[Defraggers] UltimateDefrag Public Domain Edition
Bear Bottoms
defrag fragmented files only. The display resembles the layout of a hard
drive (circular) and it did the job in about 5 minutes.
I am still trying to find the download link via their website, but haven't
had much luck, though I found the link from an article I read:
http://freewaregeeks.com/UltimateDefrag_Free.html which is an amazing
website.
FreewareGeeks are featuring their Freeware of the week: SMPlayer 0.6.0 -
SMPlayer intends to be a complete front-end for MPlayer, from basic
features like playing videos, DVDs, and VCDs to more advanced features
like support for MPlayer filters and more. One of the most interesting
features........
During the UltimateDefrag Public Domain Edition program installation, it
gives you a disclaimer that says: "The following document contains
important information that you should read before installing the product:
Please note that this is a FREE public domain version of UltimateDefrag
Version 1. It is not for resale but was released free to share on 9 May
2008. If you have purchased or paid for this software that you are about
to install after 9 May 2008 then it was sold to you illegally and outside
the permissions of this free version....etc."
After installation and upon running the program, it first asked: "Boot
optimization feature is turned on on your system, do you want to turn it
off?" Then it asked if "Do you want to set UtlimateDefrag as the default
defragger on your system." I said no to both for now.
I'm still digging into the capabilities of this interesting program, which
puts a whole new light on defragging for me.
Download UltimateDefrag Public Domain Edition (XP and Vista):
http://www.disktrix.com/downloads/UltimateDefragFREEPublicDomainEditionSetup.exe
Latest version: 1.72 (23 May 2008)
License: Freeware
System requirements: Windows XP/Vista
Download: UltimateDefragFREEPublicDomainEditionSetup.exe (2.2 MB)
Alternate download location: UltimateDefragFREEPublicDomainEditionSetup.zip
Home: http://www.disktrix.com/index.htm
Interesting screenshots [which gives a lot of information]:
http://www.disktrix.com/UDScreenshots.htm
--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website: http://bearware.info
Bear Bottoms
<Yrrah_use...@themailbox.ca> wrote:
> "Bear Bottoms" <bearbo...@cox.net>:
>
>> http://freewaregeeks.-----tml which is an amazing
>> website.
>
> Why? Because they don't link to a program's home page?
>
> Yrrah
>
Actually, it is because of his selections...most are dead-on, something
rare in these times of mixed up opinions.
Sul
Bear Bottoms
> Bear Bottoms posted the following on 24-May-08 18:57:
>> I just installed UltimateDefrag Public Domain Edition and used it to
>> defrag fragmented files only. The display resembles the layout of a
>> hard drive (circular) and it did the job in about 5 minutes.
>>
> how big is your hard disk?
I should have quantified that I suppose. Actually, in this case the size
of my hard disk is not as important as how many files I have on it. It is
a 100gig harddrive, but I'm only using 12 gigs of it. Also I defragged not
so long ago so the fragmentation wasn't much.
I'm not sure how fast it is compared to others, though that is not much of
a concern for me. Quality of defragmentation and options available are
more important to me as I have found most defraggers to be slow anyway. I
rather like the fact it can put, or rather I can decide to put my most
used files on the fastest part of the drive, though I'm not quite sure how
big a deal even that is yet.
I'm also not quite sure how I could ever determine if one defragger is
better than another...though the graphic appearance of this one is more
informative than any I've seen...if it is a correct depiction. All of them
could be smoke and mirrors I suppose as far as I'm concerned :(
LouB
Bear Bottoms
So far it isn't at all. I'm only about halfway through the things it can
do though. I haven't found anything scary yet :)
Bear Bottoms
wrote:
Options are:
Fragmented Files Only
Consolodate
Respect High Performance
Complete High Performance then stop
Respect Archive
Put directories close to MFT
Folder/File name
Respect High Performance
Complete High Performance then stop
Respect Archive
Put directories close to MFT
Recency
Last Accessed
Last Modified
File Creation Date
Place Data in Outer Tracks - Oldest Data Most Outer
Place Data in Outer Tracks - Most Recent Data Most Outer
Place Data in Outer Tracks - Oldest Data Most Inner
Respect High Performance
Complete High Performance then stop
Respect Archive
Put directories close to MFT
Volatility
Respect High Performance
Complete High Performance then stop
Respect Archive
Put directories close to MFT
Auto
Put Directories close to MFT
Respect Layout.ini
Drive C:
[percent] Most Frequently Used Data to Outer Tracks
[percent] Least Frequently Used Data to Inner Tracks
[Slide Bar] Fast-Faster-Optimum
Estimated Average Seek Time for Current Data
So far, I've tried about half of these options and they perform like the
description says, and the graphic display demonstrates the changes that
were made for the option. It is a neat program. More interesting than any
other defraggers I've used.
