Radeon 9800 Poor performance

I just purchased an ATI Radeon 9800 to replace an Nvidia Ti4400. I formatted the c drive, and reinstalled windows xp. I'm getting worse performance than with the Nvidia card. I haven't used any of the benchmark programs, but I play alot of Nascar 2k3, and the framerate is much less than with the Ti4400. I was getting anywhere from 60 to 100 fps. Now I'm getting anywhere from 30 to 60 fps. I tried turning down the different graphics, and the resolution I'm new to the ATI cards, and I'm wondering if I missed some settings in bios, or for the card? In the ATI control panel, I have it set on performance, with the anti aliasing and anisotroping set to the minimum. There has to be something that I'm missing, after all, this ATI card is supposed to smoke the 4400. Specs: Pentium 4 2.0a northwood Asus P4B266 mobo 768 mb ram ATI 3.2 catalyst drivers Audigy 2.0 Directx 9.0a WinXP Another issue I'm seeing is when I go to the advanced settings in display properties, where you make changes to the direct 3d, or opengl settings, I click on apply, and my screen goes blank, then nothing but garbled graphics, and I have to hard boot. TIA

On Sat, 03 May 2003 00:18:05 -0500 GLeger wrote: ... > I'm getting worse performance than with the Nvidia card.... > click on apply, and my screen goes blank, > then nothing but garbled graphics, Might be a case of old Nvidia driver remnants colliding with the ATI stuff. I've always found this quite hard to believe, but many insist it happens. Use D3D for N2k3 if you don't use it already. Make sure to uncheck the 'Application preference' checkbutton of the FSAA and Aniso features, and check that Vsync is set to 'Always off', to be sure they're set to what you want them to be set to. N2k3 may enable Vsync, or select too much Aniso or FSAA without you noticing it. 4xFSAA and 8xAniso are good values (you can see in N2k3's rendxxx.ini files what N2k3 selects). -- Achim ** Mail sent to this address is automatically deleted **

GLeger wrote:

Quoted text (35 lines)

> I just purchased an ATI Radeon 9800 to replace an Nvidia Ti4400. > I formatted the c drive, and reinstalled windows xp. > I'm getting worse performance than with the Nvidia card. > I haven't used any of the benchmark programs, but I play alot of > Nascar 2k3, and > the framerate is much less than with the Ti4400. > I was getting anywhere from 60 to 100 fps. Now I'm getting anywhere > from 30 to 60 fps. > I tried turning down the different graphics, and the resolution > > I'm new to the ATI cards, and I'm wondering if I missed some settings > in bios, or for the card? > In the ATI control panel, I have it set on performance, with the anti > aliasing and anisotroping set to the minimum. There has to be > something that I'm missing, after all, this ATI card is supposed to > smoke the 4400. > > Specs: > > Pentium 4 2.0a northwood > Asus P4B266 mobo > 768 mb ram > ATI 3.2 catalyst drivers > Audigy 2.0 > Directx 9.0a > WinXP > > Another issue I'm seeing is when I go to the advanced settings in > display properties, where you make changes to the direct 3d, or > opengl settings, I click on apply, and my screen goes blank, then > nothing but garbled graphics, and I have to hard boot. > > > > TIA

I updgraded from a Ti4400 to a 9700 Pro and saw considerable increased performance. Do you have vsynch disabled? On my XP2400+, my 9700 Pro gives me framerates of 60-70+, running 1280x960x32, 4X AA and 8X anisitropic. Something is amiss if your screen goes blank and then you get garbled graphics. Did you install the cat 3.2 drivers first, reboot, then install the ATI control panel, then reboot? If not, try uninstalling the control panel, then uninstall the cat3.2 drivers, then reinstall in the above order. -- Don Burnette remove clothes when replying via email

