76
Thank you for your review
$30 95
http://www.macupdate.com/download/16819/idefrag%2520demo.zip
Email me when discounted: 
iDefrag helps defragment and optimize your disk for improved performance. Features include:
  • Supports HFS and HFS+ (Mac OS Extended).
  • Supports case sensitive and journaled filesystems.
  • Supports adaptive hot file clustering ("Hot Zone").
  • Four powerful defragmentation algorithms:
    • Compact data, moving all free space to one place.
    • Optimize filesystem metadata.
    • On-line defragmentation.
    • Defragment whilst your disk is mounted.
    • Advanced programmable optimization.
    • Rearrange your disk the way you want.
  • B-Tree metadata file more...

What's New

Version 2.2.6:

Note: The demo version is currently at 2.2.5. The version available for purchase is 2.2.6.
  • Fixed cause of Kernel Extension warning.
  • Fixed an intermittent problem with creating a recovery partition.

Requirements

OS X 10.6 or later

Similar Software

Open Comparison
Suggest Other Similar Software
Leave a Review

iDefrag User Discussion

Nobody has reviewed or commented on this app yet. Add your own comment and get a discussion going!

Most Helpful Reviews...

MacUpdate most helpful reviews user icon

After updating to Mavericks, my iMac was running nice and fast. But now two months later, it was nothing but pinning beach balls, a unresponsive Finder which took minutes to draw in a window, and a bunch of other issues.

So I decided to more...

3 people found this review helpful
Version 2.2.6
MacUpdate most helpful reviews user icon
from Ashes2Ashes

Years after purchasing this software and several upgrades, the developer accused me of piracy and removed my use of this product. I will never support this company or its products ever again.

4 people found this review helpful
Version 2.2.5
Sort by: Time | Smiles
Bidule Member IconComment+38
Bidule
+0

Not 30.95$ but 39.95$, seen on dev site.

Reply0 replies
Version 2.2.6
Xenophile Member IconComment+693
Xenophile
+1

FYI: I asked the developer about using this with SSDs. He responded to say that version 3 is nearing release candidate status and will defragment SSD volumes, including Fusion drives.

Since an SSD wears out after a certain number of write cycles, defragmentation is normally not recommended. iDefrag 3 will defrag SSDs by directly accessing the controller to manipulate the drive's garbage collection and wear leveling routines. The developer I spoke with couldn't say which drive controllers would be supported, but it's a fair guess that it will at least work with Toshiba and Samsung controllers since Apple uses them as OEM SSDs. What the developer did say is that their SSD defragging will yield bigger gains than HDD defragging. Even when run on a virgin OS X installation, gains of up to 1.3x were realized. That's right, Coriolis's SSD defrag heuristics are superior to Apple's own Mavericks installer!

This will be HUGE for the Mac community. Until now we've been punk'd by OS X's poor TRIM support, but soon we'll have the first and only SSD defragmentation utility on the market! I can't wait to see how fast my Mac Pro is after iDefrag 3 works it's magic!

Reply0 replies
Version 2.2.6
bbw7 Member IconComment+313
bbw7
+0

The dev's site says the OS requirement is 10.6+.

Reply0 replies
Version 2.2.6
WalterT8575 Member IconReview+2
WalterT8575
+2

Totally worth it! A new Mac for $31!

OS X Mavericks made my 2011 MacBook Pro i7 literally three times slower across the board: starting apps, browsing photos, working in the UI... Although repairing permissions via Disk Utility helped by 5%, a super-easy overnight iDefrag run restored my system's old snappiness. Some of the low-level system files had hundreds of fragments. HATS OFF, CORIOLIS!

Reply0 replies
Version 2.2.6
RavenNevermore Member IconReview+1317
RavenNevermore
+3

After updating to Mavericks, my iMac was running nice and fast. But now two months later, it was nothing but pinning beach balls, a unresponsive Finder which took minutes to draw in a window, and a bunch of other issues.

So I decided to wipe my drive and do a clean install of Mavericks, and then restore everything else from my backup.

