120GB 8MB cache WD Special Edition

#18 · 05-31-02, 12:59 AM

Hey,
I just got one 120GB 8MB cache Western Digital Special Edition Hard disk. And this is what it really have----------114.432GB.

That's about 5.5GB less than it should be. I know all the hard drive has less space than it's named, but not expect that much.

Anyone else has that kind of experience?

Specially anyone else has the same drive?

himura-dono · 05-31-02, 02:36 AM

dude, all hdd's no matter what company, has the same deal. each step up as in 20, 30, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, 160 etc. comes up short. my WD 100's are in actuality 93.1 gb. seems like urs came out better than mine, neh? it's nothing new because hard drive companies use an approximation. 1000mb is approximately 1 gig. when in actuality it's 1024mb=1gig. it won't change, so all you can do is think, damn, i wish i had that 5.x gigabytes back...

have one on me

#18 · 05-31-02, 04:43 AM

damn!!!

Guess what??

This so called "120GB" is getting smaller!!!!

The 114GB was read by WinXP Pro setup, and it was 114GB after I installed WinXP Pro. Then......After I installed everything(all the programs I need), it used about 20GB, and I right clicked on C:, it says

Used Space 20GB
Free Space 91.7GB

Capacity ................................ 111GB

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's getting SMALLER too fast!!!

9GB less than it should be!!! Why don't they just call it "110GB"????

And mine is "special edition", which has 8MB cache, hope it's true.

oc jason · 05-31-02, 07:05 AM

personally i do but the 144 gig thing, the bigger the HD the bigger the error, but as far as only installing an OS and program files, and it taking up 20 gigs....nah maybe you got it partitioned wrong or just not partitioned all teh way.

#18 · 05-31-02, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oc jason
nah maybe you got it partitioned wrong or just not partitioned all teh way.

Don't think so...

Raiden · 05-31-02, 09:56 AM

I had similar "problem" with my WD 800JB-SE but
as was said...it is just in the way that GB's are reported and that it actually works out to less than what they say it is. Nothing to worry about.
My 80GB drive reports 74GB of actual space.

Mpegger · 05-31-02, 10:43 AM

Dont forget cluster sizes. Even with Fat32, partitioning that drive with all available space as one drive would lead to 32Kb clusters (I think). So every file will use a minimum of 32Kb of space, even if its only 10bytes long. With all the junk help files, txt file, and html files Windoze installs, that would add up to alot of wasted space.

thefly · 05-31-02, 11:05 AM

Appart from that... how do you like the drive?

Got any bench marks you can post?

Zaynee · 05-31-02, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thefly
Appart from that... how do you like the drive?

Got any bench marks you can post?

I sure like my WD 800JB, my benchmarks for the drive are in my website..

yfan · 05-31-02, 01:59 PM

i've got the 120 GB WD SE and its reading 120,023,252,992

flounder43 · 05-31-02, 02:10 PM

Every HD is like this because of two different ways of defining kilobyte (K), megabyte (MB), and gigabyte (GB). In short, most software generally uses a base-two definition, whereas hard drive manufacturers use the base-10 definitions. With the base-two definition, a kilobyte equals 1,024 bytes; a megabyte totals 1,048,576 bytes, or 1,024 kilobytes; and a gigabyte equals 1,073,741,824 bytes, or 1,024 megabytes.

With the base-10 definition, however, a kilobyte equals 1,000 bytes, a megabyte equals 1,000,000 bytes, and a gigabyte equals 1,000,000,000 bytes. This is the system used by HD manufacturers.

For example, a drive that holds 6,400,000 bytes of data is reported to be 6.4GB. On the other hand, software that uses the base-two definition, the same drive holds 6GB of data, or 6,104MB.

Mpegger · 05-31-02, 02:57 PM

Thats one thing I hate about computer hardware manufacturers and thier "specs". For so long monitors have also been measured by the full tube size and not the actual visible screen size. I'm surprised no big group has raised up a stink about this and done something about it. Oh well. [/rant off]

madcow235 · 05-31-02, 03:31 PM

when you load windows xp try running in NTFS it is alot more efficient. buut it is a pain to defrag

Oni · 05-31-02, 03:54 PM

Did you format FAT or NTFS? NTFS has about 3 GB overhead (Indexing does that). It's more efficient and faster, but it makes the drive smaller by a bit. You'll get it back if you format it FAT32.

himura-dono · 05-31-02, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mpegger
Thats one thing I hate about computer hardware manufacturers and thier "specs". For so long monitors have also been measured by the full tube size and not the actual visible screen size. I'm surprised no big group has raised up a stink about this and done something about it. Oh well. [/rant off]

but they're starting to list the viewable size next to it at least.

05-31-02, 04:54 PM

Also, doesn't formatting itself take up a few gigs, even in fat32? Or am I just misguided? because wouldnt the difference between the measuring systems (1024 vs 1000) be 24 megabyte loss per gigabyte, and 24*120=2880 which results in roughly a 2.9 gigabyte loss if it were only from the stupid figures...

#18 · 05-31-02, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yfan
i've got the 120 GB WD SE and its reading 120,023,252,992

Are you sure?