Did you even bother to really read his post? Go back and read it again. You might actually find that he did a complete reinstall of XP(it's in the second line of his post)......... Vintook "Achim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> On Sat, 03 May 2003 00:18:05 -0500 GLeger wrote: > > ... > > I'm getting worse performance than with the Nvidia card. > ... > > click on apply, and my screen goes blank, > > then nothing but garbled graphics, > > Might be a case of old Nvidia driver remnants colliding with the ATI > stuff. I've always found this quite hard to believe, but many insist it > happens. > > Use D3D for N2k3 if you don't use it already. Make sure to uncheck the > 'Application preference' checkbutton of the FSAA and Aniso features, and > check that Vsync is set to 'Always off', to be sure they're set to what > you want them to be set to. N2k3 may enable Vsync, or select too much > Aniso or FSAA without you noticing it. 4xFSAA and 8xAniso are good values > (you can see in N2k3's rendxxx.ini files what N2k3 selects). > > -- > Achim > > ** Mail sent to this address is automatically deleted ** >

I don't know what the problem is (it's ATI, so it's most likely a driver issue), but the Radeon 9800 Pro has not been getting the best of reviews due it's performance issues. This is very disappointing. With nVidia's very weak release of their new cards, the Radeon 9800 was also going to replace my Ti4400, but now I'm in a holding pattern until this mess gets all worked out. Larry "GLeger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I just purchased an ATI Radeon 9800 to replace an Nvidia Ti4400. > I formatted the c drive, and reinstalled windows xp. > I'm getting worse performance than with the Nvidia card. > I haven't used any of the benchmark programs, but I play alot of Nascar2k3, > and > the framerate is much less than with the Ti4400. > I was getting anywhere from 60 to 100 fps. Now I'm getting anywhere from30

Quoted text (22 lines)

> to 60 fps. > I tried turning down the different graphics, and the resolution > > I'm new to the ATI cards, and I'm wondering if I missed some settings in > bios, or for the card? > In the ATI control panel, I have it set on performance, with the anti > aliasing and anisotroping set to the minimum. There has to be something > that I'm missing, after all, this ATI card is supposed to smoke the 4400. > > Specs: > > Pentium 4 2.0a northwood > Asus P4B266 mobo > 768 mb ram > ATI 3.2 catalyst drivers > Audigy 2.0 > Directx 9.0a > WinXP > > Another issue I'm seeing is when I go to the advanced settings in display > properties, where you make changes to the direct 3d, or opengl settings, I > click on apply, and my screen goes blank, then nothing but garbled

graphics,

Quoted text (7 lines)

> and I have to hard boot. > > > > TIA > >

"GLeger" <[email hidden]> wrote: > In the ATI control panel, I have it set on performance, with theanti > aliasing and anisotroping set to the minimum. There has to besomething > that I'm missing, after all, this ATI card is supposed to smoke the4400. Is AGP set to 4x or 8x in the Smartgard panel? For some reason it defaulted to 1x when I first installed my ATI card. Also, are all updates for WindowsXP installed? -Mike

In article <U8Usa.14305$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I don't know what the problem is (it's ATI, so it's most likely a driver > issue), but the Radeon 9800 Pro has not been getting the best of reviews due > it's performance issues. > > This is very disappointing. With nVidia's very weak release of their new > cards, the Radeon 9800 was also going to replace my Ti4400, but now I'm in a > holding pattern until this mess gets all worked out. >

Larry, when I first got my 9700 Pro, I spent many a days on the Rage3D web site ironing out little gotchas.

From what I read, the 9800 isn't as fast as the 9700. "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (57 lines)

