UltraDefrag 4.3.0

Rated 40/50 by DrMuraliRaj at Apr 22, 2010

Ease of installation and use,faster than a lot of other defragmenters-optimization is slow,though,and that cannot be helped,I suppose.No problems with it all. None at all. A good,lean and fast optimizer-do try this out:better than most others,and free too!

Rated 40/50 by roj at Jun 1, 2010

Slipped it in has absolutely no clue on what he's emoting. It is known and provable fact that EVERY file system fragments. Microsoft stopped spouting the ridiculous fallacy that NTFS does hot fragment years ago and this lad is quite obviously behind the times. If MS kernel engineers are willing to state categorically that NTFS does suffer from fragmentation and that this is exactly the reason why a published set of APIs is included in the OS to alleviate the condition, that's conclusive. I'm inclined to believe the architects of the OS and not some unenlightened amateur. As to Diskeepoer, that program is a solution in search of a problem. It has added so many useless golly-gee-whiz features since its inception that you'd think it was developed by the followers of bad science fiction. The best part is that the company wants money for their psuedo "value added" approach - I got off their bandwagon years ago after version 6. I put this app up against MyDefrag. Both are credible products. The interface of this app is getting better (I use large DPI sizes) and that's a relief. Personally I prefer MyDefrag but I have no issue with recommending this app; it comes down to what flavor you prefer. FOUR stars.

Rated 40/50 by filbertrocko at Jul 22, 2010

Thoroughly defrags, esp in vista were you can't see what you are doing, like in XP takes a long time

Rated 40/50 by DrMuraliRaj at Aug 22, 2010

Light and easy to use. A trifle too slow. Easy to install and use,strikingly low memory usage.

Rated 50/50 by Input Overload at Sep 17, 2010

Increased boot speed, Win Vista multi-core CPU.

Rated 40/50 by andy2004 at Sep 18, 2010

whilst this program is a good defragger and completely free and does the job well, I'm still unsure as to why, when they create the installer they insist on installing the program in c:\windows\ultradefrag and not c:\program files\ultradefrag which is my only gripe with this program, every other program i install goes in c:\program files\ this does not, so for that reason alone i'm not giving it the full 5 stars but only 4

Rated 50/50 by anomoly at Sep 20, 2010

The context menu option is perfect and running from outside a folder like the program files using a script is so easy from a developer/application perspective. The best..

Rated 40/50 by hose at Sep 24, 2010

why does it want "internet access"??? i find no "update" settings to turn off and searched the forums and found no answer. i have blocked it via my firewall. author can you answer why internet is needed and will blocking it effect its ability? applications that phone home without my consent bother me, aside from this apprehension it seems like a very good program. please answer this as to put others who read this post at ease

Rated 50/50 by cmotdibbler at Sep 24, 2010

Seems to function well vs Auslogic and MyDefrag. Andy, the reason for installing into the System32 directory is for boot time defragging (see the documentation). Not sure if that is true or not.

Rated 50/50 by Aegis69 at Sep 24, 2010

Great defrag, very fast!

Rated 50/50 by Input Overload at Sep 25, 2010

My favorite defragger free or bought. Not sure why it asks for web access, it works OK blocked. Maybe it's an offshoot of Google, who a friend believes are going to switch on all web cams remotely to have pics of houses inside to go along with the street view and top views of planet earth.:-)

Rated 50/50 by anomoly at 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.

Rated 40/50 by joejet45 at Oct 3, 2010

nO WORK REQUIRED, NO THINKING REQUIRED. It should be renamed "Joe Jet Defrag Works" Get it, Use it and run it and let it tun off your computer and go have a banana split!!

Rated 10/50 by trihvost at Oct 27, 2010

nothing indeed. it has a lack of settings.it creates unnecessary files on every volume of a disk. it is just the built-in Windows defragmenter extension.

Rated 40/50 by HiRam_LoRam at Dec 24, 2010

Much better for defragmenting than XP's built-in defrag program Not entirely safe - can cause errors if interrupted in the middle of a process This program is a big improvement for XP users, since XP's defrag program is poor quality. Does a much deeper and more thorough defrag than XP. The "Optimize" function provides a noticeable improvement in performance. However, the "Optimize" function is VERY slow - on some of my machines it took 36 HOURS to run! If it's interrupted at any time during these 36 hours it can cause disk errors that are hard to repair. This program is not needed for Windows 7, which has a good built-in defragger. Overall, it's a good program, but be careful with it.

Rated 30/50 by KuHGl at 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.

Rated 10/50 by Fred2794 at Jan 27, 2011

Looks good but then looks are not everything. I found the Ultra Defragmenter too slow, so I uninstalled it I might be ok to use if you have plenty of time, but I preferred the old one, so I have gone back to it.

Rated 20/50 by vivcor at Feb 17, 2011

Defrag is fast I am running the optimizer on my 500 GB hard drive on a Vista 64 system. It has been running for over five days and is only 64% done. Okay for defrag but stay away from the optimizer