I don't know what gets defragmented? Did you even read the post? The program tells you what gets defragmented.
(system files, page file, metadata, MFT, hibernation file)
I use Diskeeper, and it by no means, sucks.
I take you can't stand to even be suggested by someone else what to do. I don't care if you never run a boot-time defrag. I use my PC everyday and the more programs you install, uninstall, the more you copy, modify, delete files, extract, compress, encrypt, decrypt, etc... metadata fragments especially. Metadata can only be defragmented during what PerfectDisk calls an Offline Defrag, and what Diskeeper calls Boot-Time Defrag. For that reason alone, ocassionally means either once a week, once every 2 weeks, once a month, all depending on how often you do the above-mentioned operations on your computer.

Yeah, uhh, it's telling you what it defragments. You're just applying your own program's stuff to others like it's definitive.

By no means? Ok dude, I guess you have convinced yourself beyond reason.

You didn't tell me what to do. You simply described my viewpoint as a logical fallacy based on self-delusion.

Based on this very limited description, I have concluded that you know very little about how the metadata is placed, how much of it there is, or what kind of effect it has on the system. Basically you are blowing boot-time defragging way out of proportion here.

It's not my program, it's one of several good defragmenter applications.


Diskeeper is written by the same people who wrote the defrag API for Windows and it defrags automatically on-the-fly in the background while impacting system performance at a minimal rate. So in other words, it doesn't suck at what it does. There, I didn't use "by no means". Feel better?

Ok, for some reason, you seem to have interpreted what I said as a major insult to your intelligence or pride or whatever, and in return, feel it necessary to attack me with claims that I'm delussional.
When you said:
it seemed to me like you were dismissing it's lack of ability to perform a boot-time defrag to reinforce the reason to use the application. From experience of defragging many harddrives on many machines, boot-time defrag helps. If the defragger can't do a boot-time defrag, then I personally wouldn't use it. If you feel boot-time defragging is pointless, then so be it.


Ohh! You got me! I don't really know much about it, other than that it seems to fragment a lot frequently. You don't have to understand the pH level of citric acid in order to know that eating an orange is healthy for you.
But since you seem to be the expert on all this, I suggest you share your share your prowess. Proceed, master.

Actually, O&O defrag has boot -time defragmentation, it is just now made more automatic and there is no special setup for it.
Plus, it does some great part of metadata defragmentation in online mode(for XP and 2003 only), so offline run is not so often necessary.

That all doesn't change the fact that all above mentioned defrag softwares do suck. Because, unless you are running a file server or something like that, constant running of defrag services is just a display of developer's megalomania, nothing more. O&O's five defrag modes are plain ridiculous(at least for home user), PD does the boot file layout in the way that actually decreases performance.
Plus, the self comparative reviews they make, are all ridiculous at best - at the level of what you can read for some internet booster, which would increase the speed by 300%.

At this point, I'm finished posting in this topic because defragmenters have been beaten around as much as IE has when people have debated whether to use that or Firefox. I don't think anyone really knows whatdefrag program is truly the best. Until someone finds a way to properly test each one while working around the countless factors that would interfere, I'm not saying another word here.

The question is - for whom the best? For the manufacturer it is the one that brings more money, and thats what they are. It is all based on the known psychosis that some program will magically enhance your system. That is how all the junk like system cleaners and boosters are sold, and that is how defragmenters are sold to home users too - with not very honest advertising methods.
I am not talking here about servers, where the situation is completely different.

Now, just think about this - you are nLiting your Windows to carefully delete unnecessary services. Then, you agree to run unnecessary defragmenter services?

Most of the tests are made with specially junked disks (not defragmented with Windows defrag, as it should be), defragmenting methods are not clearly explained, etc.
But even with all that - it is quite clear which of defragnmenters is the best and in what.

PD have the best boot-time defrag method, because it properly places MFT and optimizes its size, too.
But its smart placement is a nonsense for home user, and boot file optimization simply does not work - it actually reduces perfomance, compared to Windows defrag.
Then, PD allows to stop its scheduling service(it will auto run when PD starts, if set to manual start), boot file optimization can be disabled (set to 'let Windows manage'), and smart placement can be disabled by altering rare/often modified to 1/0 days.


