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.
UltraDefrag
Re: UltraDefrag
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 13th playlist: August 24, 2020
Re: UltraDefrag
My error. I misunderstood Bass's comment. The comments seem changed from before. I assumed the app wasn't ready for inclusion because the default configuration file settings and there was a comment about UltraDefrag writing to the hard drive out of the box. That comment is no longer displayed.
Re: UltraDefrag
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
Re: UltraDefrag
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.
Re: UltraDefrag
FYI
I installed both the installer and portable versions. However, after uninstalling the nonportable version, I found that the option for boot time defragging became grayed out. With both versions installed, either the portable or installed versions will enable boot time defragging. This makes sense since the regular version is installed to C:\Windows and the System32 folder. Anyway, the UltraDefrag installation instructions at http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/hand ... ation.html states, "Note that boot time defragmenter is missing from the portable packages, but all other features are included."
Something to keep in mind concerning the difference between the nonportable and portable versions. Maybe the entry should indicate this?
I installed both the installer and portable versions. However, after uninstalling the nonportable version, I found that the option for boot time defragging became grayed out. With both versions installed, either the portable or installed versions will enable boot time defragging. This makes sense since the regular version is installed to C:\Windows and the System32 folder. Anyway, the UltraDefrag installation instructions at http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/hand ... ation.html states, "Note that boot time defragmenter is missing from the portable packages, but all other features are included."
Something to keep in mind concerning the difference between the nonportable and portable versions. Maybe the entry should indicate this?
Re: UltraDefrag
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?
Thanks!
Edit: rewrote the entry focusing on the program's primary feature: speed. The FAQ points out its improvement/difference over JKDefrag / MyDefrag (which I use). If I missed anything else key to this program, please post.
Re: UltraDefrag
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.
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 13th playlist: August 24, 2020
Re: UltraDefrag
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.
Re: UltraDefrag
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.
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 13th playlist: August 24, 2020
Re: UltraDefrag
Hello folks,
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.
Best regards,
Aeolis
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.
Best regards,
Aeolis
- JohnTHaller
- Posts: 716
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Contact:
Re: UltraDefrag
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.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality
Re: UltraDefrag
UltraDefrag 6.0.0 RC1 is out
Ours: http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=2228
Theirs: http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/en/index.html
Some nice changes below (astersks added to the stuff that might interest users here):
Ours: http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=2228
Theirs: http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/en/index.html
Some nice changes below (astersks added to the stuff that might interest users here):
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.
Re: UltraDefrag
From the entry: "Alternatively, UltraDefrag Portable switches automatically between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions and cleans up the fragmentation details left behind on drives."
By "fragmentation details" does that mean the log file saved to the drive root or are there other items?
By "fragmentation details" does that mean the log file saved to the drive root or are there other items?
Re: UltraDefrag
"error 60, file for drive emulation must be in one contiguous disk area".
Ultradefrag-portable can not solve the error 60 problem.
Ultradefrag-portable can not solve the error 60 problem.
Re: UltraDefrag
Ultradefrag 6.1.1 released. Minor bug fix.
Changelog:
http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/HISTORY.TXT
Changelog:
http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/HISTORY.TXT