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
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. GT 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.


    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
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ray.Milne Guest

    "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
    #3
  4. GT Guest

    >> 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
    #4
  5. Frank McCoy Guest

    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
    of their advertised "size".

    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.
    Depends on your viewpoint.
    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
    #5
  6. GT Guest

    >>> 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
    > of their advertised "size".
    >
    > 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
    Management, overhead column.

    > 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
    #6
  7. Grinder Guest

    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
    #7
  8. Frank McCoy Guest

    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.
    Sorry about that.

    --
    _____
    / ' / â„¢
    ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
    (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
     
    Frank McCoy, May 11, 2007
    #8
  9. Grinder Guest

    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.
    > Sorry about that.


    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
    #9
  10. Frank McCoy Guest

    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.
    >> Sorry about that.

    >
    >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
    #10
  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
    #11
  12. GT Guest

    <> 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
    #12
  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
    #13
  14. GT Guest

    >> >> > 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
    #14
  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
    #15
  16. GT Guest

    > 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
    #16
  17. "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?

    That's what the OP asked!

    --

    "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
    #17
  18. GT Guest

    >> 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
    #18
  19. "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
    #19
  20. kony Guest

    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
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Maurice Matassa

    no primary partition

    Maurice Matassa, Aug 31, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    614
    Robert de Brus
    Sep 1, 2003
  2. Bowman
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    21,052
    sam500016
    Oct 18, 2009
  3. =?UTF-8?B?UGFsaW5kcuKYu21l?=

    "Ubdoing" an "accidental" Fdisk primary partition delete

    =?UTF-8?B?UGFsaW5kcuKYu21l?=, Aug 10, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,569
    =?UTF-8?B?UGFsaW5kcuKYu21l?=
    Aug 15, 2004
  4. =?Utf-8?B?UGF0cmljaw==?=

    Primary Partition Max size in Windows 64

    =?Utf-8?B?UGF0cmljaw==?=, Jul 17, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    461
    Joseph Conway [MSFT]
    Jul 22, 2005
  5. =?Utf-8?B?UGF0cmljaw==?=

    What is the max bootable primary partition size for 64

    =?Utf-8?B?UGF0cmljaw==?=, Jul 17, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    53
    Views:
    1,729
    Wayne Wastier
    Jul 21, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page