> GLeger wrote: > > I just purchased an ATI Radeon 9800 to replace an Nvidia Ti4400. > > I formatted the c drive, and reinstalled windows xp. > > I'm getting worse performance than with the Nvidia card. > > I haven't used any of the benchmark programs, but I play alot of > > Nascar 2k3, and > > the framerate is much less than with the Ti4400. > > I was getting anywhere from 60 to 100 fps. Now I'm getting anywhere > > from 30 to 60 fps. > > I tried turning down the different graphics, and the resolution > > > > I'm new to the ATI cards, and I'm wondering if I missed some settings > > in bios, or for the card? > > In the ATI control panel, I have it set on performance, with the anti > > aliasing and anisotroping set to the minimum. There has to be > > something that I'm missing, after all, this ATI card is supposed to > > smoke the 4400. > > > > Specs: > > > > Pentium 4 2.0a northwood > > Asus P4B266 mobo > > 768 mb ram > > ATI 3.2 catalyst drivers > > Audigy 2.0 > > Directx 9.0a > > WinXP > > > > Another issue I'm seeing is when I go to the advanced settings in > > display properties, where you make changes to the direct 3d, or > > opengl settings, I click on apply, and my screen goes blank, then > > nothing but garbled graphics, and I have to hard boot. > > > > > > > > TIA > > > I updgraded from a Ti4400 to a 9700 Pro and saw considerable increased > performance. > Do you have vsynch disabled? > On my XP2400+, my 9700 Pro gives me framerates of 60-70+, running > 1280x960x32, 4X AA and 8X anisitropic. > Something is amiss if your screen goes blank and then you get garbled > graphics. > Did you install the cat 3.2 drivers first, reboot, then install the ATI > control panel, then reboot? > If not, try uninstalling the control panel, then uninstall the cat3.2 > drivers, then reinstall in the above order. > > > -- > Don Burnette > > remove clothes when replying via email > >

Steve Smith wrote: > > From what I read, the 9800 isn't as fast as the 9700. Which only goes to show that you shouldn't believe everything you read....:-) http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030306/radeon9800pro-33.html http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1794 There is however some reports that the 9600 PRO is somewhat slower than the 9500 PRO it replaces due to the simpler architecture of the 9600 PRO, some people have likened it to an overclocked 9500 non PRO Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kD6ta.8907$[email hidden]... > From what I read, the 9800 isn't as fast as the 9700. > Got a link to your info? All the major review sites I've seen show the 9800 (with its higher core/mem speeds and more efficient AA) beating the 9700 every time. www.anandtech.com www.hardocp.com www.tomshardware.com to name but 3 - 9800 reviews were recentish, should be easy to find em from the from the main pages.

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:kD6ta.8907$[email hidden]: > From what I read, the 9800 isn't as fast as the 9700. > I think you will find that in SOME instances, the 9700pro will win out. BUT...as we progress into more complex graphic calls with the vertex shading stuff, then the 9800pro will probably slow down a little bit less than the 9700pro. dave henrie btw...I saw a recent PCWorld mag. In the new products section they had a short story about the 9800 not quite beating the new Nvidia products. Then in the editorial section one of the writers stated the new ATI was stomping Nvidia. :) Bottom line, the MORE features you enable, the more the difference between the 97 and 98's will be noticable. dh

And that's what basically prevented me from getting the 97 Pro :) I know the 97 Pro is all but ironed out now. However, If I'm dumping $300-$400 on a video card, I want the latest, greatest thing that will last at least 4 weeks before being replaced with something better LOL! That's why I waited for the 98 Pro, and why I'm also disappointed with the issues it is widely known as having. I know it's drivers. Their hardware is first-rate. ATI has gotten a LOT better with it's driver situation but they just still aren't there yet. Frankly, I don't know what the hell to do so I'm just sticking with the Ti4400 which, frankly, doesn't really need replacing anyway. I'm pulling anywhere from 40 to 100 fps full tilt so it's kind of a 'want' thing, not a 'need' thing. Larry "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <U8Usa.14305$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... > > I don't know what the problem is (it's ATI, so it's most likely a driver > > issue), but the Radeon 9800 Pro has not been getting the best of reviewsdue > > it's performance issues. > > > > This is very disappointing. With nVidia's very weak release of theirnew > > cards, the Radeon 9800 was also going to replace my Ti4400, but now I'min a > > holding pattern until this mess gets all worked out. > > > > Larry, when I first got my 9700 Pro, I spent many a days on the > Rage3D web site ironing out little gotchas. >

Yes, obviously, I meant the 9800 PRO v. the 9700 PRO. "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (25 lines)

> > > Steve Smith wrote: > > > > From what I read, the 9800 isn't as fast as the 9700. > > Which only goes to show that you shouldn't believe everything you > read....:-) > > http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030306/radeon9800pro-33.html > http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1794 > > There is however some reports that the 9600 PRO is somewhat slower than > the 9500 PRO it replaces due to the simpler architecture of the 9600 > PRO, some people have likened it to an overclocked 9500 non PRO > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > "goyl at nettx dot no" > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx--

Well so what, in this case one item of advice I gave didn't apply, all the others do. Achim "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:6aSsa.23082$[email hidden]... > Did you even bother to really read his post? Go back and read it again. > > > You might actually find that he did a complete reinstall of XP(it's in the > second line of his post)...

