WD Caviar 300 GB?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matt
  • Start date Start date
M

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
 
Hey all.
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...
After the format, I get 265 GB usable space.
Click to expand...
Is this normal?
Yep.

35GB seems a bit excessive for housekeeping space.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

I was just curious about missing 14GB.
 
Thanks Rod.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear about all, he was a good guy
and answered a lot of my questions.
Click to expand...
Oh well.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
Sounds BS to me,
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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!?!?!!?
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Impmon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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>
 
Matt said:
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...
Click to expand...


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.
 
Matt said:
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).
Click to expand...

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

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"
 
Exactly.
Click to expand...

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

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,
Click to expand...

Thats actually what has happened with the international SI prefixes.
sorta like the Indiana legislature once declared that PI = 3.10.
Click to expand...

Nope, nothing like.
 
Maybe Intel should be required to mark their 3.8GHz cpus as
"Will not perform any faster then an AMD 2.4GHz cpu"
 
Bob said:
This confusing usage comes from programming in assembly language where
the Kilo prefix translates to 1,024 decimal.
Click to expand...

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,
Click to expand...

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

Tod said:
Maybe Intel should be required to mark their 3.8GHz cpus as
"Will not perform any faster then an AMD 2.4GHz cpu"
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top