Ad
News

Addonics' Internal/External Hard Drive

Published on May 03, 2001

Addonics Technologies' new Combo Hard Drive combines the features of internal and external hard drives into one device. Read more

Hitachi intros hard drive upgrade kit for notebooks

Published on September 07, 2005

Hitachi is set to offer a hard drive upgrade for notebooks that people will be able to install themselves. Read more

RSA - Memory Experts launches biometric hard drives

Published on February 24, 2004

A biometric hard drive capable of delivering the storage power of a PC in a pocket-sized data device will be launched by Memory Experts International Tuesday at the RSA Conference in San Francisco. Read more

Toshiba unveils sub 1" hard disk drive

Published on January 09, 2004

Toshiba Corp. Read more

Last Reviews & Articles

Power Supply Roundup: Part II

Published on November 07, 2008

In Part I of our power supply roundup, we went through five mainstream PSUs rated at up to 700 W. Round two sees us tackle another seven mid-range units in an effort to determine which power supply deserves your attention. Read more

Roundup: The Best Overclocking Software

Published on November 06, 2008

Interested in overclocking but not quite sure where to start? We round up some of our favorite software utilities for tweaking processors, memory, graphics, and chipsets. Read more

Tom's Holiday Buyer's Guide 2008, Part 1

Published on November 05, 2008

Welcome to the first installment in our six-part Tom's Holiday Buyer's Guide. In Part 1, two beautiful models help showcase some of our favorite no-hassle hardware gifts for 2008. Read more

Round Up: Five Powerful, Light Ultraportables

Published on November 05, 2008

Executives, road warriors, and gadget geeks all lust after ultraportable notebooks. Five of these amazing machines battle it out in this roundup. Read more

  Tom's Hardware UK and Ireland Forums » Storage » Hard Disks » Did WD lie to me about this hard drive?
 

Did WD lie to me about this hard drive?

Advanced Search

There are 351 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here



Word :   Username :  
 
Bottom
Author
 Thread : Did WD lie to me about this hard drive?
 
Profile: stranger
More Information

I bought a "My Passport Essential" hard drive disk from WD the other day. I reformatted the drive to NFTS which deleted all the crap that come on it. I bought it back up my music and video files so I didn't need the software and all the junk that came with it. Before and after reformatting I noticed that the drive only has 299 GB of free space on it. The drive is advertised as having 230 GB of space.

I know that this happens with hard drives. I know that we never actually get the full capacity that drives are advertised at; however, losing 21 GB on a drive is crazy to me. Not to mention there is not a single thing on this drive. Literally, I open up this drive from My Computer and there is not one file on it yet. So where does the 21 GB of space go? Can I get it back? Is there any formatting that can be done? Is WD lying?

The drive works fine but this problem has always kind of baffled me. Any information would be much apprectiated. Thanks.

Related Product

Register or log in to remove.

Profile: member
More Information

ok, im confused.
1. you have 69GB more than advertised?
2. you somehow have 21GB less at the same time?
3 either way your math is wrong.

Profile: member
More Information

BTW, you can always expect a 10% overhead.

Profile: nimble knuckle

is the 21 GB the data that was originally on the drive...

nevermind... your post makes no sense... please edit or post again

Profile: addict
More Information

thogrom wrote :

is the 21 GB the data that was originally on the drive...

nevermind... your post makes no sense... please edit or post again



He probably means it's a 320 Gig drive, and after formatting he's seeing 299, which of course is as expected.

Profile: stranger
More Information

Jeez, sorry. I meant that it was advertised as having 320 GB like BustedSony pointed out.

Profile: nimble knuckle

^ thats what I thought originally... but... IDK... his post seems highly stupid...

lets just say they did lie to you... (decieve is better because they didn't really lie.....anyway) it wouldn't matter... you still have tons of space... the drive works fine... so I don't see the issue...

a better way of putting it is... Whats the point of this thread?

Profile: Eternal Poster
More Information

BustedSony wrote :

He probably means it's a 320 Gig drive, and after formatting he's seeing 299, which of course is as expected.


