320GB External: why shows up at 298.1GB?

I've attached a Seagate Freeagent pro 320GB to my mac, formated the whole drive in Mac OS X Extended (HFS+). But it says that my drive is only 298.1GB. What happened to the other 21.9GB?

 

The drive size depends on manufacturer's classification. Technically 1GB is 1024MB which is 1024KB. However sometimes these values are rounded down to 1000 rather than 1024. As a result your "320GB" hard disk is actually around 298GB, because the manufacturer has calssified a GB as 1000MB instead of 1024MB etc.

 

how kind of them ...

 

Yeah they do all they can to make sure you get less bang for buck. That's rules of business I suppose. Imagine how much space I lost on my 1TB!

 

Additional memory is also used up for the file table etc.

 

All of you a WRONG and confused.

They advertise hard drives in DECIMAL while OS reports hard drive space in BINARY. This why SOOOOO many people are confused when there sould not be any confusion at all.

Its LAUGHABLE how people make up theories like "Additional memory is also used up for the file table etc." SIMPLE LAUGHABLE and NOT true.

Truth is VERY Simple people. When you buy a 320gb hard drive an OS reports 298.1gb. There is NO missing space since OS reports in binary and 298.1gb BINARY gbs holds exactly 320 billion PHYSICAL spaces for a byte which is EXACTLY what you bought. When will people learn there is NO missing space??

Just like the YEN is worth 1.5 times the dollar. OS can tell me I have 10 yens. To me that means I have 15 physical dollars. Im NOT missing any money....

 

Too funny....Did you just make that up yourself???

ALL hard drive mfrs advertise in Decimal. ALL of them. There is no "rounding down" (you just made that up didnt you ) A 320gb hard drive actually has 320 billion physical spaces to hold a byte. It called decimal to binary conversion and since OS displays in Binary it show 298.1gb.

YES, 298.1 BINARY gbs PHYSICALLY holds 320 billion spaces for a Byte hence you have in decimal 320gbs as advertised.

Not that hard to understand people and Im amazed so many people dont understand this.

There is NO missing space people....

 

Hah, well at least I seem to have my answer.
Although I would've appreciated if you had given the answer in a nicer and more polite tone. I think your post is rude, or at the very least border-line rude.

 

LOL Sorry I just hate when others make up false theories and post misinformation because they "feel" it seems correct and that was the case in this thread. (nothing to do with you)

 

I don't "feel" anything, my post states a common theory as to why this is. Amol would seem to agree with me. If it is incorrect then I apologise and am corrected, however your tone of posting negates the validity of the content.

As sepandee says, please conduct yourself in a more polite manner, especially when quoting a post from a moderator.

 

moon angel was trying to explain in simple language...and onion was trying to explain in the exact manner...now ask an average joe how many bits in a byte...he wont know..

So onion u were perfectly right but ya the choice of words made you look slightly ****y which means arrogant.

 

One simply need to get used to my "sharp edge"

 

Wow, thats good to know, I just thought the heads on the harddrive just could not go to the outer ring of the disks. When I have opened up harddrives, the heads will never go to the edge of the disks, so that they do not fall off. I thought that distance between the heads travel and the outer edge of the disk was the cause of the apparent data loss.

Thanks Onion, for the knowledge

One question though, when ever I format 15000rpm SCSI drives, they always format to their stated capacity. I have many 9.1 Gb and 18.2Gb 15000rpm drives which format to a useable 9.1 and 18.2Gb respectively. Any idea?

K-TRON

 

Those scsi drives are actually 10.8gb and 21.6gb in decimal. The reason for that is that those drives were advertised and labeled in binary not decimal hence you get the exact 9.1gb and 18.2gb capacity in both the OS and label on the drive as they are both showing you the capacity in the same binary format. All IDE/SATA drives are advertised in decimal though. Let me guess, you're talking about Seagate scsi right?

 

Yes I am talking about Seagate. I have about a dozen 15K Seagates, and 2 9.1Gb 10K Western digitals. Thats quite interesting. Thanks for the info.

K-TRON

 

So, Onion...

