Quick Format or Full Format?

I reinstall XP very often and I always use the quick format option.

Is there any reason I should be using the full format option during a Windows installation?

I always assumed it is fine to do a quick format as long as there are no known problems with the hard drive.

Any opinions?

 

I always wondored and I always did full

 

The drive is scanned for bad sectors when doing a full format. IIRC, that's the only difference. I always ran the full format; probably was a waste of time.

 

^^^ Yup.

You'd almost get the same thing by doing a Quick Format and then running Error-Checking afterwords.

But I highly recommend you do a Full Reformat as you could possibly have bad sectors on your HDD (helped out my cousin's HDD issue). You probably won't but it's a risk I'm not willing to take.

 

A Quick format (As I understand it) only rebuilds the file system structure (So new MBR, and a blank MFT). When you delete files the entry for that file in the MFT (Master File Table) is removed, so the file is effectively intact but no longer registers (Thats how undelete programs work, by restoring the reference). A Full format creates a new MBR and MFT but also resets all the bits on the hard drive to their default state, purging all trace of the hard disk's contents (Thats why it takes ages).

What all that means in terms of which is better I don't know, I suppose a full format may eliminate the possibility of conflicts between old and new data if the hard disk misreads but I can't see this being a huge concern as it'd only have a temporary effect and if your drive was misreading, time for a new one anyway.

Grand Admiral

 

On known good drives, quick format is sufficient.
Questionable drives should be treated with the manufacturer's diagnostic utility or a hammer.

 

I suggest the hammer method, much more effective.

 

I agree. Hammer ++

 

Had that happen a few weeks ago. If only I'd had the chance to go out to the shed... SMASHING TIME!

Grand Admiral

 

I always used the quick method and in the last 4-5 years I've had only new/good HDDs.

 

A full format does NOT erase the data on a hard disk (i.e. writing 0 to every bit). All it does, in addition to a quick format, is scanning for bad sectors. That's why it takes longer than a quick format. If you need to wipe out data on a hard disk you need to use 3rd party software like Active@KillDisk, DBAN, etc.

 

Quick method it is then.

Hypothetically, what if you use DBAN to write one round of 0's to the hard drive? Would it then just seem smart to do a full format or is it still not essential?

About the hammer method, I agree completely.

 

Since you reinstall XP very often and you don't have any read/write issue a quick format is good enough. However if you have not performed a full format on the hard drive I would recommend a quick format then running "chkdsk /r" on a command prompt window to scan for and attempt recovery of bad sectors (a full format does not report bad sector results on a screen like chkdsk).
Use DBAN to wipe out sensitive, personal data before you sell/donate your PC.

 

Before I toss the drive (someday) I will be more thorough than just the one pass 0's. Just in case any crafty identity thieves get ahold of it.

However, DBAN claims that one pass of 0's is wise to do before any reformat to eliminate junk which Windows format leaves behind. Any opinion about that?

I wonder why chkdsk runs so much faster than the full format during a Windows installation. Do you think it is more thorough or just less efficient?

I'll tell my Windows disc to runonce chkdsk /r on first boot after an installation, just as a precaution.

 

The Quick Erase option doesn't take long at all and I would do it in between because it removes all of the data. The quick erase basically removes the Master File Table but the data is technically still there. As a result, conflicts may arise, though I haven't had a problem with it.

 

what i would like to see is hdtach tests run on a hard drive formatted using quick format, full format and dban, to compare its performance, efficiency etc..

 

Good idea that would give us the answer. I'll try that sometime when I feel like installing Windows a few times in a row.

I would guess that the performance and efficiency will be the same, but it will be interesting to know for sure.

 

lol or someone with an external usb hd could just format it from my computer using quick and then full f. and then boot dban and nuke it (with hdtach tests run between each format).

 

Yep that would be easier than doing multiple Windows installations .

It would be nice to do the multiple Windows installs after each different format to see if Windows utilizes the hard drive more efficiently though... For sake of thoroughness.

 

IMO I think it's unnecessary. I have done many quick formats and haven't experienced any problem because of old junk. For example, after a file is deleted its allocated space on a hard disk could eventually be reused by any new files. There is no need to write 0s to the file's storage on a hard disk every time after a file is deleted for the purpose of eliminating junk (i.e. not for security purpose).

chkdsk without /r certainly runs faster than a full format because it doesn't scan for bad sectors. If I remember correctly "chkdsk /r" takes just a little less time to complete (vs. a full format). I believe mainly because chkdsk doesn't recreate the MFT/FAT.

 

I've used quick on most of my installs W/O problems.

 

I always did quick format.Saves a lot of time.

 

Quick format ++

 

A little OT, but if you're reinstalling that often have you considered a disk imaging program? It would save you a TON of time!

 

I just guessed at how it works but I thought quick format basically tells windows "hey its ok this space can be used now in this format" and full format actually runs a athorigam or what ever its called and writes over all the data with blank space in addition to telling windows its ok to use that space.

So you would use a quick format for just reinstalling windows, but a full format if say you were selling your computer so that somebody with tech skills cant find a way to recover old data off the drive.

 

No, full format your HDD a few times, I will show you that I can still recover your old data from it with a free simple tool.

If you plan to give/sell your old HDD to someone, neither quick or full format will actually erase your data. You need to get a special software that "wipes" the entire HDD. There are different types of "wipe" also, some are more secure than others.

Here is a list of software that use the "Gutmann" method:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutmann_method#Software_implementations

 

And how do you recover this data???? What free tool? One can actually recover data even after fully formatting the hard drive numerous times?

If that can actually be done, then I am amazed...wow...