Where did you read that Steve? Someone else recently reported having read this here in this NG but never told us where, and I'd really like to read that article or review as well. Achim "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kD6ta.8907$[email hidden]... > From what I read, the 9800 isn't as fast as the 9700.

"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:b93uvm$fdko3$[email hidden]: > Well so what, in this case one item of advice I gave didn't apply, all > the others do. > > Achim I brought this up in another thread here, but does an INwindows format really wipe a disk or just the table of contents? Can files left on a drive but not being properly accounted for by the system STILL cause driver conflicts? dave henrie

Larry ,Don't be afraid. I just dropped a 9800 pro in my new system and the thing is a MONSTER. It handles everything I can throw at it and laughs at me saying "Is that all you got?" I just finished running some laps at the Ring with GTR 2002 and I can't believe how good everything looked and ran. Butter smooth. No pop up, stutter, slow down or anything. Liquid is the perfect word to describe it. Image quality is lifelike in some instances. (Vietcong really shines at 1280x1024 32 bit 4xaa 8x ansio, averages 50-75 fps) The way I look at it I am set for a very long time now with this card. And I am VERY happy with the performance. No problems at all. Maybe I'm the exception ,not the rule but I don't care. I love my 9800. Heres my full specs on the system I just built: Asus A7N8X Deluxe AMD Barton 2800+ (333 fsb) 1 Gig DDR 400-PC 3200 Radeon 9800 pro using Omega Drivers (tweaked Catalyst 3.2) Western Digital 80 gig SE (8 Meg cache) 7200 rpm Onboard SoundStorm nForce 2 sound (Its better than my Audigy 1) Antec 400 watt PS plus the rest of the parts from my old system -cd burner, DVD drive, monitor,speakers ,etc... We now return you to your regular newsgroup ;-) "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:vBbta.20827$[email hidden]... > And that's what basically prevented me from getting the 97 Pro :) > > I know the 97 Pro is all but ironed out now. However, If I'm dumping > $300-$400 on a video card, I want the latest, greatest thing that willlast

Quoted text (11 lines)

> at least 4 weeks before being replaced with something better LOL! > > That's why I waited for the 98 Pro, and why I'm also disappointed with the > issues it is widely known as having. > > I know it's drivers. Their hardware is first-rate. ATI has gotten a LOT > better with it's driver situation but they just still aren't there yet. > > Frankly, I don't know what the hell to do so I'm just sticking with the > Ti4400 which, frankly, doesn't really need replacing anyway. I'm pulling > anywhere from 40 to 100 fps full tilt so it's kind of a 'want' thing, not

a

Quoted text (9 lines)

> 'need' thing. > > Larry > > "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > In article <U8Usa.14305$[email hidden]>, > > [email hidden] says... > > > I don't know what the problem is (it's ATI, so it's most likely a

driver > > > issue), but the Radeon 9800 Pro has not been getting the best ofreviews > due > > > it's performance issues. > > > > > > This is very disappointing. With nVidia's very weak release of their > new > > > cards, the Radeon 9800 was also going to replace my Ti4400, but nowI'm

Quoted text (9 lines)

> in a > > > holding pattern until this mess gets all worked out. > > > > > > > Larry, when I first got my 9700 Pro, I spent many a days on the > > Rage3D web site ironing out little gotchas. > > > >

"Doug Hook"

Quoted text (17 lines)

> I'm the exception ,not the rule but I don't care. I love my 9800. > > Heres my full specs on the system I just built: > Asus A7N8X Deluxe > AMD Barton 2800+ (333 fsb) > 1 Gig DDR 400-PC 3200 > Radeon 9800 pro using Omega Drivers (tweaked Catalyst 3.2) > Western Digital 80 gig SE (8 Meg cache) 7200 rpm > Onboard SoundStorm nForce 2 sound (Its better than my Audigy 1) > Antec 400 watt PS > plus the rest of the parts from my old system -cd burner, DVD drive, > monitor,speakers ,etc... > > > >

