Full format or fast format?

[mschulz]

ZeBeeDee wrote:
Personally, as the drive was formatted originally on a PC I would use a full format as opposed to a fast one.

Pointless. Full format is not needed. Moreover, having a harddrive in PC before makes no difference. You confused full format of floppies and HDs.

A full format will wipe and properly create all tracks and sectors

This sentence would be valid only if we would talk about floppies.

 on the hard drive to the Amiga standard.

No. What you describe is so called low-level format which should never ever be performed by regular user.


The quick format creates the filesystem structures only (thus making the partition fully usable). The full format writes on whole partition a trash first (namely fulls the whole partition with DOSID++ value) and then performs quick format.

My personal vote: quick format.

[mschulz]

mainly because the drive was in a PC beforehand.

And? What is different in the structure of tracks and sectors on such harddrive?

Floppy disks huh? I think somebody should go and see an optician as they appear to be seeing things that aren't there.

no need to be rude my friend.

Low-level format of the drive wasn't mentioned before your post. How you came to the conclusion that it was is slightly mystifying.

Let me see... You wrote:

ZeBeeDee wrote:
A full format will wipe and properly create all tracks and sectors on the hard drive to the Amiga standard. A fast format only wipes specific area's, leaving most of the original data intact.

Well. A full format does not create tracks and sectors at all. It overwrites a contents of sectors with some value. It has nothing to do with creation of tracks and sectors.

In contrast, a low-level format is responsible for creation of tracks and sectors on the plates of harddrive. Therefore, what you described is a low-level format