# What percentage must be alloted to primary partition.

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by joshidm@gmail.com, May 11, 2007.

1. ### Guest

Was patitioning 160gb maxtor disk through maxtor utility. NTFS
formating was getting allowed only when dial reached 34gb mark.

Then same size disk was partitioned with size of primary set at 20gb
while installing OS.

But in the second instance lost something like 10gb disk space.

So wonder if for NTFS format of primary partition a certain percetage
of total size must be alloted in order not to lose any space on the
disk.

, May 11, 2007

2. ### GTGuest

> Was patitioning 160gb maxtor disk through maxtor utility. NTFS
> formating was getting allowed only when dial reached 34gb mark.
>
> Then same size disk was partitioned with size of primary set at 20gb
> while installing OS.
>
> But in the second instance lost something like 10gb disk space.
>
> So wonder if for NTFS format of primary partition a certain percetage
> of total size must be alloted in order not to lose any space on the
> disk.

I don't exactly follow what you are saying here. An NTFS partition can be
any size (max = 2^64 = about 18.5 Million TeraBytes). Perhaps the maxtor
utility has a false minimum limit. What does it suggest to use for 33GB as
Fat32 is (falsly by windows) limited to 32GB, so if NTFS isn't allowed until
you reach 34GB, then 33GB is in "no man's land"!

The reason you are 'losing' over 10GB is this:

There is a problem with the term GB - it can be interpreted in 2 ways by
people with different backgrounds/outlooks. Some follow the mathematical
definition that Giga means 10^9 (1,000,000,000) and others follow the other
meaning (not sure what the dicipline is called) of Giga which is 2^30
(1073741824). This second term is sometimes refered to as Gibi (GIga in
BInary).

The marketing people at maxtor (and other drives), use the mathematical
definition to describe their drive capacities. So your 160GB drive holds
160,000,000,000 Bytes (mathematically accurate). Windows reports drive sizes
using the other definition, so to windows your drive holds 160 / 2^30 =
149GB.

Strange but true - the only industry or dicipline in the world where 160GB =
149GB! But this is probably where you are 'losing' over 10GB of space. The
answer is that you aren't losing the space, its just windows reporting the
size wrongly.

GT, May 11, 2007

3. ### Ray.MilneGuest

"GT" <> wrote in message
news:46443199\$0\$30277\$...
>
> >

> The marketing people at maxtor (and other drives), use the mathematical
> definition to describe their drive capacities. So your 160GB drive holds
> 160,000,000,000 Bytes (mathematically accurate). Windows reports drive
> sizes using the other definition, so to windows your drive holds 160 /
> 2^30 = 149GB.
>
> Strange but true - the only industry or dicipline in the world where 160GB
> = 149GB! But this is probably where you are 'losing' over 10GB of space.
> The answer is that you aren't losing the space, its just windows reporting
> the size wrongly.
>

I would say Windows is reporting it correctly, the Manufacturers have
changed the way of SELLING hard drive space.

Ray.

Ray.Milne, May 11, 2007
4. ### GTGuest

>> The marketing people at maxtor (and other drives), use the mathematical
>> definition to describe their drive capacities. So your 160GB drive holds
>> 160,000,000,000 Bytes (mathematically accurate). Windows reports drive
>> sizes using the other definition, so to windows your drive holds 160 /
>> 2^30 = 149GB.
>>
>> Strange but true - the only industry or dicipline in the world where
>> 160GB = 149GB! But this is probably where you are 'losing' over 10GB of
>> space. The answer is that you aren't losing the space, its just windows
>> reporting the size wrongly.
>>

> I would say Windows is reporting it correctly, the Manufacturers have
> changed the way of SELLING hard drive space.

And you are not alone in being brainwashed by microsoft! This is the big
debate - one that tends to end it threads going 30+ replies deep and never
actually getting anywhere!

Nobody can argue with this mathematically accurate statement:
160,000,000,000 => 160 x 10^9

The problem for some people (microsoft) is when we introduce the recognised
scientific exponential abbreviation for 10^9, Giga:
160,000,000,000 => 160 x 10^9 => 160GB

As you can see, I side with the mathematicians and agree that windows has
got it wrong because Giga means 10^9 for any numerical expression of
quantity. Similarly, Mega means 10^6 and Kilo means 10^3.

