Windows 7 Forums

Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: HDD's - the Advertized size vs the Actual size.

21 Sep 2009   #31
thefabe

Windows 7 ultimate 64 bit / XP Home sp3
 
 

All very interesting and informative amy way you look at it . Nice post thaks


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
01 Oct 2009   #32
jimbo45

Linux CENTOS 7 / various Windows OS'es and servers
 
 

Hi all
Like most of this stuff there's some truth and some mis-information in this thread.
The main sin is the sin of OMISSION (file system overhead).

The actual capacity depends on all sorts of factors most notably the FILE SYSTEM you are using.

When you format the device initially with say NTFS there's default cluster sizes - and this is not necessarily the optimum for the disk you actually have.

Using say a Linux or Unix type system with say ext3 as a file system you will certainly get a better use out of the drive as the whole file system manages directories and data areas much better than NTFS.

Even a 2 byte file in NTFS will occupy 4 - 64K depending on the options used to format the disk initially.

The 1TB / 500GB specification refers to the maximum UNFORMATTED size of the disk. Note in this context 1KB is actually 1024 bytes.

Formatting a disk (i.e installing a file system on it) will reduce the useable size of the disk by the amount of "overhead" in the file system - such as space for directory entries, link entries when a file expands ("aditional extents" as the jargon says) etc etc.

To get the best space use on an NTFS disk just google as there's Zillions of topics on "cluster size" etc etc.

Cheers
jimbo
My System SpecsSystem Spec
01 Oct 2009   #33
SquonkSC

Win7 Build 7600 x86
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by jimbo45 View Post
Hi all
Like most of this stuff there's some truth and some mis-information in this thread.
The main sin is the sin of OMISSION.

The actual capacity depends on all sorts of factors most notably the FILE SYSTEM you are using.

When you format the device initially with say NTFS there's default cluster sizes - and this is not necessarily the optimum for the disk you actually have.

Using say a Linux or Unix type system with say ext3 as a file system you will certainly get a better use out of the drive as the whole file system manages directories and data areas much better than NTFS.

Even a 2 byte file in NTFS will occupy 4 - 64K depending on the options used to format the disk initially.

The 1TB / 500GB specification refers to the maximum UNFORMATTED size of the disk. Note in this context 1KB is actually 1024 bytes.

Formatting a disk (i.e installing a file system on it) will reduce the useable size of the disk by the amount of "overhead" in the file system - such as space for directory entries, link entries when a file expands ("aditional extents" as the jargon says) etc etc.

To get the best space use on an NTFS disk just google as there's Zillions of topics on "cluster size" etc etc.

Cheers
jimbo
Although the info you provide is partly true,
your information has nothing to do with the point of the thread.

1. Unformatted or Formatted changes nothing to the physical amount,
nor does the filesystem.

2. That one file system occupies (steals) more space than others is true,
but that has nothing to do with the fact that 500gigabyte = 465gigibyte


We all know that a kilo stands for 1000,
but in every aspect of computing we all (miss)use Kilo for 1024,
where we should use Kibi.

But we do this consistently.

When you buy RAM that is advertised as 1Terabyte you get in fact
1Tebibyte = 1099.511.627.776 byte

When you buy a HDD that is advertised as 1Terabyte you get in fact 1Terabyte = 1000.000.000.000 byte.

Although the disk manufacturer is absolutely right, they clearly use this common misconception to their advantage.

And no matter how you format that disk or what OS you put on it,
it will always remain 1000.000.000.000 byte.

greetz
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

01 Oct 2009   #34
H2SO4

Win7x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by jimbo45 View Post
Using say a Linux or Unix type system with say ext3 as a file system you will certainly get a better use out of the drive as the whole file system manages directories and data areas much better than NTFS.
Really? How exactly?

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by jimbo45 View Post
Even a 2 byte file in NTFS will occupy 4 - 64K depending on the options used to format the disk initially.
No. The contents of a small file are physically stored within that file's MFT record. In other words, it does not consume an entire cluster for its "2 bytes".