 

I have considered it, but haven't devoted the time. I have heard many people speak highly of a program called Acronis. I just haven't tried it out yet. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll give it a go.

Yea in order to securely wipe data you need to use a program like DBAN. It is an excellent program which has many different wiping standards. Unfortunately it can take days to wipe a large drive with the most secure standards.

I have used the Gutmann method several times with DBAN. It takes forever! Very secure though.

Yes there are lots of programs out there. I found a program listed in the "Best free software for Windows" thread called TestDisk. It was able to recover data from my last 5 partitions!! Amazing huh? It was even able to rebuild the most recent 2. <---And I hadn't even touched the drive in a year. It recovered all my digital photos I had lost to that drive 2 years prior.

 

There are tons of free utilities out there, this one for example.

Some advanced one can even recover certain files that have rewritten over already, but are those recovered pieces of data readable to a "normal" user is another story.

The normal "full format" in Dos/Windows/other OS, no matter how many times you do it, as long as you don't rewrite new data over it, the old data are actually still there. If you understand how normal formatting works, the old data being recoverable is nothing that special.

There is something called low-level format that will actual wipe the data, but I won't get into the detail.

If you have sensitive data, it is good to get yourself a good shredder software or a wiping one. But of course, physically destroy a HDD would be the best if you want your data never to be recoverable. Well, there are companies that can recover some data from a smashed-into-pieces HDD, but your data must be pretty important for someone to hire those companies. Software destroy + physical destroy together would be the safest.

 

Yeah it does take some times, I think it's good if you want to give/sell your old HDD to someone else. For personal normal use, I guess a less secure and faster method would be acceptable.

Delete Files Permanantly has the Gutmann and 13 other methods, either someone must be extremely paranoid or the data are nothing good... :twitcy:

 

Agreed. The way destroying data works is by repeatedly writing over every sector of the drive. All reformatting will do is write over the first sectors of the drive. It's like crossing out every word in a table of contents, then writing new words over it.

So theoretically, if you reformat 35 times or so then you might be successful in making the partition table unrecoverable, but the data will still be on the drive. Only the table of contents will be missing. But good programs can extract the data flawlessly, but will assign new file names to each file generally.

 

I've never heard of 'Delete Files Permanently'. I'll check it out. So far I've been pretty happy with BDAN, but it's all the same thing in the end .

I've gone crazy before using Guttman with 70 passes then a few other methods on top of that. Never on my own drives though... I don't think my school papers are that important . Whenever I am fixing up a computer for a business I do it though.

 

If we continue this conversation, I think some people are gonna start worrying about old HDDs that they gave to a stranger. :twitcy:

 

DBAN is an awesome tool, and it's free too.

Actually, the other 13 methods in DFP are not as good as Gutmann. I think Gutmann is still the best with 35 passes, the others are 7 or less passes. But of course Gutmann is probably the slowest method. For any regular user, the others are actually good enough, cause even the US Department of Defense uses a 3 or 7 passes method.

 

Haha maybe . You know about the Best Buy guys stealing objectionable material from peoples personal computers they brought in for repair? Now they have a whole new problem to worry about .

Luckily, most people clearly aren't aware of how to recover data, so people who gave away their hard drives are probably all set .

Anyway you're right... I guess it is time to end this thread. We covered that the difference between quick & full format is checking for bad sectors and repairing them. Also that everyone prefers quick. Mainly because it is... quick . All this data recovery stuff is for another thread I suppose.

 

Does DFP allow you to adjust the number of rounds like DBAN does? For instance, I did the Gutmann wipe with 70 passes by doing 2 rounds. It just saves the time of having to go back to your computer and start typing in to start again. Makes life much easier.

 

I'm not sure, I never used DFP.

70 passes? Damn, that's a lot of passes...

 

A friend of mine owns a jewelry business that deals with large sales from some fairly famous people. Half the the New England Patriots players for instance

He uses his computer as his register and customer database. So periodically I will wipe the drive as a favor. He is the most paranoid person you could ever meet. He would probably insist on 280 passes if he was doing the wipe himself!

 

It is truly amazing (or frightening, depending on what you've stored) what can be dredged up off of a supposedly wiped hard-drive, even with some of the freeware that's available now. About the only way to keep data on a hdd secure is to have robust security measures in place to prevent unauthorized access while you're using it, and to physically destroy it once you're done with it.

The hammer is a classic favorite, but there are other methods available as well, limited only by your creativity.

 

My thoughts on that are that it's total BS. I think the DBAN guys went overboard in their claims, to try to scare people enough to use their software. Now, people should use something like DBAN, but not for that (invalid) reason.

I'll do it right now and tell you...
hold on...
working...
working...
OK, done.

Performance is completely unaffected.

Good information, with a caveat. Gutmann himself has publicly stated that his method is total overkill and not required on any of today's modern hard drives. A few passes of random data is all that is needed, because bits are so close together and encoding is so complex that recovery after that is impossible. You can read his entire original paper here, and read the epilogue for where he says this is not necessary.

For me, a few passes is good enough, but if you're really paranoid, get the entire drive securely shredded.

Good information, only a minor quibble. This is not called a low-level format. Modern hard drives cannot be low-level formatted except at the factory. If you were able to do it at home, the whole drive would be damaged beyond use.

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=3409898&postcount=34

Yes, you're correct.

Although manufacturers do offer these so called "low-level" format utilities for download, yes they do call it "low level format utility", but it doesn't actually perform a real "low-level" format.

http://www.ariolic.com/activesmart/low-level-format.html

The link above has information and links to manufacturers' download site for the utility.