What percentage must be alloted to primary partition.

"GT" keeps repeating this:

>>> 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?


The space that the OP lost on his drive. S/he was robbed!!!
They told him 500 and he only got less than that. The least
we can do is pause, empathize, verify and then resume...
I certainly hope it's a class-action lawsuit! (I want my
gigibytes settlement in Microsoft coupons.)


"Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si
marmota monax materiam possit materiari?"

--

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

On Wed, 16 May 2007 13:39:34 +0100, "GT"
<ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> 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).
>


WRONG. A hard drive is a binary storage device. Windows is
measuring correctly. Until a hard drive is no longer a
binary storage device, it is always "proper" to measure it
as such.

You are taking some trival knowledge about decimal versus
binary and leaping to an unfounded conclusion.

>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> And I have tried to explain several times, that there is no lost space?
>> What lost space are you talking about?
>
> The space that the OP lost on his drive. S/he was robbed!!!

Nope S/he has accounted for every last byte. Only she checked it on a
calculator that uses a bizarre hybrid numbering system!

> They told him 500 and he only got less than that.

No s/he got exactly 500G (500,000,000,000)

> The least
> we can do is pause, empathize, verify and then resume...

I think we have done more than paused, we have tried to explain the
discrepancy numerous times, but it seems to have fallen on stony ears!

> I certainly hope it's a class-action lawsuit! (I want my
> gigibytes settlement in Microsoft coupons.)

No, go for another company and you might want to ask for GigaBytes or
GiBiBytes instead of gigibytes

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news5om43tb01o3q9fk84f9e4q7mjr3vihckf@4ax.com...
> A hard drive is a binary storage device. Windows is
> measuring correctly. Until a hard drive is no longer a
> binary storage device, it is always "proper" to measure it
> as such.
>
> You are taking some trival knowledge about decimal versus
> binary and leaping to an unfounded conclusion.

Kony, we have been here before and didn't get anywhere then! I think we both
have better things to do!

No microsoft is trying to express a straight forward quantity, but using 2
bases at once! It is either expressed in decimal as 500GB (500 x 10^9) or in
binary as 111,010 x 10^100001 (see below), but there is no mathematical
standard that expresses numbers with the main part of the number in decimal
and the exponent and power in binary - that's just plain wrong!

Clearly, a hard disk is a binary storage device as it holds a series of 1's
and 0's. If this makes you feel you have to count the quantity in binary,
then please go ahead, but what confuses the rest of the world is when you
mix bases in the same numerical statement! It doesn't make any difference to
the quantity of 1's or 0's it can hold or how we count those digits. And a
500GB drive can hold 500,000,000,000 bytes, which equals 4,000,000,000,000
bits (8 bits per byte), which equals 4Tb.

I'm expressing a quantity of something using standard mathematical
abbreviations. Any quantity with 000 on the end can be abbreviated to Kilo.
Any quantity with 000,000 on the end can be expressed as Mega. Any quantity
with 000,000,000 on the end can be abbreviated to Giga. Any quantity with 12
zeros on the end can be abbreviated to Tera.

If you want to count the decimal quantity 500G (500,000,000,000) in binary,
then it is:
111,010,001,101,010,010,100,101,000,100,000,000,00 0
or
111,010,001,101,010,010,100,101,000,100 x 10^1001
or can be rounded down (losing some accuracy) to
111,010 x 10^100001

Clearly, the number 111,010 x 10^100001looks very confusing to
non-mathematicians.

In the above numbers I have written 10^1001 and 10^100001. These numbers are
in base 2 (binary), so 10 is equivalent to 2 in decimal.

There is no such recognised number as 500 x 10^11110 (where 500 is decimal
and the exponent and power are in binary). We can obviously calculate the
value of this expression, but it is not normal to mix bases in a numbering
system like this!

Kony, if you are counting octopuses, do you express the quantity in base 8
(octal)?

"GT" keeps on saying this:

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

>>>
>>> And I have tried to explain several times, that there is no lost space?
>>> What lost space are you talking about?
>>
>> The space that the OP lost on his drive. S/he was robbed!!!
>
> Nope S/he has accounted for every last byte. Only she checked it on a
> calculator that uses a bizarre hybrid numbering system!
>
>> They told him 500 and he only got less than that.
>
> No s/he got exactly 500G (500,000,000,000)
>
>> The least
>> we can do is pause, empathize, verify and then resume...
>
> I think we have done more than paused, we have tried to explain the
> discrepancy numerous times, but it seems to have fallen on stony ears!
>
>> I certainly hope it's a class-action lawsuit! (I want my
>> gigibytes settlement in Microsoft coupons.)
>
> No, go for another company and you might want to ask for GigaBytes or
> GiBiBytes instead of gigibytes


Yep... "GiBiBytes" - that's *bound* to catch on.

