I am giving Fedora (Ext4) the boot from my 150G VelociRaptor and replacing it with Windows 7. What is the difference between a 'Quick' format and a 'Full' format. Does a quick format simply rewrite the FAT and a full format write 0's to the sectors?
The reason I ask, is that I am concerned that the Linux Ext4 formatting may leave artifacts which I can do without. So, bite the bullet and go the long route, have lunch and a nap or take the quick way out?
Welcome
A full format, also fixes bad sectors. I would go the full route, if I were you. Start off with a 100% new OS.
Differences between a Quick format and a regular format during a "clean" installation of Windows XP
Just a teeny tiny correction as to not confuse anyone...but full formats "identify" bad sectors, but do not fix them. Bad sectors are bad sectors and cannot be repaired via a full format.
I've switched back and forth from Windows to Linux and back to Windows on many a hard drive at home and at work and have never felt that a full format was necessary. Quick formats always did the job necessary.
Thanks Rich and pparks, I guess that I will skip that nap. :)
Long formatting doesn't just identify bad sectors, it prevents data from being written to those found bad sectors. Bad sectors get "red flagged".
It's extremely rare for me to ever use a full format. In fact, I cannot remember the last time that I performed a full format.
Just to be clear; a format, of any type, does not remove or over-write any data at all.
Note
Contrary to popular belief, formatting does not remove any data at all, it just checks for sector errors and marks the space to be over-written as needed, all the data is still there including all the code from previous/failed installation attempts.
Quote