GT, May 11, 2007
5. ### Frank McCoyGuest

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Ray.Milne" <>
wrote:

>"GT" <> wrote in message
>news:46443199\$0\$30277\$...
>>
>> >

>> The marketing people at maxtor (and other drives), use the mathematical
>> definition to describe their drive capacities. So your 160GB drive holds
>> 160,000,000,000 Bytes (mathematically accurate). Windows reports drive
>> sizes using the other definition, so to windows your drive holds 160 /
>> 2^30 = 149GB.
>>
>> Strange but true - the only industry or dicipline in the world where 160GB
>> = 149GB! But this is probably where you are 'losing' over 10GB of space.
>> The answer is that you aren't losing the space, its just windows reporting
>> the size wrongly.
>>

>I would say Windows is reporting it correctly, the Manufacturers have
>changed the way of SELLING hard drive space.
>

Both are inaccurate.
The drive-makers tend to over-list a drive ... but not nearly as badly
as they used-to. "Back when", companies would list a drive's RAW
byte-count, before formatting. IOW, the number of bits the controller
could write from index-to-index divided by eight.

This practice stopped (and was already dying) when they went to SCSI and
ATA drives with internal formatting, where the user *couldn't* write a
whole track as a single block.

However drive-makers even then tended to call all of the extra (but
hidden) sectors on a drive that are used to reallocate defects as part

They *still*, even now, tend to use decimal byte-counts (which look
bigger) than megabyte-counts (1024 bytes = 1Kb, 1,048,576 bytes = 1Mb,
1,073,741,824 bytes = 1Gb) to count how big a drive they're selling.

Those (of course) are RAW bytes available to the OS to use (supposedly).
To actually *use* a drive however, doesn't leave *nearly* that many for
the user.
1. Every drive has to have a "boot sector" set aside and written
(actually, far more than just a single sector, these days) it must also
be "partitioned" a "formatted.
2. When partitioned, some of the space is lost defining the partition.
Also, far more space is lost in various formats that don't allow
partitioning the full space available; so there's some unpartitioned
space left over in almost every drive these days. The bigger the drive,
the more likely. In my 160-gig drive (for example), even when I tell
Windows to partition the entire drive as one huge volume, 8 gig is left
over. ;-{
It seems a bit of a waste to not use 8 gigabytes; but far more to waste
a drive-letter for something that small these days. (Eight *gigs* is
small?)
3. Finally, in "formatting" a drive, space is needed on the drive for
the operating system to tell where things are stored. Spaces for
directories, "FAT tables" or the equivalent, and other information.
Even if (like in some OS schemes) they just start with a basic simple
directory-structure that can be expanded; with directories just being
another type of file, and locations stored similarly, when you end up
with much of the disk space used, the directory structure still takes up
considerable space that cannot be used by other files.

Windows doesn't count all those as space on the disk when it reports a
drive's "size".

So: Who is wrong?
Neither, both.
You just have to keep it in mind when buying a drive that a certain
percentage of the drive's "sale size" won't be left as "user size".

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Frank McCoy, May 11, 2007
6. ### GTGuest

>>> The marketing people at maxtor (and other drives), use the mathematical
>>> definition to describe their drive capacities. So your 160GB drive holds
>>> 160,000,000,000 Bytes (mathematically accurate). Windows reports drive
>>> sizes using the other definition, so to windows your drive holds 160 /
>>> 2^30 = 149GB.
>>>
>>> Strange but true - the only industry or dicipline in the world where
>>> 160GB
>>> = 149GB! But this is probably where you are 'losing' over 10GB of space.
>>> The answer is that you aren't losing the space, its just windows
>>> reporting
>>> the size wrongly.
>>>

>>I would say Windows is reporting it correctly, the Manufacturers have
>>changed the way of SELLING hard drive space.
>>

> Both are inaccurate.
> The drive-makers tend to over-list a drive

Not really, we are talking about a 160GB drive here, which has 160 Giga
Bytes (160,000,000,000) of space. Pretty simple!

> This practice stopped (and was already dying) when they went to SCSI and
> ATA drives with internal formatting, where the user *couldn't* write a
> whole track as a single block.
>
> However drive-makers even then tended to call all of the extra (but
> hidden) sectors on a drive that are used to reallocate defects as part
>
> They *still*, even now, tend to use decimal byte-counts (which look
> bigger) than megabyte-counts (1024 bytes = 1Kb, 1,048,576 bytes = 1Mb,
> 1,073,741,824 bytes = 1Gb) to count how big a drive they're selling.
>
> Those (of course) are RAW bytes available to the OS to use (supposedly).
> To actually *use* a drive however, doesn't leave *nearly* that many for
> the user.
> 1. Every drive has to have a "boot sector" set aside and written
> (actually, far more than just a single sector, these days) it must also
> be "partitioned" a "formatted.

