Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Windows 64bit (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f46-windows-64bit.html)
-   -   x64 see's 233GB not 250GB. (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t489375-x64-sees-233gb-not-250gb.html)

=?Utf-8?B?TWFyaw==?= 09-23-2005 01:52 PM

x64 see's 233GB not 250GB.
 
I have 4 diamondmax 250GB hard drives. I am runnung XP PRO x64, but the OS
always shows the HDD's as having only 233 GB of space (obviosly less on the
boot disc). Why is this? It also happens when using the onboard Nvidia RAID
or x64 software RAID.
Secondly how do I encourage the system to use more physical RAM rather
virtual RAM. I have 8G but more virtual is being used. Is this application
dependant or something that can be changed within the OS.

Kindest Regards

Mark

DKI 09-23-2005 02:14 PM

Re: x64 see's 233GB not 250GB.
 
That will be the actual size of the HDD, most manufuctures count up by
1000mb for simplicity instead of 1024mb which is 1GB
>

"Mark" <Mark@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9E231939-F346-46B5-B3B9-E4B2B0B50F62@microsoft.com...
>I have 4 diamondmax 250GB hard drives. I am runnung XP PRO x64, but the OS
> always shows the HDD's as having only 233 GB of space (obviosly less on
> the
> boot disc). Why is this? It also happens when using the onboard Nvidia
> RAID
> or x64 software RAID.
> Secondly how do I encourage the system to use more physical RAM rather
> virtual RAM. I have 8G but more virtual is being used. Is this application
> dependant or something that can be changed within the OS.
>
> Kindest Regards
>
> Mark




Rick 09-23-2005 02:23 PM

Re: x64 see's 233GB not 250GB.
 
This is something that has existed since the first hard drives were
produced. The figures for the capacity for the hard drives are
expressed in two different manners; one figure is decimal based and the
other is binary based. The decimal figure is always higher because in
decimal 1K=1,000. In binary 1K=1,024. You won't get the two to match
by dividing 250GB by 1,024 though because there is some reserved space
when the drive is formatted.

My 80GB Hitachi show a capacity of 82,335,019,008 bytes and 76.6 GB in
the General tab of the system properties. The one in bytes is decimal,
the on in GB is binary. But is you divide 82,335,019,008 by 1.024 the
result is 80,405,292,000.

So, there is nothing wrong, or unusual, about you drive capacity figures.



Mark wrote:
> I have 4 diamondmax 250GB hard drives. I am runnung XP PRO x64, but the OS
> always shows the HDD's as having only 233 GB of space (obviosly less on the
> boot disc). Why is this? It also happens when using the onboard Nvidia RAID
> or x64 software RAID.
> Secondly how do I encourage the system to use more physical RAM rather
> virtual RAM. I have 8G but more virtual is being used. Is this application
> dependant or something that can be changed within the OS.
>
> Kindest Regards
>
> Mark


John Barnes 09-23-2005 02:45 PM

Re: x64 see's 233GB not 250GB.
 
The formatted size is smaller than the original size


"Mark" <Mark@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9E231939-F346-46B5-B3B9-E4B2B0B50F62@microsoft.com...
>I have 4 diamondmax 250GB hard drives. I am runnung XP PRO x64, but the OS
> always shows the HDD's as having only 233 GB of space (obviosly less on
> the
> boot disc). Why is this? It also happens when using the onboard Nvidia
> RAID
> or x64 software RAID.
> Secondly how do I encourage the system to use more physical RAM rather
> virtual RAM. I have 8G but more virtual is being used. Is this application
> dependant or something that can be changed within the OS.
>
> Kindest Regards
>
> Mark




=?Utf-8?B?TWFyaw==?= 09-23-2005 03:08 PM

Re: x64 see's 233GB not 250GB.
 
Thank you , that makes sense.

