UltimateDefrag - is this the best defragger ever?

I did it as a two part process:

tick custom: add windows, program files, docs & settings. Run UD "consolidate" >Options > Respect High Performance, then stop.

Then add .exe & .dll, untick custom (& Automatic if you have files in there, I have O% so I -can leave it ticked) and run UD again.

This is the way I've gotten (<-- is that a word?) the best performance out of UD.

note: I'm on my laptop now and was just foolin' around w/ UD (tried something different) and my performance is great. Too bad there's no way to compare this laptop to my main box. Now all I gotta do is re-trace my steps and note them.

...screamer

 

Why not just use this and this?

 

That question will continue to be wide open for fair debate. But from my experience it does happen to be just that to my satisfaction. My own results though in no way intend to suggest or discount any other super-defrags because that would simply be a false assumption on my part due to the fact that the other Defrags mentioned here perform right up there with their users own highest expectations and they realize those results for themselves and also have reaped positive benefits from their use.

What this topic does do is help bring to light (at least for me), just how very far along this particular type of PC technology has come from what we always been accustomed to b4 in the past and helps everyone understand a little better of their importance to overall hard drive health, and after all, HD longetivity is another ultimate goal to making for a safer and more responsive system with less overhead or issues to have to deal with at some point later.

I'm done, Thanks

 

I installed this app twice and twice uninstalled it right away after a quick defrag because I saw no significant improvement in performance.I was happy with PD, at least I knew it wasn't messing with first defense.

I thought Ud was just another defragger. Till yesterday.

Yesterday I was reading this thread again and bumped into post #209.

It all sounded interesting and since I had nothing to lose because this one pc is a very old one (p4 1.33 with 128 megs of ram!) I decided to give it a go.

I installed Ud and set it up to move the *.exes and *.dlls to the outer tracks as suggested and rebooted.

What can I say.My jaw dropped.Wow, twice as fast and way snappier than before.

It does it's job and very well on top of that.


When I first trialed this app I made a big mistake.I didn't bother to read the help files and as a result "dismissed" it as another "super" application.

Ignorance rules.

 

Hi Peter only speak for myself,i have at the moment 10 % occupied diskspace and have similar experience !!

 

Try post #209.

 

I'm going to give it another go as well. I really would like to get this to work but so far it just takes too long and I can't see any noticeable speed. Perhaps having 3 partitions doesn't help. Most of my "stuff" is just plain work files - words docs, pdfs.... perhaps they can only go so fast on a 5 year old P4 ?

 

That is exactly what I thought when I first tried ud.I couldn't see any speed.

It happened because I used ud like a "regular" defragger.I.E. click defrag..auto etc etc .

Something clicked when I finally read the help files and I started experimenting.

The first thing I did was to move all *.exes and *.dlls to the outer tracks. Worked well.

Then I moved (to the outer tracks) the apps that I use most.Worked good as well.


Now it's just a matter of tweaking..trial and error I guess.

 

Trust me I've been tweaking. I have just installed for the 3rd or 4th time.
using consolidate *.exe *.dll and so on

40 minutes !!!!! I then click on a few files and ran consolidate again. This time I was down to 20 minutes.

with PD taking 20 secs to a sometimes long 2 minutes I must be doing something wrong.

will consolidate again and if it is faster than last time
I will continue. But if not ....

 

It took more than 40 mins here the first time.About 15 the second time.

I think it takes a longer time the first time u use it and as you go on and do regular maintenance you won't have to wait that long or so I would like to think



P.s. did you go thru the help files ?

 

This is fun and interesting at the same time to see different results. Some after applying "trix" as in strategic file placements see a marked difference immediately (I certainly did), while others appears bogs down and takes too much time and still they claim nothing earthshaking afterwards.

It has to be either the Hard Drives brand or else the machine itself maybe? I used UD so far on my Seagates, Maxtor, Samsung drives and i get mixed results but not so much to sway my conviction for UD. At this point in time i still haven't fully utilized "ALL" it's strategic placement features but the ones i have applied i keep working while it defrags it the background and Holy Cow!! my apps start taking off with a Whizz!!! That's enough for me.

After first applying PerfectDisk when i was testing it i also noticed improved performance afterwards (no doubt), but nothing at all like the Boost UD is put into my units. I'm thoroughly convinced of it.

Just like every other software program circulating around these circles, they just work better for some while the same just doesn't quite make the grade for others. This is no surprise, i'm happy with the results i get and i'm sticking with it. The Defragger that hits the mark for you, is the one you stick with unless something else proves better enough for you to switch.

 

I agree. Those are just the first hardware items that jump out at me as front runners in this mystery. If it is of any interest i trialed PerfectDisk "first" before the other 2, (DiskKeeper, UD). I was amazed at the improvement with immediate results after the defrag w/ PD, and it was at that moment i woke up from complacency that defragmenting was little better than just cleaning the disk of errant files. I couldn't have been more absent from reality. The system on a single explorer click sailed open in an instant (milliseconds) and reformed my opinion at that point on. Members here at Wilder's then speaking favorably of other one's, in fact i think i got the idea from a poll here i read.

Since i had FD-ISR first i took it on the assumption that it would compliment it very well and in fact it does, or at least it did when i tested them together.
My curiosity finally got the better of me so off to try the other one's i went and i was immediately overwhelmed with a sense of satisfaction after i seen the Multi-Features available with UD. After trying some i didn't expect anything up to the level as PD but little did i know i was in for a nice surprise.

I'm one of those just like with System Safety Monitor that absolutely lives for interacting with these programs and contributing personally to enhancing their features and realizing results, and i wasn't disappointed. Nor do i have anything negative whatsover to remark about regarding PD and DK because in my eyes these 3 are the King of the Hill. It simply boils down to their features + the extra results they make possible. In my case, UD edged out PD. By a wide margin? Maybe, but thats a mute subject that requires no debate because they ALL have their respective strengths and any weaknesses are practically nill really. Pinpoint File Placement is the key here and they all offer arrangements any user will find most surprising and to their own liking.

 

Strange, cause i too have an almost empty disk ( 10%)but there's reference in the manual to configure it as a game PC, so i did,it mainly means to put your heavy app and stuff and everything related to them to the outside,everything other than that resides at the "root" so to speak,i dont know if the many exes,dll's,modules and services used in photoshop and his tight dll integration with my archive and databases are also placed at the outside, i suppose that it did,but for me it turned out as expected, i gues like Peter with his already "flying machines" the difference is not that great or......you never know,some experimenting with this thingy is time well spend.

 

Did you try all the trix described in the help files ?

 

Don't forget system cache and on disk cache blur performance differences, so people with large amount of free memory will likely see less performance difference.
Another big factor is if you have your page file on the same drive or not as windows frequently accesses the page file.

other thing I would always consider is how fast refragmentation occurs, no point is doing a super optimised file placement if windows just goes and chucks things about.

 

Ultimate Disk for me all the way. I really don't see how any of these big players can advance much more beyond then what they already offer in file placement strategy. Just glad to see they took the effort at all and came up with this newest solution.

 

Sorry everyone I just can't see any improvement with UD over PD.
Have tested with a 5 year old pentium and a new dual core. I have very little on my drives (eg 6.5 gig of WinXP and programs in typical) drives varying in size from 80 gig to 500 gig.

It just takes too long and I can see no improvement. Clearly others are seeing benefits and I would be interested to know why.