Diskeeper with its I-FAAST would without any doubt the absolutely best idea, but...again, it is ok for servers, not home user computers. It is a sick idea to imagine that some kind of monitoring would be going on during the normal activity. And Diskeeper's services cannot be simply stopped - you will need then manually start them before starting DK.

If they made it like stand - alone application, where you launched I-FAAST manually, to monitor your system while you are performing those tasks where most speed is necessary, and then used acquired information for manual (or scheduled) defragmenting, it would without any doubt, be the best.

But till then, or when somebody will make nLite for defrag, it will be Windows s..t, that is the best.
Because, at least you can start it when you want, and stop when the job is done. If money is not a concern, stopped PD is a nice thing, too.

Yes, myself and many others are very aware that companies will say anything about products to sell it to consumers, no surprise there. As for system cleaners, the ones that are payware are trash, just copies of each other, same features. CCleaner is THE best because it is freeware and not only removes all Windows junk/cache/temp, but allows you to add folders to remove, has recognition of dozens of third-party tools, allows you uninstall things that don't show up in your Add/Remove, even lets you rename them! Also has a very safe registry cleaner which I use as well.
You do emphasize on how some companies use false-advertising and how most system cleaners are junk, but there ARE good ones, and that's what I like to do... tell their story.


I use nLite to remove a lot more than just Services, and just last night I spent an hour going through every component, Googling things and totally revamped my removal selection. I have kept about 50 MBs worth of files compared to what I kept a year ago, including several Services. I don't agree that defragmenter Services are 'unnecessary'. I use Diskeeper and it adds only one Service, which is set to Automatic. Diskeeper monitors the overall fragmentation level of the harddrive and kicks in the defrag on the fly in the background. The impact this has on system performance is negligable, especially for my system which has 2 GBs of RAM. Considering that, I wouldn't say the Service is useless.
PerfectDisk adds two Services (PDAgent.exe, PDSched.exe) and both of them can be set to Manual without affecting the functionality of PD at all.


I'd like to remind everyone who is paying attention to these topics that regardless of how we all feel about these defragmenters, we really don't know how they are coded and how exactly they interact with Windows. Also, you're statement here is opinionated and biased. It would be nice if someone actually came up with a way to compare defragmenters.


See, I've noticed the opposite when using PerfectDisk in the past. It has actually made my system seem faster.

Yes, as stated above.


Again, your opinion, not fact. Zxian says his PC seems faster over a period of about a month after using I-FAAST. Sick idea? How is it sick? Monitoring does go on, as I've stated above, and it has a negligable affect on system performance, at least those with high hardware specs.


Sure, for you, but not for the typical Joe Blow general user.


lol, you call it s*** and the best at the same time. That's not confusing or anything.
You can configure Diskeeper to either use I-FAAST or not. It's not a feature that is started automatically and gives you hassle to stop/disable, unlike Norton. PerfectDisk is the same way. Diskeeper stops once the job is finished.
Question, are you speaking only from what you have read from other people, or have you actually tried PD and DK? It just seems to me like you're not solid in what you say.

Thanks for that. I just bought DK10 PP and I am very pleased with it, and yes I do not like the service, but it only uses a few MB.


First link is SOOO BIASED!

Just like this: http://www.raxco.com/products/perfectdisk2k/comparedk.cfm.

Yes, it is.
And I have actually sent an e-mail to Raxco, received a response, but it was mostly biased as I expected it to be, even quoting exact references from both the program and the website. I also found it strange how they represent perfectDisk, but were explaining to me how Diskeeper functions and how it doesn't do anything as good as PerfectDisk. I told her that if all she would give me was biased statements, than I would not require anything else from her.

may i know why perfectdisk is better than diskeeper?
diskeeper always use low cpu usage.......

"Negligable" probably depends on what you are doing. When you are doing real time audio processing with 128 samples or less buffer, there is hardly anything negligible, even that one service - not talking about 'kicking in' of any kind. And, however sophisticated, those automatic algorithms are still primitive anyway. Maybe ok for office work, but for me that background activity is totally unacceptable.

That is why I am using it, not DK.


It is still based on some tests I have made for myself- sorry, not to prove anything here, and also on some real life observations, as I am quite often doing things that are really sensitive to drive fragmentation.



