DefragExpress Launched

Discussion in 'backup, imaging & disk mgmt' started by Baldrick, Mar 27, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Baldrick

    Baldrick Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2002
    Posts:
    2,301
    Location:
    South Wales, UK
    In case you have missed it!

    "DefragExpress Released!
    27 March 2009
    We're pleased to announce the release of DefragExpress - a defrag product that's like no other and guaranteed to give you the fastest daily comprehensive consolidated defrags and a drive layout that guarantees you the slowest rate of re-fragmentation.

    Through UltimateDefrag, we created a defagger for "power users". With DefragExpress we've created a defragger for the masses. Don't be deceived by the apparent simplicity of this program. It's cleverer, faster and easier to use than any other defragger out there and.... the price is a steal at just $14.97.

    To celebrate the release of DefragExpress, we're offering a 20% discount off the already low price and you'll pay just $11.98 until 1 May 2009.

    Curious about this product? Follow this link now to read more about DefragExpress. You can even take it for a FREE test drive for 7 days by downloading the trial version."

    http://www.disktrix.com/index.htm

    Am trying it and so far I like what I see. :D But it is too early to say whether this is worth investing in or not.

    Shame that the trial is only 7 days. :mad:
     
  2. DOSawaits

    DOSawaits Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Posts:
    416
    Location:
    Belgium
    Oh No ! Not again ! :blink:
     
  3. Banshee

    Banshee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    543

    If you really want a longer trial and 100% money back guarantee this thing should be available on many other sites very soon.
     
  4. vijayind

    vijayind Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Posts:
    1,413
    The price is really attractive, lets hope the product/support is also similar.
     
  5. vijayind

    vijayind Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Posts:
    1,413
    Definitely not the fastest Defragger. IMO, the fastest defragger is Auslogic DiskDefrag ( and its free too :D )

    DefragExpress.jpg

    I also don't see any visible difference in PC speed. I think I'll stick to DisKeeper. Its slower, but the system feels much lighter after the run.

    Since the trial is only for 7 days, there is no sure way to find out if really DiskExpress has "a drive layout that guarantees you the slowest rate of re-fragmentation.n".
     
  6. Isso

    Isso Developer

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Posts:
    1,450
    Hi,

    I'm the developer of DefragExpress and UltimateDefrag. I'd like to thank everyone for questions and comments. I've quickly looked through long UltimateDefrag thread and I'll try to answer the most important questions there.

    As for DefragExpress - I'll be happy to answer any question about it in this thread.

    For vijayind - most of the free defraggers (if not all) use simple defragmentation method that is - cycle through all files, and if a file is fragmented - move its segments to any free space. We call it Fragmented Files Only (FFO) in UltimateDefrag. This is the simplest and fastest method to defrag, and virtually all defraggers using it have similar defrag speed (as there is almost nothing to optimize)

    This method is supported in DefragExpress too - you just need to select "Fast mode" on the Settings pane, and you'll have the fastest defrag speed possible. However it has significant drawback - it leaves lot of free space segments, i.e. free space gets fragmented. This leads to refragmentation. Especially for NTFS file system the OS tends to break up new files and fill free space segments with them. As a result the drive quickly becomes fragmented again.

    To avoid this problem a properly developed defragger must consolidate free space too. Consolidation algorithm is very complex compared to FFO. And if someone wants to compare the defragging speed I suggest to do it in Consolidate mode - it quickly reveals the quality of program code. I never met any freeware defragger to be able to properly consolidate free space.
    BTW I must congratulate O&O Defrag programmers for brilliant implementation of this algorithm - it's the best I have ever seen.

    So - consolidated defrag has much less rate of refragmentation, that's why DefragExpress has "Thorough mode" selected by default. It is slower than "Fast mode" (FFO), but next time you run it the system will be much less fragmented, so it'll finish really fast. A typical system will take 10..60 min to defrag for the first time and 2..3 min for subsequent defrags (if you run it once in 2..3 days).

    Besides - the Consolidate mode "packs" all files together and places them to the fastest (outside) disk area, while for FFO the files may be scattered around the disk - thus lowering the system performance.

    So I would recommend to use Thorough mode, as it minimizes disk wear and maximizes system speed, although takes some time for the first defrag.

    DefragExpress uses additional techniques to minimize system refragmentation - besides simple consolidation. I can't reveal them, I just can say that you'll be surprised on the time subsequent defrags take.

    A small tip - our proprietary Optimization Level indicator on DefragExpress accounts for both file and free space fragmentation. You can use it to check defragmentation quality of various defraggers.
     
