Lost space on hard drive

  • Thread starter Thread starter DRSAP
  • Start date Start date
D

DRSAP

I have a samsung SP1614N which should be 160Gb. In XP after formatting
I get 150Gb. How does one reclaim this lost space please? Reason I
need it is because I want to use it in a PVR and it does not like the
"lost" area it seems.

Alternatively how can I restore the drive to it's "original state"
i.e. as it came from the manufacturer? Will a low level format do?
Samsung site does not have a utility for it.
 
DRSAP said:
I have a samsung SP1614N which should be 160Gb. In XP after formatting
I get 150Gb. How does one reclaim this lost space please? Reason I
need it is because I want to use it in a PVR and it does not like the
"lost" area it seems.

Alternatively how can I restore the drive to it's "original state"
i.e. as it came from the manufacturer? Will a low level format do?
Samsung site does not have a utility for it.
Click to expand...

You have the correct size and nothig is lost. Hard drive manufacturers
list their drive capacities using 1MB = 1,000,000 bytes while
the real definition (which Windows displays) is 1,048,576 bytes.
When you convert your a 160GB drive to the real GB value
it comes out to ~149GB. You can also see that value
when you right click on your drive in My Computer
and then Properties.
 
DRSAP said:
I have a samsung SP1614N which should be 160Gb. In XP after formatting
I get 150Gb. How does one reclaim this lost space please? Reason I
need it is because I want to use it in a PVR and it does not like the
"lost" area it seems.

Alternatively how can I restore the drive to it's "original state"
i.e. as it came from the manufacturer? Will a low level format do?
Samsung site does not have a utility for it.
Click to expand...

There's nothing missing and the two numbers are the same thing; just 'said'
differently.

The 'real' number is the 160 gigabytes but there is no such thing as a
binary "giga" because "giga" is a decimal system, base 10, prefix, as is
mega, and kilo, etc. They're powers of 10 and 2 don't go into 10.

So Windows uses a cross breed, pseudo decibinal (my invention to describe
half breed decimal prefixes tacked onto binary numbers) approximation that
considers 1024 to be a 'Kilo' and 1,048,576 to be a 'Meg' and 1,073,741,824
to be a 'Gig'.

So 160 real decimal system gigabytes translates into 149 Gig as Windows
figures it in decibinal.

However, do a properties on the drive and you'll see it listed in both
decimal (the number with a bunch of digits showing the exact byte count)
and 'decibinal' (the small one to the right).
 
yep my seagate 160gn shows as 149gb

time they sorted this as the drives get bigger the gap gets ridiculous!
 
KC said:
You have the correct size and nothig is lost. Hard drive manufacturers
list their drive capacities using 1MB = 1,000,000 bytes while
the real definition (which Windows displays) is 1,048,576 bytes.
Click to expand...

Your numbers are correct except the "real definition" is 1MB = 1,000,000.

Kilo, Mega, and Giga are *decimal system* prefixes and using them on binary
numbers is a closest fit hack, albeit a common hack.
 
The reference to a 160 GB harddrive refers to its UNFORMATTED capacity. To
use the drive you have to Format it and that reduces the useable space to
150 GB. Nothing you can do about it.
 
DaveW said:
The reference to a 160 GB harddrive refers to its UNFORMATTED capacity. To
use the drive you have to Format it and that reduces the useable space to
150 GB. Nothing you can do about it.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It's the difference between using true decimal and binary pseudo
decimal prefixes.
 
I have a samsung SP1614N which should be 160Gb. In XP after formatting
I get 150Gb. How does one reclaim this lost space please?
Click to expand...

This is the kind of thing that Google can find.
Reason I
need it is because I want to use it in a PVR and it does not like the
"lost" area it seems.
Click to expand...

That isn't the problem. Maybe you've formatted it in a
format the PVR doesn't support. Try formatting it per the
PVR's manual, instructions.
Alternatively how can I restore the drive to it's "original state"
i.e. as it came from the manufacturer? Will a low level format do?
Samsung site does not have a utility for it.
Click to expand...

Have you made the Samsung diagnostic/utilities floopy(s)?
There might be an option in those... it wouldn't actually be
a low level format as that hasn't been possible in years,
but a "zero fill" would be the closest an end-user can do,
and should be unnecessary towards your goal.
 
David Maynard said:
Wrong. It's the difference between using true decimal and binary pseudo
decimal prefixes.
Click to expand...

I like decibinal better.........:-) Never know, Webster might go for it.
Now you need to create a decibinal system theory to go with it.

Ed
 
Ed said:
I like decibinal better.........:-) Never know, Webster might go for it.
Now you need to create a decibinal system theory to go with it.

Ed
Click to expand...

Hehe. Thanks.

It does sort of capture the angst of it.


