Do I Really Have a 40GB Drive 2

[marchristensen]

Just got a new Dell notebook. Disk management says:
Partition Basic FAT Capacity 47MG
Partition Basic FAT32 Capacity 3.49GB
Partition NTFS Capacity 33.70GB
This adds up to 37GB. Dell tells me the remaining 3GB is used by XP operating system. Is this true? Or am I missing space. I thought it would add up to 40GB.
Thanks

 

[wolluf]

This is the old 'what is a gigabyte' question (search this site you'll find it many times).

Disk manufacturers define gigabyte as 1,000,000,000 bytes (so 40GB drive is 40,000,000,000 bytes). Windows generally uses definition of 1024 cubed (1,073,741,824 bytes) - with some definitions between these. So 40GB drive may appear as 40,000,000,000/1,073,741,824 GB in windows = 37.25GB.

 

[cdogg]

Just want to elaborate a bit more on what wolluf said...

The explanation you received from Dell that the "XP operating system" is using up the remaining 3GB is false. Also in wolluf's post, it's not Windows that sets the definition. I'll explain.

If you break down your motherboard into the individual transistors that it is made up of, you'll see what I mean. A transistor has two states on or off, which translates in binary as 1 or 0. Because of these two simple states, the entire system is made up from a base of 2.

So regardless of how you define a byte, any higher power must use the base 2 instead of the decimal system which uses the base 10. That's why when you refer to a kilobyte, your talking about 1024 bytes (2^10 = 1024).


I could go even further, but the point is not to assume that "software" has anything to do with it. It is the hardware that determines why your drive is only being reported as 37GB. Somewhere down the line when drives went over 1GB in size, the marketing department of some hard drive manufacturer saw an opportunity of re-defining what the word gigabyte really meant. Over time, the amount of space you lost grew. Can you imagine what someone in your shoes is feeling when they find out their 200GB drive is really only 186GB (a loss of 14 in their mind)?

However, binary systems have been around much longer than any business that has dealt with them. They never had the right to say their drives were 40GB in the first place.


Sorry for the rant, but I just felt motivated today!



~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[wolluf]

cdogg - never knew you cared!

love, the real gigabyte
XXXX

 

[cdogg]

I fight for the working class...

Sincerely,
[tab]The "original" BIOS

 

[marchristensen]

Of all the forums I visit, this one definitely has the smartest contributors. Many thanks for the explanation. It was clear and concise - - everything I could want. I have already thanked you with stars. Wish I had more to give. Thanks again.

 

[bjdobs]

Hmmm

The Dell techs description while being simple was probably either not interpreted correctly or not conveyed properly ... Dell ships all of their systems with a diags partition (FAT32) which has nothing to do with XP ... plus all OS's have an overhead which should be deducted from the overall "available" space ... dos used to report the usable space I haven't looked at the Win reports to verify what is being reported ... norton utilities used to report all sorts of info regarding disk usage. In FAT32 for example the minimum size any file could take up on a disk depended on the size of the Fat32 cluster size where a cluster is made up of N sectors. So if you had a 10 byte file it could actually use from 4K and up space on your disk. I suspect that is no longer an issue in NTFS? Regardless the minimum size of any file should be 512 bytes plus its associated overhead.

Also not to detract from the confusion/frustration caused by the inconsistency of reporting SIZE in base 2 or base 10 ... is CDOGG implying that the Hard Drive Manufactures are short changing the consumer?

As far as I understand a number reported in base 2 or base 10 is still the same number. As Joe User is a base 10 kind of person, he/she won't be expecting that 40G is in BASE 2.

To go further into the math all drives consist of sectors which are 512 bytes (half of the base 2 1024) which is the smallest factor ... the number of sectors "available" on a drive * 512 is then the base 10 value ... dividing that number by a factor of 1024 is then the base 2 value ... the drive manufactures would choose to report the base 10 because it sounds better (bigger) but they are not misleading anyone ... a 40G drive has at least 40G bytes (base 10).

I doubt the game played in the manufacturing of large scale devices like memory or in this case HD's has changed ... there are always defects in large scale manufacturing ... to make the manufacturing economical they make devices with more capability then the final product requires ... with memory chips they normally produce only one chip ... this chip is then tested for speed and potential size ... the chip is then packaged for its best specs.

I expect the 40, 60, 80, 120, 160, 250 etc drives are most likely all manufactured at the highest possible size/speed as well and after testing they will set the internal sector tables so that you get enough sectors to meet the products reported Size

 

[bjdobs]

Just checked my Dell ... it has a 60G drive

The XP properties for the drive show that I have a 55.8G (Base 2) drive ... the number of bytes reported is 59,970,514,944 (base 10) ... add to that 31M (the Diag Partition) and you have 60G (Base 10)

 

[wolluf]

bjdobs - glad you got that out of your system!

