- Joined
- Jan 5, 2014
- Messages
- 8 (0.00/day)
System Name | win7 |
---|---|
Processor | G2020 |
Motherboard | H61M-S2PV |
Cooling | BOX |
Memory | 4 GB ddr3 |
Video Card(s) | Intel HD graphics (gt710 lies in my drawer) |
Storage | HDD Baracuda 500GB |
Power Supply | quality 350 Watt |
Mouse | MOP-70D |
Keyboard | KR-85 |
Hello
I'd like to have a question to a hdd whizz. I can often read that zero-filling is good for slow and bad sectors (not physical bad sectors that can not be repaired). I can't understand why zero-filling is better than just formatting when it comes to dealing with bad sectors.
My chain of thoughts:
After formatting OS sees a disk/partition as free space, free to use. If there were some bad sectors before, logical problems, new data will be written to that space/disk/partition because that space is blank for OS. So why zero-filling would be better when it comes to dealing with bad sectors? Why is this better than just formatting?
Thx
I'd like to have a question to a hdd whizz. I can often read that zero-filling is good for slow and bad sectors (not physical bad sectors that can not be repaired). I can't understand why zero-filling is better than just formatting when it comes to dealing with bad sectors.
My chain of thoughts:
After formatting OS sees a disk/partition as free space, free to use. If there were some bad sectors before, logical problems, new data will be written to that space/disk/partition because that space is blank for OS. So why zero-filling would be better when it comes to dealing with bad sectors? Why is this better than just formatting?
Thx