--

"Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax
si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?"

> Yep... "GiBiBytes" - that's *bound* to catch on.

Already has - you are using it when you read drive sizes in windows. It
stands for Giga Binary. There are loads of internet references, but this one
is easy reading: http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=1376

On Wed, 16 May 2007 21:54:35 +0100, "GT"
<ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news5om43tb01o3q9fk84f9e4q7mjr3vihckf@4ax.com.. .
>> A hard drive is a binary storage device. Windows is
>> measuring correctly. Until a hard drive is no longer a
>> binary storage device, it is always "proper" to measure it
>> as such.
>>
>> You are taking some trival knowledge about decimal versus
>> binary and leaping to an unfounded conclusion.
>
>Kony, we have been here before and didn't get anywhere then! I think we both
>have better things to do!
>


Still doesn't change the fact that a hard drive is a binary
storage device. You can't arbitrarily count how many apples
you have when staring at a bushel of oranges.

The day a hard drive becomes a decimal system based-storage
device, you will be correct.

> Still doesn't change the fact that a hard drive is a binary
> storage device.

No one said it does. I am counting how many 'slots' the drive has to offer,
not what it stores.

> You can't arbitrarily count how many apples
> you have when staring at a bushel of oranges.

1000 apples is the quantity as 1000 oranges, which is the same quantity as
1000 Bytes. These can all be abbreviated to 1k apple, or 1k orange, or 1k
Byte. Or do you still need to invent an extra imaginary 24 bytes, just so
the standard mathematical quantity is increased to match an an arbitrary
power of 2?


> The day a hard drive becomes a decimal system based-storage
> device, you will be correct.

You are contradicting yourself - you insist that since a hard drive holds 0s
and 1's, we must count the quantity of potential values using binary, but
then you go and count them in decimal yourself and multiply by 2 to a
power?!? This makes no sense at all! Truth is that you can count the
quantity of anything using whatever base you choose.

To expand on your statement: You are telling us that because something holds
values that are in 2 possible states, then we must count the quantity of
those states using a base 2 (even though you use base 10 yourself). So if we
were talking about something that could be in 6 possible states (a dice for
example), then according to your theory, we would have to count the quantity
of dice using base 6??? Nonsense. We do not need to determine how many
states something can be in before we can count how many of them we have? How
do you count cars, or people when you don't know how many states they can be
in?!?

1k = 1000 in decimal and 1111101000 in binary, but it doesn't equal 1 x
2^10. The binary number 10000000000 equals 1024 in decimal, which is more
than 1k.

kony wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 21:54:35 +0100, "GT"
> <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> >news5om43tb01o3q9fk84f9e4q7mjr3vihckf@4ax.com.. .
> >> A hard drive is a binary storage device. Windows is
> >> measuring correctly. Until a hard drive is no longer a
> >> binary storage device, it is always "proper" to measure it
> >> as such.
> >>
> >> You are taking some trival knowledge about decimal versus
> >> binary and leaping to an unfounded conclusion.
> >
> >Kony, we have been here before and didn't get anywhere then! I think we both
> >have better things to do!
> >
>
> Still doesn't change the fact that a hard drive is a binary
> storage device. You can't arbitrarily count how many apples
> you have when staring at a bushel of oranges.
>
> The day a hard drive becomes a decimal system based-storage
> device, you will be correct.

It's a shame that you've chosen to blow so much of your credibility on this
topic. Nevertheless, being so very wrong on this one does cast your opinion on
other some matters in doubt.

Bob

>> >> A hard drive is a binary storage device. Windows is
>> >> measuring correctly. Until a hard drive is no longer a
>> >> binary storage device, it is always "proper" to measure it
>> >> as such.
>> >>
>> >> You are taking some trival knowledge about decimal versus
>> >> binary and leaping to an unfounded conclusion.
>> >
>> >Kony, we have been here before and didn't get anywhere then! I think we
>> >both
>> >have better things to do!
>>
>> Still doesn't change the fact that a hard drive is a binary
>> storage device. You can't arbitrarily count how many apples
>> you have when staring at a bushel of oranges.
>>
>> The day a hard drive becomes a decimal system based-storage
>> device, you will be correct.
>
> It's a shame that you've chosen to blow so much of your credibility on
> this
> topic. Nevertheless, being so very wrong on this one does cast your
> opinion on
> other some matters in doubt.

I must jump to Kony's defence here. This debate is more one of opinion vs
opinion, which is why it is never resolved. Whilst he and I disagree on this
matter, he has helped me and many others with some detailed and very helpful
responses in other posts. Just because we disagree with him does not make
either his depth of his knowledge of PC hardware or his willingness to help
others any less impressive

Of course, he might consider that my very response here (in his defence)
lowers his credibility, or he might just have better things to do with his
time!