I think your Barton is as much responsible for your performance. A fast card needs a fast chip. Whew! dave henrie

If theres one thing this new system is its FAST. Thank god for Tax Refunds !!! "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> "Doug Hook" > > > I'm the exception ,not the rule but I don't care. I love my 9800. > > > > Heres my full specs on the system I just built: > > Asus A7N8X Deluxe > > AMD Barton 2800+ (333 fsb) > > 1 Gig DDR 400-PC 3200 > > Radeon 9800 pro using Omega Drivers (tweaked Catalyst 3.2) > > Western Digital 80 gig SE (8 Meg cache) 7200 rpm > > Onboard SoundStorm nForce 2 sound (Its better than my Audigy 1) > > Antec 400 watt PS > > plus the rest of the parts from my old system -cd burner, DVD drive, > > monitor,speakers ,etc... > > > > > > > > > > > I think your Barton is as much responsible for your performance. A

fast > card needs a fast chip. Whew! > > dave henrie

Hi Dave, I'm not sure in how far a format reuses the previous disk structure. I think it'll write a new structure, but that structure information of course doesn't occupy much disk space and hence leave most data untouched - which makes them recoverable for restore utils. But, these files cannot affect a system installed on that disk after the format. For the OS, they're gone, never existed. Achim "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > I brought this up in another thread here, but does an INwindows format > really wipe a disk or just the table of contents? Can files left on a > drive but not being properly accounted for by the system STILL causedriver > conflicts?

Hi Dave, I recall from the ol' DOS days that a format simply deletes the FAT (File Allocation Table). The FAT is like a roadmap to the file locations. Without it, the files can't be located even though they are still on the HD - *until* they are overwritten. -- Happy Flying, Ed F. "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:b93uvm$fdko3$[email hidden]: > > > Well so what, in this case one item of advice I gave didn't apply, all > > the others do. > > > > Achim > > I brought this up in another thread here, but does an INwindows format > really wipe a disk or just the table of contents? Can files left on a > drive but not being properly accounted for by the system STILL cause driver > conflicts? > > dave henrie

From what you read *where*, Steve? -- Happy Flying, Ed F. "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kD6ta.8907$[email hidden]... > From what I read, the 9800 isn't as fast as the 9700. > > "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > GLeger wrote: > > > I just purchased an ATI Radeon 9800 to replace an Nvidia Ti4400. > > > I formatted the c drive, and reinstalled windows xp. > > > I'm getting worse performance than with the Nvidia card. > > > I haven't used any of the benchmark programs, but I play alot of > > > Nascar 2k3, and > > > the framerate is much less than with the Ti4400. > > > I was getting anywhere from 60 to 100 fps. Now I'm getting anywhere > > > from 30 to 60 fps. > > > I tried turning down the different graphics, and the resolution > > > > > > I'm new to the ATI cards, and I'm wondering if I missed some settings > > > in bios, or for the card? > > > In the ATI control panel, I have it set on performance, with the anti > > > aliasing and anisotroping set to the minimum. There has to be > > > something that I'm missing, after all, this ATI card is supposed to > > > smoke the 4400. > > > > > > Specs: > > > > > > Pentium 4 2.0a northwood > > > Asus P4B266 mobo > > > 768 mb ram > > > ATI 3.2 catalyst drivers > > > Audigy 2.0 > > > Directx 9.0a > > > WinXP > > > > > > Another issue I'm seeing is when I go to the advanced settings in > > > display properties, where you make changes to the direct 3d, or > > > opengl settings, I click on apply, and my screen goes blank, then > > > nothing but garbled graphics, and I have to hard boot. > > > > > > > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > I updgraded from a Ti4400 to a 9700 Pro and saw considerable increased > > performance. > > Do you have vsynch disabled? > > On my XP2400+, my 9700 Pro gives me framerates of 60-70+, running > > 1280x960x32, 4X AA and 8X anisitropic. > > Something is amiss if your screen goes blank and then you get garbled > > graphics. > > Did you install the cat 3.2 drivers first, reboot, then install the ATI > > control panel, then reboot? > > If not, try uninstalling the control panel, then uninstall the cat3.2 > > drivers, then reinstall in the above order. > > > > > > -- > > Don Burnette > > > > remove clothes when replying via email > > > > > >

