Actual hard drive space?

[Jethro]

I notice there is always a great disparity between stated hard drive
capacity and actual usable capacity after formatting.

Is there a chart or other paper anywhere showing maybe comparisons of
this between drives, and maybe an explanation of why and how it
happens?

Thanks

Jethro

 

[Rod Speed]

I notice there is always a great disparity between stated hard
drive capacity and actual usable capacity after formatting.

Not if you use the right maths.

Is there a chart or other paper anywhere showing maybe comparisons of
this between drives, and maybe an explanation of why and how it happens?

The main problem is that the hard drive manufacturers state the size
in decimal GBs, 1,000,000,000 bytes because that is the SI standard.
Its often shown in binary GBs in the OS, 1,073,741,824 bytes.

You also lose a much smaller amount in the file structures, directorys etc.

 

[Jethro]

Not if you use the right maths.


The main problem is that the hard drive manufacturers state the size
in decimal GBs, 1,000,000,000 bytes because that is the SI standard.
Its often shown in binary GBs in the OS, 1,073,741,824 bytes.

Okay - then please tell me. If a hard drive is stated to be say 40GB,
then how much usable space after formatting is to be expected, and
why? And if usable space turns out to be less than that, then why?

TIA

Jethro

 

[Rod Speed]

Okay - then please tell me. If a hard drive is stated to be say 40GB,
then how much usable space after formatting is to be expected,

Varys with the formatting, FAT32 or NTFS etc.

and why?

Because the file structures are different with the different formatting.

And if usable space turns out to be less than that,

No it doesnt except due to the space lost in the last cluster.

then why?

Because files arent always big enough to fill the last cluster.

 

[Jeepers Creepers]

Okay - then please tell me. If a hard drive is stated to be say 40GB,
then how much usable space after formatting is to be expected, and
why? And if usable space turns out to be less than that, then why?

"40gb" = 40 000 000 000 bytes
= 40 000 000 000 ÷ 1024 = 39 062 500 kb
= 39 062 500 ÷ 1024 = 38 147 mb
= 38 147 ÷ 1024 = 37.25 gb

Windows will report 37.25 gb if the whole drive is formatted to one
partition (many PCs use 3gb+ for a recovery partition). With 12% for system
restore, around 1gb for pagefile and 1gb for hibernate files and 15% free so
defrag will work well, you don't end up with much usable space!!

-Jeepers Creepers

 

[jameshanley39]

I notice there is always a great disparity between stated hard drive
capacity and actual usable capacity after formatting.

Is there a chart or other paper anywhere showing maybe comparisons of
this between drives, and maybe an explanation of why and how it
happens?

Thanks

Jethro

the relationship between a megabyte( 2^20) and an approximation of the
megabyte, (10^6), is a factor of 1.048576.

Meaning that to get from one to the other, you multiply or divide by
1.048576


A megabyte is 1,048,576 bytes. The Approximation is 1,000,000.

Somtimes one is called the binary megabyte and the other the decimal
megabyte, but it's not a different number system. The approximation or
decimal megabyte is just using 10^ instead of 2^.

The 10^6 figure is a smaller unit.. So more of it are used to equal a
corresponding amount of the the 'binary megabyte', which is a larger
unit.

"they say" that Hard Drive marketting people use the 'decimal
megabyte' because it sounds better, larger numbers.

The 'decimal megabyte' uses the mathemetical term Mega correctly,
since mathematically, Mega=10^6

A Kilobyte is 2^10
Megabyte is 2^20
Gigabyte is 2^30

So a megayte is 1024 kilobytes.
A gigabyte is 1024 megabytes e.t.c.

The mathematical notation just uses thousands.
Mega = 10^6
Giga=10^9
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html
e.t.c.

 

[Rod Speed]

the relationship between a megabyte( 2^20) and an approximation of the
megabyte, (10^6), is a factor of 1.048576.

Meaning that to get from one to the other, you multiply or divide by
1.048576


A megabyte is 1,048,576 bytes. The Approximation is 1,000,000.

