# UltimateDefrag version 1 gone freeware.



## AsRock (Aug 13, 2008)

I've tried so many defrag  programs to find this to be one of the best possible,  and it just got better buy it's old version going FREEWARE.

It will allow you to put data were you want it on the disk too + much much more.

UltimateDefrag Freeware Edition 1.72
http://www.download.com/UltimateDefrag-Freeware-Edition/3000-2094_4-10582157.html?hhTest=1

Or you could goto there site and get it
http://www.disktrix.com/UDFree.htm

Here's my results worked good as always.




















Defrag your pagefie. Posted by lemonadesoda
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=1143871#post1143871


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Aug 23, 2008)

What is the advantage of putting data where you want it?


----------



## AsRock (Aug 23, 2008)

Franklinwallbrown said:


> What is the advantage of putting data where you want it?



outside of the disk is the faster part of the HDD and by moving files that are rarely used to the inside of the disk allows most used file's to be on the outside of the disk.


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Aug 23, 2008)

That's what I thought...


----------



## Mussels (Aug 24, 2008)

my freeware version is 2.0.0.51, hehe


----------



## AphexDreamer (Aug 25, 2008)

How do you move data where you want it to be. Also is it supposed to take like 64 hours to defrag?


----------



## Mussels (Aug 25, 2008)

you choose a mode and set its options to obey high priority and archive, and then you go to the options for the drive and manually set folders for each type.

AKA games + OS are high priority while video files and installers are 'archive' (aka low priority)


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Aug 25, 2008)

I need to do this after I get my new computer...


----------



## newconroer (Aug 25, 2008)

Yes, UD is an awesome program, well worth paying for, but being free is great news, as long as the Vista program continues to get attention.

Though I HIGHLY urge you to read the readme all the way through.

The first time around you'll want to do a 'file and folder placement' defragmentation; which you have to manually setup the folders/files.

After that, unless you make significant changes to your data and blocks, you can do simple defrags which don't take long at all.

Here's a picture of one of my partitions.

All of my heavy used stuff is manually allocated to the outer tracks, then it skips a track in the middle and the rest is unused content nearing the inner tracks.


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Aug 25, 2008)

I'll do that, thanks...cool pic.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 25, 2008)

it doesnt work on vista


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Aug 25, 2008)

newconroer said:


> Yes, UD is an awesome program, well worth paying for, but being free is great news, as long as the Vista program continues to get attention.



So...


----------



## newconroer (Aug 25, 2008)

Actually it does work on Vista in two ways.

1. Install on XP. If you have a partition/dual boot or multiple drives, you can defrag the Vista drive/partition from XP.

2. There is a real Vista version, it's just not free. You can make it 'free' but we won't talk about that kinda stuff here.

http://disktrix.com/UDTrials.htm


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 25, 2008)

yeah


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Aug 25, 2008)

There you go...


----------



## AsRock (Aug 26, 2008)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> it doesnt work on vista



Whats not working under Vista ?. It works for me.


----------



## burebista (Aug 29, 2008)

I dunno about this but I'm pretty happy with SmartDefrag. Vista64 SP1 here, and when I remember (once a couple of months) to do a defrag it does a good job. 
For me at least.


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Aug 29, 2008)

If it works for you...


----------



## XSAlliN (Sep 2, 2008)

Yep works just fine. Vista 64 SP1, just clicked install and now I'm testing it - no problems so far. This is what I recommend: http://www.defraggler.com/ - it's made by the same guys that made CCleaner.


----------



## AsRock (Sep 2, 2008)

XSAlliN said:


> Yep works just fine. Vista 64 SP1, just clicked install and now I'm testing it - no problems so far. This is what I recommend: http://www.defraggler.com/ - it's made by the same guys that made CCleaner.



Did not like it my  self.  All though Ultimate Defrag works in Vista for me and i like the options it gives., i cannot use  SP1 with vista how ever i do fully update and SP1 is not available so would have to find it and download it like the last 2 times that SP failed on me.


