WD Hard Drive Size Issue

[Folkert Rienstra]

That size is correct. Microsoft uses the wrong units:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix

Side note: If you do not install SP2, Windows will destroy your
data at some point, unless you only use the first 128GB of the drive.

Hey babblebot, how can you use diskspace over 128GiB if Windows shows
only 128GiB.

And it's quite stupid of you to mock Microsoft and then use the same wrong
units yourself.

It is a knowen issue.

Of which you obviously only have half a clue.

 

[Rod Speed]

I would suggest you re-read the article.

No need.

Microsoft is not using the "wrong units",

Fraid so.

it is the drive manufactures that are presenting
drives sizes which are technically wrong for the
purpose of making the capacity look larger.

Nope, the SI standard is the decimal GBs,
so the hard drive manufacturers are correct.

Microsoft on the other hand, is showing you the
correct actual values in Giga-Bytes and Bytes.

Nope, the SI standard GB is the decimal form.

Using the articles value of 30,064,771,072 Bytes,
it could also be binary converted to read as:

29,360,128 Mega-Bytes
28,672 Kilo-Bytes
28 Giga-Bytes

All of these equal the same amount. The article talks about this,
and how the drive manufactures try to confuse some people.

The article is just plain wrong on that.

And, it absolutely doesn't do anyone any good
to display only one converted value for everything.

That is the SI standard and the hard drive manufactures
make it VERY clear that they are using decimal GBs.

That's a load of crap.

What is ? If 48LBA support is not provided, you will get corruption.

 

[Rod Speed]

Only the

Been that way for years!

As for the OP;

You still need to run their software to change registry settings in windows.

Not with XP he doesnt.

 

[Garrot]

Class action is over, settled. If you've bought a WD drive you can
download some backup software for free. Whoop. (Not that WD was guilty
of anything.)

Why was WD sued and not other HDD manufacturers? They all use the same
measurement for HDD capacity.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Michael Cecil wrote:

Why was WD sued and not other HDD manufacturers? They all use the same
measurement for HDD capacity.

I think WD actually diod something worse than SI. SI is clearly
correct. But, say, 159'000'000'000 bytes sold as 160GB would
be fraud.

Arno

 

[Eric Gisin]

I think WD actually diod something worse than SI. SI is clearly
correct. But, say, 159'000'000'000 bytes sold as 160GB would
be fraud.

Bullshit Arnie.
Look at advertised engine displacement (eg 1200cc), actual value is always
less.

 

[DaveW]

Windows XP can ONLY recognize harddrive sizes up to 137 GB unformatted UNTIL
you load SP2.

 

[Rod Speed]

Michael Cecil wrote

Why was WD sued and not other HDD manufacturers?

Just because the legal parasites involved in that scam decided
that they were the best legal prospect.

They all use the same measurement for HDD capacity.

Yep, but dont all necessarily state it the same way as clearly,
particularly stating the total bytes on the outside of the box etc.

The WD claim is complicated by other detail too silly to bother with.

 

[Rod Speed]

Windows XP can ONLY recognize harddrive sizes up to 137 GB unformatted UNTIL you load
SP2.

SP1 is fine too.

 

[kony]

SP1 is fine too.

The registry hack works too.

 

[Rod Speed]

The registry hack works too.

Nope, if you dont have the drivers that support
48bit LBA, no change in the registry will fix that.

 

[kony]

Nope, if you dont have the drivers that support
48bit LBA, no change in the registry will fix that.

Yes I believe you're right, though the driver was part of
some prior patch too so a system could still do it without
SP1.

 

[Garrot]

The WD claim is complicated by other detail too silly to bother with.

Ok, thx for the clarifiction. Think I'll sue Seagate today.

I remember when I first got into computers and bought my first add-on
HDD I actually called up WD asking why my HDD was smaller than
advertised. This was before I was on the internet so couldn't just look
it up. The tech was a bit rude to me when he explained the reason why.
Like neophytes are supposed to know this already or something.

 

[Garrot]

What is ? If 48LBA support is not provided, you will get corruption.

Would this explain why my 160Gb HDD corrupted after I formatted it with
Partition Magic 8 NTFS 3.1 instead of in XP SP2?

 

[kony]

Would this explain why my 160Gb HDD corrupted after I formatted it with
Partition Magic 8 NTFS 3.1 instead of in XP SP2?

No, regardless of how you'd formatted it, it would be
windows writing beyond the 128GB area on the drive.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Would this explain why my 160Gb HDD corrupted after I formatted it with Partition Magic
8 NTFS 3.1 instead of in XP SP2?

Nar, different issue.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

No, regardless of how you'd formatted it, it would be
windows writing beyond the 128GB area on the drive.

Not if Windows would not have allowed it to format to
a size bigger that 128GiB in the first place.
Once that safeguard is out of the way by using another product
that ignored the limit the system thinks that the requested block address
is valid and it falls flat on it's face trying to address it without using
48-bit LBA addressing.

 

[Garrot]

No, regardless of how you'd formatted it, it would be
windows writing beyond the 128GB area on the drive.

No, I was using SP2. This was on a secondary HDD and not the system HDD.
I had formatted it in PM8 and when I booted to XP it wanted to run a
chkdsk on it. Everything seemed fine until a few hours later I went to
download a file to it in Opera and Opera froze. Forced Opera to close
with task manager. Looked at explorer and noticed my D: drive was
missing. Booted up PM8 and had it check the drive. PM reported cross
linked files and corrupted files. Deleted the existing partiton so it
was RAW again. Booted to XP and had it do a format. Drive has been fine
since.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Rod Speed wrote:

Would this explain why my 160Gb HDD corrupted after I formatted it with
Partition Magic 8 NTFS 3.1 instead of in XP SP2?

Partition Magic can corrupt disks entirely by itself and without
good reason. Don't trust that product.

Arno

 

[kony]

No, I was using SP2.

That's not a guarantee.

This was on a secondary HDD and not the system HDD.

That doesn't matter.

I had formatted it in PM8

Formated or partitioned?

and when I booted to XP it wanted to run a
chkdsk on it.

From the last time you'd done something to it?

Everything seemed fine until a few hours later I went to
download a file to it in Opera and Opera froze. Forced Opera to close
with task manager. Looked at explorer and noticed my D: drive was
missing. Booted up PM8 and had it check the drive. PM reported cross
linked files and corrupted files. Deleted the existing partiton so it
was RAW again. Booted to XP and had it do a format. Drive has been fine
since.

There is some addt'l factor not revealed yet, as I can tell
you with certainty that I have (without this problem you
had):

1) Partitioned with PM8
2) Formatted with PM8 (and/or, for different drives-)
3) Formatted later with WinXP
4) Had no problem with chkdsk, nor corruption.