WD Caviar 300 GB?

[Matt]

Hey all.

Bought a WD 300 GB caviar last night, formatted it (Windows XP PRO, all
the latest updates, etc).

After the format, I get 265 GB usable space.

Is this normal? 35GB seems a bit excessive for housekeeping space.

Thanks


Matt

 

[Rod Speed]

Hey all.

All topped himself, got to many posts.

Bought a WD 300 GB caviar last night, formatted it
(Windows XP PRO, all the latest updates, etc).

After the format, I get 265 GB usable space.

Is this normal?
Yep.

35GB seems a bit excessive for housekeeping space.

It isnt mostly housekeeping space.

Most of the difference is due to the hard drive manufacturers
all using decimal GBs, 10^9 bytes, and the size seen in the
OS often being reported in binary GBs, 2^whatever bytes.

 

[Peter]

Bought a WD 300 GB caviar last night, formatted it (Windows XP PRO, all
the latest updates, etc).

After the format, I get 265 GB usable space.

Is this normal? 35GB seems a bit excessive for housekeeping space.

Agree, tell us which WD model did you get and how you
got 265 GB number.

 

[Matt]

Thanks Rod.

Sorry to hear about all, he was a good guy and answered a lot of my
questions.

Oh well.

Thanks for the info - like always, I posted the question and then went
to the wd website, and saw that "for simplicity and consistency", they
report sizes in decimal.

Sounds BS to me, and I'm sure they have been doing this for years (I
always wondered why my drive never quite had the advertised capacity).
The amounts "lost" in the past never got my attention. But 35GB!?!?!!?

I fully realize it's just perception. But it's (IMO) also pretty
****ing cheesy. Why not fess up and put 265GB on the box (er, uh...
shrink wrapped retail plastic can't get this damn carton opened thing).


Oh well. It's not as if this was a big secret. Next time I'll know
better.

Thanks
Matt

 

[Matt]

Thanks Peter -

Model WD3000JBRTL

The 265 came from windows explorer, disk properties. Actually it
displays 279 GB, I screwed up with the 265 GB post.

Anyway I see now there isn't any problem, it's capacity is as
advertised (depending on how you look at it).

Matt

 

[Peter]

Model WD3000JBRTL

The 265 came from windows explorer, disk properties. Actually it
displays 279 GB, I screwed up with the 265 GB post.

Anyway I see now there isn't any problem, it's capacity is as
advertised (depending on how you look at it).

Aaa, thats better:
300,069,000,000 / ( 1024 * 1024 *1024) = 279.4

I was just curious about missing 14GB.

 

[Rod Speed]

Thanks Rod.

Sorry to hear about all, he was a good guy
and answered a lot of my questions.

Oh well.

The wake was hilarious.

Thanks for the info - like always, I posted the question and
then went to the wd website, and saw that "for simplicity
and consistency", they report sizes in decimal.

Sounds BS to me,

Nope. Its also the international SI standard unit.

While its a bit of a strange way to say it, its true
that it is more consistent to use decimal units
when they are universal with almost everything else.

The binary unit never made sense with hard
drives. It did make sense with memory which
has an intrinsically binary organisation.

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

and I'm sure they have been doing this for years

Yes, decades in fact now.

(I always wondered why my drive never quite had the advertised capacity).
The amounts "lost" in the past never got my attention. But 35GB!?!?!!?

Yeah, the difference has got more dramatic with the bigger drives.

I fully realize it's just perception. But it's (IMO) also pretty ****ing
cheesy. Why not fess up and put 265GB on the box (er, uh...
shrink wrapped retail plastic can't get this damn carton opened thing).

It would make a lot more sense to state the
space using decimal GBs in the OS and utes.

Oh well. It's not as if this was a big secret. Next time I'll know better.

Yep, you wont forget it until the Altzhiemer's takes over and by then you wont
care.

 

[Impmon]

The 265 came from windows explorer, disk properties. Actually it
displays 279 GB, I screwed up with the 265 GB post.

Anyway I see now there isn't any problem, it's capacity is as
advertised (depending on how you look at it).

279 is correct for a 300 GB drive. Drive manufactor always used 1GB =
1,000,000,000 bytes but in fact it's not how the OS displays. In this
case, the drive manufactor advertised the hard drive as having
300,000,000,000 bytes which translates to 279 GB. Here's how:

1,024 bytes equals 1 Kbyte
1,024 Kbyte equals 1 MB
1,024 MB equals 1 GB

So 300,000,000,000 equals 279.4 GB

I'd be nice if the hard drive manufactor stops using 1000 = 1 and
start displaying the number that would be displayed in computer.