On a more serious note, there actually is a movement growing in the
international standards community to define new prefixes for 'decibinal'
that, to avoid unnecessary confusion, would be similar to the decimal ones
but different, to avoid unnecessary confusion, which will probably lead to
a whole new round of unnecessary confusion. But at least it would be a well
defined and technically precise confusion ;)
 
Thomas said:
Try this:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
Click to expand...

Right. I've seen it but while IEC adopted the terminology it wasn't clear
to me that it's been universally adopted.

If you look at hard drive manufacturer sites, though, you'll see they've
got, somewhere, the IEEE 'disclosure' about what 'megabyte' means even
though they're using the officially correct default definition needing no
explanation. Western Digital puts it in their product specifications
datasheet. Like:
http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1328&p_created=1109874848

"Western Digital defines a megabyte (MB) as 1,000,000 bytes and a gigabyte
(GB) as 1,000,000,000 bytes."

A bit arrogant of them to claim they 'define' it though ;) More like that's
the one they "use." And rightly so since the others are only permitted "if
such usage is explicitly pointed out on a case-by-case basis."

Btw, the datasheet also answers the erroneous claim that the discrepancy is
due to "formatting."

Specifications for the 200GB Caviar Serial ATA drive (model WD2000BD)

Formatted Capacity 200,049 MB
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
David Maynard said:
Right. I've seen it but while IEC adopted the terminology it wasn't clear
to me that it's been universally adopted.

If you look at hard drive manufacturer sites, though, you'll see they've
got, somewhere, the IEEE 'disclosure' about what 'megabyte' means even
though they're using the officially correct default definition needing no
explanation. Western Digital puts it in their product specifications
datasheet. Like:
http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1328&p_created=1109874848

"Western Digital defines a megabyte (MB) as 1,000,000 bytes and a gigabyte
(GB) as 1,000,000,000 bytes."

A bit arrogant of them to claim they 'define' it though ;) More like
that's the one they "use." And rightly so since the others are only
permitted "if such usage is explicitly pointed out on a case-by-case
basis."

Btw, the datasheet also answers the erroneous claim that the discrepancy
is due to "formatting."

Specifications for the 200GB Caviar Serial ATA drive (model WD2000BD)

Formatted Capacity 200,049 MB
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Click to expand...

I still think that a decibinal system would take care of the confusion,
even if it is well defined and technically precise "confusion". There would
have to be a differentiation between speed and storage if I read the
datasheet correctly. With decibinal, kdb* per second to make it distinct
from say a 200gdb HDD (for the above mentioned formatted HDD). IMO, the
datasheet info is much more confusing than decibinal, if kept simple, would
be...........:-)

Ed
 
Ed said:
I still think that a decibinal system would take care of the confusion,
Click to expand...

Well, 'decibinal' is what we already got in all but name, which I just
coined so we got that too ;)
even if it is well defined and technically precise "confusion". There would
have to be a differentiation between speed and storage
Click to expand...

Where did "speed" come into this?
if I read the
datasheet correctly. With decibinal, kdb* per second to make it distinct
from say a 200gdb HDD (for the above mentioned formatted HDD).
Click to expand...

Speed is already distinct from capacity. I don't understand what you're
getting at.
 
David Maynard said:
Well, 'decibinal' is what we already got in all but name, which I just
coined so we got that too ;)


Where did "speed" come into this?
Click to expand...

It was mentioned in the datasheet above as one of the new standards
considered along with storage values. Guess I got off on a tangent......:-)
Not the first time.......
Speed is already distinct from capacity. I don't understand what you're
getting at.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. Terminalogy is all I was speaking of. Speed should be dealt
with as a different issue really. Is a kbps REALLY a kbps? I guess what I
was getting to is that a kb, when it pertains to storage, is not the same as
a kb when it comes to speaking of data transfer speed. How in the hell did I
get to here anyway......... ?? .............:-) Too early, not enough
coffee.....I dunno.

Ed
 
Ed said:
It was mentioned in the datasheet above as one of the new standards
considered along with storage values. Guess I got off on a tangent......:-)
Not the first time.......




Yes, I know. Terminalogy is all I was speaking of. Speed should be dealt
with as a different issue really. Is a kbps REALLY a kbps? I guess what I
was getting to is that a kb, when it pertains to storage, is not the same as
a kb when it comes to speaking of data transfer speed. How in the hell did I
get to here anyway......... ?? .............:-) Too early, not enough
coffee.....I dunno.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. Well, mbps not always being mbps was a new one to me when I
first read that article. Sounds like decibinal software types dabbling in
telecom because I find it hard to believe any hardware engineers did it.
 
David Maynard said:
Oh, I see. Well, mbps not always being mbps was a new one to me when I
first read that article. Sounds like decibinal software types dabbling in
telecom because I find it hard to believe any hardware engineers did it.
Click to expand...

Those were my thoughts too. Back to more coffee.......

Ed
 
Back
Top