So, how am I suppose to use Ultimate Defrag?

Select how you want your fragments arranged (file/folder, recency, etc) and then hit Start and let it do its job.
 
honestly, if you're using the NTFS filesystem you shouldn't have to worry about defragging at all. The NTFS filesystem optimizes your space just fine on its own. But if you insist on wasting time with defragmentizers, then I'd use Recency which places your most oft-used programs in the first sector of your drive. But you will see almost no performance gain.
 
honestly, if you're using the NTFS filesystem you shouldn't have to worry about defragging at all. The NTFS filesystem optimizes your space just fine on its own

It does? I just took this screen shot from my XP MCE machine. :p I don't bother defragging it because it will be just like this again in month or so.

 
It does? I just took this screen shot from my XP MCE machine. :p I don't bother defragging it because it will be just like this again in month or so.


Don't let the image fool you. Just because they appear jumbled, it is more or less optimized and program groups are likely kept together.
 
NTFS does need defragmenting, way to derail a thread with nonsense :rolleyes:

OP choose whichever option you like the sound of.
I use Recency with Most Recent Data Most Outer.

To see how many fragments are in each file, run Defraggler, it shows all fragmented files and where they are located.
You likely havent got heavy fragmentation as your drive is nowhere near full.
 
I've tested Ultimate Defrag in the past-past (early 2007) and in the recent past (last month) and haven't noted any appreciable differences in the program. The old version and the new version seem to do basically the same thing like always, regardless of the marketing doublespeak being tossed out by the maker.

I used both versions on a VM recently (clean install of XP SP3 inside VirtualBox, 1GB RAM assigned, 20GB virtual hard drive, shotgun-blasted fragmentation pass using Whitney defrag into ~55% fragmented) and they both took essentially the same amount of time to do a clean defrag back to no fragmentation. What gets on my nerves is how Ultimate Defrag says it'll let you place any file anywhere you want and I've never had that much luck with it or that "feature."

I've purposely tried to move specific files directly to the beginning of the drive (meaning the outside of the platters, in the first few sectors which is the fastest place possible) and miraculously when it said the job was done, a further scan showed that Ultimate Defrag hadn't moved the file(s) at all. No matter how many times I tried, using the old or the new version, I never got it to place the specified file(s) where I wanted, so I dismissed it as bullshit and moved on.

It's slower than PerfectDisk, didn't seem to give full defragmentation even when it claimed it was fully defragged, and basically didn't live up to the hype. I had high hopes for this application, but so far in testing it twice now I still wouldn't buy it.

If you're running Vista, you don't need a third party defragger anymore, period. You just don't, and if you think you do, you need to learn more about Vista. If you absolutely must have a third party defragger wasting space on your drive and using resources with the services it'll keep in RAM, get PerfectDisk, there's nothing better.

If you want a nice defragger that is relatively quick and efficient - and totally free - then I'd agree with the post above: get JkDefrag.

ps
And in that defrag shootout, I'm surprised that guy hadn't included the Whitney defrag, especially for it's ability to shotgun-blast the hell out of a partition scattering the data like it was "shotgun blasted" by pellets. That's my tool of choice for defrag testing as there's nothing else that can effectively ruin a drive's fragmentation level like that one tiny little app can.
 
Don't let the image fool you. Just because they appear jumbled, it is more or less optimized and program groups are likely kept together.

Actually the D: drive on that machine is where my recorded TV shows are kept. The files are all large 2+ GB .dvr-ms files. The one bit of blue space shown in the screen shot is left over from the last time I defragged, probably a show I haven't deleted since then.

If it's recording a TV show, why isn't it storing it contiguously along the disk? I can move one of the files to the C: drive, then move it back to D: and defrag shows it stored in a contiguous block.
 
honestly, if you're using the NTFS filesystem you shouldn't have to worry about defragging at all. The NTFS filesystem optimizes your space just fine on its own. But if you insist on wasting time with defragmentizers, then I'd use Recency which places your most oft-used programs in the first sector of your drive. But you will see almost no performance gain.

You could not be further from the truth.
 
jimnms demonstrated that already.

At work, I use JKDefrag twice a week, once with the fast optimize (3) option and then again on the weekend with I think option 7. I have these run via Windows task scheduler. They keep things pretty defragmented.
 
I'm still insufferably attached to Contig (more widely known to people as the downloadable package "Power Defragmenter").
 
Bleh... those benchmarks are useless. They didn't even set PerfectDisk to handle the layout.ini properly - that one setting alone would have considerably altered the boot time. Note the Windows defragger did alter the boot time quite a bit because it takes the layout.ini info and uses it to restructure the boot files just as PerfectDisk would if those folks had taken the time to configure it.

Damned websites can't do testing for shit, I swear. I've never encountered one that does most benchmarking at all correctly, not even the [H]. BLEH.
 
Back
Top