120 GB Hard Drive
Chuck Lapre
I installed my new Dimension XPs today. The HD is supposed to be 120 GB.
Yet, the total size is listed as 111 GB. Free space is 104 GB.
I was only going to pay for 80 GB. This was an upgrade.
Is there a reasonable explanation, or did Dell mess up?
Tweek
calculates it, a formatted 120GB drive has about 111GB of usable space.
Multiply what the HDD company says is the size by 0.93125 and you will get
the approximate formatted size. My 80GB drive formats to 74.5GB.
"Chuck Lapre" <ch...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:40184fe4$0$11463$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
Colin Wilson
> Yet, the total size is listed as 111 GB. Free space is 104 GB.
Hard drives may have a "theoretical" size as advertised, but
manufacturers often refer to the size as multiples of 1000 Mbytes, rather
than 1024 as they should - that`s the first thing that will "reduce" what
you thought you were going to get.
The next thing is the file system - space is taken up by the operating
system so it knows how and where to look for files. FAT32 and NTFS is far
more efficient at storage than older methods...
Back in the days of the FAT file system and DOS, you`d often find a 10
byte file taking up maybe 16k of the drive because of the limitations of
the file system - so rather an 100 x 10 byte files taking up just under
1k, they`d actually take up 1600k ! - and if you had a larger drive
(maybe something as exotic as a 500Mb drive, that`s right, 0.5Gb) losing
32k per file wasn`t uncommon :-}
--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
* old email address "btiruseless" abandoned due to worm-generated spam *
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---
John J. Burness
You do HAVE a 120G HDD!!
If you right-click on the Drive (within Explorer) do you get a total
size that exceeds 120,000,000,000? That is 120G (although I have seen
199,9xx,xxx,xxx which is NOT 120G but is "near enough").
By definition, within EVERY International Standard:-
1k = 1,000
1M = 1,000k = 1,000,000
1G = 1,000M = 1,000,000k = 1,000,000,000
In the early days of Computing, simply because it was binary based & far
simpler to calculate, 1k was assumed to be 1,024 (in those days nobody
had ever thought about 1M, certainly it beyond any dreams to talk about
1G). The odd 24 bits were not worth bothering about!!
In other words, a "slang", but technically incorrect, defintion started
to be used.
The consequence of the error (or mis-understanding) this creates is
guaranteed to confuse most people!
Keeping it in strictly Computer Slang definitions
1k = 1,024
1M = 1,024 x 1,024 = 1,048,576
1G = 1,024 x 1,024 x 1,024 = 1,073,741,824
For a HDD that is correctly defined as 120G (i.e. 120,000,000,000) this
would be displayed as 111.7G.
Incidentally, your original 80G HDD would have been displayed as 74.5G!
HTH
Regards,
John
Nick
If Windows shows your hard drive as having less capacity than the size given
by the manufacturer for the drive, this is normal: you haven't been ripped
off.
The problem is that drive manufacturers don't count Kilobytes, Megabytes,
and Gigabytes the same way the rest of the computing world does:
In most of the computing world, a Kilobyte is 1,024 bytes (2**10), a
Megabyte is 1,048,576 bytes (2**20), and a Gigabyte is 1,073,741,824
(2**30).
But drive manufacturers use 1,000 bytes for a Kbyte, 1,000,000 bytes for a
Mbyte, and 1,000,000,000 for a Gbyte: so the drive sizes they give are
higher than the ones reported by the operating system and most utilities.
Also: the size given by the manufacturer is the unformatted size. The size
reported by the operating system is the space that's actually available
after the drive has been partitioned and formatted for use.
In other words: there's no missing or 'hidden' space on your hard drive.
This has been confusing people and triggering arguments for years... :-)
This has been a recorded announcement. :-)
--
Nick <mailto:tans...@pobox.com>
John J. Burness
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:12:19 -0500, in alt.sys.pc-clone.dell, "Chuck Lapre"
> <ch...@nospam.com> wrote:
--------------snip---------------
> This has been a recorded announcement. :-)
>
Yep, I liked that one!!!
