🚀 go-pugleaf

> 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" <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:46443199$0$30277$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>
> >
> 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. 

>> 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. 

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

>"GT" <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:46443199$0$30277$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>
>> >
>> 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".

-- 
    _____
     /  '               / ™
  ,-/-, __  __.  ____  /_ 
 (_/   / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

>>> 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. 

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.

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Grinder <grinder@no.spam.maam.com>
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.

-- 
    _____
     /  '               / ™
  ,-/-, __  __.  ____  /_ 
 (_/   / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Frank McCoy wrote:
> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Grinder <grinder@no.spam.maam.com>
> 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?

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Grinder <grinder@no.spam.maam.com>
wrote:

>Frank McCoy wrote:
>> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Grinder <grinder@no.spam.maam.com>
>> 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.   ;-{

-- 
    _____
     /  '               / ™
  ,-/-, __  __.  ____  /_ 
 (_/   / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

On 11 May, 10:05, "GT" <ContactGT_remo...@hotmail.com> 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

<joshidm@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1179129854.994243.144130@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 11 May, 10:05, "GT" <ContactGT_remo...@hotmail.com> 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. 

On 14 May, 09:47, "GT" <ContactGT_remo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <josh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1179129854.994243.144130@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11 May, 10:05, "GT" <ContactGT_remo...@hotmail.com> 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 -

>> >> > 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. 

On 14 May, 17:41, "GT" <ContactGT_remo...@hotmail.com> 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.