I have actually done some tests, comparing PD8 with Windows defrag on office computer(I was interested in how boot files optimization works). Every time Windows startup was 3-5 sec faster with Windows defrag, and also all the programs I tested (ones with slow startup, like ACAD etc) started a bit faster too. I haven't got those results with me here now, but I sent them to Raxco with some technical inquiries. The answer I got was that they have made their boot optimization algorithm based on Microsoft knowledge, and that I have the option to disable it, if I didn't like it(!). My further questions are unanswered - they simply ignore me.

Here I have to note that if running Windows defrag after PD, it reorganizes significantly the boot files, and I am quite sure that it wasn't the case about a year ago, so there is some improvement from M$ I think.

At the same time, what PD does, is quite logical and seems to make sense. PD simply moves all the files, listed in layout.ini to the beginning of disk. Looking in layout.ini gives impression that those files would really belong where PD places them, so I am a bit not clear what M$ does better, but have no time to investigate now.


It is sick, because I not necessarily do most often the things where I need most of that speed. But I-FAAST optimizes more those files I access most.

I was somehow driving back client's BMW740 with adaptive gearbox. Was listening to some music and hanging behind some row of cars and trucks for some 1/2h or so. Then got a call that I am too late, and was going to overtake all those in front of me. But the car that was before like fighter jet, was in the deep sleep, because 'adaptive' had adapted to my 'stile'. It lasted only seconds and finally I didn't get killed, but that is what I call sick.
The same thing sooner or later happens with anything that does something automatically, be it a car or defrag.


Yes, I have. finally it is DK7, but just for boot time defragmentation and data drives (with 'smart placement' disabled by setting frequently/rarely modified to 0/1 days). DK is too automatic and I do not see any reason to use it, if not I-FAAST.
For system disks regular defragmentation, I use Windows defrag.

@RMS, yeah ok... I've discussed this literally to death to the point where I just can't be bothered anymore. There are too many different setups for PCs, different interpretations and perceptions from users... it's too large of a grey area to know for sure. Whatever works for you, I guess.
I just Diskeeper defrag for me and forget about it. My drive is fast and healthy, that's all that matters to me now.

stop the war and see this
automatic is automatic defrag =.=

guess what?
i dun even need to defrag my own now... lol

I just tried Diskeeper 2007, and I must say they pretty much fixed all the problems I had with version 10.

But I have another problem: after installing IE7 (or at least I think that's the cause) some services were deleted somehow. (Server and one called Redirector are the ones I know of). I think this is causing Diskeeper to fail when I do a manual defrag. It hangs and then spits back an error saying to check the event log.

The automatic defrag is great so I just left that on.

O&O Defrag is the best....the new or any version of Diskeeper is slower than my grandmother...and she's been dead for 30 years.

Another meaningless response...

i do install ie7
diskeeper never hang to me..... it is perfect as always

i can't even install Diskeeper 2007 ... it keeps giving me Error 1720.

appreciate if any1 knows a solution to fix this.

p/s: I've tried the official knowledgebase, no go. Reinstalled Windows Script 5.6 and MS Installer 3.1, still the same.

Thread on DriverHeaven Forums - DK11 vs. PD8
There are replies from - Greg/Raxco Software, Microsoft MVP - Windows File Systems and Michael, project manager of Diskeeper.
Michael has also posted in www.diskeeperblog.com

Edit:
@cybpsych, do you have Windows Scripting Host disabled/removed by nLite?

Click Start > Run > cmd
Type 'wscript' in the command shell
If its enabled, the Windows Script Host Settings dialog box will pop up.

If not, Google and download the freeware 'xpy' tweaking tool and enable it. Also, you might want to use Dial-A-Fix to re-register the WSH DLLs.

Raxco representative, Greg has replied to me here

Defrag... let's see... the ones I've used are: Microsoft's built-in defragmenter (slow, unthorough), Norton Speed Disk 2005 (even slower, never reaches completion before I get tired of it so I don't know if it's thorough or not), System Mechanic 6 (slow, don't know about its thoroughness), and finally Diskeeper 10 (fast, thorough).

Again, that is based on my experience.

I cannot honestly say I-FAAST makes my PC run faster or not. I think so, but I'm not so sure. But I like the concept that it kinda 'watches' and 'adapts' to my usage. rms's analogy of a car has a flaw: A car is complex and it adapts the driver's driving style to ensure economy. I-FAAST (and others of its ilk) deduces which files will run faster. Other files should not run slower.