Only if it is a system drive. A second hard drive in a system doesn't need a
boot partition.

> 2. When partitioned, some of the space is lost defining the partition.
> Also, far more space is lost in various formats that don't allow
> partitioning the full space available; so there's some unpartitioned
> space left over in almost every drive these days. The bigger the drive,
> the more likely. In my 160-gig drive (for example), even when I tell
> Windows to partition the entire drive as one huge volume, 8 gig is left
> over. ;-{

Why did you leave 8GB behind? Following installation of my new system drive,
I partitioned my Samsung Spinpoint 160GB 2 days ago, using windows and I am
using the full 160GB, there's is no 8GB space left! That's 160 Giga Bytes as
in 10^9. No approximations, no rounding, a pure 160GB. If you want me to
approximate it using some bizarre inaccurate power of 2, then its 149.05GB,
but we are still talking about 160,000,000,000 in 1 partition.

> It seems a bit of a waste to not use 8 gigabytes;

So don't waste it then!

> 3. Finally, in "formatting" a drive, space is needed on the drive for
> the operating system to tell where things are stored. Spaces for
> directories, "FAT tables" or the equivalent, and other information.
> Even if (like in some OS schemes) they just start with a basic simple
> directory-structure that can be expanded; with directories just being
> another type of file, and locations stored similarly, when you end up
> with much of the disk space used, the directory structure still takes up
> considerable space that cannot be used by other files.

That is like saying part of an encyclopedia is lost space because there are
50 pages of index!

> Windows doesn't count all those as space on the disk when it reports a
> drive's "size".

Yes it does. Program Files, Administrative tools, Computer management, Disk

> So: Who is wrong?

Everybody thinks they are right (including me!)

> You just have to keep it in mind when buying a drive that a certain
> percentage of the drive's "sale size" won't be left as "user size".

Well actually, as mentioned, I have my Samsung Spinpoint 160GB drive as a
'files' disk. It has a raw capacity of 160,000,000,000 Bytes. There is no
boot partition. There is some space *used* as the index (FAT), but this is
space on the drive that exists and is being used, so is not 'lost'. The size
of the parition is reported using a binary approximation as 149.05 gB, where
g = 1073741824 (Gibi (g), not Giga (G)). So as a mathematical quantity, or
actual number, there are 160,041,218,867 Bytes in the partition, marginally
more that the actual capacity due to rounding errors in the calculation! So
wasted/lost space = 0.0000000%.

Sorry folks (and nothing personal Frank), but this subject really gets me
going - its such basic mathematics, it really annoys me when people choose
to use very new, alternative and wrong definitions for clearly defined terms
that have been around for a very long time.

GT, May 11, 2007
7. ### GrinderGuest

Frank McCoy wrote:
>> 2. When partitioned, some of the space is lost defining the partition.
>> Also, far more space is lost in various formats that don't allow
>> partitioning the full space available; so there's some unpartitioned
>> space left over in almost every drive these days. The bigger the drive,
>> the more likely. In my 160-gig drive (for example), even when I tell
>> Windows to partition the entire drive as one huge volume, 8 gig is left
>> over. ;-{

GT wrote:
> Why did you leave 8GB behind? Following installation of my new system drive,
> I partitioned my Samsung Spinpoint 160GB 2 days ago, using windows and I am
> using the full 160GB, there's is no 8GB space left! That's 160 Giga Bytes as
> in 10^9. No approximations, no rounding, a pure 160GB. If you want me to
> approximate it using some bizarre inaccurate power of 2, then its 149.05GB,
> but we are still talking about 160,000,000,000 in 1 partition.

I've noticed that when partitioning a drive using the Windows XP/2000
installer, a small portion is always left unallocated. It's 8 megabytes
though, not 8 gigabytes.

Grinder, May 11, 2007
8. ### Frank McCoyGuest

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Grinder <>
wrote:

>Frank McCoy wrote:
>>> 2. When partitioned, some of the space is lost defining the partition.
>>> Also, far more space is lost in various formats that don't allow
>>> partitioning the full space available; so there's some unpartitioned
>>> space left over in almost every drive these days. The bigger the drive,
>>> the more likely. In my 160-gig drive (for example), even when I tell
>>> Windows to partition the entire drive as one huge volume, 8 gig is left
>>> over. ;-{

>
>GT wrote:
>> Why did you leave 8GB behind? Following installation of my new system drive,
>> I partitioned my Samsung Spinpoint 160GB 2 days ago, using windows and I am
>> using the full 160GB, there's is no 8GB space left! That's 160 Giga Bytes as
>> in 10^9. No approximations, no rounding, a pure 160GB. If you want me to
>> approximate it using some bizarre inaccurate power of 2, then its 149.05GB,
>> but we are still talking about 160,000,000,000 in 1 partition.