----------



## Jrob (Sep 3, 2008)

I use perfect disk, find it to work really good.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Sep 3, 2008)

I use Diskeeper.  Works great, with the great speed increase, I could not go without it!


----------



## Jrob (Sep 3, 2008)

I use to use diskeeper switched to perfect disk becaue it did a better job with MFT.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Sep 3, 2008)

the freeware version is actually a big improvement over the original version i tried a couple of years back. GREAT! Recommended. Dont be put off by the v1.7 thingy... it does the job fine. And well.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 3, 2008)

to the people reccomending other programs: try ultimate defrag before you go saying something else is better. I use 2.0, and its the best and simplest i've used in a long time, without any extra bloat or unnecessary startup items/services/tray icons


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Sep 3, 2008)

Mussels said:


> to the people reccomending other programs: try ultimate defrag before you go saying something else is better. I use 2.0, and its the best and simplest i've used in a long time, without any extra bloat or unnecessary startup items/services/tray icons



I have tried it.  I liked it, but liked Diskeeper better.


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Sep 3, 2008)

To each his/her own...


----------



## burebista (Sep 6, 2008)

Mussels said:


> to the people reccomending other programs: try ultimate defrag before you go saying something else is better. I use 2.0, and its the best and simplest i've used in a long time, without any extra bloat or unnecessary startup items/services/tray icons


OK, I give it a shot.




I made some settings in Options (High Performance and Archive)



then in Consolidate Option



Run Consolidate, wait for an hour and so, finished, reboot and waiting for miracle. Nothing. Nada. No speed gains. Where is that blazing fast HDD after this defrag?
Then I do an Analyze after defrag.



Now what? I'm all red now. 

OK, bottom line, all those defrag program are useless on NTFS. If you feel better do a defrag with whatever program you like but don't expect miracles because you won't see anything.
BTW, Vista64SP1 here.
My 2 cents.


----------



## P4-630 (Sep 6, 2008)

Auslogics Disk Defrag

It's fast, good, and free
http://www.auslogics.com/en/software/disk-defrag

Vista/XP/2000/2003, 32-bit and 64-bit and dual-core CPU supported.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 6, 2008)

burebista said:


> OK, bottom line, *all those defrag program are useless on NTFS*. If you feel better do a defrag with whatever program you like but don't expect miracles because you won't see anything.
> BTW, Vista64SP1 here.
> My 2 cents.


Not if you are dealing with lots of large files. There are certain other situations that it benefits as well. This debate came up many times in the past, and it's already been proven to be beneficial in certain situations. Plus, it doesn't hurt performance, so why no do it?

I use O&O personally.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 6, 2008)

defrags do not make things faster - they simply stop fast things going slower.

i sure as hell noticed a difference here, i set some of my games to be 'high priority' and others to be 'acrhive'. i then copied each (one at a time) to an external WD 640GB hard drive. THe high priority game went at 65MB/s, while the archive ones did 35MB/s. Sounds like it worked just fine to me.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 6, 2008)

burebista said:


> OK, I give it a shot.
> 
> View attachment 18068
> 
> ...


What do you mean, now what? This post is a bit narrow sighted.  You should have defrag your data!


----------



## Mussels (Sep 6, 2008)

consolidate is actually no different to the windows method, you should use folder/file name for best performance. (exaple: C:/games/crysis - all crysis files will be near each other, reducing seek latency when accessing them thus boosting load times)


----------



## spud107 (Sep 6, 2008)

iv used o&o for ages in  it gets the job done quickly, especially doing multiple drives at once, theres an old version thats freeware too, http://www.majorgeeks.com/O&O_Defrag_2000_Freeware_Edition_d4545.html


----------



## Mussels (Sep 6, 2008)

O&O always locked up on me if i told it to do anything to several drives at once... if i have 5 hard drives, why cant i defrag them simultaneously? saves me time.