And, what about UltimateDefrag?
I think it's a really good program to perform a good job in your disk, If you have enogh knowlwdge of how your disk works.
I've read the Help/tutorial and it explains it very good.

Take al look and tell me: UltimateDefrag

I'd never heard of this program until a cracked copy of it appeared on a site featuring cracked software.
Diskeeper's automation is just too convenient to pass up.

I used diskeeper 8 professional to try it out, it installs a service that starts with windows eating up 17-20mb of ram, only to be able to use a program that will be used only on a few ocasions, that is when defragmenting the disc. I´ve tried Ultimate Defrag, and i found it very slow, plus it crashed my pc while it´s was working, very very dangerous.
I also tried Power Defragmenter (witch is only a gui that uses contig from systernals software, actually), and it its´fast as hell, but the final results were not so good.

Gonna try Perfect Disk. If it´s now **** heavy, not install a useless service that will be used once in every two or three months, i´ll take it.

Don't make such a big deal out of Services, you can set them both to Manual and have full functionality w/ PerfectDisk.

PerfectDisk's services can be set to manual, unless you want to allow it's scheduled defrags to run, then you leave them alone.

i don´t think this way would be very "pratical".

why the need to install a service?
so i can go on and disable it?

i preffer to stick with apps that doens´t install things that i need to manually remove later.

Indeed, it can be done and it was relatively ok with PD7.
Now, in PD8 they have made some improvements. Engine will not stop automatically. Even more, scheduler(or, whatever it is called now) actually is guarding and restarting Engine. So, after defragmenting you first kill scheduler and then PDEngine.

And, to be complete, after discovering this behaviour, I wrote to PD support a bug report - engine will not shut down, and received an answer that on their computer it does shut down automatically.
After observing the same thing on 3 more machines, I wrote again to receive from somebody else, that it is so by design and I need not worry, because these services do not consume anything(!!?).

Indeed, brilliant design and great support.
For sake of politeness, no comments this time.

i just have to chime in with JkDefrag, as i did here!

i've always been horrified by how unfathomably huge the commercial defraggers were, for something quite simple conceptually, not to mention the actual defrag apis they all use are built into windows!

hooray for something free, fast, compact, open source, etc.

I'm using O&O Defrag 8.5 - it's fast and good (4 methods of files defrag - access, modification, space, stealth)
There is only one con - price (not for free)

i use tune up utilities 2007 it does more than just defrag, i highly reccommend buying it

Hmm. This thread started nearly three years ago and it still is going!! In general, I think defragging is overrated, but I still do it for various reasons. I use it to pack the hard disks I use for TV and Movies. Those are large files and don't change much.

Diskeeper is only so so i've found over time. It works, but is finicky. On those drives I mentioned it won't even attempt it. Also, It can take several if not many passes with diskeeper to get it right. Perfect Disk and Vopt8 can do it in one pass. O&O after some early failures years ago finally got their act togehter and produce a decent app that is on par for the most part with the other two. SysInternals app is also good, but nowhere near as pretty! :^)

I've noticed that Symantec let SpeedDisk die. Too bad that was shaping up to be a good tool. The odd thing about defraggers is that except for boot up times (and I don't do that often except for testing) they all must tie into the same MS api. I've never pulled it apart, but I'm not sure how they all manage to be all that different given the limitations Windows puts on them.

A friend of mine used to run tests when he was the CIO at a big company here in Vienna. As noted, except for bootup times there was little practical difference in the performance of the disks, despite what Diskeeper tries to peddle you. Yes, there is a difference, but not much of a prctical one except in extreme cases of rampant fragmentation and load demand on the drive.

I like the new Vopt8 since they've ironed the bugs out of it and Golden Bow was always one of the most reliable software producers out there. I like the feature of being able to point to a little square and seeing what files are there. Useless, I know, but I like it. The color scheme makes more sense to me than Perfect Disk also, but I like that app as well as O&O. Sigh.

Wheres the "Other" option? anyways i use UltimateDefrag. its small and very flexible.

That defragmenter needs major work! It crashed on me, apparently, because of Windows denying access to a file, because of it being open.
Apparently, it crashes instead of just skipping the file!

