Fast Or Regular Format

[BeeJ]

I am installing a new HD (not the C: drive).
I see an option to fast format or regular format the drive.
Other than a regular format taking a long time, what are the long term
differences?
Sice this is a new HD, there is no data for a regular format to delete.
Does regular format provide faster access for adding files in the
future?

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I am installing a new HD (not the C: drive).
I see an option to fast format or regular format the drive.
Other than a regular format taking a long time, what are the long term
differences?
Sice this is a new HD, there is no data for a regular format to delete.
Does regular format provide faster access for adding files in the
future?

I only use log-form format when I am worried about the condition of the
drive, or am feeling otherwise paranoid about it.

Also, IIRC, a full Windows installation likes to do a full format.

The full format should identify and deal with bad sectors; quick format
won't do that. On a new drive, I never bother.

 

[Paul]

I am installing a new HD (not the C: drive).
I see an option to fast format or regular format the drive.
Other than a regular format taking a long time, what are the long term
differences?
Sice this is a new HD, there is no data for a regular format to delete.
Does regular format provide faster access for adding files in the future?

As far as I know (haven't tested it), the short format only writes
enough sectors to create a valid file system. All other sectors remain
untouched. So you might only be writing to a small percentage of the
disk in that case (writing a "skeleton" if you will).

In the case of the long format, every sector is written. This would
flush out any "pending" bad sectors, and cause the hard drive to
spare any bad sectors that the hard drive detects. (The hard drive has
automatic features, for using spare sectors in place of bad ones,
and dodgy sectors are evaluated on write.) This can take a long time on
a large disk.

Using the long format, also gives you some assurance that most of
the personal information you ever put on the disk, has been
overwritten. And that prevents file recovery (scavenger) software
from being used. You'd be surprised how many of your old files
could be recovered, if you just did the quick format. So if you have
something to hide on that partition, you'd use the long format to
get rid of it.

Paul

 

[Rob]

I am installing a new HD (not the C: drive).
I see an option to fast format or regular format the drive.
Other than a regular format taking a long time, what are the long term differences?
Sice this is a new HD, there is no data for a regular format to delete.
Does regular format provide faster access for adding files in the future?

Quick format merely creates a Master File Table. If any bad sectors
exist on the drive, they will be used and data corruption may result.
Long format is equivalent to doing a Quick Format followed by a
chkdsk /r (or chkdsk /f); Every area of the disk is checked for
integrity and any bad sectors are marked so that they are not used to
store files. That is why a long format takes so much time to complete.

HTH

 

[Yousuf Khan]

I am installing a new HD (not the C: drive).
I see an option to fast format or regular format the drive.
Other than a regular format taking a long time, what are the long term
differences?
Sice this is a new HD, there is no data for a regular format to delete.
Does regular format provide faster access for adding files in the future?

There is no long-term difference to the file system between the short or
long format. As others have pointed out, the long-format creates the
file location indexes and then does a full disk scan for bad sectors,
while the short format only does the indexes. But whether you do a short
or long format, there is no difference in performance on the filesystem
afterwards.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

I am installing a new HD (not the C: drive).
I see an option to fast format or regular format the drive.
Other than a regular format taking a long time, what are the long term
differences?
Sice this is a new HD, there is no data for a regular format to delete.
Does regular format provide faster access for adding files in the
future?

It all depends on the state of the new disc. The last one I installed
was already formatted so any duff sectors were unavailable for use. As
it happened there weren't any.

The solution is first try a fast format and if that doesn't meet your
needs do a full format.

Steve

--
Neural network software applications, help and support.

Neural Network Software. www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. www.justnn.com

 

[Philip Herlihy]

It all depends on the state of the new disc. The last one I installed
was already formatted so any duff sectors were unavailable for use. As
it happened there weren't any.

The solution is first try a fast format and if that doesn't meet your
needs do a full format.

Steve

My understanding is that a full format is actually a quick format,
followed by a check of the disk for bad sectors (chkdsk). A good idea,
unless you have real reason to think the disk surface has been recently
verified.

 

[ClueLess]

My understanding is that a full format is actually a quick format,
followed by a check of the disk for bad sectors (chkdsk). A good idea,
unless you have real reason to think the disk surface has been recently
verified.

You are perfectly right. In full format, after directory information is
written, the program only verifies each sector to determine they are all ok and
if needed mark bad sectors as such.

If you have a utility and see those sectors you will find all the data there but
cannot be accessed as the directory information (the links to the data) is
already deleted. There is no point in erasing all the sectors.

If one is sure that the hard disk is ok then a quick format is the best.