----------



## spud107 (Sep 6, 2008)

i can only do 3 drives at once, the fourth is another partition on one so prob not a good idea to do that at same time lol, im not sure how the older version copes doing multiple drives though,


----------



## Mussels (Sep 6, 2008)

well i have 5 drives in my cage, plus the one or two in the system connected (which varies) but it always locked the program up if i had more than 4 going at once. (and thats seperate drives, no partitions)


----------



## burebista (Sep 6, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> What do you mean, now what? This post is a bit narrow sighted.  You should have defrag your data!





Mussels said:


> consolidate is actually no different to the windows method, you should use folder/file name for best performance. (exaple: C:/games/crysis - all crysis files will be near each other, reducing seek latency when accessing them thus boosting load times)


I defraged my data. I Consolidate, then I run Folder/File name then I ran Fragmented Files only. I lost almost half a day and heat up my HDD just to see the miracle of UltimateDefrag.
As you see after whatever method I used I'm all red and Degree of defragmentation is 68.777%.
Superb. 
I just read on homepage


			
				disktrix.com said:
			
		

> After You Defrag & Optimize With UltimateDefrag...
> You Won't Believe The Newfound PC Performance You'll Experience!


Yep, I won't believe what I get after defrag so I came here and ask: now what after I ran 3 different methods an I have 68.777% defragmented files instead of:



			
				distrix.com said:
			
		

> An optimized hard drive can actually give you file performance that actually performs greater than 300% more than the manufacturer's quoted performance of your hard drive.   UltimateDefrag gives you that kind of performance.



Anyway for me it doesn't matter. If you feel better use whatever program you like. The results are the same.

PS. What means "narrow sighted"? Sorry I'm not a native English speaker.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 6, 2008)

burebista said:


> I defraged my data. I Consolidate, then I run Folder/File name then I ran Fragmented Files only. I lost almost half a day and heat up my HDD just to see the miracle of UltimateDefrag.
> As you see after whatever method I used I'm all red and Degree of defragmentation is 68.777%.
> Superb.
> I just read on homepage
> ...



I have no idea what you are talking about.  You make claims of performing defrag for files only and a file/folder defrag but only posted results of a consolidation.


----------



## burebista (Sep 6, 2008)

Man, first I did a consolidate and then when I saw that I'm 68% defragmented I did a File/Folder defrag, then I saw again same 68% defragmentation so I run defrag for files only. Guess what? Same 68% defragmentation.
Maybe I do something wrong but it isn't necessary to be a NASA engineer to make some settings and hit Start button. 

Anyway, I uninstall it like others dozen programs that I've tried along many years. For me all do same thing: placebo effect.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Sep 6, 2008)

Ill stick with AusLogics Disk Defrag.


----------



## AsRock (Sep 9, 2008)

burebista said:


> OK, I give it a shot.
> 
> View attachment 18068
> 
> ...




Like what the  hell lol. Never had that issue with any setting and been using it for some time now.





Wile E said:


> Not if you are dealing with lots of large files. There are certain other situations that it benefits as well. This debate came up many times in the past, and it's already been proven to be beneficial in certain situations. Plus, it doesn't hurt performance, so why no do it?
> 
> I use O&O personally.




Yeah i used to use O&O some 6  more years ago. Umm wounder why i stopped using it.


----------



## suraswami (Sep 9, 2008)

Subscribed.

I will try out to see how it does.

Thanks.


----------



## Eliranos (Nov 8, 2008)

i wanted to know how does it work with raid is it able to move it to the end?


----------



## AsRock (Nov 8, 2008)

Eliranos said:


> i wanted to know how does it work with raid is it able to move it to the end?



The pics in the 1st post are Raid 5 with 6 HDD's with 4 partitions.

Works like on a single HDD with partitions in my case.