Bear Bottoms
wrote:
I've now tried all of the funtions. It is very simple to use and easily
understandable. I hope it stays available...and it impressed me enough to
list it and unseat JKDefrag as the bearpaw wearer.
Johnw
> I'm also not quite sure how I could ever determine if one defragger is better
> than another...though the graphic appearance of this one is more informative
> than any I've seen...if it is a correct depiction. All of them could be smoke
> and mirrors I suppose as far as I'm concerned :(
I've never gone into it 100%, used Dirms for many years, but recently
tried others. Like you say, could be smoke & mirrors.
A few bits of info I have picked are.
Complete defrag.
Turn off Pagefile, reboot & go into Safe Mode & defrag.
Reboot & turn Pagefile back on.
Don't Optimize hard disk when idle ( I already have done )
http://malektips.com/xpwtw0015.html
SUMMARY: Turn off a background process that can conflict with
third-party Windows XP disk defragmenters.
Maybe UltimateDefrag circumnavigates those issues, have downloaded the
program & will defrag in safe mode using JkDefrag ( or whatever allows
me ) & then get back into normal mode & try UltimateDefrag.
Dan Goodman
I've tried it, then looked at fragmentation reports on the Windows
defragger and on Defraggler. Both showed that a fragmented area which
they (and JKDefrag) wouldn't clean up had been cleaned up.
--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://clerkfuturist.wordpress.com
mirror 1: http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
mirror 2: http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
LouB
Lou
Sul
read how it works and it does makes sense
moved files that you seldom accessed and then lined files that are
frequently used
let's see .......................................
Sul
will any developer think of putting frequently accessed files next to
the pagefile? :-)
Bear Bottoms
I tried all of the defrag options of UtlimateDefrag, and after each one,
the graphic displayed a different layout of my files on the hard disk. The
auto function took the longest to rearrange my files and ended up with
with depiction: http://bearware.info/UltimateDefrag_Auto.gif
I do like the program with it's various options and layout opportunities.
Bear Bottoms
>> I've now tried all of the funtions. It is very simple to use and easily
>> understandable. I hope it stays available...and it impressed me enough
>> to list it and unseat JKDefrag as the bearpaw wearer.
>>
> Thanks
>
> Lou
BTW, I've sent an email to the company with some questions about the
freeware product. Why can I not find a link to it on their site, plans for
it's future etc. I'll let ya'll know when they reply and what they say
about it.
Sul
Bear Bottoms
> Bear Bottoms posted the following on 25-May-08 00:35:
>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 12:22:48 -0500, Sul <S...@e888.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bear Bottoms posted the following on 24-May-08 18:57:
>>>> I just installed UltimateDefrag Public Domain Edition and used it to
>>>> defrag fragmented files only. The display resembles the layout of a
>>>> hard drive (circular) and it did the job in about 5 minutes.
>>>>
> mine took 31 minutes (30gb, used 20gb)
>
> read how it works and it does makes sense
> moved files that you seldom accessed and then lined files that are
> frequently used
>
> let's see .......................................
I've since used all of the features...the auto function took the longest
/almost an hour/ to rearrange the files and ended up looking like this:
http://bearware.info/UltimateDefrag_Auto.gif
So far, I like the program a lot.
Bear Bottoms
I suppose so, but I reminded them of the 'power of freeware' and name
recognition. Let's see what they come back with. Their reply will help me
make my final decision about the freeware product.
Flasherly
>
> So far, I've tried about half of these options and they perform like the
> description says, and the graphic display demonstrates the changes that
> were made for the option. It is a neat program. More interesting than any
> other defraggers I've used.
Good submission and enjoyed having an initial look. Has a few extra
spins, but is basically offers what the old DOS Peter Norton suite
defragger provided by employing a directory order scheme. Quite a
sizable accompanying PDF, and would offhand suspect it's suited FAT32
rather NTFS's "dynamic workings" -- which is good, too, since I've
still quite a few FAT32 logical drives defined. Been years and pretty
well had written off working again with that aspect of disk
structuring -- good to see it again.
Bear Bottoms
wrote:
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 21:10:53 -0500, LouB <Lo...@invalid.com> wrote:
Here is the quick reply from my email to them:
-----Original Message-----
From: Bear Bottoms [mailto:bearbo...@gmai.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 4:08 PM
To: xxxxsup...@disktrix.com
Subject: Thank you
I found a link to the freeware UltimateDefrag Public Domain version. I
cannot find a reference to it on your website. Are you intending to use it
for silent promotions?
I'm curious because I have listed it with honors on my freeware website,
and unseated JKDefrag as my defrag program of choice.
