Full format / Quick format difference?

helmutcheese · 13 Oct 2008 at 14:10

bledd. said:
helmut, is the error when it says NTLDR is missing etc..?

Nope, Its 3 files and offhand I cant remember but its in 1 of the posts/links above.

I would hope Vista has fixed this issue or was it an issue with actual NTFS (hmm).

Anyhow Vista's Quick Format option is bad IMO.

helmutcheese · 13 Oct 2008 at 14:12

@ doc, The MAJOR difference is a BUG mentioned above that CAN loose you a bootable HDD, there is no gain in trying to lessen this for XP anyhow.

Its well known and I have been stung by it 1x on a customers rig (1x in enough), I feel no need to repeat again but I'm not alone in this and doing a Full Format is more sensible as it actually deletes all Data and makes a fesh Fil;e System where as a Quick Format Deletes the Index only.

Do you really think Windows can Delete all the DATA and totally rewrite a new File System in second ?

All your DATA could be recovered very easily after a Quick Format.

And BTW this was on a NEW RAW out the box HDD, so that part you mention in above is not accurate.

doc · 13 Oct 2008 at 16:22

With complete and total respect, I disagree

As I said above, the only difference between a Full Format and a Quick Format is the Full Format does a surface scan for bad sectors, which is why it takes so long. It does not write a whole new file system index onto the disk. The file system index is set at the factory.

The new index you are referring to is what is known as Low Level Formatting which cannot be done outside of the factory these days on modern hard disks.

Both the Quick and Full Format simply erase the Master File Table and the File Allocation Table, removing the "soft" index to all the partitions and the files within them. These tables sit on top of the drives own index and are the things which are erased when formatting.

Honestly not wishing to be confrontational, but please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_formatting

I suspect what happened before is you either got a rogue bad sector or the PC shut off during a write to the MFT which caused the problem.

Honestly. Full (High Level) Formatting is completely unecessary on a modern hard drive which is not considered suspect

helmutcheese · 13 Oct 2008 at 16:26

I cannot agree with anything you have said or quoted written in Wiki by a person who could be wrong (Politely).

A HDD does not have a File System wrote to it in the factory, they arrive RAW and can be used in non PC's that do not use NTFS so that's not accurate.

A Full Format deletes the DATA and writes a new NTFS (or FAT) to the HDD.

Again this is not years ago and its not on old hardware and has absolutely nothing to do with bad sectors or powering PC off while HDD is active.

Not taking the time to do a Full Format is dumb IMO and can cost you more time and heartache later.

I DO NOT want anyone here to get issue so will always say Full Format XP.

Phil2008 · 13 Oct 2008 at 16:35

I read somewhere, that if the drive gets used loads, the less likely it will go wrong, then having a drive and it never gets much of a workout so to speak..lol

doc · 13 Oct 2008 at 16:39

Like I said, I respectfully disagree

If you feel that strongly, please point me to your references and I will gladly re-evaluate my thinking.......

Think of it like this, the factory sets out a grid of sectors on the drive in the physical space available. This is a low level format and cannot be changed outside of the factory.

The Operating System then puts its own virtual grid on top of this to form the file system (NTFS,FAT,etc), MFT, etc. All a quick/full format does is remove the Operating System grid by deleting the MFT and then scans for bad sectors on the drive by attempting to write to each sector which effectively wipes it.

See the difference between the two layers?

Read this: http://www.wdc.com/en/library/gloss0803.pdf

Scroll to Format and then follow the link to High Level Format, its all there and not from a Wiki

All a Full Format does over a Quick Format is check for bad sectors, honestly

doc · 13 Oct 2008 at 16:41

Phil2008 said:
I read somewhere, that if the drive gets used loads, the less likely it will go wrong, then having a drive and it never gets much of a workout so to speak..lol

If you have trouble sleeping, read the Google Hard Drive Paper in post 19 above.

