What percentage must be alloted to primary partition.

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 ****ography 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 ****ography 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 **** as *backup*, since it'd still be on the same
drive. ;-{

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

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.googlegr oups.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.googlegr oups.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.

> 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.

I'm only going to repeat this one more time...

Windows isn't measuring your drive sizes properly. It measures using Gibi
Bytes (2^30), not Giga Bytes (10^9).

Giga (capital G - GB) = 10^9 = 1000x1000x1000 = 1,000,000,000
Gibi (small g - gB) = 2^30 = 1024x1024x1024 = 1073741824

Neither of drives you are talking about show any 'lost space', you are
comparing 2 different scales. A drive with 500 Giga Bytes (500,000,000,000
Bytes) will be reported as having around 465gB (500,000,000,000 / 1024 /
1024 / 1024) by Windows because Windows uses a binary base for counting
drive space. A 160GB drive will be similarly understated by windows and
reported as having around 149gB of space. If you don't have an up-to-date
service pack for windows, then your drive sizes might be limited to 127GB.

So 500GB = 465gB and 160GB = 149gB.

If you want to convert between the mathematical Giga bytes and the Windows
Gibi Byte figures, then divide the actualy raw GB size (500,000,000,000) by
2^30. To convert the other way, multiply by 2^30.

"GT" <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:464afb34$0$30914$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com:
>
> I'm only going to repeat this one more time...
>
> Windows isn't measuring your drive sizes properly. It measures using
> Gibi Bytes (2^30), not Giga Bytes (10^9).
>
> Giga (capital G - GB) = 10^9 = 1000x1000x1000 = 1,000,000,000
> Gibi (small g - gB) = 2^30 = 1024x1024x1024 = 1073741824
>
> Neither of drives you are talking about show any 'lost space', you are
> comparing 2 different scales. A drive with 500 Giga Bytes
> (500,000,000,000 Bytes) will be reported as having around 465gB
> (500,000,000,000 / 1024 / 1024 / 1024) by Windows because Windows uses a
> binary base for counting drive space. A 160GB drive will be similarly
> understated by windows and reported as having around 149gB of space. If
> you don't have an up-to-date service pack for windows, then your drive
> sizes might be limited to 127GB.
>
> So 500GB = 465gB and 160GB = 149gB.
>
> If you want to convert between the mathematical Giga bytes and the
> Windows Gibi Byte figures, then divide the actualy raw GB size
> (500,000,000,000) by 2^30. To convert the other way, multiply by 2^30.


Then why is Windows measuring all the lost space wrong?

That's what the OP asked!

--

"The anti-*** marriage amendment:
The president endorsed it.
The Senate discussed it.
I'm pretty sure Jerry Falwell masturbated to it."
--Jon Stewart

>> I'm only going to repeat this one more time...
>>
>> Windows isn't measuring your drive sizes properly. It measures using
>> Gibi Bytes (2^30), not Giga Bytes (10^9).
>>
>> Giga (capital G - GB) = 10^9 = 1000x1000x1000 = 1,000,000,000
>> Gibi (small g - gB) = 2^30 = 1024x1024x1024 = 1073741824
>>
>> Neither of drives you are talking about show any 'lost space', you are
>> comparing 2 different scales. A drive with 500 Giga Bytes
>> (500,000,000,000 Bytes) will be reported as having around 465gB
>> (500,000,000,000 / 1024 / 1024 / 1024) by Windows because Windows uses a
>> binary base for counting drive space. A 160GB drive will be similarly
>> understated by windows and reported as having around 149gB of space. If
>> you don't have an up-to-date service pack for windows, then your drive
>> sizes might be limited to 127GB.
>>
>> So 500GB = 465gB and 160GB = 149gB.
>>
>> If you want to convert between the mathematical Giga bytes and the
>> Windows Gibi Byte figures, then divide the actualy raw GB size
>> (500,000,000,000) by 2^30. To convert the other way, multiply by 2^30.
>
> Then why is Windows measuring all the lost space wrong?
>
> That's what the OP asked!

And I have tried to explain several times, that there is no lost space? What
lost space are you talking about?