High performance, Respact Archive, Put dirs close to MFT and Very fast placement. In Options for High performance I select the directories of programs that I use often, and select Fast Placement. For Archive I just select 70% of least frequently used files and use Very fast placement. This results in relatively fast defrags and decently optimized system.
For more details you can refer to UD help file - it has really lot of useful information on this topic.

 

Peter2150,

You are absolutely correct - for 5% full disk there is little to none effect from using file placement optimization. You just need to make sure your files are defragmented. Also if you frequently use some big software packages you may want to add their folders to High Performance section - it'll make them work faster since the files will be located close to each other.

As for your note about WIndows file placement - you are right, Windows tends to place new files into the bunch of other files. You just need to make sure your archive is "packed" well - then the new files won't become fragmented. To achieve it just run defragger with the same archive setting once in a while.

 

Peter2150, I agree, if you want all newly added files to be at the outer track then you have two options - either not use archive, or defragment the drive once in a while.

 

How about just using 2 drives ? I use a small 10 gb C: with Performance set to 30 days past data used. 80% of windows and programs rarely if ever gets used so just gets archived. D: for data is set to 180 days - again with most data archived and left to sleep. another advantage of using 2 or more physical drives ? allows unused junk to be archived and speeds up scheduled defrags

 

Long View,

I agree and I too use two partitions - one for the system and programs, and the second for data. Rob thinks it's unnecessary (as far as file placement is concerned), but I think it's convenient from the point of view of backups/restores. For example I keep a backup image of my system drive with OS and all programs, and if something goes wrong - i just restore it. Data partition remains intact.

 

I too have partitioned my harddisk just the layout like you did but never trust your drive so its adviseable to make backup copies to external media of your data partition.

 

I agree fully re backup. I think the point though is that C: OS and programs may be restored hundreds of times in a year whilst D: data remains unrestored until you get a new drive.

As far a defraging goes I do see OS and programs as being quite different. Most of the OS is never used after installation ( or system update). same applies to most programs. Archiving C: OS and programs effectively gives a much smaller (80% smaller ?) C: and this just feels right. As to D: real data - again much of my data will never be looked at again and if it is it will be rarely. Placing this data in an archive again reduces the size that has to be dealt with. The performance part of D: is much smaller than without a file placement strategy and this also feels right to me.

 

Isso:

I've been experimenting with UD2008 quite a bit (paid version) and I've noticed the odd cluster on my drive maps which will simply say "Used" with a green color, identical to how clusters appear before analysis, yet they have this appearance after analysis and even while defrag is in progress.

Is this a sign of corruption, a bug, or something else that you can explain?

 

Long View - I totally agree with your points!

crofttk - this can be because of two reasons:
1. Because of a bug in UD 2008 that sometimes doesn't recognize some system files
2. Because the drive has some orphan chunks of data.

As for the first one - we have fixed it and the new version will properly identify and defragment them.
If it's the second case - you can safely ignore those chunks, they do no harm.

 

Any timeline on the new version?
More to the point, any chance of a debugged update to UD2008?

 

crofttk, sorry, I have no answer to your question at the moment. It depends whether we'll go for new UD 2009 release, or update to UD 2008. I'll try to keep the folks here updated about the progress.

 

Thanks Isso for your responses to my post and a special thanks for being here in the forums and taking up all our questions, concerns and interest in UD and the new Express model.

Sure is changed the way that i look at defragging now then before. Finally we can make these drives really blaze with speed!

LoL

 

PD fanboys does'nt like to hear but after using PD a few years and then configure UD the way i liked it (mostly game setup) it became perfectly clear that there is a huge difference between them,both in philosophy and performance to be gained.

 

prius04
I've also been experiencing no luck whatsoever with UD's boot-time option. Despite numerous emails since January of this year asking Disktrix for support, and hearing absolutely nothing in reply other than an automated response, I've simply given up using UD 2008 and have no plans whatsoever to invest in UD 2009. For me a software purchase is not simply about the product itself but also about the whole SERVICE that relates to that product and I've little faith that support will improve with the release of a new product. Therefore I've decided to basically cut my losses and move over to Puran Defrag and I have to say during the trial period of using this product, I've never been happier. Might be worth a try.

 

what is the current thinking about the use of layout.ini ?

Have just turned this off and set everything to strict placement ( performance and archive).

any thoughts ?

 

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1435070&postcount=86