Ah, I was led to believe that if you quick formatted it didn't wipe all the data fully sometimes, which corrupted any new data laid down over it. Many thanks for the info and link.
You were led astray. Both quick and full formats are the same format. The drive still has the data on it but it can't be seen. The data could be partially recovered by WinHex or other programs based on the file signatures, depending on how fragmented the drive is. If you are giving a drive away, e.g., donating a computer, then you would want do do a zero fill from the drive manufacturers drive tools. That will write zeros to the entire drive. The data can still be recovered but it would be very expensive. If you are really paranoid you can use wipe programs like the one below.
Data Shredder - Hard Drive Low Level Wipe Program, Data Eraser, Government Standard Data Erase
http://www.cbltech.co.uk/data-shredder.html
Umm... no. Format and quick format do the same thing, in terms of "removing the data. Specifically, they alter the entries in the FAT by changing the first character of teh file name / path to something not normally seen / recognized by the filemanager programme. In Windows / DOS this was the lower case Greek letter sigma. The data was not actualy removed from the drive until the sector / cluster that was "shown" to be "free" was overwritten by new data. How did you think the "Recycle" bin worked anyways? The functioanal difference between Format ande Quick-format is that the altter doesn't call chkdsk to check for bad sectors anjhd other problems. At that, if one runs check disc in a DOS window, the OS eill recommend running Scandisk instead.
Scandisk will actually do a better job of checking for errors ojn a hard drive than chkdsk will. It is after all a lobotomized version of Norton's Disc Doctor utility. The big problem with ScanDisk is that it will restart from scratch whenever Windows writes to disk. I have never seen ScanDisk actually complete a full scan of a partition on a hdd due to constant restarts when Windows writes to evenm the swap file.
So you were agreeing with what I said? Because that's what it sounds like, but I can't be sure.
I was agreeing with you PARTIALLY. To clarify, the difference between a full format and a quick format is NOT in how they treat the entries in the FAT (of whatever type), but in the level of disc integrity check they perform.
You really need to do some work on that reading compreeeehension thang you do.
While you are at it, you might want to seriously consider refreshing your comprehension of the following concepts: hardware deterioration over time and use, hdd's developing "new" bad sectors over time, consequences of "incorrect" shut-downs due to things like power failures and/or surges, and system lock-ups, not to mention specific application failures that can't be resolved by task manager end task. The list goes on.
A full format will do a minimum level check on the drive by calling chkdsk, while a quick format won't call up chkdsk.
Hey Wiz,
All I said was that the formatting portion of the drive in quick and full format were the same and that the data was still on the drive but couldn't be easily accessed. I never addressed anything with regards to
"how they treat the entries in the FAT (of whatever type), but in the level of disc integrity check they perform". I also stated that there were other programs that could do a complete "cleaning" of the drive if that's what he wanted. Your response was Umm... no. Now what in my post are you saying umm... no to? Because whatever in my post that you are saing um.. no to, you are flat wrong. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt given your ramblings that were clearly off the topic of a reply to my post. I thought you were a few bricks short of a full load. I guess you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. As far as some stupid comment about my comprehension WTF? You might consider worrying about your own level of comprehension. Or you might read the whole thread and not just start at the end, before you start blubbering about things that have already been addressed in detail. Post in question:
NO it is not necessary for you to do a full format on a brand new drive. A full format is a waste of time unless there is previous data on the drive.
The only difference between a full format and a quick format is that a full format runs check-disk (chkdsk) to check the new drive for bad sectors from the factory. You don't have to run a full format but every drive manufacturer that I have checked recommends to run a full format to ensure that there are no bad sectors. I always run a full format the first time that I am using a new disk. If there is already data on the disk then you can run a quick format not the other way around. Full (regular) or quick has absolutely nothing to do with any data that is on the drive. See link from Microsoft
Differences between a Quick format and a regular format during a "clean" installation of Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/302686Look it even has a link to the source document.
I saw your post:
Given that the mods here are useless and lazy incompetents, and that I have seen really effective forums, I can't help wondering what your point is.
I suggest you go to those other effective forums and stay there. Maybe you can learn something, but I doubt it.