IMO, making a link to the freeware version on your website would greatly
expand your companies name exposure. You lready have a great payware
product and great name recognition. Great Freeware enhances that as I am
sure you know.
Are you going to provide a link to this public domain version on your
site, phase the offer out and is it OK that I linked to the freeware
version?
Thank you,
-----------------------------------
On Sun, 25 May 2008 09:06:55 -0500, DiskTrix Inc
<xxxxsup...@disktrix.com> wrote:
Hi - yes we are going to soon have the freeware version on our site. We
are currently using it for silent promotions and testing it on some of the
download sites.
Yes it is okay that you linked the freeware version.
Regards
Robert Ferraro
DiskTrix Inc
www.disktrix.com
--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware Website http://bearware.info
Franklin
Did you check performance improvement after defragging? There was
probably not much difference between the various options.
The tech manual for UltimateDefrag is not really emphasizing
difficulties when it talks about placing files in faster locations
(inner, middle and outer "cylinders") on the hard drive.
The physical layout of an IDE hard drive is not actually known to the
PC's operating system or its utilities. After all, where is Partition
C physically and where is partition D physically? UltimateDefrag and
other defraggers work with a logical representation of the physical
drive and there are all sorts of variations between logical and
physical representations such as dead sectors.
(1) Grouping files according to usage helps slow down refragmentation.
(2) The gathering together of the parts of file *does* help performance
and that is what UltimateDefrag's manual shows.
(3) However, the grouping together of files does not really help
performance spectacularly once even mild fragmentation starts and this
is not clearly explained in UltimateDefrag's rather good manual.
UltimateDefrag is unusual for a defragger in creating three non-
contiguous groups. By comparison, $ware PerfectDisk has all usage
groups placed contiguously. Another $ware defragger, O&O Defrag, also
places the usage groups continuously and it too gives lots of placement
options but it defrags quite slowly.
Arguably, UltimateDefrag's non-contig placement involves more disk arm
movement and would result is slightly slower performance immediately
after a defrag but, if UltimateDefrag's hunch is correct, then
performance would remain good for some time because refragmentation is
slowed.
On the other hand, $ware Diskeeper takes a different route to this end
and will work as a multi-pass defragger. ISTR freeware DIRMS also does
this. If a background defragger is at work then refragmentation is
caught before it become a problem so UltimateDefrag offer no special
advantage.
BTW I notice that UltimateDefrag does not defrag NTFS's MFT and other
system areas and in *some* cases these can get very defragmented and
can adversely affect performance a lot.
Nice product. Nice interface. Nice options. Not really radically
better than the other defraggers (freeware or $ware) as it's
advertising suggests. Nice that UltimateDefrag is free. Probably a
good choice especially because it's easy to use.
Johnw
> I just installed UltimateDefrag Public Domain Edition and used it to defrag
> fragmented files only. The display resembles the layout of a hard drive
> (circular) and it did the job in about 5 minutes.
I have XP pro, 200GB HD formatted to NTFS, 2.8 cpu. 24GB drive space
used, hasn'nt been defragged for about a month.
I booted into Safe Mode & ran these one after the other.
1: Windows Disk Defragmenter. Took nearly 2 hours.
2: DeFraggler. Took nearly 2 hours.
3: JkDefrag. Took nearly 2 hours.
4: UltimateDefrag. Took nearly 3 hours.
5: Rebooted into normal mode & ran UltimateDefrag, very quick, nothing
much had changed.
Very good program, get the feeling though, if you have your comp well
setup, it dos'nt make a lot of difference which defragger you use.
23 Ways To Speed WinXP Without Defrag
http://www.techbuilder.org/recipes/59201471
Bear Bottoms
> Very good program, get the feeling though, if you have your comp well
> setup, it dos'nt make a lot of difference which defragger you use.
You could very well be right...however, I like the realistic graphic
depiction and the choices, which make sense to me. Every little bit helps.
Franklin
> On Sun, 25 May 2008 20:53:35 -0500, Johnw <jm...@webace.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Very good program, get the feeling though, if you have your comp
>> well setup, it dos'nt make a lot of difference which defragger
>> you use.
>
> You could very well be right...however, I like the realistic
> graphic depiction and the choices, which make sense to me. Every
> little bit helps.
>
You may feel the diagram helps but in fact you're misleading yourself.
In another post to this thread I explained that UltimateDefrag's
diagram does not represent a physical view of the hard drive.
Franklin
> Bear Bottoms used his keyboard to write :
>> I just installed UltimateDefrag Public Domain Edition and used it
>> to defrag fragmented files only. The display resembles the layout
>> of a hard drive (circular) and it did the job in about 5 minutes.