>
>I've noticed that when partitioning a drive using the Windows XP/2000
>installer, a small portion is always left unallocated. It's 8 megabytes
>though, not 8 gigabytes.

Oops. Perhaps you're right.

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Frank McCoy, May 11, 2007
9. ### GrinderGuest

Frank McCoy wrote:
> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Grinder <>
> wrote:
>
>> Frank McCoy wrote:
>>>> 2. When partitioned, some of the space is lost defining the partition.
>>>> Also, far more space is lost in various formats that don't allow
>>>> partitioning the full space available; so there's some unpartitioned
>>>> space left over in almost every drive these days. The bigger the drive,
>>>> the more likely. In my 160-gig drive (for example), even when I tell
>>>> Windows to partition the entire drive as one huge volume, 8 gig is left
>>>> over. ;-{

>> GT wrote:
>>> Why did you leave 8GB behind? Following installation of my new system drive,
>>> I partitioned my Samsung Spinpoint 160GB 2 days ago, using windows and I am
>>> using the full 160GB, there's is no 8GB space left! That's 160 Giga Bytes as
>>> in 10^9. No approximations, no rounding, a pure 160GB. If you want me to
>>> approximate it using some bizarre inaccurate power of 2, then its 149.05GB,
>>> but we are still talking about 160,000,000,000 in 1 partition.

>> I've noticed that when partitioning a drive using the Windows XP/2000
>> installer, a small portion is always left unallocated. It's 8 megabytes
>> though, not 8 gigabytes.

>
> Oops. Perhaps you're right.

No worries. If you do have an extra 8 GB on your system, would mind if
I stored some of my overflow pornography on it?

Grinder, May 11, 2007
10. ### Frank McCoyGuest

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Grinder <>
wrote:

>Frank McCoy wrote:
>> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Grinder <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Frank McCoy wrote:
>>>>> 2. When partitioned, some of the space is lost defining the partition.
>>>>> Also, far more space is lost in various formats that don't allow
>>>>> partitioning the full space available; so there's some unpartitioned
>>>>> space left over in almost every drive these days. The bigger the drive,
>>>>> the more likely. In my 160-gig drive (for example), even when I tell
>>>>> Windows to partition the entire drive as one huge volume, 8 gig is left
>>>>> over. ;-{
>>> GT wrote:
>>>> Why did you leave 8GB behind? Following installation of my new system drive,
>>>> I partitioned my Samsung Spinpoint 160GB 2 days ago, using windows and I am
>>>> using the full 160GB, there's is no 8GB space left! That's 160 Giga Bytes as
>>>> in 10^9. No approximations, no rounding, a pure 160GB. If you want me to
>>>> approximate it using some bizarre inaccurate power of 2, then its 149.05GB,
>>>> but we are still talking about 160,000,000,000 in 1 partition.
>>> I've noticed that when partitioning a drive using the Windows XP/2000
>>> installer, a small portion is always left unallocated. It's 8 megabytes
>>> though, not 8 gigabytes.

>>
>> Oops. Perhaps you're right.

>
>No worries. If you do have an extra 8 GB on your system, would mind if
>I stored some of my overflow pornography on it?

Sorry ... I'd use it to store my sex-stories on.
Can always use more room for that.
;-}

Trouble is:
Wouldn't be worth a damn as *backup*, since it'd still be on the same
drive. ;-{

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Frank McCoy, May 11, 2007
11. ### Guest

On 11 May, 10:05, "GT" <> wrote:
> > Was patitioning 160gbmaxtordisk throughmaxtorutility. NTFS
> > formating was getting allowed only when dial reached 34gb mark.

>
> > Then same size disk was partitioned with size of primary set at 20gb
> > while installing OS.

>
> > But in the second instance lost something like 10gb disk space.

>
> > So wonder if for NTFS format of primarypartitiona certain percetage
> > of total size must be alloted in order not to lose any space on the
> > disk.

>
> I don't exactly follow what you are saying here. An NTFSpartitioncan be
> any size (max = 2^64 = about 18.5 Million TeraBytes). Perhaps themaxtor
> utility has a false minimum limit. What does it suggest to use for 33GB as
> Fat32 is (falsly by windows) limited to 32GB, so if NTFS isn't allowed until
> you reach 34GB, then 33GB is in "no man's land"!

Untill over 33gb is reached the dial does stays in FAT32 zone only
after that it allows NTFS option.

