No favorite files added yet
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!