| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BigBlackEquus
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Location: Lotte controls Asia with bad chocolate!
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 9:07 pm Post subject: Storage lies |
 |
|
Ok, I am happy about my new laptop, which has a 40 gig HD in it, but the HD is actually only 35 gig before Windows was put on.
Another one.... my half-gig flash memory key was actually short by about 60 meg.
And I have bought other hard drives that are becoming increasingly more than a gig or two short of the advertised number.
I know someone can aruge that's all "pre-format" but really, the gaps seem to be growing by a lot more than exponentials even may account for. Darned frustrating that these sort of things are just assumed anymore, apparently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
steveohan
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
dont worry...there isnt some sort of conspiracy against you.
its because there are 1024 kilobytes in 1 meg. so when you multply it all out, a HD advertised as 40 gigs will actually be something like 36.
i have a 250 gig external disk and the actualy capacity on it is like 236 gigs.
steve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moldy Rutabaga
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't see the point of the mathematics. If a HD is billed as 40 GB, it doesn't matter how it translates to KB-- it ought to contain 40 GB of space, dammit. One explanation is that other operating systems might be more space-efficient in formatting and might be able to use more of the disk, and this was a relevant reason when Windows didn't dominate the industry.
The more likely explanation is that it's just out-and-out false advertising, just as the television manufacturers got busted years ago for counting the cabinet edge and then some into their TV screen sizes. Now (at least in Canada) advertisers have to say 21" screen (19" viewing area). It would be nice if HD manufacturers were forced to do the same.
Ken:> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiaa
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| When you install an operating system on your hard drive, the hard drive is partitioned into two parts. One part has the OS and the other part has "left over" space that is not really used (you can actually divide them evenly and put two operating systems on your comuter). I do not know this to be fact, but I bet the prebuilt systems have a lot more of the "left over" space than say my computer since I put the OS on myself. That's where some of your space has gone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chiaa wrote: |
| When you install an operating system on your hard drive, the hard drive is partitioned into two parts. |
Ummm......no.
NTFS creates some interesting hard drive consumption. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiaa
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Demophobe wrote: |
| chiaa wrote: |
| When you install an operating system on your hard drive, the hard drive is partitioned into two parts. |
Ummm......no.
NTFS creates some interesting hard drive consumption. |
Define the word partition then "computer guru". Have you ever installed an OS? Remember pressing the "C" key during it? What do you think that did? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chiaa wrote: |
| Define the word partition then "computer guru". Have you ever installed an OS? Remember pressing the "C" key during it? What do you think that did? |
I have to concur that your earlier post was pretty much crazy talk.
While a person can create separate partitions, it's not a default setting nor something you'll see on average computer setups. And when a partition is set up, the operating system reports it as being a second hard drive rather than space that has simply disappeared. The O/S is just files on the hard drive with no special considerations.
The reason behind things like a 250GB drive beind 236GB is two fold.
One: Hard drives are marketed at 1 gigabyte is one billion bytes. Which, technically, is correct. However, through the use of computers running off a binary system which we they measure though a system in which we convert bits into bytes (8 bits in a byte, 4 bits in a nybble), we ended up with 1024 bits being credited as a K as kilo meant 1000. It was within 2.4%.
When we arrived in a the megabyte range, that slight approximation then snowballs up to 4% with a MB being 1,048,576. Not a big deal, but it's a lot bigger than it was.
Step up to the gigabyte range, and now we are sitting at 1,073,741,824 bytes. A difference of 7.4%.
In the terrabyte range, this number it's 10%.
And then the formatting of your system takes up space. Everything on your hard drive is stored in data clusters rather than individual bytes. You can specificy the data cluser size you want, but I believe the default is 64K. So 65,536 bytes of information (524,288 bits) are stored in a single group, and then additional space is used to index this so that the computer knows what space is being used by what programs and in what order the clusters are to be read in to form a usable file and this space is not represented in the reported storage numbers.
Plus hard drives will have more space that what is claimed as citing "this is a 251.298GB drive" doesn't sell well, and would require custom marketing labels as drives often have defective sectors which the hard drive then indexs as not to be used. Xbox hard drives, for example, used drive platters in which one side was fine and the underside suffered from a excessive manufacturing defects thus was not used. (8 and 10GB Xbox drives are actually 16GB and 20GB drives in which the underside drive platters were simply not used, thus were able to reduce the component cost of the machine by using a part that would have otherwise been thrown away).
