Has anyone tried the new version? Just wondering if it's worth the $20 upgrade. http://www.disktrix.com/index.htm

No but I had the other one.......They couldn't give me a copy...I hate it.......

>No but I had the other one.......>>>They couldn't give me a copy...I hate it.......Well, that wastn't exactly helpful! There's plenty of other threads which discuss the pros & cons of UD so please don't try to hijack this one.

Sorry..Not trying to hijack ...thats my way of saying its not worth the twenty bucks......IMO

Well imo it is worth 20 bucks, and I have been around the block with more than a few defraggers. I plan to deploy UD2008 on my Vista64 box pretty soon.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Hi,I had just bought this program last fall and now to upgrade to 2008 I have to pay again?? I thought that upgrades would be included for a year. Maybe I am wrong.Helmut

I've looked at it, but just realized I haven't defragged using the older ver in quite some time. Bad computing - I know heheMaybe I'll get it soon.

I think their policy was 1 year of the same version. Once they move to a different version I think that doesn't apply. I think I read that in their terms somewhere. RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

I bought it- the graphics are a bit busy- but if it works better (as advertised) then its fine. It does seem a bit quicker, and I like the Performance and Archive file placement. I uninstalled the older version, so I think I will now use that on my flying laptop.Best-Carl F. Avari-Cooper BAW0225http://online.vatsimindicators.net/980091/523.png| XP Pro SP2 | 2 x APC UPS | Coolermaster Stacker 830 SE | Gigabyte P35 DS3R | e8500 @ 4gHz | Tuniq Tower 120 | EVGA 8800GT 512MB | Creative X-Fi Fatal1ty | 2 x 1 GB Corsair XMS2 | 2 x 320GB WD Caviar RAID 0 | Corsair HX620W PS | CH Products Yoke-Pedals-Throttle Quadrant | Aerosoft 747MCP-EFIS-EICAS |

I, too, have purchased it, by upgrade from version 1. I was expecting "more than I got". It stops my defrag after about 47% within Vista 32 and, as a result, will not even attempt to deploy onto Vista 64. I informed support via email last Saturday - the day of purchase - and have yet to receive a reply.Thank goodness for Acronis !! Not impressed so far.P.

I had used the old version to push my FSX directory to the front of a dedicated Raptor drive and sort files by Name. Thought it worked well, and was quite speedy.But since then, I have rebuilt my FSX box utilizing NickN's procedures from the ground-up; with quite a lot of success. Nick's procedures however, utilize O&O-Defrag (old version) of which, I'm not overly excited about.I would really really like to know, from a technical and performance perspective, if there is a difference in defrag-by-name quality between O&O and UD. Has anyone ever come across any kind of Defrag benchmarking tools or procedures?

I just used the trial version of UD 2008, fantastic for my flightsim PC. I will buy a license for it, maybe one for laptop too!Randy Jura, KPDX

I just got my free upgrade, (Purchased it in the last 90 days) It's worth it for the speed increases alone. The previous version would do a full consolidation using their high performance option to move FSX to the outside of the disk in about 12 hour on a 500GB disk. UD2008 did it in just over 2 hours. I'm currently now running it on my Vista 500GB disk, which also is a 500GB disk, which I started just about an hour ago, and it says the estimated complete time is 46 minutes from now. I did make a mistake on this second drive and forgot to define my high performance folders for it so it's just doing a complete consolidation to the outside of the disk. Ah well, next time I'll fix it! I don't use Vista that often anyway!!

"I would really really like to know, from a technical and performance perspective, if there is a difference in defrag-by-name quality between O&O and UD."There may be some small technical differences but they accomplish the same thing in the end. If a guide tells you to use O&O and you only have UD, just use UD instead IMO.I believe O&O's Name defrag lacks the Archive and Performance options of UD - in UD you have the option of sorting the files into Archive and Performance while also sorting the files and folders within each category by name.It's very hard to accurately benchmark defrag programs, because harddrive contents, the level of fragmentation, the physical placement of files and folders, and even the contents of the disk cache are constantly changing.I'm quite happy with Vista's built-in no-nonsense defragger and silent boot and application launch optimizations. It feels good to have a computer that can "take care of itself", without me having to reboot, reinstall, defrag, tweak and constantly maniupulate it to keep it running smoothly.I'm not too happy about UD asking to turn off those optimizations every time you launch it. I don't think I'll buy it when my trial expires. I'm thinking about trying Diskeeper instead as it's supposed to be a set-it-and-forget-it application that just sits in the background optimizing your harddrive.

You can disable those prompts by clicking the checkbox to not remind you.The reason behind asking those questions, specifically the 'last date accessed' one is that your system takes a hit when it has to write data about when the file was accessed every time you access a file. Imagine all the extra work that happens when you're flying in FS2004 or FSX and have a detailed scenery installed.I have mine scheduled to defrag once a week automatically overnight. Set it and forget it.Works great.