Somtimes one is called the binary megabyte and the other
the decimal megabyte, but it's not a different number system.

It is actually, different base.

The approximation or decimal megabyte is just using 10^ instead of 2^.

So its a different number system.

The 10^6 figure is a smaller unit.. So more of it are used to equal a
corresponding amount of the the 'binary megabyte', which is a larger
unit.

"they say" that Hard Drive marketting people use the 'decimal
megabyte' because it sounds better, larger numbers.

Only the pig ignorant fools. Its the SI standard, legally required in many countrys.

Its the binary gigabyte that makes no sense with something
like a hard drive which isnt intrinsically binary organised.

And the 1.44MB floppy is actually a weird binary/decimal hybrid.

 

[jameshanley39]

It is actually, different base.


So its a different number system.

No, 2^x cannot even be binary. The number 2 doesn't even exist in
binary.

Perhaps the term base has 2 meanings. Base^Exponent, and base as in
number system.

But Binary - as far as I know - only applies to number systems, and
that is the term I use here. It is in that context that I use the word
base.

Only the pig ignorant fools. Its the SI standard, legally required in many countrys.

Were they to not use the SI standard, and to use [what you deny to be]
the standard meaning in computing, then I am not convinced that they'd
be sued for understating the specification of their product.

Its the binary gigabyte that makes no sense with something
like a hard drive which isnt intrinsically binary organised.

And the 1.44MB floppy is actually a weird binary/decimal hybrid.

I haven't read about how they organise their data, but electronics
knows HIGHS and LOWS, ACTIVE or Not. At the lowest level, it appears
to me to be binary.

<snip>

 

[kony]

No, 2^x cannot even be binary. The number 2 doesn't even exist in
binary.

The significant detail is that 1,000,000 being called
megabyte is invalid.

Because byte only exists in a different system, not a
decimal system, the two different system terms can't be
intermixed. Mega on the other hand, exists in both systems
so it can be applied to a binary system number.

If someone wanted to call 1,000,000 as a megablob, or other
megaTHING, that would work, but it cannot be called megabyte
unless the number expressed is 1,048,576. Similarly a
kilobyte is never 1000, and a byte itself is never 10 bits.

Approximations aren't sufficient, and WD lost a class action
suit over that so precedence has been set in the legal world
as well as in the computer world. It's a shame the matter
wasn't pursued more when manufactureres first started
mislabeling drives, but on the other hand there are better
ways to spend the courts' time.

 

[Rod Speed]

(e-mail address removed) wrote

No,

Fraid so.

2^x cannot even be binary. The number 2 doesn't even exist in binary.

Utterly mangled and completely irrelevant to which base is used.

Perhaps the term base has 2 meanings.
Base^Exponent, and base as in number system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_system

But Binary - as far as I know - only applies to number systems, and
that is the term I use here. It is in that context that I use the word base.

And you can have any base you like in that context.

Were they to not use the SI standard, and to use [what you deny to be]
the standard meaning in computing,

The binary form is nothing like the standard meaning in computing.
The decimal form is mostly whats used in computing, most
obviously with cpu speeds, comms speeds, etc etc etc .

Its only MEMORY that has an intrinsically binary organisation
where the binary form is in fact commonly used.

then I am not convinced that they'd be sued for
understating the specification of their product.

More fool you.

I haven't read about how they organise their data, but electronics knows HIGHS
and LOWS, ACTIVE or Not. At the lowest level, it appears to me to be binary.

The lowest level is completely irrelevant. Clearly cpu speeds have never
been stated using binary multipliers, even tho they are certainly digital devices.

 

[Rod Speed]

The significant detail is that 1,000,000 being called megabyte is invalid.

Corse it isnt.

Because byte only exists in a different system, not a decimal
system, the two different system terms can't be intermixed.

Wrong, as always. Its just a prefix.

Mega on the other hand, exists in both systems
so it can be applied to a binary system number.

Pathetic, really. Pity we happen to be discussing MB and GB.