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by jimbo45 View Post
The 1TB / 500GB specification refers to the maximum UNFORMATTED size of the disk. Note in this context 1KB is actually 1024 bytes.
No. The point of squonksc's excellent post is to explain that, where HDDs and similar storage media are concerned, "1KB" is actually 1,000 bytes - it's a real KiloByte in the SI sense of that prefix, and not a KibiByte (a binary "kilo").
My System SpecsSystem Spec
01 Oct 2009   #35
SquonkSC

Win7 Build 7600 x86
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by H2SO4 View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by jimbo45 View Post
Even a 2 byte file in NTFS will occupy 4 - 64K depending on the options used to format the disk initially.
No. The contents of a small file are physically stored within that file's MFT record. In other words, it does not consume an entire cluster for its "2 bytes".
That would be one of the main advantages of NTFS vs Fat32?

Where the cluster size would heavily influence the amount of slack?

The advantage being undone, by the huge amount of reserved space for MFT.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
04 Oct 2009   #36
Znuff

Build #7600, Ultimate, x64
 
 

The 1024/1000 is actually not related to the manufacturers "getting away with it". It's a simple thing.

We (old time computer users, programmers etc.) normally think of Kilo, Mega etc. prefixes to mean 1024x. While this has been the accepted when computers were used only by technical people, and we knew that 1 KiloByte = 1024 bytes. BUT for most people KILO means 1000, unconditionally. Think of KiloMeter, KiloGram etc.

So, to piece it all together, in the International System of Units (SI) [ie: the stuff that US and UK guys don't use] a KILObyte equals 1000 Bytes, 1 MEGAbyte equals 1000 KILObytes and so on. While, in the same SI 1 KibiByte = 1024 Bytes, 1MibiByte = 1024 KibiBytes and so on.

Manufacturers just measure in the International System of Units, while our computer OS-es (Windows, especially) measure our datas with the normal binary measures (KibiBytes, MibiBytes etc.) while incorectly using the names of the measures and their short forms (KB instead of KiB, MB instead of MiB, GB instead of GiB).


Hope I didn't confuse anyone.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
04 Oct 2009   #37
SquonkSC

Win7 Build 7600 x86
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Znuff View Post
The 1024/1000 is actually not related to the manufacturers "getting away with it". It's a simple thing.

We (old time computer users, programmers etc.) normally think of Kilo, Mega etc. prefixes to mean 1024x. While this has been the accepted when computers were used only by technical people, and we knew that 1 KiloByte = 1024 bytes. BUT for most people KILO means 1000, unconditionally. Think of KiloMeter, KiloGram etc.

So, to piece it all together, in the International System of Units (SI) [ie: the stuff that US and UK guys don't use] a KILObyte equals 1000 Bytes, 1 MEGAbyte equals 1000 KILObytes and so on. While, in the same SI 1 KibiByte = 1024 Bytes, 1MibiByte = 1024 KibiBytes and so on.

Manufacturers just measure in the International System of Units, while our computer OS-es (Windows, especially) measure our datas with the normal binary measures (KibiBytes, MibiBytes etc.) while incorectly using the names of the measures and their short forms (KB instead of KiB, MB instead of MiB, GB instead of GiB).


Hope I didn't confuse anyone.
Though true, your post adds nothing to all that's been said before.

The disk manufacturers are the only ones that use the kilo as it should.
Nobody else in the industry does.
How convenient for them.

The point of the thread is to explain why an advertised 500gb is 465gb on the computer.
That's what I did.

