I am trying to understand the point of these services. Some people always or often use them whenever posting a link. I mean, I get what the services do, but to me they don't seem that useful. Posting a URL as http://bit.ly/9DCTik is definitely shorter than http://detnews.com/article/20100427/BIZ/4270396/1361/Peanuts-gang-sold-to-owner-of-Joe-Boxer-for-$175M#ixzz0mIwGTiAa, but who cares? If someone posted either as a link, what difference does the length make? Usually, links are posted to a blog or something, and you just click it without caring what the URL looks like. In fact, the full URL gives some clue as to what the link is, and I consider that an advantage for the long one. Many CMSes will make the URL relevant to the topic somehow in this day and age. I will admit that the long URL is a mess in this case. Now, if you were entering the link manually for some reason, there is obviously a huge advantage with bitly, but how often is that done to necessitate always using bitly? The bitly URL is easier to remember than the long original URL, but still not easy to remember. Bitly appears to be case sensitive, and this is what would screw me up. Even if it wasn't case sensitive, the 6 character hash it uses isn't all that memorable imo.
One thing I did notice is that people seem to use this when posting to twitter. Perhaps its just because of twitter's length limitation. Also, it appears you can track how many people click a link in bitly. Question answered?
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Quick Format vs Full Format
This comes up every time I get a new drive. To this day, I don't have a definitive answer on which is "better".
Many people seem to think that the full format is better. I have read a variety of supposed reasons, and a variety of anecdotes.
The quick format has a huge advantage: it is fast. Is it really inferior to the full? MS includes both options, with one taking way longer. Logic seems to indicate that if the quick was as "good", they wouldn't have the option for the full. I think people assume that the full is the "good" way that has a drawback in speed, and the quick is the "halfass" way. However, I have never seen any empirical evidence that the quick is any inferior to the full. By the same logic that the full is the "good way", we can make an argument that if the quick was really that bad, it wouldn't be included at all. Which leads me to believe that, while there are some advantages to the full, in most cases, it is not worth the wait.
One of the problems is that most people don't format very often. When people have to do this, they often will figure they came this far, and the full format is "better", so they just spend the time waiting for it to complete. Then, they start using the computer and forget about it.
Many of the arguments for the full format are anecdotal. In other words, they are of the form "I always full format and I have never had any problems". That's nice, but that doesn't mean you would have any problems with a quick format. I can guarantee if you did a full format and started having some disk issues soon after, no one will blame the format. If you did a quick format, there is a good chance it will be blamed if there is no other obvious reason. But here's the kicker: say the problem happened one year later. Would you blame the format then? Some might, if they remembered that it was quick formatted, but most probably would look for other issues. Most also would have likely forgotten the kind of format they used. In my opinion, if it worked fine for a year, the format is probably not the problem. It wouldn't magically start causing problems one day a year later.
Microsoft has this to say about the choice: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/302686
The way it is worded:
Full Format = all files deleted + check for bad sectors
Quick Format = all files deleted
For a quick format, I know that the files are deleted by removing the file allocation table (or whatever ntfs calls it). This is a table on the disk that tells which sectors are used by which files. Without this, there is no way to tell which files are what; the disk just looks like it is full of formless data. In fact, there are programs on the market capable of rebuilding most of the drive by looking at this data. However, the point here is that without the FAT, the OS has no way to "see" any files. Put in a "blank" FAT, and it looks just like a blank disk. When a file is deleted in normal operation, all that happens is that the FAT entry is removed. Based on the wording in the MS article, the quick format would then delete and create a clean FAT, the full format would do that followed by a bad sector check. It in no way states or even implies anything about overwriting all the data on the disk, something I have heard from full format supporters but have never seen any evidence of windows actually doing this.
Lets go back to the idea of disk problems after a quick format. Based on what is said in the Microsoft article, a disk with some sort of issue could get through the quick format without problems, allowing the problems to pop up later. For a full format, this is less likely to happen, because the problem would have been caught. I haven't seen any evidence either way for this.
Based on the Microsoft article, I think from now on I am always going to use the quick format. The only reason not to is if you suspect the drive has a physical problem. If I suspected this, I would run a separate scan, mostly likely with something reliable like SpinRite, rather than letting the format command deal with it.
Many people seem to think that the full format is better. I have read a variety of supposed reasons, and a variety of anecdotes.
The quick format has a huge advantage: it is fast. Is it really inferior to the full? MS includes both options, with one taking way longer. Logic seems to indicate that if the quick was as "good", they wouldn't have the option for the full. I think people assume that the full is the "good" way that has a drawback in speed, and the quick is the "halfass" way. However, I have never seen any empirical evidence that the quick is any inferior to the full. By the same logic that the full is the "good way", we can make an argument that if the quick was really that bad, it wouldn't be included at all. Which leads me to believe that, while there are some advantages to the full, in most cases, it is not worth the wait.
One of the problems is that most people don't format very often. When people have to do this, they often will figure they came this far, and the full format is "better", so they just spend the time waiting for it to complete. Then, they start using the computer and forget about it.
Many of the arguments for the full format are anecdotal. In other words, they are of the form "I always full format and I have never had any problems". That's nice, but that doesn't mean you would have any problems with a quick format. I can guarantee if you did a full format and started having some disk issues soon after, no one will blame the format. If you did a quick format, there is a good chance it will be blamed if there is no other obvious reason. But here's the kicker: say the problem happened one year later. Would you blame the format then? Some might, if they remembered that it was quick formatted, but most probably would look for other issues. Most also would have likely forgotten the kind of format they used. In my opinion, if it worked fine for a year, the format is probably not the problem. It wouldn't magically start causing problems one day a year later.
Microsoft has this to say about the choice: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/302686
The way it is worded:
Full Format = all files deleted + check for bad sectors
Quick Format = all files deleted
For a quick format, I know that the files are deleted by removing the file allocation table (or whatever ntfs calls it). This is a table on the disk that tells which sectors are used by which files. Without this, there is no way to tell which files are what; the disk just looks like it is full of formless data. In fact, there are programs on the market capable of rebuilding most of the drive by looking at this data. However, the point here is that without the FAT, the OS has no way to "see" any files. Put in a "blank" FAT, and it looks just like a blank disk. When a file is deleted in normal operation, all that happens is that the FAT entry is removed. Based on the wording in the MS article, the quick format would then delete and create a clean FAT, the full format would do that followed by a bad sector check. It in no way states or even implies anything about overwriting all the data on the disk, something I have heard from full format supporters but have never seen any evidence of windows actually doing this.
Lets go back to the idea of disk problems after a quick format. Based on what is said in the Microsoft article, a disk with some sort of issue could get through the quick format without problems, allowing the problems to pop up later. For a full format, this is less likely to happen, because the problem would have been caught. I haven't seen any evidence either way for this.
Based on the Microsoft article, I think from now on I am always going to use the quick format. The only reason not to is if you suspect the drive has a physical problem. If I suspected this, I would run a separate scan, mostly likely with something reliable like SpinRite, rather than letting the format command deal with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)