 

[Bob Willard]

279 is correct for a 300 GB drive. Drive manufactor always used 1GB =
1,000,000,000 bytes but in fact it's not how the OS displays. In this
case, the drive manufactor advertised the hard drive as having
300,000,000,000 bytes which translates to 279 GB. Here's how:

1,024 bytes equals 1 Kbyte
1,024 Kbyte equals 1 MB
1,024 MB equals 1 GB

So 300,000,000,000 equals 279.4 GB

I'd be nice if the hard drive manufactor stops using 1000 = 1 and
start displaying the number that would be displayed in computer.

To give the devil (M$) his due, if you show the properties of a HD,
WinDuhs will display the space (used, free, and capacity) in bytes
and in (software) GBs. That dual display does, at least, make it
obvious how much space is "lost" due to M$'s spacey arithmetic.

My first choice would be for M$ to conform to SI standards for HD size
prefixes, as HD vendors do. But M$ will likely do what they want, and
the confusion will likely continue. <Sigh>

 

[Ron Reaugh]

Thanks Rod.

Sorry to hear about all, he was a good guy and answered a lot of my
questions.

Oh well.

Thanks for the info - like always, I posted the question and then went
to the wd website, and saw that "for simplicity and consistency", they
report sizes in decimal.

Sounds BS to me, and I'm sure they have been doing this for years (I
always wondered why my drive never quite had the advertised capacity).
The amounts "lost" in the past never got my attention. But 35GB!?!?!!?

I fully realize it's just perception. But it's (IMO) also pretty
****ing cheesy. Why not fess up and put 265GB on the box (er, uh...

No, a G stands for 1,000,000,000 and has since before computers existed.
Ask the IEEE etc. The drive mfgs units are correct. The OS usage is
parochial and new. The correct term for the binary GB is GiB but no one
uses it.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

Thanks Peter -

Model WD3000JBRTL

The 265 came from windows explorer, disk properties. Actually it
displays 279 GB, I screwed up with the 265 GB post.

Anyway I see now there isn't any problem, it's capacity is as
advertised (depending on how you look at it).

Exactly.

 

[Bob]

I'd be nice if the hard drive manufactor stops using 1000 = 1 and
start displaying the number that would be displayed in computer.

I don't mind that since we have become accustomed to it. What I find
to be disengenuous is when AMD brands their CPUs with a numerical
value which is easily misinterpreted as the internal speed. Then you
learn the truth.

For example the AMD "Athlon 64 3800+" is actually a 2.4GHz CPU.


--

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"Whatever crushes individuality is despotism."
--John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty"

 

[Bob]

Exactly.

This confusing usage comes from programming in assembly language where
the Kilo prefix translates to 1,024 decimal.

Maybe we can get the govt to legislate 1 KB = 1,000 bytes, sorta like
the Indiana legislature once declared that PI = 3.10.


--

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"Whatever crushes individuality is despotism."
--John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty"

 

[Rod Speed]

This confusing usage comes from programming in assembly
language where the Kilo prefix translates to 1,024 decimal.

Wrong, there is no K in assembler.

It actually comes for the specification of the size of memory, which
does have an intrinsically binary organisation. Nothing else does.

Maybe we can get the govt to legislate 1 KB = 1,000 bytes,

Thats actually what has happened with the international SI prefixes.

sorta like the Indiana legislature once declared that PI = 3.10.

Nope, nothing like.

 

[Tod]

Maybe Intel should be required to mark their 3.8GHz cpus as
"Will not perform any faster then an AMD 2.4GHz cpu"

 

[Ron Reaugh]

This confusing usage comes from programming in assembly language where
the Kilo prefix translates to 1,024 decimal.

Inappropriately so. It should be KiB is 1024 and K is 1000.

Maybe we can get the govt to legislate 1 KB = 1,000 bytes,

Actually I believe that there already has been a case ot two. K is 1000. M
is 1,000,000 and G is 1,000,000,000.

 

[Ron Reaugh]

Is Tod your last name? Is your first name re?

Maybe Intel should be required to mark their 3.8GHz cpus as
"Will not perform any faster then an AMD 2.4GHz cpu"

 

[Eric Gisin]

I had to kick my brain into overdrive for that one. groan...

 

[chrisv]

Is Tod your last name? Is your first name re?

Why do you ask, Rod^Hn? Do you have "Ronnie Retard" trademarked or
something?

 

[Guest]

Little k (kilo) is 1000. K is 1024. Two
different units, two different symbols.