Lots of interesting nuggets, like (paraphrasing now) "Drives that run slightly warm last longer"

wombraider · 13 Oct 2008 at 17:13

An interesting debate , I will throw my hat into the ring

I used to use quick formats but now I opt for using the full ones , why?

Well I got a brand new 500G hard drive a while ago and did ye olde quick format
on it and then started to fill it with goodies ( hi def mkv files)

Things went great for about 3 weeks until I had an error on the drive , I lost
loads of stuff and was well peed off about it , after I recovered as much as I could.
I wiped the drive and did a full format ( using acronis disk director) and noticed that
after the format there was some space allocated for errored sectors.

Lesson learned: If you can afford to loose the data on the drive and not cry about it , then quick format it is.
If you are scared about data loss then a full format will give you piece of mind.

Fibre_Optic · 13 Oct 2008 at 18:05

I always disable SMART as I find it a complete waste of time really considering you should never leave ANY data on a HD that your not willing to lose!

Disable SMART, FULL format and then Ghost image for system recovery. Important files/data is backed up as relying on SMART to protect it is like playing Russian roulette tbh!!

doc · 13 Oct 2008 at 18:50

All I am saying is that logically and technically, there is no significant reason to use a full format, unless you have already concerns about a drive.

Of course there will always be exceptions, but then thats why they are called exceptions

And yes you are right, relying on SMART for business critical data is total lunacy, but its the only widespread technology that will give you a 50% chance of a warning about data loss unless you start going down the RAID1/RAID5/RAID6/etc route.

hernaldo · 13 Oct 2008 at 18:57

Doing a full format is just a COMPLETE waste of time, unless you suspect bad sectors\faulty drive.

But then you'd already be aware of this otherwise why would you be formatting it?

This question reminds me of my mother when I lived at my parents making sure I turned the switch off at the plug socket for any electrical appliance apart from the tv etc.

...load of balls!

helmutcheese · 13 Oct 2008 at 19:16

hernaldo said:
Doing a full format is just a COMPLETE waste of time, unless you suspect bad sectors\faulty drive.

But then you'd already be aware of this otherwise why would you be formatting it?

This question reminds me of my mother when I lived at my parents making sure I turned the switch off at the plug socket for any electrical appliance apart from the tv etc.

...load of balls!

You obv cant read, others have been hit with the BUG (it is not 100% cert it will happen but can happen). :rolleyes:

NEW RAW HDD (perfect condition) or used HDD after ZERO Wiped << WHAT'S HARD TO GRASP ?.

You do whatever you want but don't say what other do or say is BALLS, cause that's what your talking right now.

doc · 13 Oct 2008 at 21:17

Well that didnt take long to deteriorate from friendly debate into flame war :rolleyes:

I'm outta here......

Fibre_Optic · 13 Oct 2008 at 23:10

hernaldo said:
Doing a full format is just a COMPLETE waste of time, unless you suspect bad sectors\faulty drive.

But then you'd already be aware of this otherwise why would you be formatting it?

This question reminds me of my mother when I lived at my parents making sure I turned the switch off at the plug socket for any electrical appliance apart from the tv etc.

...load of balls!

Possibly one of the stupidest posts I have read today :rolleyes:

''why would you be formatting it?'' :confused:

because you have just bought it and need to install an OS on it!! But I'm guessing your assuming that because it's brand new that it cannot be faulty?!? I hope you don't build computers for people!
DOA/faulty new hd's are fairly common and I must have had nearly a dozen from the 100+ hd's I have bought over the years!! This imo is due to a few factures but the main one being poor packaging and handling as 3.5" HD's are very susceptible to shock damage.

Also the advice your parents gave you was good, not only does it save you money and damage to the environment it also significantly reduces the chances of a electrical fire burning your house down and potentially killing you!

@ Doc
When a HD is on it's way out and develops faulty sectors this is extremely easy to see when working in XP, SMART was developed for computer noobs who cannot understand and interpret what these symptoms and errors are imho!