Thus I have to say this, DefragNT definitely don't hold a candle to JKDefrag. JKDefrag has a GUI while being just one file!

id recommend JKDefrag its free not a resource hog and its automatic also includes a screensaver defrag
http://www.kessels.nl/JkDefrag/index.html

While it is freeware and open-source, it's nothing spectacular and the basic display view is less than can be desired. I'm not even positive on what sort of file placement (if any) it does after simply defragmenting files.
I've recently realized the importance and necessity of having file placement done after a defrag. I have 3 screenshots that prove this, which anyone can do themselves.

Disk Analyzed
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/9590/ud1dw5.png

Disk Defragmented Completely
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3064/ud2ag1.png

File Placement (79% of least used data placed on inner tracks and 21% of most used data placed on outer tracks + Consolidation defrag)
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/418/ud3lc7.png

As you can see, merely having the files defragmented only does half the job. At this point there is still much room for future fragmentation and access time is nowhere near being optimized. And by optimized, I mean having files related by either last access or modification date placed together at the beginning of the HDD inwards.
Having the most used data at the beginning of the disk and the rest of the files out of the way on the slower areas of the disk improves file access time (truthfully by milliseconds, which in reality leads to several seconds of application and game loading).
Then comes the Consolidation method which places files sequentially and thus contiguously (no gaps in between any two given files). This creates the largest area of free space after the most used files for new files to be written. The file may or may not be fragmented when written to this free space, but it won't be fragmented nearly as much as it would be had it been written to a severely fragmented (and non-contiguous) drive where there were many gaps to fill.
Diskeeper is automatic and does file placement, but not always necessarily consolidated. You can defrag with any defragmenter and use UltimateDefrag to view the disk display and see exactly where and how files are placed.
PerfectDisk isn't as automatic, and does do file placement in the same manner, thus future fragmentation is reduced.
UltimateDefrag offers the most flexibility and shows a true drive display and is portable (1 EXE and 2 XML files on my flash drive).

I hope this helps.

i've used diskeeper and O&O side by side for a year and half now and I can confirm O&O is better in every way imaginable as far as defragging goes. O&O wipes the competetion.

Well, i use Raxco Perfect Disk 8 to defragment, unlike others, it has its own mechanism to operate silently without any bugs. So far, happy using it and its stable.

You're referring to automatic defragmentation, yes? If so, several other defragmenters have this ability. Ashampoo Magical Defrag 2, DirMS, Diskeeper 2007, MST Defrag, IOBit SmartDefrag, and O&O Defrag 8.6 and above.
I haven't tested these defragmenters in depth in regards to automatic defragmenting yet, but if I had to recommend 3 of them, I'd say DK, MST and O&O. There's only one way to know for sure, though...

There have been a major amount of JKDefrag releases!

Apparently, there has been work done on the file placing. The GUI still is the same, but hopefully, that can be improved.

Yeah, after seeing the disk display of UltimateDefrag, all defragmenters should have it. The rectangular boxes with the squares just aren't appealing anymore...

@Jeremy

As i personally really value your oppenion, and have learned alot from reading through old posts of yours, then i would really appreciate if you would please answer a question for me. In the beginning of this thread and a long way through it, then you where recommending and using PerfectDisk. Then suddently on page 18, then you wrote "I use Diskeeper and it [...]", but you didn't mention why you had switched from using PerfectDisk ? So my question is about if you would please tell me what exactly made you switch to Diskeeper ? I have myself for a long time just used the Windows Defragger, but after reading this whole thread through, then i decided that i needed to switch to something better. I am now using PerfectDisk 8 and am really liking it, but as i personally am interessted in using the very best defragging app, then i was wondering about the reason for your switch to Diskeeper ? I'm not personally interessted in automatic defragmenting at all and only want's to do it manually, but i want to use the defragging program which uses the very best techniques for defragmenting, smart file placement and free space consolidation(and what other techniques there else may exist ?), and i'm in doubt about if Diskeeper's techniques is better than PerfectDisk's ? I think that the basic defragmenting operation will probably be pretty much the same in thoroughness between the two apps and just show differences in there efficiency i.e. how fast they do it. Then if Diskeeper also does free space consolidation(i haven't checked yet), then i guess that the big difference between PerfectDisk and Diskeeper is with regards to there file placement strategies. PerfectDisk's SMARTPlacement strategy uses file modification time, wich makes future defragmenting jobs faster and Diskeeper uses files "last opened" strategy, which speedups access time. Which of those two strategies do you feel is most important/best ? And does Diskeeper even do free space consolidation ? Oh, sorry - i can of course google that answer myself... Also, then there is UltimateDefrag, which i haven't investigated that much yet. I know the reports on Raxco's site which compares PerfectDisk 8 to Diskeeper 2007, but i'm just affraid that they are to biased to be completely trusted ?