I am sorry that I could not come back to my queryy earlier.

> The reason you are 'losing' over 10GB is this:
>
> There is a problem with the term GB - it can be interpreted in 2 ways by
> people with different backgrounds/outlooks. Some follow the mathematical
> definition that Giga means 10^9 (1,000,000,000) and others follow the other
> meaning (not sure what the dicipline is called) of Giga which is 2^30
> (1073741824). This second term is sometimes refered to as Gibi (GIga in
> BInary).
>
> The marketing people atmaxtor(and other drives), use the mathematical
> definition to describe their drive capacities. So your 160GB drive holds
> 160,000,000,000 Bytes (mathematically accurate). Windows reports drive sizes
> using the other definition, so to windows your drive holds 160 / 2^30 =
> 149GB.
>
> Strange but true - the only industry or dicipline in the world where 160GB =
> 149GB! But this is probably where you are 'losing' over 10GB of space. The
> answer is that you aren't losing the space, its just windows reporting the
> size wrongly.

On the disk that was partitioned through maxtor utility sizes showing
are 32.8gb vs 116gb

, May 14, 2007
12. ### GTGuest

<> wrote in message
news:...
> On 11 May, 10:05, "GT" <> wrote:
>> > Was patitioning 160gbmaxtordisk throughmaxtorutility. NTFS
>> > formating was getting allowed only when dial reached 34gb mark.

>>
>> > Then same size disk was partitioned with size of primary set at 20gb
>> > while installing OS.

>>
>> > But in the second instance lost something like 10gb disk space.

>>
>> > So wonder if for NTFS format of primarypartitiona certain percetage
>> > of total size must be alloted in order not to lose any space on the
>> > disk.

>>
>> I don't exactly follow what you are saying here. An NTFSpartitioncan be
>> any size (max = 2^64 = about 18.5 Million TeraBytes). Perhaps themaxtor
>> utility has a false minimum limit. What does it suggest to use for 33GB
>> as
>> Fat32 is (falsly by windows) limited to 32GB, so if NTFS isn't allowed
>> until
>> you reach 34GB, then 33GB is in "no man's land"!

>
> Untill over 33gb is reached the dial does stays in FAT32 zone only
> after that it allows NTFS option.
>
> I am sorry that I could not come back to my queryy earlier.
>
>
>
>> The reason you are 'losing' over 10GB is this:
>>
>> There is a problem with the term GB - it can be interpreted in 2 ways by
>> people with different backgrounds/outlooks. Some follow the mathematical
>> definition that Giga means 10^9 (1,000,000,000) and others follow the
>> other
>> meaning (not sure what the dicipline is called) of Giga which is 2^30
>> (1073741824). This second term is sometimes refered to as Gibi (GIga in
>> BInary).
>>
>> The marketing people atmaxtor(and other drives), use the mathematical
>> definition to describe their drive capacities. So your 160GB drive holds
>> 160,000,000,000 Bytes (mathematically accurate). Windows reports drive
>> sizes
>> using the other definition, so to windows your drive holds 160 / 2^30 =
>> 149GB.
>>
>> Strange but true - the only industry or dicipline in the world where
>> 160GB =
>> 149GB! But this is probably where you are 'losing' over 10GB of space.
>> The
>> answer is that you aren't losing the space, its just windows reporting
>> the
>> size wrongly.

>
> On the disk that was partitioned through maxtor utility sizes showing
> are 32.8gb vs 116gb

So that is 0.2gB short of 149gB. So you have not lost any space, its just
being reported using the 'other' measuring scale.

When you get into Windows, go to: Start->Settings->Control
Panel->Administrative Tools->Disk Management and see what it reports for the
drive in there. What I tend to do when partitioning a drive as a system boot
drive is to create the system partition first, then get Windows installed
onto it. Make sure you have at least service pack 1 installed (to get over
137GB on larger drives), then use the above Disk Management link to create
the second partition. Windows will allocate the complete remaining drive
space and not leave any wasted space.

GT, May 14, 2007
13. ### Guest

On 14 May, 09:47, "GT" <> wrote:
> <> wrote in message
>
> news:...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11 May, 10:05, "GT" <> wrote:
> >> > Was patitioning 160gbmaxtordisk throughmaxtorutility. NTFS
> >> > formating was getting allowed only when dial reached 34gb mark.

>
> >> > Then same size disk was partitioned with size of primary set at 20gb
> >> > while installing OS.

>
> >> > But in the second instance lost something like 10gb disk space.