+1

Profile: addict
More Information

Drive manufacturers: 1000MB = 1GB

Windows: 1024MB = 1GB

Do the math (or a google search)

Profile: Faithful Poster
More Information

I thought everyone had figured this out a long time ago...

320,000,000 / 1.024 = 312,500,000 actual bits on the disks. 320GB is the decimal number, but computers are binary, so the actual number is a bit less. It is from the 312GB number that you then need to take formatting into account. No body is ripping you off, its the difference between advertised numbers from people who went to school learning to sell things, and the usable number actually found on the disk.

My 250GB was formatted as ~232GB usable, and my 320GB was ~298GB. Don't worry about it, your fine.


---------------
The voice of REASON
Do NOT feed the TROLLS!
Always a DEMON!
Profile: stranger
More Information

The point of the thread is to understand what happens to 21 GBs of a 320 GB drive. I'm not terribly upset about the drive's performance - like you said thogrom, it works. I simply was hoping some one would tell me why that happens.

The 1000gb vs 1024gb version would only account for an approximate 3% decrease in usable drive space.

1000/1024 = .977 -----> 320*.977 = 312.6

Profile: journeyman
More Information

It's just one of those confusing marketing tactics that manufacturers come up with all the time. Another similar example is when AMD started advertising their Athlon XP processors as "2800+" or "3200+", meaning they were supposedly faster than Pentium 4 2.8 Ghz and 3.2 Ghz respectively. Whether those chips were really equivalent/faster to their counterpart Pentium 4 chips or not, the fact was that they were not actually 2.8 Ghz or 3.2 Ghz. Their actual speeds were 2.08 Ghz and 2.17 Ghz, which would make them sound much slower to the average, uninformed consumer. So, AMD came up with their deceptive (although not entirely untrue), but effecitve marketing campaign to advertise their chips. There are literally tons of examples like this. So, whenever you see advertisements, you should take it with a grain of salt and do your homework to really understand what's going on - even when they deal with what should be straight up facts like numbers.

Profile: stranger
More Information

Forget my last post. Thanks 4745454b

cjl
Rocket Scientist
Profile: Honorary Poster
More Information

jtwpm3 wrote :

The point of the thread is to understand what happens to 21 GBs of a 320 GB drive. I'm not terribly upset about the drive's performance - like you said thogrom, it works. I simply was hoping some one would tell me why that happens.

 

The 1000gb vs 1024gb version would only account for an approximate 3% decrease in usable drive space.

 

1000/1024 = .977 -----> 320*.977 = 312.6


Nope.

 

You aren't going far enough. Not only is 1GB = 1024MB according to windows, but 1 MB = 1024KB, and 1 KB = 1024B.

 

To drive makers, 1GB = 1000MB, 1MB = 1000KB, and 1KB = 1000B.

 

Windows uses binary, drive manufacturers use decimal.

 

1 decimal KB = 0.9766 binary KB (1000/1024)
1 decimal MB = 0.9537 binary MB (1000^2/1024^2)
1 decimal GB = 0.9313 binary GB (1000^3/1024^3)
1 decimal TB = 0.9095 binary TB (1000^4/1024^4)

 

Based on this, 320 decimal GB = 320*0.9313 binary GB = 298.023 GB. In other words, your drive has a true decimal 320GB of storage. Formatting isn't taking any significant chunk.


Message edited by cjl on 07-24-2008 at 05:08:34 AM
Profile: Forum Veteran
More Information

Yeah, hard drive manufacturers tend to use 1,000 instead of 1,024 for 1KB.

You also need to be aware that the file structure itself (NTFS, Fat 32, Fat 16, whatever for MACs) takes up some space as well.


---------------
Q9450 |Corsair XMS 4GB DDR 800 | ABit IP35 Pro | X1900XT 512MB | Audigy 2 | Seasonic S12 550 | Cooler Master Centurion 532 | NEC LCD2690WUXi | WinXP

There is no such thing as a stupid question.
But there are stupid people.
Profile: stranger
More Information