Re: which is better "quick erase" or "full erase"
- From: "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:01:39 +0100
<aaronep@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote ...
I have Windows XP w/svc pack II, Nero Start Smart, DVD-RW disks.
When erasing a DVD-RW disk with Nero Start Smart, I am offered the
option of a quick erase which takes less than 2 minutes, or full erase
which takes over 15 minutes.
What are the pros and cons of using either method, other than taking
longer time?
all info, opinions, dissertations, etc. welcomed! Aaron
Disclaimer: I don't have first-hand knowledge of this specific
application.
Generally speaking "quick format" schemes only initialize (or
erase or reset) the *directory* and not the actual place where
the data is recorded.
If you have a brand new media, conceivable, a "full format"
will evaluate the entire data area and hopefully block out any
bad areas. Whereas a "quick format" will just set up a new
empty directory and leave discovering bad spots for later,
If you have a media you are re-using, a quick-format will
NOT erase the previous contents, it will simply diddle the
directory so that the disk looks empty, which allows writing
new data over the old.
If you want to test/qualify a new media for some critical use,
or of you have a disc with data that you don't want anyone
else to see, then a full format would seem to be in order.
Else I just use the "quick format" In fact I can't remember
the last time I did a full format.
.
- References:
- which is better "quick erase" or "full erase"
- From: aaronep@xxxxxxxxxxx
- which is better "quick erase" or "full erase"
- Prev by Date: which is better "quick erase" or "full erase"
- Next by Date: Aspect Ratio Interpret Footage
- Previous by thread: which is better "quick erase" or "full erase"
- Next by thread: Aspect Ratio Interpret Footage
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