>
> >> > So wonder if for NTFS format of primarypartitiona certain percetage
> >> > of total size must be alloted in order not to lose any space on the
> >> > disk.

>
> >> I don't exactly follow what you are saying here. An NTFSpartitioncan be
> >> any size (max = 2^64 = about 18.5 Million TeraBytes). Perhaps themaxtor
> >> utility has a false minimum limit. What does it suggest to use for 33GB
> >> as
> >> Fat32 is (falsly by windows) limited to 32GB, so if NTFS isn't allowed
> >> until
> >> you reach 34GB, then 33GB is in "no man's land"!

>
> > Untill over 33gb is reached the dial does stays in FAT32 zone only
> > after that it allows NTFS option.

>
> > I am sorry that I could not come back to my queryy earlier.

>
> >> The reason you are 'losing' over 10GB is this:

>
> >> There is a problem with the term GB - it can be interpreted in 2 ways by
> >> people with different backgrounds/outlooks. Some follow the mathematical
> >> definition that Giga means 10^9 (1,000,000,000) and others follow the
> >> other
> >> meaning (not sure what the dicipline is called) of Giga which is 2^30
> >> (1073741824). This second term is sometimes refered to as Gibi (GIga in
> >> BInary).

>
> >> The marketing people atmaxtor(and other drives), use the mathematical
> >> definition to describe their drive capacities. So your 160GB drive holds
> >> 160,000,000,000 Bytes (mathematically accurate). Windows reports drive
> >> sizes
> >> using the other definition, so to windows your drive holds 160 / 2^30 =
> >> 149GB.

>
> >> Strange but true - the only industry or dicipline in the world where
> >> 160GB =
> >> 149GB! But this is probably where you are 'losing' over 10GB of space.
> >> The
> >> answer is that you aren't losing the space, its just windows reporting
> >> the
> >> size wrongly.

>
> > On the disk that was partitioned throughmaxtorutility sizes showing
> > are 32.8gb vs 116gb

>
> So that is 0.2gB short of 149gB. So you have not lost any space, its just
> being reported using the 'other' measuring scale.

I lost some where partition was done not through Maxtor Utility but
while doing fresh installation of win2kpro. There it was opted 20gb
and rest. 20gb shows 19.5gb but rest is showing 108gb.

> When you get into Windows, go to: Start->Settings->Control
> Panel->Administrative Tools->Disk Management and see what it reports for the
> drive in there. What I tend to do when partitioning a drive as a system boot
> drive is to create the systempartitionfirst, then get Windows installed
> onto it. Make sure you have at least service pack 1 installed (to get over
> 137GB on larger drives), then use the above Disk Management link to create
> the secondpartition. Windows will allocate the complete remaining drive
> space and not leave any wasted space.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

, May 14, 2007
14. ### GTGuest

>> >> > Was patitioning 160gbmaxtordisk throughmaxtorutility. NTFS
>> >> > formating was getting allowed only when dial reached 34gb mark.

>>
>> >> > Then same size disk was partitioned with size of primary set at 20gb
>> >> > while installing OS.

>>
>> >> > But in the second instance lost something like 10gb disk space.

>>
>> >> > So wonder if for NTFS format of primarypartitiona certain percetage
>> >> > of total size must be alloted in order not to lose any space on the
>> >> > disk.

>>
>> >> I don't exactly follow what you are saying here. An NTFSpartitioncan
>> >> be
>> >> any size (max = 2^64 = about 18.5 Million TeraBytes). Perhaps
>> >> themaxtor
>> >> utility has a false minimum limit. What does it suggest to use for
>> >> 33GB
>> >> as
>> >> Fat32 is (falsly by windows) limited to 32GB, so if NTFS isn't allowed
>> >> until
>> >> you reach 34GB, then 33GB is in "no man's land"!

>>
>> > Untill over 33gb is reached the dial does stays in FAT32 zone only
>> > after that it allows NTFS option.

>>
>> > I am sorry that I could not come back to my queryy earlier.

>>
>> >> The reason you are 'losing' over 10GB is this:

>>
>> >> There is a problem with the term GB - it can be interpreted in 2 ways
>> >> by
>> >> people with different backgrounds/outlooks. Some follow the
>> >> mathematical
>> >> definition that Giga means 10^9 (1,000,000,000) and others follow the
>> >> other
>> >> meaning (not sure what the dicipline is called) of Giga which is 2^30
>> >> (1073741824). This second term is sometimes refered to as Gibi (GIga
>> >> in
>> >> BInary).

