Discussion on:

Product Spotlight: UltraDefrag tool

What tool do you use for defragging hard drives? Why? How effective is it? How does UltraDefrag compare?

Downloaded Ultra Defrag from the link you provided. When I started the install, messages from my Kaspersky AV popped up saying that there was a trojan in the file. Could be a false alarm. Will try downloading the file from another source and try again.

Symantec flagged a virus right after the download; may have been a false alarm but I was not impressed with the speed anyway.

Downloaded file from another site. Same results with Kaspersky AV.

My Panda GP 2009 says it's a trojan too.

Neither Eset NOD32 and AVG detected a virus

I don't Trust AVG that much...

Yours,

Jack.

IT Professionals are not alone any more @
http://budurl.com/ITMMBlog

For what that's worth.

I'm running version 8.7.0.570 with virus definitions as of 09/27/09

-Susan

Will it defrag an Exchange database?

As you probably already know, Exchange has it's own defrag routine.
Personally, I would not recommend using any third party application to defrag the database. Or for that matter any database (SQL, etc.). Most database apps have their own utils for this. Third party, unless specifically designed for handling databases, would not be able do this safely.

Well I use PD10 Pro

tried ultradefrag about 8 months ago found it too slow and not as thorough as Piriforms defraggler. I tried the new version today and found no improvement in the tool.
I tried the command line version of Defraggler and it?s even faster than the GUI version. As for the much touted scheduler I just use windows scheduler to schedule running a batch file. I think the authors need to pull this back and do a lot more work before they reintroduce it.

Couldn't agree more, Piriform have great software.

Ditto, I say the ultra post and was going to try it but after reading the posts not so much

How effective is defraging a hd? Is there any noticeable improvement? Does anybody know of any references or bench tests? Thanks.

Its ususally not noticeable with windows defrag piriforms defraggler also gives the % of fragmentation how many files are fragmented how many fragments are in those files and even a file list for you to review

Defrag is an often forgotten and simple optimisation tool that yields significant performance results; this is especially the case with systems that have been "up" for a long time, and the HDD software has become very fragmented-try it out for yourself.

How does it compare to MyDefrag?

Regardless of which defrag utility I'm using, whenever I think it might be time to defragment, I first choose "analyze" so I can see just how fragmented a drive is. Usually this takes a few seconds, then I can decide whether or not to defrag.
But with UltraDefrag, it seemed to just start up and run the defragment process instead of coming back with an analysis. After about 10 minutes, I just canceled the process and went back to Smartdefrag.

UltraDefrag seems to take ages to Analyse - Windows Defrag would probably be nearly completed defragging by the Time UltraDefrag has finished Analysing!
Thats my experience just now. I wouldn't use it or recommend it.
Gonna try Smart Defrag now as recommended by others posts.

I wonder if these people actually test the products that they recommend.

I have pretty much used the standard OS defragmenter, but decided to download and try UltraDefrag. As others have mentioned, I experienced a very long analyzing phase with it that I did not have with the OS defragmenter. Then downloaded SmartDefrag, and it ran considerably faster. Will also give it a try at the actual defragmenting, as it says I was at 28%.

Call me crazy but I use it. If I have stubborn files that won't defrag, like OSTs and PSTs, I use Contig by sysinternals. The command is straight forward and simple.

I guess I don't care to install software to machines. I like simple straight forward no frills tools. If they run on a thumb drive, great. If it has command line support, even better.

on a regular basis. That's why I have been using Diskeeper. You set it and forget it. It works great, in the background when the system is idling and haven't had a problem ever since. It comes with a price, but there is always a cost to do business... Still cheaper than paying IT to fix things.

I have SmartDefrag installed, but only run it time to time. Both are much better than UltraDefrag in both function and GUI.

Defraggler also defragged files that neither of the other two would. I also like the listing of files in disk blocks.

Not being able to schedule defrags in Windows is a myth.

I have used scripts to automate defragging in XP and Vista. Windows 7 defrag has built-in scheduling which should make it even easier to keep systems defragmented. Perhaps there will even be a GPO setting for defrag.

Best yet, Windows defrag is approved and supported by Microsoft.

"Best yet, Windows defrag is approved and supported by Microsoft."


That means absolutely nothing. The whole "digital signature" thing is nothing more than security theatre. It means as much as Homeland Security making you throw your shampoo in the trash at the airport -- if they REALLY thoight it was a bomb, do you think they'd have you put it into a trash can right next to them? NO.

They know it's a farce. Everyone knows it's a farce. The only people who are fooled by security theatre are the people who believe that the nice man in Nigeria needs help getting his money out of the country.

The "digital signature" farce is no different.

The digital signature has almost zero to do with security and 99% to do with money. In order to get a digital signature from Microsoft, you have to pay them absurd amounts of money and wait months for them to "test" your application before you can receive the signature.

It's a money game, pure and simple. If it were really about security, Microsoft would create an automated website where you could upload your code, it would run the test, and then return the signature - all for a _small_ fee ($50).

I agree with blarman; it is a lot about money and a little about compliance. Everyone wants certified to work with windows so the OS will just run it. It doesn't mean a lot; it just means the OS can get screwed up by a certified app. Diskeeper told me to buy a more expensive version defrag a home system with 1Tb, Defraggler took over 10 hours to run the drive before I stopped it unfinished. SmartDefrag told me it would finish in less than an hour (we will see how that matches in about a half hour), UltraDefrag will not run on Win 7 RC with UAC turned off (it must have a digital sig to run period.), and the native Win 7 defrag is just lame. Although you can use it on a schedule. I have used scheduling on xp and 2003 server for defrag with success and am happy I don't have to do that with task schedulers any more. I like to use Open Source when possible when an open source can actually work like MS. I have a real problem with the money you do have to put out with MS and the other change features for profit orgs. We all live in a capitalistic society where you can profit off anything as long as there is limited competition. I will try UltraDefrag on an XP machine, but SuperDefrag seems to work well.