What is the difference between being "listed in decimal" and "listed in binary" and how does this equate to the different sizes?

 

Onion is basically saying the exact same thing Moon Angel said sans the 1024MB equals 1024KB bit, which I believe to be a typo.

Furthermore, some memory is indeed used up to store the formatting information of the drive (about 0.1% of a HD), which I have said to be the file table in my previous post. I admit that the term I used might not have been totally accurate in all cases, however, Onion should have at least realised that if he was indeed as knowledgeable as he claims to be.

If Onion is too dense to be able to realise those trivial facts, then I strongly recommend him to at least finish middle school and pay more attention during class and actually attempt homework for once in his lifetime before insulting the method in which other people reply to questions raised in these forums.

 

As a marketing strategy, HDD Manufacturing companies compute the size in decimal, that is they treat 1 KB as 1000 Bytes, 1 MB as 1000 KB and 1 GB as 1000 MB...

But the computer reads that in binary and tries to calculate 1 KB as 1024 Bytes, 1 MB as 1024 KB and 1 GB as 1024 MB....

so, your normal 1 GB (1,000,000,000 Bytes (This is the advertised capacity)) flash drive would actually be treated by the computer as a 931 MB Capacity..., simple math... (1,000,000,000/1024*1024*1024)...

 

Dude! I think you are missing a point here....

The way you said about 'Decimal' and 'Binary' translates into '1000' & '1024' in simple language and there's nothing wrong with that fact (theory as you might want to refer to that )

 

Your OS and your hard drive manufacturer use different definition of what 1 GB is. Most HD manufacturers define 1 GB as 10^9=1,000,000,000 bytes (base 10 number) while Mac and Windows OS define 1 GB as 2^30=1,073,741,824 (base 2 number). So 298.1 GB (base 2) = 298.1 * 2^30 = 320,082,437,734 bytes (base 10). You lost nothing.

FYI:
1 KB = 2^10 = 1,024 bytes
1 MB = 2^20 = 1,048,576 bytes
1 GB = 2^30 = 1,073,741,824 bytes
1 TB = 2^40 = 1,099,511,627,776 bytes

 

So infact, I was right, just not using the technical words.

So, Onion, eat my shorts

 

What she meant was that 1GB = 1024MB, 1MB = 1024 KB, which is correct. (And is much more precise than the hand-waving "decimal vs binary" magic onion tried to get away with.

I don't think that is subtracted from the total drive size though. From individual partitions, yes, but not from the drive itself, afaik. (To be honest, I haven't checked it)

Now, why on earth are people saying "Onion is right, but Moon Angel meant the same thing, so that's ok"?
It's the other way around.

What Onion is saying is complete rubbish. He means roughly the right thing, but technically, what he posted is garbage (rude garbage)
Moon Angel stated the explanation precisely and accurately.

Don't believe me? Here we go then:

Er, no?. The 298.1GB value is a decimal number too. Binary is 1's and 0's. And you can write 320 in binary just as easily as you can write 298.1 in decimal.
The number base has nothing to do with anything whatosever.

They use different definitions of "gigabyte", yes, but it's not exactly binary vs decimal.
Harddisk manufacturers just use a rounded-down version of a gigabyte, which is slightly smaller, but is more convenient to people used to a decimal system (who find 1000 easier to deal with than 1024)
But it's still rounding down.

Yes, and 320 billion isn't the same as 320 gigabyte. It's a few billion less than that. (So if we look at it this way, they round up instead of down)
As Jess said, 1 gigabyte is 1024 megabyte. Harddrive manufacturers use a rounded down version which is 1000 megabyte. Yes, it is rounding down that takes place. It's not some magical "binary to decimal" conversion.

Soooo, perhaps you should.... I don't know, make sure that what you post is actually correct? Or just refrain from posting?
If all that comes out is 1: rude, and 2: incorrect, there doesn't seem to be much reason for posting.

I don't know about technical, you used the right words, onion didn't. If you consider "binary" a technical word, I suppose onion used on. Just a shame it wasn't very relevant.