If someone wanted to call 1,000,000 as a megablob,
or other megaTHING, that would work, but it cannot be
called megabyte unless the number expressed is 1,048,576.

Completely off with the ****ing fairys, as always.

Similarly a kilobyte is never 1000, and a byte itself is never 10 bits.

Completely off with the ****ing fairys, as always.

Approximations aren't sufficient, and WD lost a class
action suit over that so precedence has been set in
the legal world as well as in the computer world.

Like hell it has when the drive manufacturer makes
clear that its using the decimal form of GB.

It's a shame the matter wasn't pursued more when
manufactureres first started mislabeling drives,

Nothing 'mislabeling' about using the SI standard prefix and
making it very clear that they are using the decimal form.

but on the other hand there are better ways to spend the courts' time.

Courts are completely irrelevant. In spades with that sort of
terminally stupid decision made by that particular fool of a judge.

 

[jameshanley39]

(e-mail address removed) wrote






Fraid so.

what is the point your style? I go on to explain why it's not a
different number system. You just deny everything.

Utterly mangled and completely irrelevant to which base is used.

I am clear in telling you what I mean.

And you can have any base you like in that context.

Yes, and in that context you can't write 2 and call it binary.


I don't know what from that wikipedia article contradicts me.

The 10^6 figure is a smaller unit.. So more of it are used to equal a
corresponding amount of the the 'binary megabyte', which is a larger unit.
"they say" that Hard Drive marketting people use the 'decimal
megabyte' because it sounds better, larger numbers.
Only the pig ignorant fools. Its the SI standard, legally required in many countrys.

Were they to not use the SI standard, and to use [what you deny to be]
the standard meaning in computing,

The binary form is nothing like the standard meaning in computing.
The decimal form is mostly whats used in computing, most
obviously with cpu speeds, comms speeds, etc etc etc .

I don't mean that the binary form is used in all aspects of computer
talk.

My email address has the numbers 3 and 9 in it, yet it isn't
jameshanley00111001 (those are two nibbles).

Its only MEMORY that has an intrinsically binary organisation
where the binary form is in fact commonly used.

I know a little about addressing memory and nothing about addressing
data on a hard drive.

Perhaps there's some kind of binary thinking in the organisation of
one that isn't in the organisation of the other. But addresses are
stored in binary, whether in memory or on a hard drive. In Bytes.

More fool you.

Were it to happen, I wouldn't be "fooled". Fool implies victim. I
couldn't care less. I may be amused though.

The lowest level is completely irrelevant. Clearly cpu speeds have never
been stated using binary multipliers, even tho they are certainly digital
devices.-

neither cpu speed nor multipliers are measured in Megabytes. (And I
suppose that neither are even stored in binary, except perhaps for the
sake of the human techie to see those values in the BIOS)

I was referring to Megabytes.

Not to all numbers used while discussing computers

 

[jameshanley39]

The significant detail is that 1,000,000 being called
megabyte is invalid.

that's true but that's a different point to the one I made

Because byte only exists in a different system, not a
decimal system, the two different system terms can't be
intermixed.

no.. Byte means 8 bits. But you can count bytes in any number system.
And a Byte itself is nothing to do with a number system at all really.
It's an "articificial" unit to count 8 binary digits. It's a concept.
It doesn't really exist dependent or as part of a number system.

Of course, its contents are bits - binary digits! Which is just a way
of writing a number. One could write its value in hex octal or
decimal. I suppose physically it's a component of the binary number
system. But logically it can be represented in any base. I think,
even a number is not a component of a number system, it's only
represented in whichever number system you write it in. A number
system is a system of representing numbers. Nothing is locked into it.

Mega on the other hand, exists in both systems
so it can be applied to a binary system number.

Indeed. It means 10^6 or if one were wacky enough to write that in
binary.
1010^0110

If someone wanted to call 1,000,000 as a megablob, or other
megaTHING, that would work, but it cannot be called megabyte
unless the number expressed is 1,048,576.

I agree. But that is because CONVENTION is that Mega when used with
Byte, does not mean 10^6, it means 2^20.

