If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Erasing USB flash drives?
Addended below.
Bill in Co wrote: 000-222-000 wrote: "Bill in Co" wrote in message ... Has anyone come across a program that quick erases a USB flash drive stick, so that a simple unerase program doesn't show what files were on it? (I don't do this for security reasons, I only do it for my own convenience (when I'm trying to recall what changes I make on the drive subsequentially; it's hard to explain :-). So here is what I have discovered: "Eraser" doesn't seem to be able to do it for flash dirves, although it works well on other drives. (I'm just talking about using the basic erase options here) The WinXP disk defragger(s) don't do it, either. BUT the standard Win98/ME defragger DOES do it! And you only have to run it for a few seconds to clear traces of any file entries; it doesn't need to run to completion. Clearly the Win98/ME defrag works a lot better in that one regard (on FAT volumes) than the WinXP defragger(s) do. It somehow erases the FAT table entries, where the Win XP defraggers don't. Win98/ME works [like] Eraser; because the USB flash drive stick is FAT32 volumes.. Yes, but that doesn't explain why the WinXP defragger doesn't do it when it is defragging a FAT32 volume, while the Win98/ME one does: Both the regular Win98/ME defragger AND the the regular WinXP defragger can defrag FAT32 volumes, but only the former (the Win98/ME one) seems to erase any previously erased file table entries (that can be discovered by running an unerase program). And the defragger doesn't even have to run to completion to do that (just briefly start it, and then stop it a couple of seconds later, and that's done). (most of the *files* themselves would be unrecoverable since some of their clusters have likely been reused, but that's not the issue here) I should also add as an addendum that if you watch the way the Win98/ME and WinXP defraggers work on a FAT32 volume (with their visual display as they are defragging), you can see some differences. One notable difference is the WinXP one seems significantly faster, but I don't think it's moving as much data around, or seems as thorough, in its actions. (Of course, some of the speed difference could be due to the faster (WinXP) computer, but I don't think that's all of it). |
Ads |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|