>>
>> >> The marketing people atmaxtor(and other drives), use the mathematical
>> >> definition to describe their drive capacities. So your 160GB drive
>> >> holds
>> >> 160,000,000,000 Bytes (mathematically accurate). Windows reports drive
>> >> sizes
>> >> using the other definition, so to windows your drive holds 160 / 2^30
>> >> =
>> >> 149GB.

>>
>> >> Strange but true - the only industry or dicipline in the world where
>> >> 160GB =
>> >> 149GB! But this is probably where you are 'losing' over 10GB of space.
>> >> The
>> >> answer is that you aren't losing the space, its just windows reporting
>> >> the
>> >> size wrongly.

>>
>> > On the disk that was partitioned throughmaxtorutility sizes showing
>> > are 32.8gb vs 116gb

>>
>> So that is 0.2gB short of 149gB. So you have not lost any space, its just
>> being reported using the 'other' measuring scale.

>
> I lost some where partition was done not through Maxtor Utility but
> while doing fresh installation of win2kpro. There it was opted 20gb
> and rest. 20gb shows 19.5gb but rest is showing 108gb.

Sounds like a drive size limit with that version of windows. I can't comment
on Win2000, but the 2 sizes you quote there add up to 127gB, so probably a
software issue regarding accessing drivers over that size. You should be
able to use the rest of the drive when you do the disk management in WinXP
and possible even use a utility to resize the 108gB partition.

GT, May 14, 2007
15. ### Guest

On 14 May, 17:41, "GT" <> wrote:
> Sounds like a drive size limit with that version of windows. I can't comment
> on Win2000, but the 2 sizes you quote there add up to 127gB, so probably a
> software issue regarding accessing drivers over that size. You should be
> able to use the rest of the drive when you do the disk management in WinXP
> and possible even use a utility to resize the 108gBpartition.

I do uncomplicated things on machines which are used remotely by
people devising applications.

On face of it loss of space amounts to twice what I thought.

20gb partition has OS on it and I doubt if remote operators would try
to do anything on 108gb partition.

Machine has second 500gb disk showing regular 465gb space.

, May 15, 2007
16. ### GTGuest

> On face of it loss of space amounts to twice what I thought.
>
> 20gb partition has OS on it and I doubt if remote operators would try
> to do anything on 108gb partition.
>
> Machine has second 500gb disk showing regular 465gb space.

I'm only going to repeat this one more time...

Windows isn't measuring your drive sizes properly. It measures using Gibi
Bytes (2^30), not Giga Bytes (10^9).

Giga (capital G - GB) = 10^9 = 1000x1000x1000 = 1,000,000,000
Gibi (small g - gB) = 2^30 = 1024x1024x1024 = 1073741824

Neither of drives you are talking about show any 'lost space', you are
comparing 2 different scales. A drive with 500 Giga Bytes (500,000,000,000
Bytes) will be reported as having around 465gB (500,000,000,000 / 1024 /
1024 / 1024) by Windows because Windows uses a binary base for counting
drive space. A 160GB drive will be similarly understated by windows and
reported as having around 149gB of space. If you don't have an up-to-date
service pack for windows, then your drive sizes might be limited to 127GB.

So 500GB = 465gB and 160GB = 149gB.

If you want to convert between the mathematical Giga bytes and the Windows
Gibi Byte figures, then divide the actualy raw GB size (500,000,000,000) by
2^30. To convert the other way, multiply by 2^30.

GT, May 16, 2007
17. ### Bucky BreederGuest

"GT" <> wrote in
news:464afb34\$0\$30914\$:
>
> I'm only going to repeat this one more time...
>
> Windows isn't measuring your drive sizes properly. It measures using
> Gibi Bytes (2^30), not Giga Bytes (10^9).
>
> Giga (capital G - GB) = 10^9 = 1000x1000x1000 = 1,000,000,000
> Gibi (small g - gB) = 2^30 = 1024x1024x1024 = 1073741824
>
> Neither of drives you are talking about show any 'lost space', you are
> comparing 2 different scales. A drive with 500 Giga Bytes
> (500,000,000,000 Bytes) will be reported as having around 465gB
> (500,000,000,000 / 1024 / 1024 / 1024) by Windows because Windows uses a
> binary base for counting drive space. A 160GB drive will be similarly
> understated by windows and reported as having around 149gB of space. If
> you don't have an up-to-date service pack for windows, then your drive
> sizes might be limited to 127GB.
>
> So 500GB = 465gB and 160GB = 149gB.
>
> If you want to convert between the mathematical Giga bytes and the
> Windows Gibi Byte figures, then divide the actualy raw GB size
> (500,000,000,000) by 2^30. To convert the other way, multiply by 2^30.

