New Travelstar is 20% short of specs, reasonable? - Storage

This is a discussion on New Travelstar is 20% short of specs, reasonable? - Storage ; Hi group, The other day I bought a new Travelstar HD for a Thinkpad. The drive is labeled as a HTS541616J9A, 160 GB, 5400 Rpm. I partioned it, into two parts. And now Windows diskmanager reports it having a total ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: New Travelstar is 20% short of specs, reasonable?

  1. New Travelstar is 20% short of specs, reasonable?

    Hi group,

    The other day I bought a new Travelstar HD for a Thinkpad.
    The drive is labeled as a HTS541616J9A, 160 GB, 5400 Rpm.

    I partioned it, into two parts. And now Windows diskmanager reports it
    having a total of only 128 GB.
    HD Tune says it is 137 GB, and so does Belarc.

    Presently I have another, partioned, Travelstar in the Ultrabay, which
    is labeled as 100 GB, and that is exactly what HD Tune says it is.
    Windows diskmanager says that one is 93 GB.

    I accept some 5 - 7 % are used up when partioning, but with this new
    one it would be 20%! I do know that partioning eats up some of the
    capacity, but it shouldn't really be this much, or?



    Lars
    Stockholm

  2. Re: New Travelstar is 20% short of specs, reasonable?

    On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:59:55 +0100, Lars wrote:

    >Hi group,
    >
    >The other day I bought a new Travelstar HD for a Thinkpad.
    >The drive is labeled as a HTS541616J9A, 160 GB, 5400 Rpm.
    >
    >I partioned it, into two parts. And now Windows diskmanager reports it
    >having a total of only 128 GB.
    >HD Tune says it is 137 GB, and so does Belarc.
    >
    >Presently I have another, partioned, Travelstar in the Ultrabay, which
    >is labeled as 100 GB, and that is exactly what HD Tune says it is.
    >Windows diskmanager says that one is 93 GB.
    >
    >I accept some 5 - 7 % are used up when partioning, but with this new
    >one it would be 20%! I do know that partioning eats up some of the
    >capacity, but it shouldn't really be this much, or?


    Read up: http://www.48bitlba.com/
    --
    Michael Cecil
    http://macecil.googlepages.com/index.htm
    http://macecil.googlepages.com/safehex.htm
    http://macecil.googlepages.com/hackingvista.htm

  3. Re: New Travelstar is 20% short of specs, reasonable?

    Previously Lars wrote:
    > Hi group,


    > The other day I bought a new Travelstar HD for a Thinkpad.
    > The drive is labeled as a HTS541616J9A, 160 GB, 5400 Rpm.


    > I partioned it, into two parts. And now Windows diskmanager reports it
    > having a total of only 128 GB.
    > HD Tune says it is 137 GB, and so does Belarc.


    > Presently I have another, partioned, Travelstar in the Ultrabay, which
    > is labeled as 100 GB, and that is exactly what HD Tune says it is.
    > Windows diskmanager says that one is 93 GB.


    > I accept some 5 - 7 % are used up when partioning, but with this new
    > one it would be 20%! I do know that partioning eats up some of the
    > capacity, but it shouldn't really be this much, or?



    First, Windows displays wrong numbers. This is well known.
    It shows you GiB, but claims to show GB. Explanation here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix

    Since 128GiB = 137GB, this explains the different displays.
    Windows is also legally wrong, since SI is the law everywhere
    (except in a few remaining backward countries).

    As to your disk, if you look into the datasheet, you will
    find that it has a stated capacity of 160'000'000'000 Bytes.

    So why the difference? Not surprisingly, Microsoft gets
    it wrong again. Earlier version of Windows have a 137GB
    limit. Do you have SP2 installed? (Assuming this is XP...)

    To sum up: Stop complaining about the drive manufacturers.
    What you are seeing is entirely due to flaws in Windows.

    Arno

  4. Re: New Travelstar is 20% short of specs, reasonable?

    Previously, on Usenet Arno Wagner wrote:

    >So why the difference? Not surprisingly, Microsoft gets
    >it wrong again. Earlier version of Windows have a 137GB
    >limit. Do you have SP2 installed? (Assuming this is XP...)


    No, W2K. I had forgotten adding that EnableBigLba string to my
    Thinkpad. Have fixed it now and voila, another 21 GB!

    >To sum up: Stop complaining about the drive manufacturers.
    >What you are seeing is entirely due to flaws in Windows.


    I wasn't complaining, just asking.

    I still don't really understand why Windows have a different value
    than test programs running from within Windows. Is it a 1024 thing?