Similarly a
kilobyte is never 1000, and a byte itself is never 10 bits.

that parallel is absurd.
A byte is a byte. 8 bits. Nobody debates this and calls it 10. Ever.


In contrast,
A Kilobyte is 1024 bytes.

But a mathematical Kilobyte (and we nkow what that means) SI, is 1000
Bytes. i.e. 8000 bits. Of course though, a Byte is still 8 bits.
Even by that traditional mathematical definition of Kilo.
(if you were to even attempt to redefine byte instead of the
prefix(kilo,mega), then you'd end up with a different factor or
definition of byte for each prefix. It'd be ridiculouly nobody does
it, nobody would do it. It's not in the same bag as SI units)

Approximations aren't sufficient, and WD lost a class action
suit over that so precedence has been set in the legal world
as well as in the computer world. It's a shame the matter
wasn't pursued more when manufactureres first started
mislabeling drives, but on the other hand there are better
ways to spend the courts' time.

If this is correct then Ron had it backwards.

But even without seeing an example, if it were the Ron's way around
it'd be totally absurd. "the defendent is guilty of understating the
specification of his product. The complainant was very err !! filled
with guilt!!!!! "

 

[Rod Speed]

(e-mail address removed) wrote

what is the point your style?

What is the point of yours ?

I go on to explain why it's not a different number system.

And I went on to explain why its not and rubbed your nose in what a number base actually is.

You just deny everything.

Bare faced lie.

I am clear in telling you what I mean.

Pity that is utterly mangled and completely irrelevant to which base is used.

Yes, and in that context you can't write 2 and call it binary.

Wrong. That is the common description of a base 2 number system.

I don't know what from that wikipedia article contradicts me.

Its rubbing your nose in the fact that you havent got a clue about what a number system actually is.

The 10^6 figure is a smaller unit.. So more of it are used to
equal a corresponding amount of the the 'binary megabyte', which
is a larger unit. "they say" that Hard Drive marketting people use
the 'decimal megabyte' because it sounds better, larger numbers.
Only the pig ignorant fools. Its the SI standard, legally required in many countrys.
Were they to not use the SI standard, and to use
[what you deny to be] the standard meaning in computing,

The binary form is nothing like the standard meaning in computing.
The decimal form is mostly whats used in computing, most
obviously with cpu speeds, comms speeds, etc etc etc .

I don't mean that the binary form is used in all aspects of computer talk.

It isnt used when stating the capacity of the hard drive either.

My email address has the numbers 3 and 9 in it, yet it
isn't jameshanley00111001 (those are two nibbles).

Irrelevant to how the capacity of hard drives is universally stated.

I know a little about addressing memory and
nothing about addressing data on a hard drive.

Each sector has a logical block number. Nothing
intrinsically binary in the organisation of the sectors.

Perhaps there's some kind of binary thinking in the organisation
of one that isn't in the organisation of the other. But addresses are
stored in binary, whether in memory or on a hard drive. In Bytes.

Irrelevant to the LBA which is just a linear number of the sectors on the drive.

Were it to happen, I wouldn't be "fooled". Fool implies victim.

No it doesnt. Its just a foolish conviction in this case.

I couldn't care less. I may be amused though.

Irrelevant to whether that conviction is foolish.

neither cpu speed nor multipliers are measured in Megabytes.

The Mega and Giga PREFIXES are used when stating the cpu speed.

(And I suppose that neither are even stored in binary, except perhaps
for the sake of the human techie to see those values in the BIOS)

I was referring to Megabytes.

What was being discussed was the Mega and Giga PREFIXES.

Not to all numbers used while discussing computers

Pathetic.

 

[jameshanley39]

(e-mail address removed) wrote

what is the point your style?

What is the point of yours ?

I go on to explain why it's not a different number system.

And I went on to explain why its not and rubbed your nose in what a number base actually is.

You just deny everything.

Bare faced lie.

I am clear in telling you what I mean.

Pity that is utterly mangled and completely irrelevant to which base is used.

