quick vs. full format ... what's the diff??

[Maverick2002]

I'm using a Maxtor 160GB DM9 drive on my test system right now and I just got done installing WinXP for about the 5th time (ran into problems with various hardware that caused lockups and corruption prior to installation finishing). Anyway, Windows would refuse to do a normal full NTFS format for the drive. It would get to 100% and then say "Windows was unable to format the drive" ... sooo .. I did a Quick Format which took about 5 seconds (vs. the near 30 minutes for the full format). That worked out fine. Can anyone tell me the difference between the two?

 

[Maverick2002]

hmm, just pulled this up from Microsoft's website:


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.



So since the quick format worked fine, does that mean my drive has bad sectors? Is it a common occurence?

 

[montag451]

try running a thorough scandisk - that will take time.
Best to leave it overnight - there are better utilities to do this that are more thorough - but none as accesible

 

[ScrapSilicon]

hi Mikhail ! you should run Maxtor's utility on that drive.

 

[Maverick2002]

that utility won't even boot. going by there instructions it looks like I'm supposed to boot from the floppy drive. well, it doesn't boot from the floppy.

 

[Zepper]

A quick format just writes to the directories to show that all files are deleted (the data is all still there and can be recovered until overwritten by new files) - a full format overwrites all data areas with null data (no original data can subsequently be recovered by simple means) and then also reads all the data area. So if the null data isn't what is found in any sector or cluster, then that area will be marked as bad.
.bh.

:moon:

 

[Ken90630]

If you guys don't mind a short and brief (I promise) detour to SlightlyOffTopic Land, is a "quick format" the same thing as a "dirty install"? Are they synonymous? Reason I ask is that I unknowingly did a "dirty install" of Windows back in the day when I knew next to nothing about computers, at the direction of a Gateway support rep, then later found out from a Microsoft support rep that what I had done was known as a "dirty install" and not a recommended way of installing Windows (on top of an existing version -- long story ...).

What you're describing, Zep, sounds a little like what I did at that time.

 

[Zepper]

No. A dirty install is when you reinstall (or upgrade) over an existing OS version - none of the old files are deleted or erased, just overwritten as new versions take their places. A clean install is when you either format the partition or delete everything in the OS folder (including all subfolders) and all the OS files in the root directory.
. As far as OS installation is concerned, a quick format is as good as a full format. But a quick format doesn't free up as much space as a full format as I think a copy of the FAT is retained so that a "quick unformat" can be easily done to recover the data. I never use quick format - I'm either ready to wipe the space clean or I'm not. No mulligans allowed...

.bh.

:moon:

 

[Ken90630]

No. A dirty install is when you reinstall (or upgrade) over an existing OS version - none of the old files are deleted or erased, just overwritten as new versions take their places. A clean install is when you either format the partition or delete everything in the OS folder (including all subfolders) and all the OS files in the root directory.

Finally ... finally someone gives me a simple, concise, accurate answer to that question. I've asked it about a half dozen times to I don't know how many people, and you're the first to give me a quality answer that makes sense. Thanks, man.

If you don't mind one more quick question: So then installing an upgrade version of Windows (like an upgrade CD to go from W2KPro to XP or whatever), that would technically be considered a "dirty install" then, right? If so, would it be better (i.e., 'cleaner') to simply buy the upgrade CD, boot up with it in the CD drive, proceed as if it were a new installation of Windows, then just put the old version CD in the tray when the system calls for verification of the previous version of Windows? Will that format the HD with the new OS, wiping the old one out in the process, and resulting in a "clean install" of Windows?

I apologize for veering off topic a bit with my questions, and I promise this will be the last from me in this thread. It's just so cool to finally be able to wrap my head around this.

 

[nortexoid]

theoretically when you do a full format and there are bad sectors, they are simply marked and the process continues until completion. it is strange that your windows install is not completing the full format, regardless of bad sectors.

you could try formatting it yourself using an older DOS format utility with the unconditional /u switch. convert it to NTFS later through windows XP.

you could also do a low-level format and possibly ruin or slow your drive (unless that was an urban myth, since i LL formatted my drive via BIOS many times without noticed degredation -- but then again, the drive was so slow to begin with...). the best bet is use the maxtor utility provided on their website.

 

[Zepper]

Always better to do a clean install. Upgrade versions of Win will always do clean installs, just need to have a CD of the previous version - it may have to be an OEM or full version CD as upgrades often won't install over upgrades. You have to have proof of owning a full version.
.bh.

 

[Ken90630]

... it may have to be an OEM or full version CD as upgrades often won't install over upgrades. You have to have proof of owning a full version.

Ummm ... coincidentally I called Microsoft the other day re that exact issue. I spoke to a woman named Monique and she told me that an upgrade CD WILL be considered "qualifying media" for another upgrade and that a person can in fact upgrade from an upgrade and continue to do so indefinitely with subsequent new versions of Windows. As long as a full version was installed at some prior time (way back when), she said we can all just buy upgrade CDs each time a new OS is released and use the previous upgrade CD as proof of ownership when it's called for in the installation process.

I suspected precisely what you're saying, Zep, which is why I called Microsoft. I'm not 100% confident that she was right, but what can I say? She sounded pretty sure of herself and didn't hesitate or stumble for an answer, so .... She works for them, so I'll have to give her the benefit of the doubt. Well, until I try it out with an upgrade CD of Longhorn two years from now and the system says, "No!" when I try to use my W2K Pro upgrade CD as qualifying media for the upgrade. If/when that happens, I'll be calling Monique back.