Read it again. Just right click on your C:, and there are two numbers beside "Capacity", the left one is just telling how much it was made for, the number at right is telling the true space you have on you disk.

read it again see how much space you really have.

Maddman · 06-01-02, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by yfan
i've got the 120 GB WD SE and its reading 120,023,252,992

Quote:

Originally posted by #18

Are you sure?

Read it again. Just right click on your C:, and there are two numbers beside "Capacity", the left one is just telling how much it was made for, the number at right is telling the true space you have on you disk.

read it again see how much space you really have.

That is the correct amount of space. 120,023,252,992/1024^3 = 111.78GB

madsam · 06-01-02, 01:20 AM

a simple solution...i needed 30-40 gigs....so i bought a 60 gig......

i needed a half ton pick-up.....so i bought a three quarter ton.

before you check the properties of your hdd, change the drive name to something like ........250 GB hdd.......and then you can be happy without checking the actual drive space....lol

i just think it doesn't really matter if my 60 gig has an actual capacity of 55.9 gig

like i said.....buy more than you need.

i hope we don't get competitive enough to where i think i have a problem because my hdd is 1 gig less capacity than yours even though they are rated the same.

does this gb issue really matter?

gimme free stuff or mom gets it....!!!!

#18 · 06-01-02, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by madsam
a simple solution...i needed 30-40 gigs....so i bought a 60 gig......

i needed a half ton pick-up.....so i bought a three quarter ton.

before you check the properties of your hdd, change the drive name to something like ........250 GB hdd.......and then you can be happy without checking the actual drive space....lol

i just think it doesn't really matter if my 60 gig has an actual capacity of 55.9 gig

like i said.....buy more than you need.

i hope we don't get competitive enough to where i think i have a problem because my hdd is 1 gig less capacity than yours even though they are rated the same.

does this gb issue really matter?

gimme free stuff or mom gets it....!!!!

naw, we are a little different.
For me, if i have 100GB, then I'll do what 100GB allow me to do. If i have 120GB, then I'll do what 120GB allow me to do.
Which means how I use them will depend on how big they are. Another way to say this, nothing will make me feel "enough". So for the HD, the bigger is better. The reason I didn't choose Maxtor 160GB is because I think it's slower than WD SE's 8MB cache.

05-31-02, 12:59 AM	Thread Starter #1
#18 Member Join Date: Mar 2002	120GB 8MB cache WD Special Edition Hey, I just got one 120GB 8MB cache Western Digital Special Edition Hard disk. And this is what it really have----------114.432GB. That's about 5.5GB less than it should be. I know all the hard drive has less space than it's named, but not expect that much. Anyone else has that kind of experience? Specially anyone else has the same drive?
	QUOTE Thanks

05-31-02, 02:36 AM	#2
himura-dono Xtreme refugee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: davis, ca	dude, all hdd's no matter what company, has the same deal. each step up as in 20, 30, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, 160 etc. comes up short. my WD 100's are in actuality 93.1 gb. seems like urs came out better than mine, neh? it's nothing new because hard drive companies use an approximation. 1000mb is approximately 1 gig. when in actuality it's 1024mb=1gig. it won't change, so all you can do is think, damn, i wish i had that 5.x gigabytes back... have one on me
	QUOTE Thanks

05-31-02, 04:43 AM	Thread Starter #3
#18 Member Join Date: Mar 2002	Update information damn!!! Guess what?? This so called "120GB" is getting smaller!!!! The 114GB was read by WinXP Pro setup, and it was 114GB after I installed WinXP Pro. Then......After I installed everything(all the programs I need), it used about 20GB, and I right clicked on C:, it says Used Space 20GB Free Space 91.7GB Capacity ................................ 111GB !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's getting SMALLER too fast!!! 9GB less than it should be!!! Why don't they just call it "110GB"???? And mine is "special edition", which has 8MB cache, hope it's true.
	QUOTE Thanks

05-31-02, 07:05 AM	#4
oc jason Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Fayetteville, AR	personally i do but the 144 gig thing, the bigger the HD the bigger the error, but as far as only installing an OS and program files, and it taking up 20 gigs....nah maybe you got it partitioned wrong or just not partitioned all teh way. __________________ [THE HATEMACHINE] .: p4 3.2c : Abit IC7 : 1.5gb pc3500 : Gf Fx 5950 :. [FAVORITE GIRL] .: AMDxp 3700 : DFI LANPARTY UT nF4 Ultra-D Socket 939 : 2gb pc4000 : Gf 7900gt :. WoW Server: Laughing Skull Faction: Alliance Name: Truex 60 Dwarf Rogue
	QUOTE Thanks

05-31-02, 09:56 AM	#6
Raiden Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Maryland	I had similar "problem" with my WD 800JB-SE but as was said...it is just in the way that GB's are reported and that it actually works out to less than what they say it is. Nothing to worry about. My 80GB drive reports 74GB of actual space.
	QUOTE Thanks