That helped a lot, but still, it wasn't running like it should be. So I booted from a maintenance partition, and checked it out with iDefrag. Even though I had just installed everything, it was pretty fragmented. So I ran it over night and now it's as good as new, with Finder windows snapping open and their contents drawing in almost instantly. Applications launch much faster now too.

Reply3 replies
Version 2.2.6
bbw7
+0

Isn't wiping one's drive disk and reinstalling an OS the ultimate defragging? That is my understanding anyway. If that's not the case, please enlighten me -- I say this earnestly.

Are you intimating then that restoring your files from a back up caused the fragmentation problems?

RavenNevermore
+1

You would think so, right? It was not in my case. It probably would have been if I also reinstalled all my software, etc.

But since I restored from a backup using Carbon Copy Cloner, it seems to have moved everything over in the state it was. I think CCC does a block by block copy, and restores the same way. I'm not exactly sure.

When I checked the drive in iDefrag, the newly restored drive was fragmented. Not as bad as it was (it was really bad to start with), but it still showed quit a bit. It only had to run about 8 hours, and the performance improvements where worth it.

bbw7
+0

RN,

Thanx for the reply. That was my hunch, that restoring ala CCC might reintroduce some of the fragmentation of the original file system.

Abramurkwian Member IconReview+37
Abramurkwian
+0

While this utility is neither necessary nor recommended for SSDs, it does a very good job for standard HDs. I use it since... do not really remember for how long!

Reply0 replies
Version 2.2.6
Eric-Woehler Member IconReview+417
Eric-Woehler
+2

Having problems under 10.9 Mavericks, crashing at startup. I have sent crash logs etc to dev. Have used it since vers 1 for external drives and has been excellent utility; highly recommended.

Reply0 replies
Version 2.2.5
Donmontalvo Member IconComment+1285
Donmontalvo
+1

Complete waste of money.

Reply23 replies
Version 2.2.5
Anon-Bud
+2

Umm. Because.... ?

TeRRyZx
+1

Has always worked great for me and makes all my Macs run smoother and much faster. You must not be understanding how to use it properly.

Donmontalvo
+1

We have 1,000 users at my current gig and we had nearly 2,000 users at my previous gig. From high end multimedia/graphics users to standard users, I can go farther back with a higher number of users. The one joke over the years continues to be true, there are enough suckers to be had for companies to make money selling sugar pills. Apple has plenty of knowledge base and developer articles to expose this farce. But I guess suckers will be suckers. If watching colorful, bouncing square float around your screen gives you that warm fuzzy feeling, might I suggest buying an animated screensaver instead?

Anon-Bud
+7

Ok. So you work with a lot of people using a lot of computers. Therefore we should just accept your view that this is a "complete waste of money"? Why? What makes it a waste of money? What about this particular app is not useful to you and the many thousands of people you work with?

Some of us actually read these reviews/comments hoping to gain insight into How the app does or does not live up to its value/worth. What you wrote is not helpful in that way and, since I do not know you personally, I just simply cannot take you at your word. More information as to why this is a complete waste of money would be helpful.

Jazzyguy
+3

@Donmontalvo That is a very CAUSTIC remark you made about this utility. I have no problems defragging on my Snow Leopard iMac Volumes.Despite the article in Apple Discussion Forums and other articles published by Apple Volumes have been defragged properly and placed in perfect order by iDefrag.I understand that SSD volumes are not amenable to Defragging and should NOT be defragged.

Donmontalvo
+0

@Anon-bud Perhaps I should have said "I manage and support N number of Macs at high profile companies". Ask your support folks what they think, whether "defrag" is a concern or a moneymaking sham. ;)

RavenNevermore
+2

I have to respectfully disagree, and I generally agree with all your posts.

What are your users doing with their Macs? I record multitrack audio, and defraging the record drive is essential or you can get errors because the drive is too slow.

Also, OS X gets severely fragmented. The Hot-File-Adaptive-Clustering only works for small files. For people doing multi media it pays to defrag your drives.

I don't do it frequently, since drives these days are so large it takes forever, but you will notice improvements in performance.

