Red CircleI selected a file (the white block in the red circle) that is part of the '...\Microsoft Flight Simulator X\Scenery\World\Texture' folder. This is one cluster on the D drive. I defragmented with Folder/File name with Respect to Archive and High Performance (FSX is the only High Performance Folder on this Drive), thus the whole FSX directory is on the outer most edges.Orange CircleGreen clusters are the directories of the hard drive, and yellow is the MFT. This is the only program so far that I have seen that puts the MFT and directories next to each other, and you can find out why this is important reading MFT guides (Google is your friend!)

The problem with Perfect Disk, is even its payware version doesn't have as many methods as defragmenting as the free version of UltimateDefrag

Hi gman,No argument there, but I certainly don't see that as a problem. Quite the contrary in fact. There must be sufficient numbers out there who need the multitude of different options as it presumably satisfies a need for flexibility in how they wish their HDs to be defragged. For the rest of us, a Defragger like Perfect Disk offers all that we will ever need - fast, efficient and reliable defragmentation algorithms which tackle system files (including the positioning of the MFT) in addition to all the rest.I note you have FS on its own dedicated drive and so the use of a defragger like UltimateDefrag and O&O may indeed show some significant reduction in access times but, again, for the rest of us who use our HDs to accomodate a multitude of other installations, including FS, I doubt whether arranging files sequentially on the fastest areas of a HD would result in a worthwhile increase in performance other than shortening initial load times. Are there any real world stats out there than can demonstrate the truth in your argument?Just looking at what heavyweight games and sims I have installed on my D: partition - FS9+many popular Addons, FSX+many popular Addons, X-Plane 9, F4 Allied Force, RealFlight G3.5, Lock On, Orbiter (2 versions), SSM 20007, Oblivion, X2 and X3, Live for Speed, Steam (H-L2 Episodes 1,2,Lost Coast, Deathmatch, Deathmatch Source and Counter-Strike Source - I can say quite honestly that the only program I have issues with is FSX and the rest all run perfectly. I appreciate that the main reason for this is my less than stellar cpu by modern standards but, heck, why should I change when everything else runs just fine? Now, you may argue that by moving FSX to the outer tracks would improve my experience of this sim, yet doing this would be at the expense of moving everything else on the D: partition.I guess this is an argument that can never be won as long as our needs continue to differ.Regards,MikeP.S. I'd quite like to be addressing you by your first name.

Hello,

UltimateDefrag gives you an option to put files of your choice towards the outer tracks of the hard drive (High Performance Option), which is the fastest part

Sure scientifically .. that's true..Now .. in practise (the reallity of everydays :) ) will you seen this famous "difference of speed" .. I think honestly you will seen no difference (physically) unless you use a benchmark test ..So you will contemplate some numbers .. but those are useless in a practical sens.The myth of defragmentation will never die .. and that's good for companies making such softwares :)Regards.Gus.

What I want to know is how you guys spend all the m secs of time you save doing all this?I would say that over a lifetime each of you have saved AT LEAST a minute or two.Do you go to sleep at night wondering about the 1.9 seconds you saved when FS started up that day?I think it takes longer to post a message here than the total amount of time you have actually saved.Yes, a little bit of hard drive maintenance is important, but to frit over where a file is located on a little metal disk, in order to save this and that, is pretty amazing. And then to spend $$ to do this is really incredible.

Hi gman,As far as the MFT goes, yes, it's placement can improve HD performance:http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/09/prweb1308944.htmAnd here is a screen capture of my defragmented D: partitionOh, and one other thing, my understanding is that modern large capacity HDs typically have several platters which are mounted on the same spindle. A platter can store information on both sides, requiring two heads per platter. So...doesn't this beg the question as to whether it really is all that important to force certain files and folders to the fastest areas as access to such data is likely to be pretty fast anyway regardless of which platter it happens to be stored.To be fair, the only installation likely to benefit from File/Folder name defragmentation, by reducing the tendency for the sim to stutter, is FSX, in which case you do have a point. FSX appears unique in this respect because of its unusual structure and great efforts have been made finding ways get it to run smoothly on as many hardware configurations as is realistically possible. However, my experience has shown that no such HD related issues exist with any software, bar FSX, that I have running currently on my now modest but still very capable setup.Regards,MikeASRock 939Dual-SATA2 (AM2CPU Board), AMD Athlon 64X2 6400+ (BE,3200MHz,Windsor), Arctic Cooling Freezer 64 Pro, 2GB Crucial Ballistix DDR2 PC2-6400 4-4-4-12(2T) (Dual Channel), NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB (DDR3) (Forceware 195.62 WHQL), SB Audigy2 ZS Platinum (Drivers version 6.00.0001.1371), Western Digital Caviar SE16 (WDC WD5000AAKS-65YGA0) SATAII, 16MB Cache, 500GB + Hitachi Deskstar (HDP725050GLAT80) UDMA-6 / ATA133, 7MB Cache, 500GB, Antec NeoHE 650W PSU, Windows XP Home Edition (SP3), DirectX 9.0c