 

[bjdobs]

OK the answer is YES! A 40G IS a 40G drive

... is that better?

sorry for the digression(s) ...

From my perspective sometimes more is better because we don't all start at the same level of knowledge

Understanding what goes on on a drive used to be important but as files get sloppier and drives get bigger no one seems to care anymore.

 

[cdogg]

bjdobs,
You know you're looking for trouble when you revive an old thread for the sake of arguing a moot point!



There's one important thing you and your resource (

http://www.wiebetech.com/pressreleases/BillionEqualBillion.pdf)

fail to recognize. Computers were around long before hard drives. You have to be more than a math major to know how the electrical components function. It's all binary my friend. You remember all those tiny, little transistors you've read about in school and in the news (especially in my post above)? Well yep, you guessed it. They only have two basic states - on (1) and off (0) - which is known as a bit.

Decimal is not something represented by an individual transistor. Because of this fact, any decimal value used in a computer comes from binary (or the base 2). It is not the other way around, as many "mathematicians" like to assume. 8 bits, for example, represent integer values from 0 to 255 forming the computer term, byte.

So explain to me why a hard drive should be any different? A hard drive's only interaction is with a computer. It doesn't, and never has, made sense to report a hard drive's capacity in terms of decimal. When you download a file, install a program, or try to explain to your in-laws how to free up room in their online email account, the key word is space.

"[maroon]How much space is that going to take up?[/maroon]", that's the question. The only numbers you're going to find as an answer are in base 2. Nope, no base 10 here. That's where hard drive manufacturer's are being a bit deceptive. The truth is that they never intended to be. Back when drives first came out, the computer kilo- and mega- terms were not yet defined. But in my opinion, it is long overdue that they go back and correct themselves to report true "storage capacities" for tomorrow's drives.

Pretty soon they'll have too. Once you get up to 500GB drives and beyond, the missing # of gigs gets into the 50's and 60's. When that happens, I'll be right back in this thread with an update!!!

If you want to remain convinced that the mechanical divisions within a hard drive override the essential building blocks of a PC (the transistor), then go right ahead.
[LOL]


As I've always said:
[blue]"There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary, and those who do not."[/blue]



~cdogg

 

[bjdobs]

This is turning into a flame ... totally NOT my intention ... Tek-Tips is for sharing information which we have all done ... so lets stop kicking each other ... the only reason I jumped in here was because cdogg's comment seemed to be saying the Drives are missing GBytes of space which is only correct from the Base 2 perspective

I am a bit basher from way back almost 30 years worth ... the frustration of the reporting of specs hasn't changed since I started working with HW/SW ... Product Advertising will always use the metric that makes their product seem bigger then the other guys ... period.

40G base 2 is not equal to 40G base 10 ... TRUE!!!

But most hard drives are being advertised in Base 10 Metrics ... so 40G is 40,000,000,000 bytes + or minus a few BYTES (NOT Giga BYTES) ... the number of bytes will not always be exactly equal to the base 10 value because of the sector factor 512 bytes (which IS based on BASE 2)

end of story ... OK ... we are all correct.

As for dredging up old information ... I have found that the tek-tips search engine is not always working plus it is sometimes quicker to ask a question that probably has been answered then to try and find an answer specifically not knowing what key words to use in a search ... I generally will search for no more then 10 minutes before I give up and ask a question ... I am certain that for most people this is the same issue. There is one side effect of search that I also find distracting and that is you get off on tagents like this one! I was searching for FAT32 extended partitions when I read this thread.

Tek-Tips is still the greatest!

 

[cdogg]

bjdobs,

Nope, no flame intended. It is only a flame if you take it as such. If you noticed, I backed any talk with an explanation, so I apologize if you took any real offense.

Just a last couple comments...

Originally, my goal was just to point out the difference between labeling gigabyte or 1 "trillion" bytes. If manufacturers want to label their drives in decimal form, they need to refrain from using the term gigabyte, which is undoubtedly a PC term in this day and age relating to binary. At some point long ago, you could have argued otherwise, using the root meaning of the prefix "giga". But this isn't English class, and we're all smart enough to know that we want the numbers as they relate to computers. Decimal just doesn't cut it in this arena.

bjdobs, I respect your opinion, I really do. But like others who have been confused and need to hear this same explanation (over and over again), won't you at least agree that the use of decimal is a pointless waste of time? It doesn't do anyone a favor, except the marketing department.

If you want to know how much space a hard drive has, you must know the binary equivalent.

Before you jumped in, I could give a rat's rear on why it's being done. But to hear someone defend it just rattles me!


~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[bjdobs]

Thanx cdogg I see where you're coming from now ... no offense taken ... also my goal wasn't to defend the process just explain it. It doesn't matter to me how giga is used as long as I know the context it is used in. Life's too short to worry about small stuff like that

nuff said