Did somebody had a problem with the Hard Drives that Hp has in it's systems..

It sems that HP harddrives has about 2-3% lest hard drive space then what they oficially say in their systems...


-------------------------
My Webpage' ">http://www.geocities.com/fil_rios/forever
When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing more to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader.

Moved to general tech chat.

Isn't this normal? Partition tables usually take a small chunk out of the useable space available on a drive. Once formatted both my 40GB WD SE report useable space as 37.2GB.

-------------------------
Containment Breach

Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and quick to anger.

ya my mom and aint works for HP and they build them and i will never buy one from them if you know who builds them. NO lie!!! I would go for a Dell or build your own and get a AMD processer.

exactly...kinda like ordering a 1/4 pound burger...that's the size before 'cooking'...afterwards it's always smaller. I lost close to 6 Gigs on my WD120Gb hdd. The amount of space you lose depends on how you format it and for what operating system I think.

-------------------------
MSI K7N2 Delta Ultra 400
AMD Barton 2500+ oc'd to 3200+ (200x11)=2.21ghz
Antec 430W True430 * stock HSF w Arctic Silver III
2x512 Buffalo DDR400 CL 2.5 Winbond
Vantec Iceburg RAM heatspreaders
Chieftec Dragon server tower w/ 2 intake, 2 exhaust fans
Gainward FX5900 Ultra 128mb 400/850
WD 120GB 7200rpm SATA * Windows XP Pro

QUOTE (Darkness|Falls @ Dec 18 2003, 03:49 PM) I would go for a Dell or build your own and get a AMD processer.
NO, no no... DEll is horrific!!
Not a good choice!! belive me!!



-------------------------
My Webpage' ">http://www.geocities.com/fil_rios/forever
When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing more to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader.

NTFS... Hey, does windows use a new file system for the 64-bit OS, like BNTFS

-------------------------
Pilot
AMD 64 3000 @ 2.0GHz || Running Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate
Apple iBook G4 1.42GHz (PPC Core) || Running Apple OSX Tiger

the 64bit version of XP still uses the normal NTFS

-------------------------

The next filesystem coming up is "WinFS" in Longhorn. According to a news blurb on Ars' ">http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1066409642.html a while ago though it's more an extension to NTFS than a totally new system.

-------------------------
Containment Breach

Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and quick to anger.

To answer your question, this is normal for all hard drives. The reason is because the HD manufacturer goes by 1000 MB per 1 GB where as thinks like Windows XP go by 1024 MB per 1 GB which makes it seem less. That is why if in XP you go to the properties of a file, it has the file size, then the file size on disk. I think one goes by 1000 and the other goes by 1024. At least on the Dell website they put * next to their hard drives to indicate that it is being measured by 1000 MB per 1 GB.

Like what Athlon64Maniac said

HD manufacturer goes by 1GB=1000MB... but Windows goes by 1GB=1024MB

and also take FAT Table take some space...

but if u make some caculation u'll find more wast in space

40GB HDD has 40000/1024=39.0625GB

and lets take Mime post as a example

39.0625-37.2= 1.8625GB

so is these tables ( eather partition or FAT tables ) take 1.8625GB ???

don't think so

Yes it's a combination of the two things that accounts for the loss of useable space. The bigger the drive the bigger the discrepancy will be between advertised space and useable space. However, I wouldn't expect the overall percentage of lost space to be much greater.

-------------------------
Containment Breach

Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and quick to anger.

But should the loss of useable space be showed as used space .
When i format my Hd's there's always 60mb's of space being used AFTER and no matter what i can't get rid of it .

I heard there is a large class action suit against harddrive makers concerning this issue - ie 1000 mb is not 1 GB (1024 mb) but HD manufacturors say it is..

well first of all
its true 1000MB is 1Gig in the harddiskworld. but also note, the 1000KB is 1 MB en 1000B is 1KB

so this makes a bigger difference ;-)

40G hd would make 37Gig and a bit for space with the formula above


-------------------------
Dual opteron 244 :: MSI K8T master2 :: 2 * 512 DDR-SDRAM OCZ PC3200 2-3-3-6 ECC/REG :: GeForce NX6800 :: Western Digital Raptor 36GB 10000rpm :: Western Digital Caviar 1200JB 120GB :: Maxtor 160GB :: Liteon Cdwriter 52x24x52 :: liteon DVD player :: Plextor CDRW 12x4x32 SCSI

Partioning and formatting would write the drive info and TOCs which uses some disk space, and it will stay locked throughout unless you reformat and/or change the partition. Don't forget the drive information is also stored in the platters, as I was told. I could have been wrong, but that's what I know so far.

As for "1GB=1000MB" argument, that's a battle of definition. According to some publication I read, the appropriate scinetific application is 1024 bytes equal to 1 Kilobyte, 1024 kilobytes equal to 1 megabyte, 1024 megabytes equal to 1 gigabyte, and 1024 gigabytes equal to 1 terabyte. Some argue that the properties differ. But this one makes sense..... when it comes to RAM, that "1024" properties apply the same way by saying 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048 and so on. That has been the standards for quite a long time since the advent of microtechnology.

NEXT question!

-------------------------
"Wild flowers may die, but the blooming idiots last forever!"

ÂMĐF®ëâĸ
PC Doctor of Jacksonville

InWin Q500N ATX, EPoX EP-8KHA+/AMD Athlon 1333/Thermaltake Volcano 6Cu+, ATI Xpert2000