    Lars
    Stockholm

  5. Re: New Travelstar is 20% short of specs, reasonable?

    Previously Lars wrote:
    > Previously, on Usenet Arno Wagner wrote:


    >>So why the difference? Not surprisingly, Microsoft gets
    >>it wrong again. Earlier version of Windows have a 137GB
    >>limit. Do you have SP2 installed? (Assuming this is XP...)


    > No, W2K. I had forgotten adding that EnableBigLba string to my
    > Thinkpad. Have fixed it now and voila, another 21 GB!


    >>To sum up: Stop complaining about the drive manufacturers.
    >>What you are seeing is entirely due to flaws in Windows.


    > I wasn't complaining, just asking.


    Ok.

    > I still don't really understand why Windows have a different value
    > than test programs running from within Windows. Is it a 1024 thing?


    Exactly. Historically 2^10 was used for 'k' in computers. That makes
    sense when you have size-classes, such as memroy sizes, that are
    an exact power of two, such as a 1MB RAM module. Disks, however,
    can have any number of secors on them and allways have been stated
    according to SI with a kB being 1000 Bytes. Microsoft seems to
    never have notices and uses the wrong units in its size displays.
    The difference between GB and GiB (the correct prefix for a
    power-of-two giga) is about 7%.

    Arno

  6. Re: New Travelstar is 20% short of specs, reasonable?

    Previously, on Usenet Arno Wagner wrote:

    >The difference between GB and GiB (the correct prefix for a
    >power-of-two giga) is about 7%.


    Terrific, there is my 7%! Thanks.


    Lars
    Stockholm

  7. Re: New Travelstar is 20% short of specs, reasonable?

    "Arnie **** Up" wrote in message news:64kge7F2bhf5sU1@mid.individual.net...
    >
    > First, Windows displays wrong numbers. This is well known.
    > It shows you GiB, but claims to show GB. Explanation here:
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix
    >

    Hey **** Up, Lunix used KB=2^10 and MB=2^20 a decade ago.

    > Since 128GiB = 137GB, this explains the different displays.
    > Windows is also legally wrong, since SI is the law everywhere
    > (except in a few remaining backward countries).
    >

    Hey **** Up, SI does not include bytes.

    > As to your disk, if you look into the datasheet, you will
    > find that it has a stated capacity of 160'000'000'000 Bytes.
    >
    > So why the difference? Not surprisingly, Microsoft gets
    > it wrong again. Earlier version of Windows have a 137GB
    > limit. Do you have SP2 installed? (Assuming this is XP...)
    >

    Hey **** Up, everyone has SP1/2/3 on XP.

    > To sum up: Stop complaining about the drive manufacturers.
    > What you are seeing is entirely due to flaws in Windows.
    >

    Hey **** Up, Lunix had the 137GB limit just like Win 2000.

  8. Re: New Travelstar is 20% short of specs, reasonable?

    Previously Lars wrote:
    > Previously, on Usenet Arno Wagner wrote:


    >>The difference between GB and GiB (the correct prefix for a
    >>power-of-two giga) is about 7%.


    > Terrific, there is my 7%! Thanks.


    No problem.

    Arno

  9. Re: New Travelstar is 20% short of specs, reasonable?

    Eric Gisin wrote:
    > "Arnie **** Up" wrote in message
    > news:64kge7F2bhf5sU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>
    >> First, Windows displays wrong numbers. This is well known.
    >> It shows you GiB, but claims to show GB. Explanation here:
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix
    >>

    > Hey **** Up, Lunix used KB=2^10 and MB=2^20 a decade ago.
    >
    >> Since 128GiB = 137GB, this explains the different displays.
    >> Windows is also legally wrong, since SI is the law everywhere
    >> (except in a few remaining backward countries).


    > Hey **** Up, SI does not include bytes.


    It does include prefixes tho.

    >> As to your disk, if you look into the datasheet, you will
    >> find that it has a stated capacity of 160'000'000'000 Bytes.
    >>
    >> So why the difference? Not surprisingly, Microsoft gets
    >> it wrong again. Earlier version of Windows have a 137GB
    >> limit. Do you have SP2 installed? (Assuming this is XP...)
    >>

    > Hey **** Up, everyone has SP1/2/3 on XP.
    >
    >> To sum up: Stop complaining about the drive manufacturers.
    >> What you are seeing is entirely due to flaws in Windows.
    >>

    > Hey **** Up, Lunix had the 137GB limit just like Win 2000.




+ Reply to Thread