What's the difference? Is it worth the wait?

i am not sure... but i think with normal format alone, everything on the hard drive is designated as 0 (data)... as for quick format, if you install a new OS on your drive over a previous drive that has been used, than you just format to whatever data you store it in... but instead of deleting everything... the file still remains on the drive... but as you use and store more data, those designated as 1 or 0 in the sector will eventually turns into the newer data... so therefore, it is possible to restore a harddrive that is already format using quick format from previous used hard drive


btw I MIGHT BE WRONG ON THIS... THIS IS WHAT I READ and LEARN before... if i am wrong than sorry... feel free to comment more... thanks

opps i forgot to say that... it really doesnt mattter... if i were you i would use quick format... it is by far quicker than normal formatting and save you precious time

thats what i heard too. quick is just randomizing the data to make it unreadable but it does not order the HD. full is a compleate whack.


i wanna see the technical answer to this too.... anyone got anything better.... maybe with pictures.

ok i have no 100% techie answer but mine would be

quick Format:
Erases the Drive's MFT file

Full Format:
Erases everything and resets all Magnetic platters

The MFT file is really a like a giant database detailing where each file starts and ends. It's like a directory to find all the data on a harddrive. Deleting MFT file would only cause the computer to forget where the information is located but the information is still be physically there incase you need to recover it. Also the MFT is also reserves space on a harddrive so in a attempt to prevent itself from becomming fragmented. On a brand new drive it could even reserve up to 1/5 of it. As data is entered, the "MFT Zone" is used. IF you use primarily Big files the MFT file will be small, if you have primarily small files, the MFT would be relatively large (more entries). However, this resizing doesnt happen all the time, it only happens when either if there's not enough room for more files or if the MFT zone is filled.. then the drive is changed to properly suit hte situtation.

Oh and you want pictures too huh? fine ill find something for ya...

picture

(this is a picture of Perfect Disk 7, a 3rd party Defragmentation utility)

I cant back it up but a number of people have said a regular format will also find bad sectors where as a quick may not.

i've had issues with quick format before doing an os install (crashing freezing data corruption) so for my os drive i always use the full format but for everything else i use the quick

from microsoft, link here: http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=302686

This article describes the differences between a Quick format and a regular format.
MORE INFORMATION
When you choose to run a regular format on a volume, files are removed from the volume that you are formatting and the hard disk is scanned for bad sectors. The scan for bad sectors is responsible for the majority of the time that it takes to format a volume.

If you choose the Quick format option, format removes files from the partition, but does not scan the disk for bad sectors. Only use this option if your hard disk has been previously formatted and you are sure that your hard disk is not damaged.

If you installed Windows XP on a partition that was formatted by using the Quick format option, you can also check your disk by using the chkdsk /r command after the installation of Windows XP is completed.

valis

Valis reply above tells you exactly what you need to know.

I recommend you do a *full format* at the time you install Windows. A full format will find any bad sectors on the drive, a quick one will not.

Modern hard drives seldom have bad sectors on them (when they are brand new) but if there is one and, a piece of the O/S happens to be "written" there it can cause you all kinds of trouble.

It is worth the wait. While it formats you can plan what's left to do to optimize your system.

HTH.

Here is a brief comparison:

Quick Format - only rewrites the boot record of the media and makes the whole space available for writing data. Althought physically, previous data is still present, only marked as free space.

Full Format - formats everything as well as test each sector for Read/Write problems. Sectors with problems are marked as bad. Since it tests every sector, depending on the hard drive size and computer speed may take many minutes or hours to do.

i always use quick format wen installin an os. i have probly used it 20-30 times and never had a problem.

Same. Cuts down so much time.

The last time I heard 'bad sector' being mentioned was way back in 2000.

I got some bad sectors in a second hand 40GB maxtor drive a couple weeks ago. i fix them and i kept gettin more and more until it crashed.

apart from this i have never or had a friend/family member ever a get a bad sector.

IMO full format is a waste of time

Well, the previous posts tell you what you need to know. Quick format only erases the boot sector, full the whole disc is checked and it writes 0 in all the sectors. It takes time, but i DEFINITELY recomend it. It will save you time and nerves if anything happens and you have to do it all over again. I myself always use full format.

I think someone needs to point out that either formatting option isn't fully secure if data destruction is the goal. Tools exist to recover data from formatted drives... there are programs that do specialized formats that advertise themselves as unrecoverable... me personally... a hammer is the way I secure an old drive.

Thanks for the info everyone. I asked this question after I already did a quick format so let's hope I have no bad sectors--I better not after paying $150 for a 74gb hd.

Only the first format needs to not be full. After it is unlikely to have any bad sectors till it is dying.

I don't know if this still applies, but way back Norton used to have a option to clear unused sectors in there defragmentation utility. Basically it would set every bit to a 0.

Reason for it was that as the drive writes data to the unused sectors it would fragment the files since it would see the previous data about where to find the next peace of a file and blindly follow that pattern and fragment the newly written files.