>
> I have XP pro, 200GB HD formatted to NTFS, 2.8 cpu. 24GB drive
> space used, hasn'nt been defragged for about a month.
>
> I booted into Safe Mode & ran these one after the other.
>
> 1: Windows Disk Defragmenter. Took nearly 2 hours.
>
> 2: DeFraggler. Took nearly 2 hours.
>
> 3: JkDefrag. Took nearly 2 hours.
>
> 4: UltimateDefrag. Took nearly 3 hours.
>
> 5: Rebooted into normal mode & ran UltimateDefrag, very quick,
> nothing much had changed.
It's surprising that each defragger had to throughly modify the
defragmented result of the previous tool. Sounds like they were
each be aiming at a quite different end result.
Your defrag times are astonisingly slow.
As a VERY ROUGH non-scientific estimate I would have guessed it
would have taken 15 to 20 minutes.
Maybe you run background apps even in XP's Safe Mode.
Maybe problems with the NTFS system areas.
Maybe something else entirely like sector errors (but I doubt it).
C.Joseph S. Drayton
>I just installed UltimateDefrag Public Domain Edition and used it to
>defrag fragmented files only. The display resembles the layout of a
>hard drive (circular) and it did the job in about 5 minutes.
>
I tried UltimateDefrag and my feelings are mixed. On all of my data
drives, it seems to do an excellent job . . . on system disk (ie.
partitions with a OS that is currently running) it always finds errors
and never gets past the analysing stage.
The first time I got the error, I figured the problem might stem from
the fact that it was one of my testing machines (high probability of
corruption <LOL>). I ran 4 different check disk applications NONE found
any errors. I then ran JKDefrag and it found no errors and did the
complete defrag. I then went pack into UltimateDefrag, and it still
reported disk errors and would not complete the analysis.
I have been using JKDefrag for a while now, but I must admit I really
like the UltimateDefrag interface, so if am simply doing something
wrong I would like to know so that I can switch over to it.
--
Sincerely,
C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T
CSD Computer Services
Please excuse the TEMPORARY web site
Web site: http://csdcs.itgo.com/
E-mail: cjo...@csdcs.itgo.com
Bear Bottoms
wrote:
> I have been using JKDefrag for a while now, but I must admit I really
> like the UltimateDefrag interface, so if am simply doing something
> wrong I would like to know so that I can switch over to it.
Ask the UltimateDefrag folks. They responded quickly to my emails.
http://www.disktrix.com/DTContact.htm
Franklin
> Franklin <nev...@d.sight.of.it>:
>
>> You may feel the diagram helps but in fact you're misleading
>> yourself.
>>
>> In another post to this thread I explained that UltimateDefrag's
>> diagram does not represent a physical view of the hard drive.
>
> a separate disc. But where the stuff really is.....?
>
> Yrrah
>
Yrrah, that is exactly so.
I'm all for enthgusiasm but, sad to say, Mr Bottom's posts in ACF are a
bit like the daily entries in the diary of some newcomer to computing.
Mr Bottoms posts enthusiastically about freeware gewgaws which sparkle
and gleam and promise the earth but his judgements seems to be based on
minimal knowledge of even the most basic computer theory.
Mr Bottoms then posts his musings, based on his incomplete
understanding, on the behavior of some freeware. In doing so he
demonstrates just how little he is aware of the basic principles.
If it isn't a misunderstanding about hard drives then we can find Mr
Bottom's misunderstandings about the BIOS in the current threads. A
week or two ago it was about the value of SpeedFan to general users.
And so on.
I can't manage to match up the naive content of his postings with his
claim to have been involved in computing since 1980 (or some year very
close to that). The two just don't match.
All I can say is that anyone using Mr Bottom's Bearware website for
freeware recommendations might just find they've taken a bigger chance
than they realized on untested or misunderstood applications.
Franklin
Johnw
> Sounds like they were each be aiming at a quite different end result.
> Your defrag times are astonisingly slow.
Only thing I can think of that is different to my other drives ( which
defrag fast ) is this one has 1.7GB of ISO's & 9.7GB of exe/zip files.
As mentioned earlier in this post, I was using Dirms, which takes 24
hrs to set up the way they like it, after that, it sits in the
background & when things are not busy, does it's job. A very good,
trouble free program.
> Maybe you run background apps even in XP's Safe Mode.
> Maybe problems with the NTFS system areas.
> Maybe something else entirely like sector errors (but I doubt it).
All above are OK.
Johnw
> I really like the UltimateDefrag interface, so if am simply doing something
> wrong I would like to know so that I can switch over to it.
Try it in Safe Mode, I found it told me a couple of settings it wanted
changed before running. I used the Auto mode.