----------



## Binge (Nov 12, 2008)

Switched to Defraggler from UltimateDefrag after UD found more fragments after the program finished its defragmentation.


----------



## kajson (Nov 21, 2008)

I installed UD, the newest version.

I'm using windows Vista, I have a C: disk with 60GiG half used and a 2nd drive with 400GiG, its one harddisk though.

Now my problem is, the D drive will defrag fine, but when defrag C: i cant get lower then 26%....
Is there a way to get a better result? And what kinda defrag with which options should i choose? Any help much appreciated tnx


----------



## AsRock (Nov 24, 2008)

Binge said:


> Switched to Defraggler from UltimateDefrag after UD found more fragments after the program finished its defragmentation.



Both defragers using the same methered ?.  There is reasons why i don't defrag all files like being in use. If it's the 1st time i am defraging a OS i shutdown every running program as possble useing task manager.



kajson said:


> I installed UD, the newest version.
> 
> I'm using windows Vista, I have a C: disk with 60GiG half used and a 2nd drive with 400GiG, its one harddisk though.
> 
> ...



As the 1st quote, all so if you did not already do it is too tell it were you want the files like what should be on the faster part of the HDD and what should be on the slower part of the HDD.


----------



## a_ump (Nov 24, 2008)

well i didn't try that ultimate thing cause it looked like something that would take time to configure and didn't want to do that tonight, but i downloaded defraggler and it assessed 32mb of fragmented files out of 21gb of used space, i ran it and then analized it like 30 min later and it said 27mb fragmented, downloaded Auslogics Disk Defrag, ran it then analized with defraggler again and defraggler said 1.7mb fragmented, 

Auslogics has got my support  plus it's free, and i set it to highest cpu priority in the program settings it has, and it was done in like 2min. though i'll know how good it really is when i defrag again in a month or so


----------



## lemonadesoda (Nov 24, 2008)

kajson said:


> I installed UD, the newest version.
> 
> I'm using windows Vista, I have a C: disk with 60GiG half used and a 2nd drive with 400GiG, its one harddisk though.
> 
> ...


This is because of three things:

1./ Protected archived files. The program doesnt defrag "archive" files. Why? They are data files kept as backups. Not "live" files that require performance. Uncheck the option regarding archive files.
2./ Directories you have chosen NOT to defrag. Like temp directory. Or other things you have selected to ignore. Run ccleaner.com FIRST. Make sure you dont exclude any directories.
3./ Files that are unavailable to defrag because they are already open. Close all other programs before running the defrag, AND, also use this program FIRST http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=76620.  Your registry wont be defragged by most defraggers and if you never defragged your registry, it will be in literally THOUSANDS of files and that will impact your statistics (and performance) a lot!


----------



## mrhuggles (Jan 14, 2009)

tried it, couldnt get the boot time defragger to work, want to move the page file to the very begining of the disk, anyone know a way thats possible without spending money?


----------



## AsRock (Jan 14, 2009)

mrhuggles said:


> tried it, couldnt get the boot time defragger to work, want to move the page file to the very begining of the disk, anyone know a way thats possible without spending money?



If it will not move files closser to the rest of the files it's probally has the odd file(s) that are not movable in the way.


If you could get those files to move with the rest you could turn off pagefile and delete if it's still on the disk and reboot and turn it back on.

EDIT: might be another way is to move alll files to  centre of disk and turn off pagefile reboot then delete it if it's stuff there and make sure you empty the recycle bin and re eneble the pagefile and hopfully that will move it closer to the edge of the disk and then move all other files to were you want them.


----------



## mrhuggles (Jan 14, 2009)

would probably still need some kind of "offline" defragger


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jan 20, 2009)

For best results should I defrag in safemode? So nothing is tied up? Well I guess absolute best would be to boot from a separate drive, that way nothing is being tied up at all... right?


