|
| >Well, you appear to making some progress. You've gone from a false premise
that
| >one should expect "on losing 15-20 gb for the drive index" to one of an
imagined
| >conspiracy by the drive manufacturers to deceive the consumer.
| >
| >There may be hope for you yet....but I personally doubt it.
| >
| >|
| If you had only learnt some fundamental computing (before windows) and the use
| of binary code, we should never have wasted bandwidth on this discussion.
|
You just made another bad assumption. My computer programming experience started
back in 1969 on a DEC PDP-8L mini-computer.
And it wasn't wasted bandwidth if you learned anything at all, however
reluctently.
|
| >| On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 10:24:04 -0500, "Snarky Parker" <
[email protected]>
wrote:
| >|
| >| >You appear to have missed the whole point of this discussion.
| >| >
| >| >Here's an actual example you should understand: I have a WD drive that is
| >rated
| >| >as 160 GB capacity. Windows reports it as "160,039,239,680 bytes 148 GB".
No
| >| >matter what scale is used to convert bytes to gigabytes, the basic
capacity
| >of
| >| >the drive doesn't change.
| >|
| >| Computer Techs count to 1024 decimal for kilo 'byte' as should also the
| >| computer buyer. If the word 'byte' is used then it is not decimal - it is
not
| >| really that hard to understand.
| >| It follows that someone selling a 200GB disk is bloody dishonest if he
knows
| >| that there are only 185GB or thereabouts which is a fact.
| >| Realise we are dealing with computers, not potatoes unless you sell them by
| >| kilobytes in Florida, we use kilograms in Australia.
| >|
| >|
| >| >
| >| >And you're also wrong about the outside temperature here in Central
| >| >Florida...it's 45 degrees Fahrenheit...a little too cool for a swim.
| >| >
| >| >| >| >| On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 06:00:11 -0500, "Snarky Parker" <
[email protected]>
| >wrote:
| >| >|
| >| >| >FWIW, I think you'll find that the space taken up by the Master Boot
| >Record
| >| >is
| >| >| >minimal.
| >| >| Who on earth was taking of the master boot record except people in
Florida.
| >| >| When you are formatting a drive there is a lot more going in than the
| >master
| >| >| boot record.
| >| >| >
| >| >| >I also think you'll find no dishonesty involved in WD statements about
| >drive
| >| >| >capacity and you'll be happy to know that Windows uses the binary
system
| >for
| >| >| >abbreviated measurement of files and drive capacity.
| >| >|
| >| >| That is a typical salesman idea. If we as computer people accept that 1
kb
| >is
| >| >| 1024 then we shall expect that people who refer to 200GB mean that as an
| >| >honest
| >| >| statement of fact not a fairy idea of some dishonest sales people.
| >| >| I have now changed my 200GB disk to 200D disks - so sorry.
| >| >|
| >| >| >BTW, it's now 45 degrees outside where I live.
| >| >| Seems to me that you should be sitting in the pool cooling off as I know
| >where
| >| >| you live.
| >| >|
| >| >|
| >| >| That's an honest statement.
| >| >| >Question: Is it cold or hot outside? You don't know for sure unless you
| >know
| >| >| >whether I'm referring to the Centigrade or Fahrenheit scale.
| >| >| >
| >| >| >| >| >| >| On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 08:49:26 +0800, nesredep egrob
<
[email protected]>
| >| >wrote:
| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| >On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 14:58:48 -0500, "Snarky Parker"
<
[email protected]>
| >| >wrote:
| >| >| >| >
| >| >| >| >>There is no loss real involved, it's how the capacity is being
| >measured,
| >| >| >using
| >| >| >| >>either the binary system or the decimal system. Read this FAQ for
| >| >details:
| >| >| >| >>
| >| >| >| >>Why is my drive displaying a smaller than expected capacity than
the
| >| >| >indicated
| >| >| >| >>size on the drive label?
| >| >| >|
| >| >|
| >|
|&
| >p
| >| >_
| >| >|
| >|
|p
| >Z
| >| >H
| >| >|
| >|
|*
| >&
| >| >p
| >| >| >_li=&p_topview=1
| >| >| >| >>
| >| >| >| >>A drive that's rated as 160 GB (160,000,000,000 bytes) by the
| >| >manufacturer
| >| >| >is
| >| >| >| >>using the decimal system to convert bytes to gigabytes. In Windows,
| >this
| >| >| >would
| >| >| >| >>show up as 149 GB and 160,000,000,000 bytes in the Properties.
