Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

where is 44 GB hiding?


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 attak sekwence

attak sekwence

  • Members
  • 64 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:phoenix, AZ
  • Local time:06:40 AM

Posted 24 September 2012 - 01:23 AM

ok this is strange!

according to HP's site my computer should have a 640GB HD

total hard drive space as per device manager>properties: 596.17GB

total hard drive space acquired from adding up the drives in device manager: 596.17

total hard drive space acquired from adding up the drives depicted in a linux installer : 640.10

my drives as they appear in windows are now as follows:

C:\ 581.25 gb, 143.07 gb free, NTFS where windows 7 and programs are installed

D:\ 14.63 gb, 1.83 gb free, NTFS recovery drive setup by HP

G:\ 97 mb, 87 mb free, FAT32 HP tools, found out this is the BIOS diagnostic tools

system 199 mb, 165mb free, NTFS I dont have a clue what this is! it is only visible in disk management and I can't explore it like the other partitions


and how the linux installer sees my drive

Posted Image

take a peek at the screen shots in my on going problem in the linux forum
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic469554.html/page__p__2848419#entry2848419

I do not have windows vista installed so i have no idea what that is all about

I'm linking these 2 posts together since I don't think its a problem specific to either OS and I dont have a single idea on whats happening here

hp pavilion DV7 6157cl
amd 3400m
6 gigs ram
toshiba mk6476gsx 640 gb sata
windows 7 home premium 64bit, attempted installs at the moment, bt5, ubuntu 12.04 lts

Edited by attak sekwence, 24 September 2012 - 01:44 AM.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Andrew

Andrew

    Bleepin' Night Watchman


  • Moderator
  • 8,257 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Right behind you
  • Local time:07:40 AM

Posted 24 September 2012 - 02:43 AM

You've discovered one of the gotchas of buying a hard drive: the manufacturer's gigabyte is smaller than the gigabyte most software uses. Here's a good article about why this is so. This means that software reports about 7% less space than the hardware manufacturer does, in your case 7% of 640GB is 44.8GB.

So, it's not missing inasmuch as it was never really there.

#3 attak sekwence

attak sekwence
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 64 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:phoenix, AZ
  • Local time:06:40 AM

Posted 24 September 2012 - 01:41 PM

thats disheartening thank you for the reply

#4 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 55,409 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:09:40 AM

Posted 24 September 2012 - 02:08 PM

More on the same subject: Hard Drive Size Differential - http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=615 .

Louis

#5 evti

evti

  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:12:40 AM

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:05 PM

Wow, that is a rip off. I will have to keep this in mind next time I buy anything hardware related. They should really come up with a standard in which people are expected to adhere to when dealing with this stuff. Since the purpose of this is solely for profit for the hardware manufacturer.

#6 Andrew

Andrew

    Bleepin' Night Watchman


  • Moderator
  • 8,257 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Right behind you
  • Local time:07:40 AM

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:43 PM

To be fair, the manufacturers' definition agrees with every other definition of giga except the one used by computer scientists. It'd be nice if everyone used the same system, and manufacturers ought to use the definition used by their customers, but the manufacturers are using the most commonly used definition; it's the computer scientists who are doing things their own special way.

#7 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 55,409 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:09:40 AM

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:45 PM

Wow, that is a rip off. I will have to keep this in mind next time I buy anything hardware related. They should really come up with a standard in which people are expected to adhere to when dealing with this stuff. Since the purpose of this is solely for profit for the hardware manufacturer.


Well...I disagree, I see no reason to concern myself with what is (obviously) just a marketing ploy. Most of us like to think in round numbers and relate any value to what we know/are used to. We don't get upset when the weight/size standards change from metric to what the U.S. uses (or vice versa). The standards have nothing to do with the way that the product is advertised to the public in terms of what the public is used to.

And...how many of us are capable of determining or stating...just what a MB or GB might be? We throw terms around every day that we neither understand nor can explain...but that's just the way that we are built.

I understand why it's done and what it essentially means...absolutely nothing :). And I know when it's time to buy another hard drive because my current drive has no more room...no matter how such might be measured/stated.

Louis

#8 caperjac

caperjac

  • Members
  • 1,649 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NS. CAN
  • Local time:11:40 AM

Posted 24 September 2012 - 06:01 PM

and i always thought it was ,500 gig until lit was formatted,just a ? ,isn't it more or less after the format if you format in,fat , fat32 or ntfs

My answers are my opinion only,usually


#9 Baltboy

Baltboy

    Bleepin' Flame Head


  • BC Advisor
  • 1,430 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pennsylvania
  • Local time:09:40 AM

Posted 25 September 2012 - 11:53 AM

Formatting only addresses how the space will be addressed in block sizes not the total space of a drive. That remains the same regardless of how it is formatted.
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Mark Twain

#10 MDTechService

MDTechService

  • Members
  • 303 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland
  • Local time:09:40 AM

Posted 25 September 2012 - 12:46 PM

Welcome to hard drives. You never get what is advertised. You think 44GB is bad? Just taking a glance right now, my 1.5TB external drive only shows 1.36TB (140GB missing).

Just one of those facts of life that you learn to live with when dealing with hard drives.

Really wanna get some funny looks? Tell someone you have a 5 Terabit hard drive :hysterical:
If I am helping you and I haven't replied to your thread in 3 days, please PM me or bump it

Mike D, BS, A+, HPSP, MCTS
I <3 Linux
The Airline Open source airline simulation game
Check the power cable to the wall first!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users