ULTIMATEDEFRAG 2008 v.2.0.0.48 Released

[+hayc59 MVC]

Build Date: 9 May 2008

UltimateDefrag is the world's most powerful defragger in terms of the file placement flexibility it gives you for defragging and strategically placing files on your hard drive - right down to the individual file level. With The Defragger And File Placement Optimizer That Lets You Defrag & Optimize Your Hard Drive - Any Way You Want To!

UltimateDefrag is the Ultimate Defragger and File Placement Optimizer. Defragging hard drives helps to restore your hard drive performance. File placement optimizing on the other hand, boosts your theoretical hard drive file access performance by up to 300% of manufacturers quoted averages (typical performance increase you'll experience is between 25 and 100%) by placing the files you want performance from onto the faster performing (outer tracks) areas of your hard drive. With UltimateDefrag - you can specify which individual files, programs or games you want the best performance from. The "Archive" function places all of your unused files out of the way and onto the slower performing areas of your hard drive.

Product Info: UltimateDefrag 2008 v.2.0.0.48

[xpgeek]

Changelog?

Curious cause as I said in last thread bout this program, I used this on XP and really really liked it.

But on Vista, maybe cause its 64bit Vista, it doesn't seem to want to work. It seems to run normally, but finishes the defrag in like 1 minute without actually having defragged anything or moved anything that I selected for high performance files. It just doesn't seem to want to work.

[+hayc59 MVC]

No change log as of yet...sorry

[mtrftw]

It's on their site if you click support:

UltimateDefrag 2008 2.0.0.48 - 9 May 2008

Updates and fixes in this release

BUG FIXES

*

Some Vista metafiles were causing stalled defrags. This has been corrected in this version.

I wish they would hurry up and release the boot time defrag module. I can't believe they released it without the ability to do a boot time defrag.

[Yogurth]

Abominable website, like those teleshop shows. WAIT

[Xenomorph]

I can see people going for this just because of its "circle" display.

[Smigit]

http://disktrix.com/images/defragscreen600.jpg

Now if that isn't a candidate for one of the ugliest UI's I've seen I don't know what it.

[ahhell]

Yo yo yo!! Pimp your hard drive, dawg!!

Looks like that UI needs to "tricked" out. GAH!!

[jnelsoninjax]

Besides the fact I have never heard of this program or company before, I admit that it sounds good, but they want to charge $30 for the program, I might be tempted to spend the extra $20 and go with Diskeeper Pro Version. I also agree the UI needs some massive improvements. :woot:

[PermaSt0ne]

Besides the fact I have never heard of this program or company before, I admit that it sounds good, but they want to charge $30 for the program, I might be tempted to spend the extra $20 and go with Diskeeper Pro Version. I also agree the UI needs some massive improvements. :woot:

i'm curious as to why you mention you haven't heard of it, especially since it's obvious you haven't done any research into defraggers at all?

ultimate defrag has been around for a long time. but it's def not worth the $30

[DerAusgewanderte]

Maximum PC carried out a test in the most recent issue and concluded that you'd be wasting your money if you paid for an application like this. On Vista none of the programs gave better results than the windows internal defrag which you can silently set to automatically defrag every night...

If you really need a replacement, choose one of the free ones that show you what's going on while defragging. However, they are not better either.

[xpgeek]

Well it still doesn't seem to want to actually work on Vista. Maybe cause its Vista 64bit, I don't know. Whatever, I give up on this program.

[LOC Veteran]

I've been using UltimateDefrag for quite awhile. Personally, I could careless about the new UI, it doesn't bother me in the least. I do think the new features for the 2008 version are very good, but it still (to me) isn't worth paying $30 for. :|

[Webtrance]

GET THIS

It's free and very good...been using it for years, works on Vista. Also try CCleaner folks.

[[deXter]]

I've been using UltimateDefrag for a long time now and it certainly is a unique defragmenter amongst the dozens out there. Now if you're looking for "just" a defragmenter, then UD isn't for you at all. It definately isn't worth the price. On the other hand, if you're a hardcore tweaker who likes to extract the maximum possible juice out of the system, then UD is a priceless tool.

The performance benefits of UD and defragmentation are largely dependent on your computer, your environment, usage and requirements, and the way you've set up UD. If you're comparing UD with other programs directly after a default install, then you're seriously undermining the capability of the program. UD performs best when you tweak it and fully set it up according to your drive layout and usage patterns.

On my celeron 1Ghz machine, I was able to reduce my W2K3 bootup time from 48 seconds to just 23 secs! (Used BootVis to create Layout.ini, edited it to add ntldr, boot.ini and ntdetect.com, then enabled the Layout.ini option in UD). On lower capacity drives like I've got (40 GB), it's extremly important that the precious outer regions are occupied by critical OS files and drivers. Thanks to UD, I have full control over what files should go where.

Sure, the UI sucks, but who cares? Try finding any other defragmenter that offers so much choice and power as UD does. Let's get this straight: it's not meant for the average home user.

[zerologic]

This must be the ugliest product ever. Why would I purchase it? I can't see any advantages.

[gshapiro]

Ugly interface and slow as molasses for me.

[bubu3k]

UD might has some good aspects but has many that things that they should explain and they don't in any of their documentation.

First is that if you used it to defrag a partition isn't with anything better then your common defragger unless the actual partition is on the outer tracks of one of HHD's physical disks (a HDD contains multiple magnetic discs). So in this case it's useless.

Second why would it actually read the info faster. I know many articles say that manufacturers do their benchmarks with low information set on the outer tracks of HDDs, but for me, at least, this looks more like a myth since none of the articles provide any technical details. Yes it's true that the outer regions of any rotating disk have a higher velocity then the inner ones, but ....at the same time....any bit of information on the outer tracks need to travel a longer route to be read by the magnetic needle, and since the reading is done in a linear way i can't really see how would be better to for some files to be on the outer tracks.

[morganpugh84]

GET THIS

It's free and very good...been using it for years, works on Vista. Also try CCleaner folks.

Using it for years? It only came out last year :p

[Malechai1]

ps if you dont want to give your real info for the trial, just put in garbage. you still get to the download

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

I tried the freeware version and the look of it does not bother me, what bothers me that it said it would take 2+ hours to defrag a 75.2GB partition. O&O Pro Defrag is a far superior product.