| >| >| >| >>
| >| >| >| >>Your 200 GB drive should read approximately as 186 GB in Windows.
| >| >| >| >>
| >| >| >| >>It's similar to temperature readings done in Centigrade vs.
| >| >| >Fahrenheit....the
| >| >| >| >>numbers may be different but the actual temperature remains the
same.
| >| >| >| >>
| >| >| >| >At one time when my German Shepherd was a pup and I took long walks
| >with
| >| >her,
| >| >| >I
| >| >| >| >was forced to think things through and I came to the conclusion that
a
| >| >disk
| >| >| >has
| >| >| >| >to be formatted. Formatting would mean creating an index just like
in a
| >| >book.
| >| >| >| >Now imagine the size of a book index if there was an entry for every
| >2000
| >| >th
| >| >| >| >character rather than for each chapter.
| >| >| >| >
| >| >| >| >In NTFS you have a system where the smallest file is 2kb. Therefore
a
| >disk
| >| >of
| >| >| >2
| >| >| >| >MB would have 1000 entries and 2 GB 1million entries therefore 200
gb
| >| >would
| >| >| >be
| >| >| >| >10million entries.
| >| >| >| >
| >| >| >| >For each such entry I fancied there would be a 64bit address. I am
not
| >| >sure
| >| >| >how
| >| >| >| >much that would come to and not even sure that such a simple system
is
| >| >what
| >| >| >| >formatting does. However as the system is binary, we cannot work
| >decimals
| >| >for
| >| >| >an
| >| >| >| >index so the index would have to be multiplied with some figure to
| >arrive
| >| >at
| >| >| >a
| >| >| >| >binary numbered index. Indeed the addresses would have to be 64bit
as
| >| >| >mentioned
| >| >| >| >and together, I suppose we very quickly would arrive at a figure of
| >about
| >| >| >15GB
| >| >| >| >which is the difference between a manufacturers quote of 200GB and
the
| >| >actual
| >| >| >| >185GB available.
| >| >| >| >
| >| >| >| >This of course falls far from the truth if manufacturers are quoting
a
| >| >figure
| >| >| >| >for a fomatted disk but that is hardly likely as they would want to
| >| >present
| >| >| >is
| >| >| >| >as big as advertising legally allowed.
| >| >| >| >
| >| >| >| >>| >| >| >| >>| On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:15:02 -0800, man
| ><
[email protected]>
| >| >| >wrote:
| >| >| >| >>|
| >| >| >| >>| >Thanks all first
| >| >| >| >>| >
| >| >| >| >>| >Since it still show 137G now after modify the registry, is it
just
| >| >format
| >| >| >| >>| >the D: in disk management then it will become 160G ?
| >| >| >| >>|
| >| >| >| >>| There will be some loss. My 200 Gb Drive is partitioned but when
you
| >| >add
| >| >| >up
| >| >| >| >>the
| >| >| >| >>| individual parttions you will find that I have only got 185GB
| >available
| >| >| >for
| >| >| >| >>| programs and data. You must recon on losing 15-20 gb for the
drive
| >| >index.
| >| >| >| >>| 23 gb for a 160gb disk seems a bit too much.
| >| >| >| >>|
| >| >| >| >>| Borge
| >| >| >| >>| >
| >| >| >| As you will notice, I am not related to Bill Gates. I never thought
that
| >| >| >anyone
| >| >| >| could be as dishonest as to measure anything in decimals when talking
of
| >| >| >| computers.
| >| >| >| However I have read the article from Western Digital and I am sorry
to
| >see
| >| >| >that
| >| >| >| they also are involved in this mess.
| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| Hard to find any honesty anywhere. A bit hard to believe that bytes
are
| >now
| >| >| >| measured in digital - but it seems to be so. Therefore as we need an
| >index
| >| >we
| >| >| >| are in for even lesser storage area.
| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| I think therefore that disks should be measured in a standard way and
| >that
| >| >| >would
| >| >| >| be binary and indeed in actual storage area after the formatting has
| >been
| >| >| >done.
| >| >| >|
| >| >| >| Borge
| >| >| >
| >| >
| >