----------



## AsRock (Jan 23, 2009)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> For best results should I defrag in safemode? So nothing is tied up? Well I guess absolute best would be to boot from a separate drive, that way nothing is being tied up at all... right?



Maybe this will shine a little light on the idea.

Just incase you cannot read the numbers

After defrag in windows running normally.
Frag files 16 (779MB) = 4.433%

In safe mode just before defrag.
Frag files 23 (781MB) = 4.444%

In safe mode after defrag.
Frag files 0 (719MB) = 4.092%


----------



## JC316 (Jan 23, 2009)

Downloading now. I am currently using AUSlogistics defrag program, but I will post back if this one is better.


----------



## AsRock (Jan 24, 2009)

Here's some with Vista before and after.

Normal defrag
Frag 60 (762MB) = 3.797%

Vista in safe mode
Frag 26 (785MB) = 3.908%

So safe mode actually made it worse ^^..


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jan 24, 2009)

So it helps in xp, hurts in vista? Wonder why vista would react like that.


----------



## Deusxmachina (Jan 25, 2009)

"The Great Defrag Shootout."  ...for what it's worth.  Perhaps to stimulate a conversation if nothing else.
http://www.openaccess.co.za/BlackAndWhiteInc/Defrag.htm

Didn't know until recently that built-in Windows defrag is basically a cut-down Diskeeper.


----------



## farlex85 (Jan 25, 2009)

Deusxmachina said:


> "The Great Defrag Shootout."  ...for what it's worth.  Perhaps to stimulate a conversation if nothing else.
> http://www.openaccess.co.za/BlackAndWhiteInc/Defrag.htm
> 
> Didn't know until recently that built-in Windows defrag is basically a cut-down Diskeeper.



Yeah I found that out recently too, I may go back to that. Apparantly running it through cmd is very effective. I used Ultimate defrag for a bit but stopped when I found out it was increasing fragmentation or reporting it wrong. I ran it and it reported 30% fragmentation in vista (on a fresh install too, crazy). Then I re-analyzed it and it was at like 34%. Repeated now it was near 40%. Re-formated and am not gonna touch it again. If my fragmentation is really that high, I don't wanna know. 

Great link also thnx.


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 25, 2009)

AphexDreamer said:


> How do you move data where you want it to be. Also is it supposed to take like 64 hours to defrag?



Click the "Recency" defrag option, then click "Options" and check "Place Data on Outer Tracks - Most Recent Data Most Outer", then check "last accessed" and start defragging.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Mar 29, 2009)

all programs recommended here are great. However, I noticed a few issues back in either CPU mag or Maximum PC they did a test/comparison with Windows Vista's Defragger and Perfect Disk, UD, Diskeeper and a few others. Surprisingly, only Vista's seemed to show any improvement. Just some food for though. I love Diskeeper cuz its fast, hardly any taxing of system and is set it and forget it. Perfect disk is nifty too as is UD (because UD allows you to set criteria).


----------



## Kursah (Mar 29, 2009)

I've been debating whether or not to try a defrag program in Vista for a loooooong time. I'd run Diskeeper in XP, but my copy won't work in Vista because it's too old...I'm not paying to upgrade at this point in time. So I've been using Vista's, since my rig is running 24/7 (it folds while I'm not gaming), I have Vista defrag set to run daily at 3AM, sure it might be overkill, but after the first run it takes no time for it to run through. I can't say if I ever notice an improvement because I don't generally do enough to mess up the fragments in a 24hr period. I just haven't worried about it as much with Vista, and I really haven't been dissapointed overall. I still may try a different program, but I'm definately not in a huge rush to do so, especially after that post WarEagle, if you find that article please post the link, I'd love to read thru it.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 30, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> all programs recommended here are great. However, I noticed a few issues back in either CPU mag or Maximum PC they did a test/comparison with Windows Vista's Defragger and Perfect Disk, UD, Diskeeper and a few others. Surprisingly, only Vista's seemed to show any improvement. Just some food for though. I love Diskeeper cuz its fast, hardly any taxing of system and is set it and forget it. Perfect disk is nifty too as is UD (because UD allows you to set criteria).