Greetz
My System SpecsSystem Spec
04 Oct 2009   #38
Znuff

Build #7600, Ultimate, x64
 
 

Actually, more than 50% of the population uses kilo as it should be. Go ask 10 random on the street how many BYTES is a KILO BYTE and at least 5 of them will tell you 1000

Also, the same applies to CD/DVD/BluRay/HD-DVD etc. mediums
My System SpecsSystem Spec
04 Oct 2009   #39
SquonkSC

Win7 Build 7600 x86
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Znuff View Post
Actually, more than 50% of the population uses kilo as it should be. Go ask 10 random on the street how many BYTES is a KILO BYTE and at least 5 of them will tell you 1000

Also, the same applies to CD/DVD/BluRay/HD-DVD etc. mediums
I was talking about everybody in the industry, not random noobs on the street.
Show me one technician that calls 1024 bytes a kibibyte?
It was suggested by some in the industry to use kibibyte, but it didn't happen.
And except for storage manufacturers, every one else in the industry still uses kilobyte to express 1024 bytes.

And though the noobs might say a kilo is 1000,
when they find out their 500gb disk only contains 465gb they are surprised.

Once again, and for the last time, that is the whole point of the thread.
Telling me the hdd manufacturers are actually right, again and again is pointless, cause I know.

I bet you that if they were to pay their taxes per sold kilobyte,
they would say their 500gb disk is actually 465gb. Get my point?
My System SpecsSystem Spec
04 Oct 2009   #40
jimbo45

Linux CENTOS 7 / various Windows OS'es and servers
 
 

Actually the File system is important -- How do you know that the disk is actually less than 500 GB. Presumably you must have put some data on it or formatted it in some way. All file systems have directory overhead etc which reduce the amount of available DATA space on the disk.

What is Windows telling you in any case -- the physical data size of the disk or what Windows actually sees and can use.

Looking at the packaging of one of my older powered 500 GB USB ext drives I see that the spec refers to 500 GB Unformatted capacity and mentions that the actual amount may be less after formatting it.

The "Native" amount of the disk before you format it can probably be seen in your BIOS before the system boots into the OS.

The measurement here should refect the theoretical maximum capacity of the disk drive (it should show you details such as Sectors / heads / cylinders etc).

Cheers
jimbo
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 HDD's - the Advertized size vs the Actual size.




Thread Tools




Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
"Windows Backup size" not reflecting actual backup file size
I'm having a problem with a system image (C: drive and System Reserved drive, that I made with a scheduled Windows Backup) and its size. I have a D: drive where I store it. First of all, I noticed this in D: drive properties: http://i.imgur.com/1ZAmdW2.jpg http://i.imgur.com/P73edVm.jpg ...
Backup and Restore
Actual print size when printing picures
Hi, I work quite a bit with photos and images. Since Windows 7 there no longer seems to be any way of printing pictures in their actual size and their actual resolution. There's just this wizard that assumes you want to print a standard photo size. The problem is that some of the images I work...
Music, Pictures & Video
change taskbar icon size to specific size other than small or large?
Hi to all. Can we change taskbar icons' size to a specific size other than two default windows defined sizes? Tnx.
Customization
150% size zoom in makes Chrome and Adobe Reader overblown size
150% size zoom in corrupts Chrome and Adobe Reader - Windows Forum - Computer Support Forums I have my Windows set to 150% zoom (otherwise it becomes hard to aim at the little buttons in order to click them) It's really nice to have the buttons really big in the list of options that come up...
General Discussion
How Do I Make 1024x768 the Actual Display Size?
Running W7, 64. Have a wide-screen LCD monitor, and I want 1024x768, period. That will chop some screen area off each side, fine. But even with the 1024x768 setting, the display is stretched horizontally and shrunken vertically, so photos look awful. How to fix?
Graphic Cards
Resizing Gadgets using the Larger Size/Smaller Size Button
I'm wanting to resize my gadget I developed with the Larger Size/Smaller button. Currently, I have two separate main gadget html files. The only difference between them is the background image, size, and the orientation of the icons. I noticed other built-in gadgets like Weather and CPU meter...
Customization


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

© Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:53.
Twitter Facebook Google+ Seven Forums iOS App Seven Forums Android App