Then why is Windows measuring all the lost space wrong?

--

"The anti-gay marriage amendment:
The president endorsed it.
The Senate discussed it.
I'm pretty sure Jerry Falwell masturbated to it."
--Jon Stewart

Bucky Breeder, May 16, 2007
18. ### GTGuest

>> I'm only going to repeat this one more time...
>>
>> Windows isn't measuring your drive sizes properly. It measures using
>> Gibi Bytes (2^30), not Giga Bytes (10^9).
>>
>> Giga (capital G - GB) = 10^9 = 1000x1000x1000 = 1,000,000,000
>> Gibi (small g - gB) = 2^30 = 1024x1024x1024 = 1073741824
>>
>> Neither of drives you are talking about show any 'lost space', you are
>> comparing 2 different scales. A drive with 500 Giga Bytes
>> (500,000,000,000 Bytes) will be reported as having around 465gB
>> (500,000,000,000 / 1024 / 1024 / 1024) by Windows because Windows uses a
>> binary base for counting drive space. A 160GB drive will be similarly
>> understated by windows and reported as having around 149gB of space. If
>> you don't have an up-to-date service pack for windows, then your drive
>> sizes might be limited to 127GB.
>>
>> So 500GB = 465gB and 160GB = 149gB.
>>
>> If you want to convert between the mathematical Giga bytes and the
>> Windows Gibi Byte figures, then divide the actualy raw GB size
>> (500,000,000,000) by 2^30. To convert the other way, multiply by 2^30.

>
> Then why is Windows measuring all the lost space wrong?
>
> That's what the OP asked!

And I have tried to explain several times, that there is no lost space? What
lost space are you talking about?

GT, May 16, 2007
19. ### Bucky BreederGuest

"GT" keeps repeating this:

>>> I'm only going to repeat this one more time...
>>>
>>> Windows isn't measuring your drive sizes properly. It measures using
>>> Gibi Bytes (2^30), not Giga Bytes (10^9).
>>>
>>> Giga (capital G - GB) = 10^9 = 1000x1000x1000 = 1,000,000,000
>>> Gibi (small g - gB) = 2^30 = 1024x1024x1024 = 1073741824
>>>
>>> Neither of drives you are talking about show any 'lost space', you are
>>> comparing 2 different scales. A drive with 500 Giga Bytes
>>> (500,000,000,000 Bytes) will be reported as having around 465gB
>>> (500,000,000,000 / 1024 / 1024 / 1024) by Windows because Windows uses
>>> a binary base for counting drive space. A 160GB drive will be
>>> similarly understated by windows and reported as having around 149gB
>>> of space. If you don't have an up-to-date service pack for windows,
>>> then your drive sizes might be limited to 127GB.
>>>
>>> So 500GB = 465gB and 160GB = 149gB.
>>>
>>> If you want to convert between the mathematical Giga bytes and the
>>> Windows Gibi Byte figures, then divide the actualy raw GB size
>>> (500,000,000,000) by 2^30. To convert the other way, multiply by 2^30.

>>
>> Then why is Windows measuring all the lost space wrong?
>>
>> That's what the OP asked!

>
> And I have tried to explain several times, that there is no lost space?
> What lost space are you talking about?

The space that the OP lost on his drive. S/he was robbed!!!
They told him 500 and he only got less than that. The least
we can do is pause, empathize, verify and then resume...
I certainly hope it's a class-action lawsuit! (I want my
gigibytes settlement in Microsoft coupons.)

"Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si
marmota monax materiam possit materiari?"

--

"The anti-gay marriage amendment:
The president endorsed it.
The Senate discussed it.
I'm pretty sure Jerry Falwell masturbated to it."
--Jon Stewart

Bucky Breeder, May 16, 2007
20. ### konyGuest

On Wed, 16 May 2007 13:39:34 +0100, "GT"
<> wrote:

>> On face of it loss of space amounts to twice what I thought.
>>
>> 20gb partition has OS on it and I doubt if remote operators would try
>> to do anything on 108gb partition.
>>
>> Machine has second 500gb disk showing regular 465gb space.

>
>I'm only going to repeat this one more time...
>
>Windows isn't measuring your drive sizes properly. It measures using Gibi
>Bytes (2^30), not Giga Bytes (10^9).
>

WRONG. A hard drive is a binary storage device. Windows is
measuring correctly. Until a hard drive is no longer a
binary storage device, it is always "proper" to measure it
as such.

You are taking some trival knowledge about decimal versus
binary and leaping to an unfounded conclusion.

kony, May 16, 2007