:-)
Regards,
John
N.O. Body
space (it seems HUGE compared to my previous computer systems) I am sure
that, once again, I will be surprised how quickly it fill up. :-)
Paul
"Tweek" <shawn_winget@no[hotmail]spam.com> wrote in message
news:101gm9s...@corp.supernews.com...
Phred
"John J. Burness" <JohnJBu...@ieeDOT.org> wrote:
>Chuck Lapre wrote:
>> I installed my new Dimension XPs today. The HD is supposed to be 120 GB.
>> Yet, the total size is listed as 111 GB. Free space is 104 GB.
>> I was only going to pay for 80 GB. This was an upgrade.
>> Is there a reasonable explanation, or did Dell mess up?
>
>You do HAVE a 120G HDD!!
>
>If you right-click on the Drive (within Explorer) do you get a total
>size that exceeds 120,000,000,000? That is 120G (although I have seen
>199,9xx,xxx,xxx which is NOT 120G but is "near enough").
>
>By definition, within EVERY International Standard:-
>1k = 1,000
>1M = 1,000k = 1,000,000
>1G = 1,000M = 1,000,000k = 1,000,000,000
>
>In the early days of Computing, simply because it was binary based & far
>simpler to calculate, 1k was assumed to be 1,024 (in those days nobody
>had ever thought about 1M, certainly it beyond any dreams to talk about
>1G). The odd 24 bits were not worth bothering about!!
>
>
>The consequence of the error (or mis-understanding) this creates is
>guaranteed to confuse most people!
>
>Keeping it in strictly Computer Slang definitions
>1k = 1,024
>1M = 1,024 x 1,024 = 1,048,576
>1G = 1,024 x 1,024 x 1,024 = 1,073,741,824
>
>For a HDD that is correctly defined as 120G (i.e. 120,000,000,000) this
>would be displayed as 111.7G.
>
>Incidentally, your original 80G HDD would have been displayed as 74.5G!
I actual fact I ran across three definitions of "gigabyte" when
looking at some hard disk specs on my Dell Dimension 4100 the other
day -- depending on which source was quoting the data.
1. Dell itself defines GB as 1000^3 bytes for HDDs, IIRC.
2. Windows Explorer (Win ME) uses 1024^3 in "properties".
3. Device Manager uses a hybid, 1000^2*1024.
The 1000^3 definition seems to be used universally by manufacturers
for HDDs these days. Call it the "HDD GB".
The 1024^3 definition is used widely (always?) for memory. ("RAM GB".)
The hybrid definition(s) seem to apply at whim. ("Mongrel GB". ;-)
Cheers, Phred.
--
ppnerk...@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
Rocket J. Squirrel
overcomplicating this topic. The term '120 GB' is used for marketing
purposes. Computers work on the binary system, of course, so 120 GB
translated in binary terms works out to far fewer than 120 billion bytes.
Kind of reminds me of the days before 'truth in advertising' came to the
monitor industry. In those days, a 15-inch monitor was actually less than 15
inches in size. There was a similar thing going on in the boys locker room
during high school, but that's way OT.
Rocky
"Phred" <ppnerkDE...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bvb6od$qe8sf$1...@ID-151056.news.uni-berlin.de...
the dog from that film you saw
it's OK
HD's are never the quoted size - some of it is taken up by the drives filing
system, and windows measures gigabytes in a different way to HD
manufacturers.
the 80GB drive wouldn't be 80GB free either.
--
Gareth.
Quote of the day....
Nostradamus? - sounds like a rock group to me!
John J. Burness
In those days, a 15-inch monitor was actually less than 15
> inches in size.
>
> Rocky
------------snip----------------------
That is another thing that is/was extremely confusing (but contary to
some people's wrong allegations), not deliberately mis-leading!!
A 15" Monitor has always been a 15" Monitor!! The problem was (& it goes
back to the original days of early CRTs, which were circular) this
dimension ONLY descibed the physical external dimensions & had NOTHING
to do with viewable area. This goes back to the days when CRTs were a
non-Consumer item (i.e. it even pre-dates TVs).
