UltimateDefrag - is this the best defragger ever?

Yes and no, respectively.

 

Does UD work in Windows 7? Can anyone confirm a working install? Thanks

 

As Above

ANSWERS PLEASE from the represenative of UD if you would.

Thanks

EASTER

 

UD works fine here on Windows 7.
Boot Defrag is working fine too.

 

Thank you Jensen. I really appreciate it.

 

Another MYSTERY to excavate once again.

I had problems only on my partition drive. I had to restore with DriveSnapshot image to recover from the problem that hindered my partition that before the defrag ran prefect.

Peter2150 as always been the case uses a single drive. He experienced a problem with a single HD as pointed out in his post.

So someplace in-between lies a discrepency without a doubt.

EASTER

 

I made a complete pc backup this morning before work, just incase that might happen, lol. Thanks EASTER for the info.

 

Yes the situation is very strange. I'm using it on system drives, system partitions, data drives, data partitions and not one problem. what is it that causes problems for some and not others ? My guess is that it is down to software conflicts - other programs that try to control the drives. Hope they sort this soon as UD when running well is really worth it.

Having found that running a small C: drive - see post # 32 ( partition ) gives me a measurable speed improvement I have now partitioned a 1 TB data drive to 30 GB just for data and then used the remainder for MP3 and another partition for backup images. The speed gain is not as great as for C: but it is still noticeable.

 

I've had UD for several weeks and every feature and function seems to work fine on my XPSP3 system.

My boot time defrag function is fine, and I was able to move and resize the MFT. I'm using a multi-partition HD with a 15GB C partition.

I resized the MFT to 500MB (native 1GB). I'm a bit concerned about the NtfsMftZoneRestoration possibly resetting MFT size, but so far it has not after many reboots.

Seems like a keeper!

 

Don't see how it can be Pete. I have used UD on a 160 gb drive and a 1 TB drive and have run C: from a 10gb partition - all without difficulty.

My best guess is that those with any problems are running with software ( probably security based) that needs to have control over the drives. Apart from Shadow Defender I run no software that might fall into this category. I'm not trying to excuse DiskTrix. They still need to address the issue but my experience is that it does work on plain vanilla windows Xp systems ( i.e with no fancy security running)

 

I'll concur with Long View's assessment but it's the inverse of that; I get some sort of error message on multiple machines with HDDs ranging from 120GB to 640GB (i.e. size does *not* seem to matter).

Re security, I don't use a heck of a lot - NOD32, primarily, and Sandboxie. I also have SAS and MBAM installed on some machines but not all. Moreover, a few other machines on which I've tested UD have none of the aforementioned installed and are, at least what I would consider to be, "plain vanilla".

Regardless, if UD's boot time module won't work with standard, run-of-the-mill AVs, they need to go back to the drawing board, IMHO.

 

Physical drive size is 250GB Seagate with 6 partitions + protected backup capsule (Paragon).

Further, this drive has been raw sector-by-sector cloned to a WD 250GB drive, and it also functions just fine.

The OS partition is lean, XPSP3 + security apps only (about 7 GB total used).

I have modified running services somewhat, normally running 28 services, with OA3 Firewall/HIPS + Avira Antivir Premium always running.

Hope this helps!

Edit:
For those systems with malfunctioning boot time defrag, I wonder about configuration-differences such as start-up apps, registry mods and disabled services.

 

I'm sorry and maybe i'm wrong, but i still can't see adding iexplorer to UD in any fashion. NO one else has to.

I still use Boot Time Defrag but only on a single drive because it blowed a gasket on one of my two partitions when trying ti that way.

Still, i like it and it does improve performance irregardless and doesn't have to chew up resources running the background like some defrag commercial products.

EASTER

 

Enjoy your time off Pete, you deserve it and then some. Be Safe, have fun too!

EASTER

 

I don't know if page file configuration matters, but mine is set currently at 3072MB and is fixed-size.

Hope this helps!

 

Hi all
Long View talks about software conflicts and I believe that his observation is somewhat potent. I am at the moment, beta testing another superb application, with Peter2150 and I am investigating software conflicts.

A short time ago, I believed that I had completed my long running investigation and I was about to send in my report when, something happened which completely ruined my theory - this is the bread and butter of beta testing.

However, I have also been applying the same principles with Ultimate Defrag. From the start, I believe that Ultimate Defrag's competitors are about to get a big headache. Nevertheless, I also believe Ultimate Defrag does have issues with some conflicts, hence their delay in launching Boot Defrag.

To test Ultimate Defrag's boot issue, I installed this on a WD Raptor and on a bog standard Maxtor. Lo and behold, UD's boot defrag worked on the Maxtor - not on the Raptor. I then installed FD_ISR on the Maxtor and rearranged some software on the various snapshots - UD boot defrag worked on one set of snapshots and not on others.

Well, I am not going to waste my time working through all the variations of a similar theme - I am already involed with another application. I do have PD 10 which takes care of the boot issue: and UD does the other areas of defragment.

UD's defragment theory is outstanding (IMHO) and for that reason alone, I will have UD on my system - notwithstanding the fact that the boot defrag has teething problems. For me, I will pin my colours to the Raxco flagpole because I like the people at Raxco, their support is superb and their products are rock solid.

So, Long View, I whole heartedly agree with your observation about "conflicts."

Marserobert.

 

Well, I all comes down as to what we describe as boot time defrag.

There are things like boot time chkdsk, and those things run BEFORE any possible security app could set its teeth in any special area of the partition/disk.

I mean the doslike boottime chkdsk, which is run before the actual OS is being loading + any apps residing on them, so a REAL boot time defrag should not have any problem with none of them.

Conclusion: This is not a boot time defrag, but an autorun defrag which is executed when some (most) security apps ARE loaded and can clash with this so called boottime defrag.

 

I'm in no position to disagree with your conclusion but keep in mind that the developer, himself, stated, "...All vanilla operating system installs that have not in some way been altered at a low level by some other software whether it be anti-virus etc works perfectly...".

Again, I'm in no position to disagree with his statement but it definitely appears to me that he's implying it doesn't matter whether anything actually *is* installed and/or loaded at boot time, it's a matter of whether anything *had been* installed (at any time, and perhaps even later removed), that resulted in some form of 'low level alteration'.

Just my take on what was stated and, I'll hasten to add, I could be dead wrong. In any event, it's becoming apparent, to me at least, that we are simply not going to make any headway on this issue until the developer can provide more detailed information relating to causality.

 

Well now something else to chew on.

It may well could have been, or possible, and only speculation mind you on my part at this juncture that my own (single issue) or problem (just 1 so far), could have maybe had to do with the particular drive i was boot defragging on. After all, these and other softwares have a million different items of code & mechanics to work thru & to consider and they either work with all or only with some depending on the model i suppose when you get into the internal mechanics of them.

EASTER

 

could be comodo or online armor to make the ultimate defrag buggy?

i remember i did some problems with these 2 firewall and another defrag (boot defrag)

 

Running Online Armor v3.0.0.190 here with no UD problems.

Hope this helps!

 

A while ago I asked for a refund because UD does not work for me.They said they would release a fix within two weeks.Two weeks are over and I asked for the refund again "no questions asked".

Let's see how long it takes before I get it.

 

Yeah, well, I don't want to come off as a jerk or deride the work the folks at Disktrix have put into UD 2008 but it certainly appears as if the plea of being short-handed hasn't hindered a redesign of their web site and development of a new product.

http://disktrix.com

Considering the issues presented in this thread alone, I'm left to wonder whether one, or all, would have been resolved had they, instead, directed their efforts and energies in that direction.