  7. Baldrick

    Baldrick Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2002
    Posts:
    2,301
    Location:
    South Wales, UK
    Apparently the substantial increase in speed is seen on SUBSEQUANT runs of the defragger. Disktrix specifically state that the initial defrag run should take about the same of other defraggers do but thereafter the 'benefits of the way that their layout algorithm work' will be seen.

    Certainly the first defrag I tried seemed a little quicker in every case...have to wait now to see what the subsequant defrags run like.

    Not promoting...just trying to clarify. It remains to be seen if that is in fact true. :doubt:
     
  8. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    @ Isso:

    Welcome to Wilders.
    Will Rob_F also be present to represent Disktrix or should we only expect to see you from here on out? It'd be useful to have a little more consistent presence on Disktrix's part for both DefragExpress and UltimateDefrag.
     
  9. Baldrick

    Baldrick Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2002
    Posts:
    2,301
    Location:
    South Wales, UK
    Many thanks for taking the trouble to provide the explanation. Will you be hanging around in this forum in case there are other questions? :D
     
  10. Isso

    Isso Developer

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Posts:
    1,450
    Thank you. I can say nothing about Rob, sorry. But I'll do my best to answer all questions regarding program functionality. I also very welcome any suggestions on program improvement, and feature requests.

    As for the other questions - I'll relay them to Rob.
     
  11. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    Unless I'm really, REALLY missing the plot... every defragger I've seen knows how to consolidate free space, even Windows' inbuilt defrag.exe. Mind explaining?
     
  12. Isso

    Isso Developer

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Posts:
    1,450
    Thank you for starting this thread and for nice feedback on the program!
    I'll do my best to find enough time and answer all questions on this thread.
     
  13. Isso

    Isso Developer

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Posts:
    1,450
    Eice, I've tested really lot of defraggers, and from my experience only a few of them are properly consolidating free space.
    As for Windows built-in defragmenter: it does consolidate free space, or more precisely - *tries* to consolidate. In most of the scenarios it fails to do it and leaves a large number of free space segments. This is especially noticable for highly fragmented drives and drives with low free space.

    By the way - I'd like to mention another feature of DefragExpress - is the ability to defragment extremely fragmented drives having very low free space. You need to use "Thorough mode" with all suboptions turned off for such drives.
    I was able to successfully defrag a 2 TB RAID drive with about 50,000 files on it totalling 1,500,000 fragments. The drive had less than 500 MB free space - it is only 0,025% of the drive space!
     
  14. Baldrick

    Baldrick Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2002
    Posts:
    2,301
    Location:
    South Wales, UK
    Isso

    Any thoughts about extending the 7 day trial? IMHO it seems a little too short to really have the opportunity of seeing ED's potential given that if one carries out the initial defrag (should take as long as the other defraggers) even if one does run it again after 2-3 days as suggested, ie, a couple of times more, I doubt that many will have had the opportunity to do much that is likely to result in much fragementation of their disks. I would have thought that a minimum of 15 days but preferably the industry 'standard' of 30 days would give a much better opportunity for ED to really show what it can do? ;)

    Any reasons as to the thinking behind the 7 day period? o_O

    Cheers



    Balders
     
  15. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    Thanks for the reply, Isso.

    Two observations which Isso can comment on, or not:

    1) "Enable Windows Boot Optimize" is among "More Options" on the "Settings" screen, yet it's not explained much less mentioned in the help screen. I assume, from the label, that DefragExpress either actively arranges files per layout.ini or else "respects" layout.ini.

    2) This is the first program I've seen, if I recall correctly, that adds itself to Windows Task Scheduler unasked. It is NOT enabled in task scheduler. For the novice, this may not be a problem and it doesn't necessarily bother me, but you may anticipate others considering this to be a bit too forward.
     
  16. Isso

    Isso Developer

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Posts:
    1,450
    Balders,

    I'm sorry, I have no answer about the 7 day trial. I'm a programmer, and those questions are for management.
     
  17. Banshee

    Banshee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    543

    Isso, probably this is Ot here but not sure where to contact support at anymore. I am still waiting for my refund (ud)and all my emails have been ignored for over a month now.

    Can you please help ?
     
  18. prius04

    prius04 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Posts:
    1,238
    Location:
    USA
    Hi,

    You have never met UltimateDefrag v1.72? Or does v1.72 not properly consolidate free space?
     
  19. Baldrick

    Baldrick Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2002
    Posts:
    2,301
    Location:
    South Wales, UK
    Funny that you should bringh this up but I was going to ask about a problem that I have.