I can't seem to get Ultimate Defrag working on Windows 7. Well actually it's pretty weird; I installed it this morning and I ran a defrag for my FSX drive and all went fine.. But having done that, it doesn't see my drives anymore or something, it only shows grey blocks. I tried to uninstall and reinstall it (I have the trial version by the way) but still no luck. If I press analyze, it's 'done' immediately on either drive and it does not recognize any files.. Does anyone know what to do?I thought the trial version would work full for 14 days or am I mistaken and can I run the defrag only once?

When I switched from Vista-64 to Windows 7-64 Ultimate Defrag 2008 quit working and re-installing did not help. Their website indicated that a new version that was coming out would work in Windows 7, so that was that. I downloaded O&O 12 and it does well. Once a customer is lost, it is hard to get them back. O&O seems to make it work just as smoothly although I have not tried to measure it accurately. With both programs I always used Name/Complete.Stephen

The more I read this and the other post about defragging, the more I am convinced some folks still haven't grasped the concept of when you should or shouldn't (or need or don't need to) do a Complete Name defrag or a "zone" defrag. A "zone" defrag is really only necessary on your OS hard drive. You are going to have THREE different types of files on that drive...OS files, Program Files (yes...you WILL have some programs files on your OS drive, regardless of whether you want them there or not), and "other" files (temporary Internet files, the Recycle Bin files, etc). In this case, a "zone" defrag of that OS drive does make sense. If your FSX installation is on your OS drive, then you want to "zone" defrag that drive. Using O&O Defrag 12 allows you to do that, and it allows you to use a different defrag method for each zone. The default ones are Complete Name for the Programs Zone (and this places those files on the outer regions of the disk), Complete Access for the second Zone, and Space for the third Zone. It works great.Any other hard drive you have, like a dedicated one where you only have FSX installed, SHOULD NOT be "zoned". By simply unchecking the "Use Zone Filing" box in O&O, then selecting that drive, you can do a Complete Name on the ENTIRE drive without zones. This will totally organize all your FSX files in name order, and starts at the outer edges of the platters. As you add more stuff to THOSE drives for FSX, it STILL starts any future Complete Name defrags you do from the outer edge of the platter.If you have FSX on one dedicated drive, and use another dedicated drive for more addons like I do (FSX is on a VRap and many of my "scenery" addons are on a WD 2TB Caviar Black), then you just don't zone either of those drives. You just do a Complete Name on both of them. Doing the above, FSX purrs along as fast as you can get it to go. And like JSkorna said....if you are really concerned about whether your defrag method results in a .003 milliseconds faster FSX access time than somebody else's defrag method or program they use to defrag with, you really, really need to get away from the computer for a while and get things in the proper perspective. Getting FSX to "run right" isn't about nit-picking benchmark scores. It's about getting the sim to run without stutters, pauses, and loading what you need fast enough to accomplish that. If a few milliseconds are the difference between your FSX "running right" or not, there is a different problem...and it isn't with FSX.FalconAF

And like JSkorna said....if you are really concerned about whether your defrag method results in a .003 milliseconds faster FSX access time than somebody else's defrag method or program they use to defrag with, you really, really need to get away from the computer for a while and get things in the proper perspective. Getting FSX to "run right" isn't about nit-picking benchmark scores. It's about getting the sim to run without stutters, pauses, and loading what you need fast enough to accomplish that. If a few milliseconds are the difference between your FSX "running right" or not, there is a different problem...and it isn't with FSX. FalconAF

Couldn't have put it better myself.I wouldn't mind betting that everyone, yes everyone, gets the odd hitch while running FSX, but how many will actually admit it. For me it has ceased to be an issue as I now regard it as being part and parcel of this particular package.Mike :)

What I want to know is how you guys spend all the m secs of time you save doing all this?I would say that over a lifetime each of you have saved AT LEAST a minute or two.Do you go to sleep at night wondering about the 1.9 seconds you saved when FS started up that day?I think it takes longer to post a message here than the total amount of time you have actually saved.Yes, a little bit of hard drive maintenance is important, but to frit over where a file is located on a little metal disk, in order to save this and that, is pretty amazing. And then to spend $$ to do this is really incredible.

+1For the record, I tried to defrag my FSX with O&O once as per given instructions, when the software had a free trial. I did not see any noticeable difference in loading time, performance or operation of the sim.People can spend their time and money on anything they want, no objections!