TeRRyZx
+1

I can only speak for myself but when I use iDefrag it really makes my computers run faster and smoother. This may not be true for everyone but I also do music remastering and it really helps as far as I can see. Your mileage may vary….?

Donmontalvo
+0

@RavenNevermore wrote:

"I record multitrack audio, and defraging the record drive is essential or you can get errors because the drive is too slow."

Sounds like you need to get faster/larger drives, instead of spending money on this sugar pill.

Any perceived benefit from buying this sugar pill is short lived, and doesn't resolve the root issue.

It's your money. ;)

Don

RavenNevermore
+0

Don, I have a very fast 2 TB Firewire 800 drive, 10,000 RPM. If you follow any of the DAW products, they will inform you that the drive needs to be defragmented since the software wants to write in contiguous steams, rather than jumping around looking for free sectors. That slows down your reads and writes. You do realize that's how hard rives work, right?

This is also true for video editing.

For smaller files, like word processing, email, or what ever, it doesn't matter. But when you are doing multi track audio you are writing very large files that can't be interrupted. The Mac is also reading multiple large files at the same time.

You can do some benchmarking and prove that the read/write time is improved with a defragmented hard drive. I would do that before dismissing it as a sugar pill.

Donmontalvo
+1

Two words:

Scratch. Disk.

RavenNevermore
+0

Sorry, but no. That has nothing to do with recording multitrack audio. The DAW writes directly to the drive. Why would it use a second drive?

Maybe you are thinking of RAM buffers? RAM is faster than a mechanical hard drive, so the DAW buffers writes to RAM. However, if you increase your buffers too large, latency goes up, and then trying to play along with recorded tracks sounds noticeably out of sync. That makes overdubbing very difficult.

Scratch disks are for programs like Photoshop to use for temp files and as virtual memory. But Photoshop is not doing anything in real time. DAWs are reading and writing in real time with very low latencies (delays).

Donmontalvo
+1

I'm curious what audio software doesn't let you specify a scratch disk.

Donmontalvo
+1

Ahh...

http://www.logicprohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=160437

RavenNevermore
+0

None of them use scratch disks.

Photoshop uses scratch disks. Scratch disks are for temp files that Photoshop writes when you are doing editing, and as virtual memory.

The DAWs I use are Pro Tools 9, Cubase 7, Logic Pro X, and stereo editors like Adobe Audition CC and Sony Sound Forge Pro.

Donmontalvo
+1

Points taken, I suppose it's cheaper to buy software as a crutch than it would be to architect a high(er) performance system.

Donmontalvo
+1

You also mentioned:

"I have a very fast 2 TB Firewire 800 drive, 10,000 RPM."

Does this mean you're booting from that drive? Or if that's the drive that you need the fastest performance from, I suppose you're storing data on it, else why not simply initialize (and store your jobs elsewhere)?

RavenNevermore
+0

No, you never record to your boot drive. The performance would suffer. Some software, like Pro Tools, won't even let you record to the boot drive.

Anon-Bud
+0

Interesting discussion, guys. Thanks.

Donmontalvo
+1

OK, so if your application isn't writing to your boot drive, but you're having to "defrag" your work drive, it sounds like you're using a drive for both storage and work space. Sound right? Storage space is critical, so some sort of RAID1/5/etc is needed for protection...whereas work space can (and likely should) be RAID0 (striped) for highest performance. In this scenario the RAID0 drive would be initialized to "defrag". RAID0 is never used to store data, since it's got multiple points of failure (each disk plus the stripe), but it's fast as heck. It's the RAID0 disk (per se) that I was referring to as "scratch disk". Not sure if I worded that right. It's getting late, my brain is getting fragmented...time to go home. ;)

RavenNevermore
+0

Yes, a RAID would be faster, but it's common to use a regular Firewire drive, since it's often brought from studio to studio, etc. :)

The Firewire drive is just from recording audio to.

Xenophile
+0

Yes, defrag utilities for OS X are snake oil.

OS X does it's own defragging, on the fly, which was a big deal when systems used rotating hard drives. Today's SSDs do not need defragging.