Thus the mystery is solved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiaa
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Crazy talk? The OS is not using up the entire HD. Thus, when you click on the C: drive for drive information it is not going to show the total size of your drive as the OS thinks the partition it is sitting on is the entire drive. I mentioned in my "crazy talk" post that I was not sure if pre-built systems make a larger partition for whatever reason.
The drive in the photo below is 38931 MBs. The max size that you are allowed to make the partition is 38923. In this case you lose 8 megs because of the partition.
I never said that you guys were wrong, I just said that there were other reasons as well.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When you are referring to the pressing of a particular key in ored to do something, you should talk about pressing a certain key in order to do something.
Now...re-read Gord's post. He has a way with words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pangit
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Location: Puet mo.
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That's not a real partition. That's the MBR. Master Boot Record. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack the knife
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: standing right behind you...
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So 65,536 bytes of information (524,288 bits) are stored in a single group, and then additional space is used to index this so that the computer knows what space is being used by what programs and in what order the clusters are to be read in to form a usable file and this space is not represented in the reported storage numbers |
.
Where can I find the "my head just exploded" emoticon? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chiaa wrote: |
| Crazy talk? The OS is not using up the entire HD. Thus, when you click on the C: drive for drive information it is not going to show the total size of your drive as the OS thinks the partition it is sitting on is the entire drive. I mentioned in my "crazy talk" post that I was not sure if pre-built systems make a larger partition for whatever reason. |
Your first post was talking about what you thought were two partitions, and extending what you thought was a second patition (that being the MBR which is actually is mostly index data and information relating to getting the hard drive up and running) into making half the drive completely unusable to the computer by extending this reserved space.
Then you went even further in claiming that appliations could be installed in this reserved space to allow for a dual-operating system which is also incorrect.
Then you used your incorrect claims to support your anecdotal story thus everything you said must be true.
So, yes, crazy talk. In more polite speak, you were completely incorrect. I could have just said "No, you are wrong", but I decided to take some time out to explain how things work. I trust that this is issue is now over.
| Quote: |
| The drive in the photo below is 38931 MBs. The max size that you are allowed to make the partition is 38923. In this case you lose 8 megs because of the partition. |
That 8MB is reserved by Windows XP so that the Master Boot Record of the hard drive will have all the space in the world, as a corruption or space issue on an MBR will result in serious data loss to the rest of the drive. The space actually required is really quite small, and utilities exist that will extend the primary partition into this space if a person really wants some of that 8MB back.
On a 250GB drive, that 8MB represents 0.003% of the total storage space. (or about 0.032% of the total "missing space") Though no hard drive supplier ships at claimed spec but goes overly by a healthy margin (one Seagate 250GB drive I have provides an extra 56MB of storage space, so after the MBR I'm still 48MB ahead of what was promised), so there isn't really a loss that can be counted.
I trust that clears up everything now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperHero
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Location: Superhero Hideout
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gord wrote: |
| I have to concur that your earlier post was pretty much crazy talk. |
Yet another example of why Gord is one of my favorite posters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiaa
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Use see that clear little text box where it says "create size of partition..." wonder what happens when one puts in less of the maximum amount...
I was incorrect in calling it two partitions and when I was talking about two operating systems I should have refered to it as three partitions (incorrectly calling the MBR the third one). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chiaa wrote: |
| Use see that clear little text box where it says "create size of partition..." wonder what happens when one puts in less of the maximum amount... |
Then the space is left unused and unclaimed by any existing partitions. You can either claim it later with a new partition or attempt to append it to an existing partition with tools but data integruity is not guaranteed.
For example, people running pirated copies of Windows XP and haven't upgraded to at least Service Pack one are limited to partitions of 137GB (maximum index size under a 32-bit LBA). So with a larger drive a person would set the size they want the first partition to be (up to 137GB in size), and then once Windows XP is installed they could then set the section partition to use up to another 137GB of space. Repeat as necessary.
| Quote: |
| I was incorrect in calling it two partitions and when I was talking about two operating systems I should have refered to it as three partitions (incorrectly calling the MBR the third one). |
Having one partition or four partitions consumes no more and no less space than what is available normally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