120GB 8MB cache WD Special Edition

Internet Services

Website Development

Tech Hardware

05-31-02, 10:43 AM	#7
Mpegger Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NYC	Dont forget cluster sizes. Even with Fat32, partitioning that drive with all available space as one drive would lead to 32Kb clusters (I think). So every file will use a minimum of 32Kb of space, even if its only 10bytes long. With all the junk help files, txt file, and html files Windoze installs, that would add up to alot of wasted space. __________________ NZXT Switch 810 / Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R / i7 980x @ 3997x6, 4130x1 / 24GiB / 560Ti SLi ESXi server / i7-3770s / 32GiB / 16TB ZFS-z2 ----------------------------- [GB ≠ GiB] [MB ≠ MiB] [kB ≠ kiB] "Apparently, Plaintiff believes that he could sue an egg company for fraud for labeling a carton of 12 eggs a “dozen,” because some bakers would view a “dozen” as including 13 items." - Western Digital 2006 "One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer" - Hitler (Microsucks) Avatar and quote on loan from AntmanMike Heatware
	QUOTE Thanks

05-31-02, 11:05 AM	#8
thefly Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Montreal	Appart from that... how do you like the drive? Got any bench marks you can post? __________________ I5 W7 8 Gigs ram. Msi Cyclone 460 1024. Intel SSd 80g 2405 fpw
	QUOTE Thanks

05-31-02, 01:59 PM	#10
yfan Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: San Diego	i've got the 120 GB WD SE and its reading 120,023,252,992
	QUOTE Thanks

05-31-02, 02:10 PM	#11
flounder43 Senior Lawyer-clocker Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Minneapolis	Every HD is like this because of two different ways of defining kilobyte (K), megabyte (MB), and gigabyte (GB). In short, most software generally uses a base-two definition, whereas hard drive manufacturers use the base-10 definitions. With the base-two definition, a kilobyte equals 1,024 bytes; a megabyte totals 1,048,576 bytes, or 1,024 kilobytes; and a gigabyte equals 1,073,741,824 bytes, or 1,024 megabytes. With the base-10 definition, however, a kilobyte equals 1,000 bytes, a megabyte equals 1,000,000 bytes, and a gigabyte equals 1,000,000,000 bytes. This is the system used by HD manufacturers. For example, a drive that holds 6,400,000 bytes of data is reported to be 6.4GB. On the other hand, software that uses the base-two definition, the same drive holds 6GB of data, or 6,104MB.
	QUOTE Thanks

05-31-02, 02:57 PM	#12
Mpegger Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NYC	Thats one thing I hate about computer hardware manufacturers and thier "specs". For so long monitors have also been measured by the full tube size and not the actual visible screen size. I'm surprised no big group has raised up a stink about this and done something about it. Oh well. [/rant off] __________________ NZXT Switch 810 / Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R / i7 980x @ 3997x6, 4130x1 / 24GiB / 560Ti SLi ESXi server / i7-3770s / 32GiB / 16TB ZFS-z2 ----------------------------- [GB ≠ GiB] [MB ≠ MiB] [kB ≠ kiB] "Apparently, Plaintiff believes that he could sue an egg company for fraud for labeling a carton of 12 eggs a “dozen,” because some bakers would view a “dozen” as including 13 items." - Western Digital 2006 "One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer" - Hitler (Microsucks) Avatar and quote on loan from AntmanMike Heatware
	QUOTE Thanks

05-31-02, 03:31 PM	#13
madcow235 Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Purdue University, IN	when you load windows xp try running in NTFS it is alot more efficient. buut it is a pain to defrag
	QUOTE Thanks

05-31-02, 03:54 PM	#14
Oni Oni-ni-Kanabō Ninja Hippo eater Moderator Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Canada	Did you format FAT or NTFS? NTFS has about 3 GB overhead (Indexing does that). It's more efficient and faster, but it makes the drive smaller by a bit. You'll get it back if you format it FAT32. __________________ Mama, put my guns in the ground. I can't shoot them anymore. On Indefinite Hiatus Asus P6T SE Intel i7 930 @ Stock 12GB Corsair DDR3 9-9-9-24 XFX Radeon 5830 @ Stock Corsair 750 Watt PSU
	QUOTE Thanks

05-31-02, 04:54 PM	#16
---X--- Guest	Also, doesn't formatting itself take up a few gigs, even in fat32? Or am I just misguided? because wouldnt the difference between the measuring systems (1024 vs 1000) be 24 megabyte loss per gigabyte, and 24*120=2880 which results in roughly a 2.9 gigabyte loss if it were only from the stupid figures...
	QUOTE Thanks

06-01-02, 01:20 AM	#19
madsam Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: New York	GIGA-HOOZZEE-WATTSITT a simple solution...i needed 30-40 gigs....so i bought a 60 gig...... i needed a half ton pick-up.....so i bought a three quarter ton. before you check the properties of your hdd, change the drive name to something like ........250 GB hdd.......and then you can be happy without checking the actual drive space....lol i just think it doesn't really matter if my 60 gig has an actual capacity of 55.9 gig like i said.....buy more than you need. i hope we don't get competitive enough to where i think i have a problem because my hdd is 1 gig less capacity than yours even though they are rated the same. does this gb issue really matter? gimme free stuff or mom gets it....!!!!
	QUOTE Thanks

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search