Lots of astroturfing going on here. Notice all the success stories follow the same formula and post structure. "Mavericks slowed me down, I tried fixing it to no avail, finally iDefrag turned my poor old slow Mac into a speed demon!" LOL, funny how these people can notice such a stark difference in speed with modern hard drives. The actual speed difference in accessing the most fragmented file is all but negligible.

One sock puppet even claims to have wiped his drive and reinstalled Mavericks, yet iDefrag still speeded his system up. Coriolis must be getting desperate for sales now that SSDs are standard on Macs.

I must ask those who fall for this BS: if fragmentation were such a problem for Unix/Linux systems, why do you suppose no one thought to add the required defragging support directly to those open source operating systems?

RavenNevermore
+0

@Xenophile. you are absolutely wrong. Saying that OS X does its own defragging is snake oil. If you actually looked into it, you can easily prove it to yourself.

All OS X does is Hot File Adaptive Clustering, which monitors frequently-accessed files that do not get changed (read only), and then moves these often-accessed files to a special hot zone on the hard drive.

Read that again; "frequently-accessed files that do not get changed (read only)"

If you launch an app like iDefrag, you will easily see how fragmented the hard drive is. large files have their pieces scattered across the drive. That slows down read times. OS X does NOT defragment that file. It never has.

OS X's Hot File Adaptive Clustering works on small files, and does very little if anything. After defragmenting the drive, you can see how all the [arts of a file are now in contiguous order, and it's easy to measure how much faster read and write times are.

If you are writing big files, and need the fastest performance, defragging helps. It's very noticeable.

Now as for your assumption on why defragging is not added to the OS... it never has been on the Mac, why would it be now? Apple's Disk Utility can't even fix certain problems. Why not?

Traditionally Apple has left certain tasks up to third party developers. It's always been that way. Apple might *think* that OS X doesn't need defragging, just like they think that the memory management system in Mavericks stops you from having poor performance, when in reality it does not work as well as they seem to think it does.

Apple has written to make a backup, erase the drive, and copy your files back on to defrag it.

Jazzyguy Member IconReview+3694
Jazzyguy
+2

This is the Best Defrag Utility on the Mac.It performs flawlessly.

Reply0 replies
Version 2.2.5
Ashes2Ashes Member IconReview+129
Ashes2Ashes
+4

Years after purchasing this software and several upgrades, the developer accused me of piracy and removed my use of this product. I will never support this company or its products ever again.

Reply6 replies
Version 2.2.5
Neil_m
+1

What do you mean?
Did they say that your serial has been used by others? Lots of others?

JasonE
+0

I also would like to hear an answer to this from Coriolis.

Neil_m
+1

I'd like to hear from AshesToAshes.

Ashes2Ashes
+2

They didn't give me any explanation... nor would they give me one after asking for one. They offered me no way to try and deal with their accusation. Simply terrible customer service and the developer is paranoid and delusional.

Neil_m
+1

Thanks for replying AshesToAshes.
Unacceptable, if you are not allowed to know the evidence, to back up the accusation.
Sorry to hear that.

Chris From Coriolis
+2

If Ashes2Ashes would like to contact us directly, I can investigate this further and I can post an update back here for others to see giving our side of the story. I will say it’s unlikely that we wouldn’t have given an explanation, and I would be happy to give an explanation of Ashes2Ashes were to contact us. Obviously it’s difficult for me to comment further without knowing who Ashes2Ashes.

user icon+19
Lightning
Version 2.2.6
user icon+9
Macbond
Version 2.2.5
user icon+2
TAOGde
Version 2.2.5
user icon+0
Miguel-Cunha
Version 2.2.4
user icon+0
Btrstudio
Version 2.2.4
user icon+0
Gigadiva
Version 2.2.4
user icon+44
Vandulus
Version 2.2.4
user icon+1
Edw
Version 2.2.3
user icon+14
Dochoz
Version 2.2.1
user icon+23
Amalgamated Inc
Version 2.2.1
> 4 114

Ratings

Overall
(114)
Current Version (2.x)
(76)

Details

Downloads 261,378
Version Downloads 24,114
License Demo
Date 16 Nov 2013
Platform Intel 64 / OS X / Intel 32
Price $30.95