"Rick" wrote:

> This is something that has existed since the first hard drives were
> produced. The figures for the capacity for the hard drives are
> expressed in two different manners; one figure is decimal based and the
> other is binary based. The decimal figure is always higher because in
> decimal 1K=1,000. In binary 1K=1,024. You won't get the two to match
> by dividing 250GB by 1,024 though because there is some reserved space
> when the drive is formatted.
>
> My 80GB Hitachi show a capacity of 82,335,019,008 bytes and 76.6 GB in
> the General tab of the system properties. The one in bytes is decimal,
> the on in GB is binary. But is you divide 82,335,019,008 by 1.024 the
> result is 80,405,292,000.
>
> So, there is nothing wrong, or unusual, about you drive capacity figures.
>
>
>
> Mark wrote:
> > I have 4 diamondmax 250GB hard drives. I am runnung XP PRO x64, but the OS
> > always shows the HDD's as having only 233 GB of space (obviosly less on the
> > boot disc). Why is this? It also happens when using the onboard Nvidia RAID
> > or x64 software RAID.
> > Secondly how do I encourage the system to use more physical RAM rather
> > virtual RAM. I have 8G but more virtual is being used. Is this application
> > dependant or something that can be changed within the OS.
> >
> > Kindest Regards
> >
> > Mark

>


VWWall 09-23-2005 04:57 PM

Re: x64 see's 233GB not 250GB.
 
Rick wrote:
> This is something that has existed since the first hard drives were
> produced. The figures for the capacity for the hard drives are
> expressed in two different manners; one figure is decimal based and the
> other is binary based. The decimal figure is always higher because in
> decimal 1K=1,000. In binary 1K=1,024. You won't get the two to match
> by dividing 250GB by 1,024 though because there is some reserved space
> when the drive is formatted.


Formatting uses very little space on the drive. It is already low level
formatted, and adding the file system partition(s), takes up little more
room.

You need to divide by 1024 three times, since drive makers use 1000 for
each thousand and: 1GB = 1KB X 1KB X 1KB. 250GB/(1024 X 1024 X 1024) =
~232.8GB
>
> My 80GB Hitachi show a capacity of 82,335,019,008 bytes and 76.6 GB in
> the General tab of the system properties. The one in bytes is decimal,
> the on in GB is binary. But is you divide 82,335,019,008 by 1.024 the
> result is 80,405,292,000.


Again: 82.335,019,008 GB/(1024^3) = 76.68GB, as system properties says.
>
> So, there is nothing wrong, or unusual, about you drive capacity figures.


Right answer, but wrong math! :-)

--
Virg Wall

Rick 09-23-2005 05:20 PM

Re: x64 see's 233GB not 250GB.
 
Thanks for the correction! I guess I failed this math test!

But it has been about 20 years since I last did my homework.


VWWall wrote:
> Rick wrote:
>
>> This is something that has existed since the first hard drives were
>> produced. The figures for the capacity for the hard drives are
>> expressed in two different manners; one figure is decimal based and
>> the other is binary based. The decimal figure is always higher
>> because in decimal 1K=1,000. In binary 1K=1,024. You won't get the
>> two to match by dividing 250GB by 1,024 though because there is some
>> reserved space when the drive is formatted.

>
>
> Formatting uses very little space on the drive. It is already low level
> formatted, and adding the file system partition(s), takes up little more
> room.
>
> You need to divide by 1024 three times, since drive makers use 1000 for
> each thousand and: 1GB = 1KB X 1KB X 1KB. 250GB/(1024 X 1024 X 1024) =
> ~232.8GB
>
>>
>> My 80GB Hitachi show a capacity of 82,335,019,008 bytes and 76.6 GB in
>> the General tab of the system properties. The one in bytes is
>> decimal, the on in GB is binary. But is you divide 82,335,019,008 by
>> 1.024 the result is 80,405,292,000.

>
>
> Again: 82.335,019,008 GB/(1024^3) = 76.68GB, as system properties says.
>
>>
>> So, there is nothing wrong, or unusual, about you drive capacity figures.

>
>
> Right answer, but wrong math! :-)
>



All times are GMT. The time now is 04:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.