Kursah said:


> I've been debating whether or not to try a defrag program in Vista for a loooooong time. I'd run Diskeeper in XP, but my copy won't work in Vista because it's too old...I'm not paying to upgrade at this point in time. So I've been using Vista's, since my rig is running 24/7 (it folds while I'm not gaming), I have Vista defrag set to run daily at 3AM, sure it might be overkill, but after the first run it takes no time for it to run through. I can't say if I ever notice an improvement because I don't generally do enough to mess up the fragments in a 24hr period. I just haven't worried about it as much with Vista, and I really haven't been dissapointed overall. I still may try a different program, but I'm definately not in a huge rush to do so, especially after that post WarEagle, if you find that article please post the link, I'd love to read thru it.



I read that article. Well written, but there were a few holes in their testing methodology.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (May 2, 2009)

Mussels said:


> to the people reccomending other programs: try ultimate defrag before you go saying something else is better. I use 2.0, and its the best and simplest i've used in a long time, *without any extra bloat or unnecessary startup items/services/tray icons*



I'll give this a shot. I've been using JKdefrag for a while for this very reason.


----------



## a_ump (May 2, 2009)

Does anyone else use Smart Defrag? i luv it as it's free and i used to use auslogics as it was great and quick, but smart defrag has an auto defrag that runs in the back ground and i've gone months of removing, and installing software and used to have 5-15% fragmentation. Since i've installed Smart Defrag, with it's auto on, i only turn up with .XXX%-1% fragmented. I recommend it, anyone else use it?


----------



## AsRock (May 22, 2009)

Just a little update.


Disktrix have released a simpler and  faster version of there programs called Defrag Express.

I just tried it on a NEVER defraged partition with a size of 269GB (62GB used) and it did it within 10 minutes.

Here's a pic and a link
http://www.disktrix.com/defragexpress_main.htm

EDIT: I'l add some more pic of other partitions in a bit.


----------



## erek (May 22, 2009)

how does this program compare to PerfectDisk's performance results?


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 22, 2009)

Defrag Express AINT FREE


----------



## AsRock (May 22, 2009)

erek said:


> how does this program compare to PerfectDisk's performance results?



Could not say as once you have defraged a HDD it's defraged so time differences will not compare.. 



lemonadesoda said:


> Defrag Express AINT FREE



Yeah but it's like Just $14.95!. and i'm sure if you wait a while they be selling it cheaper again. And as seen as some posts on this thread are not free either why not.

Here's another pic .

Old WD 160GB HDD with 12.3GB of free space Never defraged as it's just a backup apps and OS.. 28 minutes not bad really.


----------



## Nick89 (Jul 23, 2009)

awesome, I've been looking for somthing like this!


----------



## Stearic (Jul 23, 2009)

I briefly checked it out on my friend's system recently, but it was unable to defrag system files IIRC. 
Anyway, I already have my excellent Diskeeper 2k9 Pro (commercial, not freeware) so no plans of switching.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Jul 23, 2009)

I just can't get away from JkDefrag, I have tried alot of defrag programs but Jk is the best that I have used it's very fast, lightweight, and most importantly effective.


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Aug 15, 2009)

Wow this thing worked great just decided to try this after seeing the thread a while back, i must say, holy crap, only defrag that has easily done what i wanted which was move everything to one part of the disk. Here is the finish image.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 17, 2009)

exodusprime1337 said:


> Wow this thing worked great just decided to try this after seeing the thread a while back, i must say, holy crap, only defrag that has easily done what i wanted which was move everything to one part of the disk. Here is the finish image.
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090815/defrag.jpg



O&O moves everything to the beginning of the disc as well. But then again, it's not free. lol.