And like JSkorna said....if you are really concerned about whether your defrag method results in a .003 milliseconds faster FSX access time than somebody else's defrag method or program they use to defrag with, you really, really need to get away from the computer for a while and get things in the proper perspective. Getting FSX to "run right" isn't about nit-picking benchmark scores. It's about getting the sim to run without stutters, pauses, and loading what you need fast enough to accomplish that. If a few milliseconds are the difference between your FSX "running right" or not, there is a different problem...and it isn't with FSX.FalconAF Absolutely!!! :( :( This is incredibly funny as I got to the finish of this post. I laugh mainly at myself here as I sit at 05whatever in the morning waiting for O&O to finish the first pass of Name and Mame or whatever the file is.That being said I think there is a bit of truth in all of these posts. I too am a believer in UD. In windows XP using FSX and FS9, I noticed a VAST difference in the speed of the load times. From about 1:30 minutes to about :45 seconds. That was huge considering I was on my clunker Pentium 4 HP Pavillion GeForce 9400 2GB Ram machine. I hadn't bothered to use the onboard XP Defrag as when I read a review of UD it made sense. I tried the freebo version and was hooked. That was XP.I have since built my own modest little gaming rig AMD Phenom II @ 3.4 and 4GB RAM eVGA NVIDIA GT(S) 450. During the process I stumbled on NickN's tuning (not sure if you would call it a blog, fog, book, or roadmap of New Jersey.) Either way his blog made sense too and I am currently in the O&O stage of the process.I am using O&O for the first time because people A WHOLE LOT smarter than me recommended it (NickN, COL Bob etc). I have high hopes for all of it.I like what I read somewhere when it comes to all of this installing/tuning/defragging mess. That is this. The only thing that matters at the end of the day is smoothness. Framerate, milliseconds of load time, and all of the rest of it is just someone on (OverGEEK). Probably someone who spent too much time overclocking. :( I think after a while the old addage of KISS could go along way here. An admistrator from PMDG summed it up best. It wont matter by 2012 anyway as we will all be on SSHDDs by then.I will come back and give you my results for anyone interested. Or not. If I notice a really big difference between a regular install with a one time UD respect HP vs NickNs tuning post and O&O.All I want is to perform Steep Turns, V1 Cuts, SE Missed Approaches without a whole lot of stutter! Take Care GuysMark ATP, CFIAIMEDA-10, RA-390, BE-350, PC-12, CE-208

O&O here. Love it. No probs.

This was a while ago so I don't remember exactly what I said lol, but I agree with you completely about preferring FSX being smooth without stutters or choppiness. The reason why I use UD is exactly cause of that :(. I feel like 24 FPS in a heavy area but smooth looks a lot better than a cfg modded FSX setup to get 40 or 50 FPS in a heavy area but with stutters and frame drops.

Ultimate De Frag here, No issues.

Well I have my rig tuned now (mostly). I am still adjusting sliders.I must say that NickN's set up post is very well thought out and works like a champ. I just wish the post was more organized. I compiled all the info that applied to me and went from there.UD VS O&O.When it comes to load times, mine were slightly, and I DO MEAN slightly faster with UD. Keep in mind I never did a NAME procedure with UD only a respect HP defrag.Guessing from the longer time it took O&O to do the defrag, I would guess that O&O does a more exhaustive defrag, however on my rig the load times are a little slower after the O&O defrag. Not a big deal, as we are talking only a few seconds if even that. So again if you are worried about such a thing... Put down the keyboard NOW and step away from the Monitor as you need a break!! LOL!IN MHO, for me it boils down to this. If you are following NickN and his tuning procedures that BY ALL MEANS US O&O!! No question DO IT!! IF you are simply in the market for a good defrag that does render a bit more in loading performance due to the repositioning of thefiles to the outer portion of you HDD then do use UD. NOTE: UD will ALSO move your low use files to the INNER part of your HDD foryou as well! I found that pretty cool, as I am a knuckle dragging single HDD throwback guy and haven't yet realized the value of puttingFSX on its own HDD. Hey this is my first rig I ever built and I ran out of funds!To sum it up. If you are a single HDD user and need to re-arrange your HD for more perf, than UD is a good way to go. IF you are following NickN's tuning methods, there is no question. USE O&O!!! (NOTE: When it comes to Nick's Method and using O&O, do NOT be a dolt like myself and download version 14 thinking your slick. Download version 12 like it says in his posts. Seriously you will not be able to follow along).Finally, both programs do a very fine job of defragging as I have run BOTH on the same rig. It comes down to what you are trying toachieve with your defrag program. Good Luck!!