If it is part of windows, MS has to support it.

As for digital signatures, those merely prove that a file was signed with a security certificate, which is supposed to guarantee the identity of the author. Also don't be confused between a digital signature and MS certified; an author does not need MS to sign their files and installations.

People who don't clean-up malware for a living don't realize how helpful digital signatures are. I routinely use Process Explorer to find malware infected processes. Processes with Digital Signatures may be safely disregarded.

One exception to the benefit of signed digital signatures is rootkits. But rootkits don't show up as a process anyway and therefore must be dealt with differently.

Dollars may be involved, but there is a current benefit and enhanced security with digital signatures. To say otherwise is to ignore the studies that have been done showing the improved security of Vista over XP and for that matter my own personal experience.

To be sure crackers will eventually learn to circumvent this protection completely, but for now it is indeed helpful.

Perfect Disk from RAXCO SOFTWARE (Microsoft Certified Gold Partner) is the only defrag. tool I know that defargments not only the file system, but also the Master File Table, the Paging File, the Hibernate File, the Metadata & also Directories; this is done at boot time. Only with PD you can get the best performance. Scheduling, unattended & individual defrag fully supported also. Add to this a Registry Defragmenter (Glary Utilities for ex.) & you'll get the best tuning you've ever dreamed of for you machine.

Why would anyone want to defrag the PageFile?

Oh, wait,...because they left it the C: partition where it constantly causes the fragmentation of other files.

I find that one of the simplest things is to put it in its _own_ little Swap partition.

I've used Auslogic's Disk Defrag which is free for personal and corporate use and have been very pleased. It will schedule defrags (via Scheduled Tasks) or will run when your system is idle.

http://auslogics.com/en/software/disk-defrag

I have used and compared both UltraDefrag and Auslogics' Defrag. I fin Auslogics faster but UltraDefrag more complete and like UltraDefrag's ability to defrag free space which is much more difficult to accomplish under Auslogic's Defrag tool.

You already posted this product on Aug 5th 2009 on http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/window-on-windows/?p=1397 and got a great deal of feedback.

So, why post this again?

As to "What's Wrong?", again you have not told users that in Vista and Windows 7, the UAC must be turned off, which will diminish their protection against malware. This info is still posted on the author's website. I think administrators will have a huge problem with disabling the UAC and so should most consumers.

I find Auslogics to be the best. Simple and easy for most people to use. No warnings when you download it either. And it does look suspicious when you write about and push the same product twice in such a short time.
(nscave.com)

"again you have not told users that in Vista and Windows 7, the UAC must be turned off, which will diminish their protection against malware."

Poppycock. UAC is meaningless. Like any "security theatre", it serves no purpose other than to inconvenience legitimate users.

However, I do think it's odd that the same author has written two blogs on the same product in such a short time. It's an open source product, so it's not like he is getting kickbacks or anything. I guess he just REALLY likes it.

While there may be a few legitimate problems that can be addressed by UAC, for the most-part UAC is a ridiculous farce--its targeted at people who aren't aware they're logged in as Administrators. It serves no purpose other than to annoy people that know how to do their jobs.

And the same (or similar enough be a negligible difference) amount of gain could be achieved by having (for example) Microsoft's all-powerful Web-browser default to running as an unprivileged account.

Finally having a working privilege escalation is a "good-thing"--but Windows is still miles away from having a USEFUL privilege escalation scheme, specifically one that doesn't equate "Security" with asking for double and triple-confirms of things.

In short, make it work more like Linux and less like MS' philosophy is "everybody is too stupid to remember to breathe on their own."

Obviously you and bblackmoor do not work with residential customers and SOHO clients. Therefore, I can appreciate your positions. However, I cleanup numerous PCs and laptops from malware infections for those very clients and I can speak from experience in this arena. The following are my comments from the other blog on Ultra Defrag:

Is life easier without the UAC? Yes. But to say that turning off the UAC poses no security risks is just plain false.

I clean up infected systems all the time. Infected XP machines (by the time the customer calls me) can take up to 3+ hours to fully clean the system, clean the registry and repair damaged or missing files. On Vista PCs where the UAC has been left active, infections are dramatically reduced and when they do get infected, the clean-ups generally take no more than an hour because the UAC limits the extent of the OS exposed to malware. Say what you like about the UAC being annoying, it does work.

Also, on the signature issue that the Ultimate Defrag site demeans. I, personally, like the idea of having all drivers digitally signed. If Microsoft would also exercise this policy for all of their drivers, as well, systems could be even further protected from malware drivers posing as Microsoft drivers.

If you want a secure system, some sacrifices have to be made. XP is versatile, but not near as secure as Vista. Vista is more secure but not as friendly to open source programs like Ultra Defrag. So let the User beware and pick his own poison.

I asked Jack to write a Product Spotlight review of UltraDefrag so I could get some feedback on it as a product. The previous blog post was in the Windows blog as a How do I.

The feedback I receive here will lead to other defragging tools that we should consider for Product Spotlight reviews.

Thanks for the explanation? Makes sense. I hope the feedback will prove useful.

I have been a fan of SmartDefrag for a while now. How does UltraDefrag compare to SmartDefrag?