Hi slowday, I like trying new stuff, but not too sure about new defrag applications. Doing this sort of operation under Returnil or Powershadow is definitely not a good idea.
I was hoping someone with test pcs might have given this a whirl, (selfish I know guys, but I've only one pc and one drive), but I've downloaded it anyway, as it has the Geek Tested green tick. Hope that's as good a recommendation as I hope it is.
Have you tried it?
Hi slowday, I like trying new stuff, but not too sure about new defrag applications. Doing this sort of operation under Returnil or Powershadow is definitely not a good idea.
I was hoping someone with test pcs might have given this a whirl, (selfish I know guys, but I've only one pc and one drive), but I've downloaded it anyway, as it has the Geek Tested green tick. Hope that's as good a recommendation as I hope it is.
Have you tried it?
I liked the look of the gui, that is why I posted the question. I haven't tried it, however, if any positive feedback comes in I will.
I liked the look of the gui, that is why I posted the question. I haven't tried it, however, if any positive feedback comes in I will.
It looks more or less like the built in defrag from microsoft...
At only 94.9 KB for the download I'd think it was just using the built in Microsoft/Executive Software Defrag API, which begs to differ why bother with it.
At only 94.9 KB for the download I'd think it was just using the built in Microsoft/Executive Software Defrag API, which begs to differ why bother with it.
Now I wouldn't have realized that, and no disrespect to JKDefrag, but I use windows defrag mostly now anyways, and if thats the case, and as it's already installed, I might just keep this for the GUI, which I quite like.
Perfect disk 7 showed 283 fragments before an Ultra defrag and 79 after an Ultra defrag but the placements looked much the same.XP VM.
Before Ultra Defrag
After Ultra
After PD Smart Placement
Thanks for giving that a whirl Humpty.
It seems puzzling that the GUI shows hardly any difference although the numbers show different?
Just tried Ultradefrag on my C: drive. Same sort of result.
Before Defrag.
After Defrag.
Not a lot of difference visually, although the numbers said 780 fragmented down to 151.
What is evident, is how lightning fast windows explorer opens folders, and how much more quickly applications load.
Exactly the same improvement I get after using windows defrag tool, but not the same visual result.
Don't you just love computers.
Just tried Ultradefrag on my C: drive. Same sort of result.
Before Defrag.
After Defrag.
Not a lot of difference visually, although the numbers said 780 fragmented down to 151.
What is evident, is how lightning fast windows explorer opens folders, and how much more quickly applications load.
Exactly the same improvement I get after using windows defrag tool, but not the same visual result.
Don't you just love computers.
Try that before and after comparison but use JK Defrag. The difference is very large.
I don't think I'll defrag again straightaway Anthony, but I don't doubt you at all. I've seen the difference JKDefrag makes visually.
But I don't get the same performance after using JKD, which is why I went back to using Windows defrag tool.
I don't know enough to explain why one looks better, but the other one works better for me, but I think I'll stick with whichever one makes my HD run smoother and quieter, and at the moment that's Windows, or Ultra, which apparently could be the same beast with a different GUI.
I don't think I'll defrag again straightaway Anthony, but I don't doubt you at all. I've seen the difference JKDefrag makes visually.
But I don't get the same performance after using JKD, which is why I went back to using Windows defrag tool.
I don't know enough to explain why one looks better, but the other one works better for me, but I think I'll stick with whichever one makes my HD run smoother and quieter, and at the moment that's Windows, or Ultra, which apparently could be the same beast with a different GUI.
I don't notice a performance difference with any defrag program. That's probably because I don't let the disk get too messed up before I defrag again. Usually once a month I defrag. I do see a big difference though in how the disk looks after I use JK Defrag and than analyze it with the Windows built in defrag.
The only free defrag tool I've ever noticed a "visual difference" after using is the one included with Avira NTFS4DOS Personal the freeware version which must be used via a floppy bootdisk. It's a DOS based defrag utility, and it's beyond stupidly slow even the Win9x defrag tool is light years faster than it (start it before going to bed in other words). However it does work!
the best defragmenter i ever used was diskeeper pro premium
so if you want the best of the bests i would reccomend u getting it, you can get from demonoid.com