Thank's in advance.

CU, Martin.

Diskeeper, doesn't matter the version. I use it since NT 4, works perfectly, you have several options, including pagefile.sys optmization, Master File Table defrag, you can put all folders together, etc.

@Jeremy

Hmm, i have investigated that Diskeeper does do free space consolidation. On the other hand then i have read the tread you have linked to earlier at 'DriverHeaven', and there Michael himself said that if looking for a manual defragger, then one should look other places than Diskeeper, as it have very little development in that regard, and so since i'm only after a manual defragger, then my choises are down to PerfectDisk and UltimateDefrag. Additionally, then i believe that I-FAAST is only available in automatic mode, which means that i wouldn't get to benefir from it in my situation(I hate having things running in the background and using resources all the time, when it's only going to be used sometimes... And i only have a 1700MHZ Celeron with 256MB RAM also.) Then my choices are down to PerfectDisk and UltimateDefrag. I have read up on UltimateDfrag and i must say that i'm really impressed. It seems like you can choose yourself if wanting to use a file placement strategy that either resembles PerfectDisk's(Last modified) and Diskeeper's(last accesed). Also, it's very small, which also is a big plus in my book(I love resource-friendly apps like fb2k, mpc, NOD32, ImgBurn etc). Do you personally think that UltimateDefrag is as good a defragger as PerfectDisk ?

Thank's in advance, and i apoligise for keeping bugging you, and i really hope that you don't mind

Hehe, I read that thread at driverheaven too. Probably one of the better defrag threads on the web.
I have used perfectdisk before, and was not particularly impressed by it. I think O&O is better than PD because although it is slower for defrags, it does not make my system nearly unusable when it is running like PD does.

Best blend of resource usage and performance has been Diskeeper pro, and I have no plans to switch to anything else atleast for the current releases. Diskeeper is used on my office network, and I have a license on my home system too. As mentioned in another thread, the autodefrag feature is its best point...truly 'intelligent' set it and forget it, doesnt affect performance if it runs in the background even when gaming.

I'm just interessted in finding out which defragger offers the very best manual strategies for a) defragmenting files b] defragmenting/consolidating free space and c) intelligent file placement. I don't personally care which one is the fastest at doing these things. I have decided to leave Diskeeper out of my considerations, since it's not meant to be used manually(and don't support I-FAAST in this mode). My choises are then between PerfectDisk and UltimateDefrag. I have only tried PerfectDisk untill now, and i really like it, but i am just in doubt about if UltimateDefrag is better, and i always tries to find the very best app for each specific task. After i read that UltimateDefrag lets you decide between using either access time or modification date for it's file placement strategy, then that really made me think about if i was currently just using the second best manual defragging app(PerfectDisk) and that i should switch to UltimateDefrag instead. Since i know that Jeremy has both used PerfectDisk for a long time and also has used and knows about UltimateDefrag, then i really hope that he can tell me which is the best of the two for defragging files, defragging free space and doing intelligent file placement.

I'd try it but there is no version for Win98SE

i've used PerfectDisk for a long time and have always touted it as being the best....but i just tried UltimateDefrag and i'm very impressed.

here's my take:

PerfectDisk is for intermediate or corporate users. it has nice enterprise features for an organisation, and it's small footprint makes it attractive to saavy home users.

UltimateDefrag is for power users and features the most configurable defrag options i've ever seen. this is for people who know exactly what files/folders they use the most and don't need an algorithm to place their files properly. (even though it does contain a few different algorithms that do just that)

UD was also smart enough to tell me that i have my NTFS last access attributes disabled (with the option to re-enable) and thus can't organize files according to that attribute.

the disc shaped graph is brilliant, now if only they would make one with the right number of platters for your drive.

Hi #rootworm

Just wanted to say many thanks for your thoughts about these two apps, i really appreciate it

CU, Martin.

I hope you do realize that the circular display offered by UltimateDefrag is just that - a circular representation of what was shown in square boxes earlier - and both of them show inner tracks & outermost tracks in their own way & are only approximate representations built for eye-candy.

I repeat, neither of them are showing the true placement (they're as approximate as each other....).