UltimateDefrag - is this the best defragger ever?

what i did not understand is

is with ud2008 boot disk you can set the size of reserved zone(mf) " the yellow cluters"

but does the xp manage this zone,doesn't?
i mean with ud2008 i set 200mb
but xp will change this zone after it 12% of freespace....or ...
in short i can't understand the useful, helpful about set the size of reserved zone

thanks

 

@mantra,

If we set in UD a different size for MFT, but your registry set for other value, it seems UD doesn't make anything...

So I deleted the registry entry and now UD works well.

Try your self.

 

thanks
which key did you delete exactly? i use XP

where do you put the mft zone and how many Mb did you reserve for mft?

 

I deleted every key "NtfsMftZoneReservation" from the registry...

I set 500MB for MFT, and the current used size +/- 50MB (I'm not at home now to know the exact value), so is more than sufficient...

 

thanks sorry for my poor english
if i got it
you had 50MB of reserved size (before using ud200) and you increased to 500mb?

and how much big is your partition?

thanks

 

My Partition has 15GB.

 

Has anyone experienced a crash when right-clicking on the analyzed drive (inside of the program), to show volume information?
It happens on both of my XP computers
This looks like a promising defrag program when the bugs are worked out.

 

Not to say that it won't happen, but UD's $MFT defrag/mover is been of enormous benefit for me then i use XP Pro too which might help some.

I'm still confused just how much i should move the slider and/or reserve space for the $MFT, but boy did i notice a great boost after running it here.

EASTER

 

so you put the mtf inside your data

 

Yes.

I set the default of UD. And is logical because is close to data.

You can see more about this in its Help file.

 

but the default is where windows xp puts them

 

i put here in the screenshot


what i can 't understand is

i setup the position of the mft ,-->run during the next boot
and ud moved the position of the mft like the screenshot

now i can't move the slider to change position , i have to click on reset to default and i can move it again

is it normal or is a bug?

 

That doesn't mean it's the best...

Did you already read the Help file, about the Boot defrag, as I suggest you?

Is only 2 or 3 pages...

I didn't try this yet...

 

yes but you put there

 

I put the default of UD.

I already saw different positions where Windows put the MFT and other system files. Some at the beginng, others at the end, in the middle...
Also look at the size that they define for MFT! Isn't necessary to have GB's for this, only when a few MB's are used...

UD define where is best, according to its Help file, and at least I agree with it because it will have almost the same time access to every file, and it's more close to outer tracks...

 

I can't believe after months of arguing that defrag does nothing (actually PD slowed my box down) that someone other than myself steps up and says the emperor has no clothes. I have seen no convincing evidence other than non-scientific tests that show any benefit at all from degragging.

 

I find it interesting that he did not come back to answer my question in #491
If there was evidence that defragging was a bad idea then I would be interested in seeing it. Have no problem with people having an opinion so long as the don't claim that it is any more than an opinion. How do any of us know that the claim made in post #489 is anything more than something he has heard somewhere which was simply someone mouthing off. The company that sells UD2008 claim that archiving unused files helps speed things up. If there is evidence to refute this could someone please cite the source ?

 

Yep, same thing here. Program simply crashes when opening the config window, but only for partitions N:\ and above.

 

Your premise is incorrect- when you assert something, it must be proven (i.e. put into evidence). The claims by vendors and users of degraggers is that they are in some way efficacious. That is begging the question- the burden of proof is on those making assertions.

 

Peter,

With all due respect, I found the contention in post #489 a compelling arguement against the professed outer-track performance benefits achieved by UD (or other defraggers) - i.e., I don't see how UD can determine where the outer-tracks are for each disk platter. If you do, I would really appreciate an explanation.

JA

 

Sorry for taking so long. Actually, I have no intensions to troll at all.
Actually, it's an assumption, correctly, and this assumption I have mailed to a whole bunch of companies, the well known shareware distributors of defragging software, the freeware distributors of defragging software, and never got 1 reply to my question, they all use some kind of algorithm targetting at positioning at, what they see as, the fasted area of a physical harddisk. NONE of them have actually replied about my question on how they (can never !) know what the beginning of a hard drive platter is. So, they are correct that they can move data to the "outer edge" of a hard drive, but what they call the "outer edge" ultimately is spread across a whole region, even the slowest part of a hard drive (any inner area of each physical platter)

I'm still waiting for a reply, I contacted 12 software companies, including those you all know very well.

 

Thanks - will be interested if you get any replies. Perhaps more of us should put the question to defrags comapanies ?