• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ult6imate Defrag, no support

S

soldano

Member
Ultimate Defrag is promoted as the final solution for PC perfomance, but its support is null.- I had a problem which prevents defragging one of my HDs and my questions were not answered since 3 months ago, in spite of the several requires I sent.-
 
Your comment echoes Mike's comment in this review:

UD

Which version did you fall for>
 
For what it's worth, 3rd party defrag programs are way better than the Windows one. I don't see a reason to buy one, but the free ones are very noticeably better.

Defraggler defragments the drive several times faster than the Vista built in one. This is not an exaggeration, I'm serious. Next is that I've tested that after a Windows defrag has run, when I open up Defraggler it still shows a huge amount of fragmentation. It's as if the Windows defrag barely did anything at all. There's really no comparison.
 
Originally posted by: dguy6789
For what it's worth, 3rd party defrag programs are way better than the Windows one. I don't see a reason to buy one, but the free ones are very noticeably better.

Defraggler defragments the drive several times faster than the Vista built in one. This is not an exaggeration, I'm serious. Next is that I've tested that after a Windows defrag has run, when I open up Defraggler it still shows a huge amount of fragmentation. It's as if the Windows defrag barely did anything at all. There's really no comparison.
Click to expand...

And you've benched the machine before and after to demonstrate the huge performance difference between the 2? I haven't spent a single second waiting for Vista to defrag my drives. It does it at 3am on Wed, and I haven't even seen it defrag.
 
For what it's worth, 3rd party defrag programs are way better than the Windows one. I don't see a reason to buy one, but the free ones are very noticeably better.

Defraggler defragments the drive several times faster than the Vista built in one. This is not an exaggeration, I'm serious. Next is that I've tested that after a Windows defrag has run, when I open up Defraggler it still shows a huge amount of fragmentation. It's as if the Windows defrag barely did anything at all. There's really no comparison.
Click to expand...

So? You've got two apps that shuffle your data around with no tangible results, what's it matter which one shuffles faster?
 
I wonder if other defraggers offers the feature included in Ultimate Defragger with which you can select how to place the folders physically in the disk, giving preference to the most used in order to speed reading.-
 
I wonder if other defraggers offers the feature included in Ultimate Defragger with which you can select how to place the folders physically in the disk, giving preference to the most used in order to speed reading.-
Click to expand...

I don't wonder that because it doesn't matter. Directory entries are stored in the MFT and you can't change that without changing filesystems. So with directories and file metadata being in the MFT and the actual file data being somewhere else on disk there's already going to be a bit of seeking when reading a directory, you can't avoid that. Since you can't predict where the heads will be when you initiate the read sometimes it'll be a win and sometimes it'll be a loss, but overall the difference will be negligable.
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
I wonder if other defraggers offers the feature included in Ultimate Defragger with which you can select how to place the folders physically in the disk, giving preference to the most used in order to speed reading.-
Click to expand...

I don't wonder that because it doesn't matter. Directory entries are stored in the MFT and you can't change that without changing filesystems. So with directories and file metadata being in the MFT and the actual file data being somewhere else on disk there's already going to be a bit of seeking when reading a directory, you can't avoid that. Since you can't predict where the heads will be when you initiate the read sometimes it'll be a win and sometimes it'll be a loss, but overall the difference will be negligable.
Click to expand...

Thats true, but the feature allows to place MFT and the selected files in the exterior of the disk, where the reading is faster, I think then overall performance of the aplications involved should improve.-
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
For what it's worth, 3rd party defrag programs are way better than the Windows one. I don't see a reason to buy one, but the free ones are very noticeably better.

Defraggler defragments the drive several times faster than the Vista built in one. This is not an exaggeration, I'm serious. Next is that I've tested that after a Windows defrag has run, when I open up Defraggler it still shows a huge amount of fragmentation. It's as if the Windows defrag barely did anything at all. There's really no comparison.
Click to expand...

So? You've got two apps that shuffle your data around with no tangible results, what's it matter which one shuffles faster?
Click to expand...

Actually there are tangible results.
 
Thats true, but the feature allows to place MFT and the selected files in the exterior of the disk, where the reading is faster, I think then overall performance of the aplications involved should improve.-
Click to expand...

You can't move the MFT once the filesystem is created. And event though it's technically true that throughput is faster at one side of the platters, throughput isn't an issue 99% of the time, latency is. Which is why 15K RPM drives were so popular for servers, throughput was about the same but latency was much lower making them feel faster. With the way demand paging works application load time shouldn't be affected much, if at all, because interspersed with the binary itself is the paging in of all of the dependent files like shared libraries and data files. Virtually no files are read in huge, sequential chunks. In some instances like games with large levels, textures, etc it may help level load times and such but those are the exception and not the rule.

Actually there are tangible results.
Click to expand...

And you've got proof of this besides the normal anecdotal "But it feels faster"?
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman

And you've got proof of this besides the normal anecdotal "But it feels faster"?
Click to expand...

It feels faster because it's supposed to feel faster. 🙂
I stopped deffragging a long time ago (years) and I don't have crashes, slowdowns, or anything defragging claims to fix. My drives bench just as high as the day they were bought (after putting data on them.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top