Yes, and in that context you can't write 2 and call it binary.

Wrong. That is the common description of a base 2 number system.

I don't know what from that wikipedia article contradicts me.

Its rubbing your nose in the fact that you havent got a clue about what a number system actually is.

The 10^6 figure is a smaller unit.. So more of it are used to
equal a corresponding amount of the the 'binary megabyte', which
is a larger unit. "they say" that Hard Drive marketting people use
the 'decimal megabyte' because it sounds better, larger numbers.
Only the pig ignorant fools. Its the SI standard, legally required in many countrys.
Were they to not use the SI standard, and to use
[what you deny to be] the standard meaning in computing,
The binary form is nothing like the standard meaning in computing.
The decimal form is mostly whats used in computing, most
obviously with cpu speeds, comms speeds, etc etc etc .

I don't mean that the binary form is used in all aspects of computer talk.

It isnt used when stating the capacity of the hard drive either.

My email address has the numbers 3 and 9 in it, yet it
isn't jameshanley00111001 (those are two nibbles).

Irrelevant to how the capacity of hard drives is universally stated.

I know a little about addressing memory and
nothing about addressing data on a hard drive.

Each sector has a logical block number. Nothing
intrinsically binary in the organisation of the sectors.

Perhaps there's some kind of binary thinking in the organisation
of one that isn't in the organisation of the other. But addresses are
stored in binary, whether in memory or on a hard drive. In Bytes.

Irrelevant to the LBA which is just a linear number of the sectors on the drive.

Were it to happen, I wouldn't be "fooled". Fool implies victim.

No it doesnt. Its just a foolish conviction in this case.

I couldn't care less. I may be amused though.

Irrelevant to whether that conviction is foolish.

neither cpu speed nor multipliers are measured in Megabytes.

The Mega and Giga PREFIXES are used when stating the cpu speed.

(And I suppose that neither are even stored in binary, except perhaps
for the sake of the human techie to see those values in the BIOS)
I was referring to Megabytes.

What was being discussed was the Mega and Giga PREFIXES.

Not to all numbers used while discussing computers

Pathetic.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

why don't you just stick all your comments at the end.

you've written absolute rubbish.
To say that 2^3 is binary is as stupid as saying that
9^2 is not decimal (saying it's base 9).

And this thread was not talking about GHz, but Megabytes. And if you
measure Megabyte as 2^20 as is done, it doesn't mean the number is in
binary.

If you'd ever read of how computers store floating point numbers then
you'd know. It's along the lines of converting the mantissa and
exponent into binary. Because they are not in binary.

I'm sure you know this, but we seem to be having a communication
problem. It's your "style" that's the problem.

So go on, break the whole post up with comments after every single
line repeating the same denials and dismissive buzzwords that have
become your rotten trademark.

 

[kony]

that's true but that's a different point to the one I made


no.. Byte means 8 bits. But you can count bytes in any number system.

Not really, it is an invalid expression to have more than
one system mangled into a single quantity.

And a Byte itself is nothing to do with a number system at all really.
It's an "articificial" unit to count 8 binary digits. It's a concept.
It doesn't really exist dependent or as part of a number system.

Wrong, it is just as real a part of a number system as any
other term, or if you want to call it a "concept", so is any
numerical term.

that parallel is absurd.

Nope, it would be equally absurd to put byte in front of a
decimal system value. Can't mix two systems in one
expression.

 

[Noozer]

Forget bits and binary... They aren't really related to the problem here...

In English, "kilo" means thousand, "mega" means million, giga means billion,
"tera" means trillion, etc...

A "five kilogram" bag of sugar weights 5,000 grams. "25 megawatts" of power
is 25,000,000 watts. To a person, a megabyte is a million bytes. A gigabyte
is a billion bytes.

The reason for this is that 1,000 is a natural boundary for people to use.
Would it make any sense that a kilo is 893 of something? No, because we can
count to 999 before we need to add more digits.


In computer terminology, "kilo" means 1,024, "mega" means
1024x1024=1,048,576, "giga" means 1024x1024x1024=1,073,741,824, "tera" means
1024x1024x1024x1024=1,099,511,627,776.