The real complication of this came about when LCD screens started to be
made, which DIDN'T have the equivalent physical dimensions, accordingly
thier Manufacturers started using "Viewable Area". In other words a 15"
screen in one Technology was a TOTALLY different size to the other
Technology - now that WAS confusing.
Ultimately common-sense prevailed & ALL Manufacturers now quote the
dimension on viewing area.
Regards,
John
Rocket J. Squirrel
correct something I wrote in an earlier post. What I meant to say - and
should have written - is this: 120 billion bytes is a lot less than 120 GB.
Rocky
"John J. Burness" <JohnJBu...@ieeDOT.org> wrote in message
news:0gbSb.19874$tQ6.1...@wards.force9.net...
Rod Speed
"Phred" <ppnerkDE...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bvb6od$qe8sf$1...@ID-151056.news.uni-berlin.de...
Nope, it was also seen with the 1.44MB floppy too.
Rod Speed
"Rocket J. Squirrel" <ro...@bullwinkle.com> wrote in message news:94fa00e143a99415...@news.teranews.com...
> "Mongrel GB"...that's a new one on me. I
> actually think you are overcomplicating this topic.
Nope, just clearly stating the reality seen.
> The term '120 GB' is used for marketing purposes.
Nope.
> Computers work on the binary system,
Wrong. The speed of the cpu has never
been stated using the binary system.
Its really only ram that has an intrinsically binary organisation.
The number of sectors on a hard drive doesnt.
> of course, so 120 GB translated in binary terms
> works out to far fewer than 120 billion bytes.
> Kind of reminds me of the days before 'truth
> in advertising' came to the monitor industry.
Nothing like it. The decimal GB is actually the ISO standard.
> In those days, a 15-inch monitor was actually less than 15 inches in size.
And the number of bytes available on the hard drive was never less
than the stated decimal GBs. And the datasheets have spelt out
explicitly that they are using 1,000,000,000 byte GBs for years now.
> There was a similar thing going on in the
> boys locker room during high school,
Nothing like it with hard drives.
> but that's way OT.
Chuck Lapre
Chuck
John J. Burness
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:15:31 GMT, John J. Burness wrote in
> aus.computers:
>
>
>>A 15" Monitor has always been a 15" Monitor!! The problem was this
>>dimension ONLY descibed the physical external dimensions & had NOTHING
>
>
> Wasn't it the TUBE size they referred to, not the CASE size?
>
> 17" CRT monitors still have 16-16.8" viewable area whereas 17" LCD are
> 17" viewable.
>
They have changed the way they refer to CRTs. Under the old system, you
were more likely to get significantly less than 16" viewable with a 17"
Tube.
The history goes back to the days when CRTs were totally round & the
dimension was based on the external dimension of the Tube diameter.
When eventually they started making rectangular Tubes (primarily for the
Consumer TV market), the nearest equivalent to the old diameter size was
the external diagonal size. It is this size that has been used up until
the current trend of specifying the Viewable Area size.
Just to add to the confusion, for many, many years the rectangular
display face (even for the old circular Tubes) had an "Aspect Ratio"
(Ratio of width to height) of 4:3. Some of the modern Wide-Screens have
Aspect Ratios of 16:9, whilst I believe it can also vary outside of
these Ratios now!!
Regards,
John
Trevor S
news:bvb6od$qe8sf$1...@ID-151056.news.uni-berlin.de:
<snip>
> I actual fact I ran across three definitions of "gigabyte" when
> looking at some hard disk specs on my Dell Dimension 4100 the other
> day -- depending on which source was quoting the data.
People may define a GB in many different ways as well as incorrectly use
nomenclature. Traditionally a standard is set and people stick to that, so
those not sticking to it will confuse the rest of us that do :)
The IEC set a new standard in 1998:
http://www.romulus2.com/articles/guides/misc/bitsbytes.shtml
--
Trevor S
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein
Gus
How about "decimal" or "base 10"?
Didn't know Dev Mgr used a different scheme - learn something new every
day on Usenet.