    Have a disk that is partitioned in two. I have defragged one very successfully such that % fragmentation is now zero but the other, despite a couple runs, is currently showing as follows:

    Size = 21.3Gb
    Free space = 6.13Gb

    File count = 70,692
    Fragmented files = 1,472
    Fragment count = 12,001

    Optimisation level = 57.81% (Red)
    Defrag time = 02:47:25

    This was after a 2nd run on Thorough with ALL sub options checked...and I was going to ask, even though the initial fragmentation has been reduced on the first run a second run has resulted in the above, which in effect is no change over the first run AND significantly far enough away from 0% to warrant the question.

    Having said the above I then read your post above and am trying another Thorough run with ALL sub options UNCHECKED. I hope that this will sort it and if I may? I will post back the results...and hope for your comments/help if there is no significant improvement?

    Cheers


    Balders

    PS. If running the way suggested works would it then make sense to run 'Thorough' mode again with ALL sub options checked so as to gain the benefits of better file placement? Just a loony thought ;)
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2009
  20. Baldrick

    Baldrick Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2002
    Posts:
    2,301
    Location:
    South Wales, UK
    Understood...but would you be kind enough to pass them on to the management...I feel that they should be made aware of what people (or at least one potential customer) feels about it? ;)

    Thanks in advance. :D
     
  21. Isso

    Isso Developer

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Posts:
    1,450
    crofttk,

    1) "Boot Time Optimize" is Windows feature that arranges the files as per layout.ini. It does that operation when the computer is idle (you might notice HDD working when you leave your machine idle for a while). So this checkbox enlables/disables that feature. I found that Windows does very bad job trying to place those files. It leaves a number of free spaces and in fact destroys the intergiry of file layout. So I would highly recommend to disable it. Instead you can use "Thourough mode" with "Move frequently used files to high performance area" checked - it essentally does the same job.

    2) I never thought that this could be a problem, but I agree - it's better to have that task there only when the user enables scheduling. I already put this to my to-do list with medium priority.
     
  22. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    I.E., leave that box unchecked as appears to be the default.

    OK, thanks, Isso.
     
  23. Isso

    Isso Developer

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Posts:
    1,450
    Banshee,

    Please privately post your order information to me and I'll pass it to Rob - I'm sure it's just some mistake and he'll quickly arrange the refund.


    prius04,

    UltimateDefrag 1.72 does. But it's my baby :) and I was talking about defraggers from other companies. In fact UltimateDefrag 1.72 as a freeware is a unique phenomenon.
    Anyway it's in the past and I'm working on new UD 2009 which is much much better.

    Balders - I'll pass your comment on 7 days trial to the management. As for not properly defragged drive - it's strange. Yes, please try with all options unchecked - may be it'll help. If not - please contact me privately and I'll try to solve this problem as soon as possible.
     
  24. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    So it's not how "most of the free defraggers (if not all) use simple defragmentation method", as you previously claimed, it's just that your product supposedly does it better than the rest of the competition.

    Now I'm really wondering how many people will read your posts and start obsessing over how well their defragger consolidates free space... :D
     
  25. Sully

    Sully Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Posts:
    3,719
    I have used your products. I personally think they can make a performance difference when you place commonly used files on faster part of disc. I also have placed directories like games on faster portion. Rudementary speed tests regarding loading of application, or in case of games, maybe loading maps, shows in mere seconds the difference between having items in fast area of hdd vs. just anywhere. In fact, on a drive with ample room, NTFS, and well fragmented, the difference of same sort of tests is again, just seconds.

    So on one hand with a newer computer and fast hdd's that are not running out of room, the impact is minimal IMO. Hardly noticable without timing it. But on the other hand, you can time it and see the differences. So perhaps on sluggish machines it would be more noticable.

    I don't use your product anymore because of the time involved. I tried I think it was MST or something, where it was supposed to constantly defrag all the time. That product was not as good as I thought.

    Currently I am using JKdefrag. I like most of all the screensaver portion where it is easy to keep defragged. It is fast, and free. I want to know, without bashing the competition please, how you compare your product(s) to JKdefrag. And why. Also, what is a real world comparison of the differences one would see? That is, a 1 second difference between your product and JKdefrag when seeking or etc, is not much. How do you quantify 'better' or 'faster'? Technogeeks like myself love to squeeze that extra framerate or millisecond out, but computers are so fast now, I want to know about a difference I cannot miss.

    Sul.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.