On Mon, 05 May 2003 20:35:50 -0400 Ed Forsythe wrote: > Hi Dave, > I recall from the ol' DOS days that a format simply deletes the FAT (File > Allocation Table). The FAT is like a roadmap to the file locations. > Without it, the files can't be located even though they are still on the > HD - *until* they are overwritten. I think that's what the so called 'Quick Format' does. A full format IMO rewrites the entire disk layout information. -- Achim ** Mail sent to this address is automatically deleted **

I'm sorry Achim , I must disagree. There are many apps which will "unformat" and fully recover a formatted HD. The only way to make the files on a HD completely unavailable is to overwrite them (or incinerate the HD :)). That's why most of the security programs designed to insure that all files on a HD are completely unrecoverable simply write series of 1's and 0's onto the HD. Even then it takes more than one pass to completely secure the HD - it's called "Wiping" the drive. -- Happy Flying, Ed F. "Achim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 05 May 2003 20:35:50 -0400 Ed Forsythe wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > I recall from the ol' DOS days that a format simply deletes the FAT (File > > Allocation Table). The FAT is like a roadmap to the file locations. > > Without it, the files can't be located even though they are still on the > > HD - *until* they are overwritten. > > I think that's what the so called 'Quick Format' does. A full format IMO > rewrites the entire disk layout information. > > -- > Achim > > ** Mail sent to this address is automatically deleted ** >

Ed, when I say disk 'layout' information, I'm not referring to the files and user data, but to the structures that contain the information as to where the parts of a file are located. This includes the FAT and anything else used for the management of the data on the disk, but _not_ the actual files (user data). We agree, actually :-) Come fly with us one day! Achim "Ed Forsythe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I'm sorry Achim , I must disagree. There are many apps which will > "unformat" and fully recover a formatted HD. The only way to make thefiles > on a HD completely unavailable is to overwrite them (or incinerate the HD > :)). That's why most of the security programs designed to insure that all > files on a HD are completely unrecoverable simply write series of 1's and > 0's onto the HD. Even then it takes more than one pass to completelysecure > the HD - it's called "Wiping" the drive.

Actually Ed, Achim is correct. The unconditional format also removes any unformat abilities to a hard drive. The quick format will still retain your data hidden away on the platter that could still be recovered. If you just do a format c: command to format your hard disk, that is a quick format. (It will give you a message that it is saving the unformat info.) If you do the unconditional format in the form of: format c: /u, all old data will be removed and therefore unrecoverable. Regardless of all this, a quick format will not retain any files or driver reminents of the old Nvidia card. -Tim "Ed Forsythe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I'm sorry Achim , I must disagree. There are many apps which will > "unformat" and fully recover a formatted HD. The only way to make thefiles > on a HD completely unavailable is to overwrite them (or incinerate the HD > :)). That's why most of the security programs designed to insure that all > files on a HD are completely unrecoverable simply write series of 1's and > 0's onto the HD. Even then it takes more than one pass to completelysecure

Quoted text (14 lines)

> the HD - it's called "Wiping" the drive. > -- > Happy Flying, > Ed F. > > "Achim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Mon, 05 May 2003 20:35:50 -0400 Ed Forsythe wrote: > > > > > Hi Dave, > > > I recall from the ol' DOS days that a format simply deletes the FAT > (File > > > Allocation Table). The FAT is like a roadmap to the file locations. > > > Without it, the files can't be located even though they are still on

the

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > HD - *until* they are overwritten. > > > > I think that's what the so called 'Quick Format' does. A full format IMO > > rewrites the entire disk layout information. > > > > -- > > Achim > > > > ** Mail sent to this address is automatically deleted ** > > > >