The reason that computer terminology bases it's numbering system around
1,024 is because it's a natural boundary for computers. Since computers use
base 2, their boundaries are numbers like 8, 16, 32...etc...1024,
2048...etc...1073741824, 2147483648, 4294967296...etc. Writing these in base
2 we can see the pattern... 1000 is 8, 10000 is 16, 100000 is 32, 1000000000
is 1024, 10000000000 is 2048, 10000000000000000000 is 1073741824,
100000000000000000000 is 2147483648.

So when you buy your drive at the store, the saleman tells you it has
100gigabytes, meaning it has 100 billion bytes of space. When you put it in
your computer, it will tell you that you have a 93gigabyte drive, meaning
that you have 93x1024x1024x1024 bytes of space (93.1322... actually).

Now, on top of this, the drive must be formatted before it can be used at
all, so some space will always be used by your file system, even on an empty
drive, to keep track of empty drive space, partitions, etc. Also, the
manufacturer uses some of the drive to map sectors, etc. Any empty drive
really isn't empty at all.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

why don't you just stick all your comments at the end.

What is this silly "Hide/Show quoted text" hung onto your posts?
The quotee (troll Speed) never wrote that. If it is another google
flaw just delete it before sending.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>

"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews

 

[kony]

Forget bits and binary... They aren't really related to the problem here...

The reason that computer terminology bases it's numbering system around
1,024 is because it's a natural boundary for computers. Since computers use
base 2, ...

.... that makes it binary

 

[jameshanley39]

Forget bits and binary... They aren't really related to the problem here...

In English,

or maths !

"kilo" means thousand, "mega" means million, giga means billion,
"tera" means trillion, etc...

A "five kilogram" bag of sugar weights 5,000 grams. "25 megawatts" of power
is 25,000,000 watts. To a person, a megabyte is a million bytes. A gigabyte
is a billion bytes.

The reason for this is that 1,000 is a natural boundary for people to use.

it's easy to write in Base 10

Would it make any sense that a kilo is 893 of something? No, because we can
count to 999 before we need to add more digits.

In computer terminology, "kilo" means 1,024, "mega" means
1024x1024=1,048,576, "giga" means 1024x1024x1024=1,073,741,824, "tera" means
1024x1024x1024x1024=1,099,511,627,776.

The reason that computer terminology bases it's numbering system around
1,024 is because it's a natural boundary for computers. Since computers use
base 2, their boundaries are numbers like 8, 16, 32...etc...1024,

I know you know what you mean by natural boudnary, but it's an
artificial term. I'll elaborate on what I think you mean. I woujldn't
invent a term like that.

What you mean by "natural boundary".. Is the range and max number you
can reach with x digits.

It's as natural as us being able to reference 10,000 values -
0....9999 if given 4 decimal digits. But it's not "natural" to be
limited to 4 digits. Infact, it's not natural or unnatural. The term
natural doesn't apply !

what you call "natural boundaries" is more corectly the range or max
num of different values you are limited to when using x digits.

Computer designers don't just say I want to address 1000 memory
locations or 1016 of them. They may say that, then they'll say,
that'll need a minimum of 10 bits , and lo and behold, they can
address 2^10=1024 different locations 0..1023.

it's only limited to a number of digits and looking at the full range
you can reach, and max number of different numbers you can produce,
that you get this.

2048...etc...1073741824, 2147483648, 4294967296...etc. Writing these in base
2 we can see the pattern... 1000 is 8, 10000 is 16, 100000 is 32, 1000000000
is 1024, 10000000000 is 2048, 10000000000000000000 is 1073741824,
100000000000000000000 is 2147483648.



So when you buy your drive at the store, the saleman tells you it has
100gigabytes, meaning it has 100 billion bytes of space.

indeed.
Giga=thousand mega (in byte or maths speak)
And HDD manufacturers use the mathematical meaning. So it's true to
say Giga=billion=thousand million.


<snip>