Just Got...

jcb33

jcb33

jcb33

Soldato
Joined
11 Apr 2003
Posts
4,210
Location
Notts
Hey all, just got a 750GB External WD Mybook Premium, and it only has 698GB of space, I know you normaly lose a few gb, but surely it should be avertised as a 700GB not a 750?
 
That does seem like a shade too much, it wouldn't be advertised as a 700GiB drive since hard drive manufacturers consider 1000MB to be 1GB and the rest of the computing world considers 1000MiB to be 1GiB. However doing the calculations 750,000,000/1024/1024 brings me to a figure of 715GiB give or take. The different names are just to highlight the differences in size.
 
Well doing a quick google shows that this is standard with 750GB Hard drives, I just feel a bit cheated, my 300GB drives are 296GB, so a loss of 4GB, I would kind of expected this to be around 730GB.... Not a loss of 52GB
 
jcb33 said:
Well doing a quick google shows that this is standard with 750GB Hard drives, I just feel a bit cheated, my 300GB drives are 296GB, so a loss of 4GB, I would kind of expected this to be around 730GB.... Not a loss of 52GB
Click to expand...


Cant see it being only 4GB, both my 500GB drives read 465GB my 80GB backup drive reads 76GB.
 
jcb33 said:
my 300GB drives are 296GB, so a loss of 4GB, I would kind of expected this to be around 730GB.... Not a loss of 52GB
Click to expand...

Wrong, your 320GB drive may be 296GB (Mine is 298GB). I know this because I have a 320GB and 300GB drive, which is 279GB once formatted.
 
its how you caculate a gig (as semi-pro waster said). For brand purposes we buy hdd's on gIg's or something thats 1000migabit's big (or something similar to a megabyte but also not) which is 1000kiobits. When you apply a file system that does everything to 1024 so you have 1024 kilobites to a megabite and 1024 megabites to a gigabite which is where you get to your 698gigabites of space.

*whips out a caculator to check im not mad*

(in theory you should have about 705gigabites of space so some of it is probably lost to the extensions of the file system and the platters having slightly more unreadable space than expected)
 
i have the same issue with an internal if you can call it an issue.
it shows 750,000,000,000 KB i think then for our sakes it is shown as 750GB but in computer world would be less. 50GB not the end of the world now would just be a lot better if they would give the accurate value of GB
 
I always find it strange when this question keeps coming up.

It's just a matter that the hard drive companies use base 10 to calculate everything. I.E 1000 Kilobytes in a Megabyte, 1000 Megabytes in a Gigabyte etc, instead of using 1024 as everyone else does.

If you do the math: 750x1000x1000x1000 = 750000000000 bytes

Now do 750000000000/1024/1024/1024 = 698.5 Gig
 
it's not 'lost', it never had it to begin with

reformat the drive, full format (not quick) ntfs


how much did that cost btw?

i made a 1000gb esata icybox (full speed, not hampered by usb2) the other week, cost me £119.xx delivered
 
bledd. said:
it's not 'lost', it never had it to begin with

reformat the drive, full format (not quick) ntfs


how much did that cost btw?

i made a 1000gb esata icybox (full speed, not hampered by usb2) the other week, cost me £119.xx delivered
Click to expand...

Off topic but what did you go for? i've been considering doing the same for a backup solution but was considering USB2 as a legacy option for boxes with no esata
 
icybox 390 , has usb2 and esata (internally, just sata). £19.96

the best external drive i've ever used, way smaller than most, and great build quality, plus it's solid, and doesn't feel flimsy like the earlier icyboxes

and there's no need to 'switch' internally if you want to change from usb2 to esata like with some boxes. i've not tried plugging in both leads at once, and i don't think i want to!

http://www.raidsonic.de/en/pages/products/external_cases.php?we_objectID=5150

i don't use the stand with mine
 
semi-pro waster said:
That does seem like a shade too much, it wouldn't be advertised as a 700GiB drive since hard drive manufacturers consider 1000MB to be 1GB and the rest of the computing world considers 1000MiB to be 1GiB. However doing the calculations 750,000,000/1024/1024 brings me to a figure of 715GiB give or take. The different names are just to highlight the differences in size.
Click to expand...

LOL, that's just gibberish :p :D

I think you've got all your figures and units mixed up there.

Suffice to say that njj1046 is the first person in this thread to actually get it right. 750 * 10^9 / 2^30 = 698.5GB
 
As I said, it's 10^9 versus 2^30, so the stated capacity will be 7.374% higher than the actual capacity and the actual capacity will be 93.132% of the stated capacity.
 
Vertigo1 said:
LOL, that's just gibberish :p :D

I think you've got all your figures and units mixed up there.

Suffice to say that njj1046 is the first person in this thread to actually get it right. 750 * 10^9 / 2^30 = 698.5GB
Click to expand...

Yes and no, I realised after I'd posted that I forgot to multiply and then divide by an extra thousand for the proper figures but other than that it is right. MiB and MB are distinct amounts (1024Kibibytes and 1000kilobytes respectively) so depending on how strictly you define it then you want to use the different terms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom