TPFC Forums
https://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/
https://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14851
Well, it isn't mandatory. No one will blame you for not checking the comments. In addition, as you can see, the "Suggested by" field can easily be changed after the fact.TP109 wrote:Guess it pays to check not only the database and forums, but also the comments section of similar apps before submitting.
Thanks for posting. I did some rather intense formatting work, but the PortableFreeware editor doesn't like nested UL tags under OL so I used asterisks instead.TP109 wrote:Portable Submission Page: http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=2228
Thanks. I've merged all 3 threads that mentioned this program and added a disclaimer to the first post.SYSTEM wrote:UltraDefrag was originally suggested by pagliaro. I have edited the entry accordingly.
Yes it should. Posting a rewrite.TP109 wrote:Something to keep in mind concerning the difference between the nonportable and portable versions. Maybe the entry should indicate this?
There are more x86 processor companies than just AMD an Intel. Really the only one that our users are likely to run into is Via (aka Cyrix or Centaur). Their processors are crap and probably not compatible: http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/ A lot of low-end computers you might get at Wal-Mart are powered by Via.SYSTEM wrote:I have removed "Intel or AMD processor" from the dependencies, because every single application in the database requires a processor. There is no point mentioning it in the dependencies field.
Well, I doubt if UltraDefrag really won't work on a VIA processor.webfork wrote:There are more x86 processor companies than just AMD an Intel.SYSTEM wrote:I have removed "Intel or AMD processor" from the dependencies, because every single application in the database requires a processor. There is no point mentioning it in the dependencies field.
I think they mention Intel and AMD only to make it clear that UltraDefrag doesn't work on processors with a different architecture (such as ARM or Tilera).UltraDefrag download page wrote: For 32-bit Windows on Intel and AMD Processors: ultradefrag-5.0.0-RC2.bin.i386.exe.
For 64-bit Windows on Intel and AMD Processors: ultradefrag-5.0.0-RC2.bin.amd64.exe.
For 64-bit Windows on Itanium Processors: ultradefrag-5.0.0-RC2.bin.ia64.exe.
It does. In the form .\\Logs\\MyLogFile.log or .\\..\\Logfile.log to place it in a subdirectory or up a directory respectively. We use this in UltraDefrag Portable to automatically place a log file in the app's Data directory.Aeolis wrote:Does UltraDefrag support relative path in the log_file_path = "" switch? Like log_file_path = "..\Log", so it could store the logs inside a folder where the application .exe is.
All disk processing algorithms were optimized for speed and efficiency.*
Support to optimize FAT disks was added.*
The ability to specify the file sorting order and criteria was added for optimization.*
Additional filters for fragment and file size were added.*
Optimization now makes use of all specified filters.*
The ability to minimize the window to the system tray was added.
The ability to display the progress on the task bar icon was added for Windows 7® and above.
File fragmentation reports are now no longer stored in the root folder of the drive, but in a sub-folder of the installation folder, so they are no longer left behind after removing UltraDefrag.*
The Explorer context menu handler is now configurable too.