----------



## Muhad (Oct 3, 2009)

Is there any real proof that this utility program actually makes a difference in performance?


----------



## InTeL-iNsIdE (Oct 3, 2009)

Muhad said:


> Is there any real proof that this utility program actually makes a difference in performance?



Defragging does improve disc performance and having all the files on the outside of the disc improves read as the arm/heads have less to travel. Can be explained more technically but I cba  So yes


----------



## InTeL-iNsIdE (Oct 3, 2009)

Guys how do you set this up to put everything on the outer tracks ? for some reason it has only done this to some of the data and the rest of it is in the middle


----------



## InTeL-iNsIdE (Oct 3, 2009)

InTeL-iNsIdE said:


> Guys how do you set this up to put everything on the outer tracks ? for some reason it has only done this to some of the data and the rest of it is in the middle
> 
> http://forums.techpowerup.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=29235&stc=1&d=1254576052



anyone ?  Still cant figure this out, is driving me nuts


----------



## AsRock (Oct 3, 2009)

looks like System restore files.  And  how i moved them was to turn system restore and turn  it back on again.. although it will do it again though.

If you click one and look on the left side panel and select the name of it it will give you the option to defrag it IF it's possible but it will all so tell you were the file is located too.

windows defrag moves them lol.


----------



## InTeL-iNsIdE (Oct 3, 2009)

AsRock said:


> looks like System restore files.  And  how i moved them was to turn system restore and turn  it back on again.. although it will do it again though.
> 
> If you click one and look on the left side panel and select the name of it it will give you the option to defrag it IF it's possible but it will all so tell you were the file is located too.
> 
> windows defrag moves them lol.



windows defrag ?? explain


----------



## DonInKansas (Oct 3, 2009)

Windows has it's own defragger.
All programs-->Accessories-->System Tools-->Disk Defragmenter


----------



## AsRock (Oct 3, 2009)

InTeL-iNsIdE said:


> windows defrag ?? explain



Well i ran it about 7 days ago to see if it would move them but did not. You think windows would be smarter than this and actually place them in the inside of the disk in the 1st place as there only required if there is a issue with the OS.


----------



## El_Mayo (Oct 3, 2009)

What is this software?
what does it do? (i.e.. what is defragging?)
and what are the benefits?

(yes i know.. it was probably explained in earlier posts.. but that's too much to read for me )


----------



## InTeL-iNsIdE (Oct 3, 2009)

@ DonInKansas no offence meant, I knew that  I was asking AsRock to explain why he said windows defrag because in his first post he said that you can place the data on the drive where you want it on the disc with Ultimate Defrag  



AsRock said:


> Well i ran it about 7 days ago to see if it would move them but did not. You think windows would be smarter than this and actually place them in the inside of the disk in the 1st place as there only required if there is a issue with the OS.



How did you get the data placed on the outside as shown in your first post ?


----------



## AsRock (Oct 3, 2009)

InTeL-iNsIdE said:


> @ DonInKansas no offence meant, I knew that  I was asking AsRock to explain why he said windows defrag because in his first post he said that you can place the data on the drive where you want it on the disc with Ultimate Defrag
> 
> 
> 
> How did you get the data placed on the outside as shown in your first post ?



I never used system restore in XP never needed it.  So never had that issue what you seem to have.

In Vista i use system restore but only used the payware version in that and it moves it.  I'll try the freeware one  within the next few days see if it moves it or not.

Options picked

Consolidate
Nothing selected in options from the left side.


Tools Options
High performance all unticked
Strict

Archive
Auto on 50%
Fast placement

Which is default i do believe.  Although i have not had the time to fiddle with it yet.

Hope this makes some sense lol.. trying to play a game of TW08 lol.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 5, 2009)

It can't move files that are in use. May have to try an offline file defrag to get it to move everything


----------



## El_Mayo (Oct 6, 2009)

how do i use this damn thing? D:


----------

