Reviews of UltraDefrag

1. 
   Input Overload

   Reviewing 5.0.0 RC2 (Dec 29, 2011)

   Still as good as PerfectDisc 12.xx & better & faster than O&O 11.xx, & still free, keep up the good work.
   
   BTW - PefectDisc actually is designed to give the illusion of a perfectly un-fragmented disc. And as a solid state disc at the very least for boot-up (which is pretty much ideal for the time being) the days of pay for defraggers has gone. They ought to be thinking up new software or be out of a job.
   
   Also any speed gains that O&O & Raxco give is removed by having services running in the background which is pretty stupid.
2. 
   AudioEng

   Reviewing 5.0.0 RC1 (Nov 26, 2011)

   I am confused at the results spectrum I see here - if you are replacing the Windows defrag utility, then why is it being used to benchmark this utilities effectiveness? In my environment, I have several machines allocated for different tasks, as well as a main fileserver.The client machines are all Win7 Enterprise 64-bit, and the server is Server 2008 R2 64-bit. I have used, Defraggler, O&O, Diskeeper, SmartDefrag (formerly MyDefrag), and Auslogics. Ultradefreag comes in a strong first place in two categories: 1. Speed of file access and application startup 2. Speed of full optimization and boot-time defrag. This hold true on server as well as workstation tests. I have a multimedia studio, and the files are many, constantly changing content, size and location (all workstations have at least 3 internal drives - server has 6) The other area this utility shines in is optimizing media files well in excess of 1GB. I can do a typical 1TB full optimization in less than 5 minutes (it is done daily on all machines), and the subsequent file access times are slashed from all other tested defragmenters.The application startup time, and plugin render times on the DAW and Video machines is beyond a simple improvement - it is on the order of 1/4 the previous times. I have not bithered to see what any other defragmenter says about fragmentation - when I used their algorithms, the times were nowhere near what they are now, so my opinion is those are the flawed algorithms, not Ultradefrag's algorithms. This has been an ongoing test - for years, but with the release of v5 RC1, Ultradefrag has moved into the big league. I can not express my gratitude for this wonderful, and FREE program - many, many thanks - keep up the good work guys!
3. 
   anomoly

   Reviewing 5.0.0 RC1 (Oct 21, 2011)

   Per the devs: "The main goal of defragmentation is disk access speedup." And I would hope in the process extend the life of your discs as well.
   The configuration file now allows turning off updating, among other things, & for exclusions, inclusions, and has zip, rar, and 7zip's excluded by default as well. Windows as a file system on mechanical drives will never be the end all for speed OR access to data no matter how the files are placed. Some will pay to automatically defrag their discs and others simply won't do it at all. I've had issues with this before too but I like that it is being developed while mydefrag isn't. Plus this has options which mydefrag apparently never will. This has boot defrag as well as optimization options, mydefrag has just the basic day/week/month scripts. All in all I like where this is going while mydefrag is somewhat 1999. The only thing mydefrag has that this doesn't is the ability to defrag a flash drive. IMHO, it would be more efficient, and quicker by far!, to simply format and rewrite it.
4. 
   KuHGl

   Reviewing 5.0.0 Beta 2 (Jan 4, 2011)

   The 3 Stars are o.p.t.i.m.i.s.t.i.c...
   To say it clearly: In not one single aspect it is able to give comparable results to MyDefrag.
   It leaves a lot of fregmented Files on the disk, optimization is far away from reliable...
   
   To make it short: There is a lot of work to do on it, until it's able to compete at least with MyDefrag. And defregmenting system files is avilable since a long time by 'Page Defrag' (which is - no wonder - also used by MyDefrag).
   
   I could understand the effort of UltraDefrag, if there would be a really new algorithm, but ... even it should be new... with the given performance it is simply a joke.
   
   When I defrag a partition or even folders/files (which is, BTW, already solved not bad by WinContig), then I expect at least with a 75% filled HD, that there is no fragment left.
   
   But in my last experiment there were still a lot of fragments left, when UD terminated (the largest ones of them were even visible with the poor graphical resolution of UD). After starting MyDefrag directly after UD stopped, I saw more fragments, than I could count as well as a huge amount of gaps of empty space on the disk. Even if I assume, the gaps are made for the possibility to increase the size of each file (which BTH is a concept used by ext2 and ext3 in Linux, as far as I can remember), this is nonsense, because Windows' file management differs from ext2 and instead of helping to avoid fragments, there is even more fragmentation after a short time.
   
   As a conclusion... I will test UD p.e.r.h.a.p.s, when it reaches version 6.x - but surely not before.
   
   All tests I've made on a WinXP SP 3 with 3G RAM, a partition of 80 GB and a dual core Pentium.
5. 
   anomoly

   Reviewing 4.4.0 (Sep 28, 2010)

   I believe that it asks for internet access simply because the devs want to know simple statistics on user builds. Freearc does the same thing and I have blocked it as well. With freearc, since I'm always using the latest beta it does me no good to check for updates anyways.

Discuss UltraDefrag

No comments yet