 

Just to clear up confusion: Onion is indeed correct. Quite rude, but correct nevertheless.

This is why the binary notation prefix of "i" was recently introduced.
These are the old 2^x values we're used to.
KiB = 2^10 (1024) bytes
MiB = 2^20 (1048576) bytes
GiB = 2^30 (1073741824) bytes
TiB = 2^40 (1099511627776) bytes

Now the decimal notation the HD manufacturers use is the standard abbreviations of
KB = 10^3 (1,000) bytes
MB = 10^6 (1,000,000) bytes
GB = 10^9 (1,000,000,000) bytes
TB = 10^12 (1,000,000,000,000) bytes

In summary, HD manufacturers measure bytes using the decimal system, but system RAM is measured in the binary system and thus OSes use this system for addressing.

 

Yay Jalf

 

No, he meant the right thing, but what he said was wrong.

The one which is only ever used on Wikipedia? Thanks, but I'll pass.
And despite the name, it's not a question of decimal vs binary. It' a matter of rounding.
It's just that people used to decimal numbers want to round off in one place, while those used to binary want to round off the other.
To people who don't know about binary, it seems silly to talk about 1024 byte. So they round off and say "Hey, let's pretend a kilobyte is 1000 byte instead".
Because 1000 is a nice round number in decimal, while 1024 is nice and round in binary (10000000000)
But that's all it has to do with binary or decimal. Actual binary numbers don't even come into it. And harddisk sizes are always shown in decimal (because no one wants to read binary numbers)

No, they do it using a different definition of gigabyte than everyone else. One that is rounded to fit with the standard SI-prefixes (where giga means billion)
Everyone uses the decimal system, like I said. (The decimal system is simply the one where you have the digits 0-9, and I don't often see harddrive sizes measured in other number systems)

Exactly how much a gigabyte is, simply depends on which definition you use. And traditionally, 1 gigabyte has been 1024 megabyte, regardless of Wikipedia's attempt at changing and censoring this part of the world as well.
(And yeah, I know Wikipedia didn't invent it, but they're the only place I've seen it used, and the only place I've seen people banned for preferring to stick to the traditional meaning)

 

Semantics.

The IEC established the new naming convention in 2000. Just because it's rarely used outside of engineering circles and only publicly-referenced on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's incorrect.

Yes, it is.

No, it isn't. I just explained the matter in a 100% technically-correct fashion.
Just because Windows and 99.999% of PC users use the wrong notation doesn't mean the standard is incorrect.

PCs are binary. All calculations are performed using the binary system, you know, 0s and 1s (i.e. powers of 2). Humans use decimal notation. Kilo = 1000 (not 1024) so a "KiloByte" would be 1000 bytes. KibiByte is 1024 bytes, and is the actual size of what is traditionally (incorrectly) referred to as a KiloByte.

It doesn't work that way. You can't use the same term for two different things, which is why the IEC established the binary notation naming convention to clear up this very matter. Binary notation solves this problem quite simply, and if HD manufacturers and OS programmers would adhere to the established standards instead of using colloquialisms, the confusion would disappear much quicker.

 

Jalf...

1. 298.1gb is the decimal representation of the amount of BINARY GBs in a 320gb drive and when I used a decimal representation of a binary number I always used "binary gbs" directly after the decimal number. Though represented in decimal we are still talking about BINARY numbers. This is a "given" which you seem to have not understood..

2. YES 320 billion IS the same as 320 gigabytes. Humans communicate in decimal numbers and because 320 billion is a decimal number there are 320 billion physical loacations in 320 gigabytes. NOT in 320 BINARY gigabytes but simply in 320 gigabytes. Simply google "giga" if you do not know what it means...

3. Hard drive Mfrs are NOT using a "rounded down" version of gigabyte as no such thing exsists! Because they advertise in decimal they are 100% correct. You dont see the word "Binary" inbetween "320" and "gb" on hard drive boxes do you? No off course not because they are communicating to you in DECIMAL because humans are NOT computers.

4. Windows or other OSs show you the decimal amount of BINARY gbs. The OS is still communicating to you in BINARY format its just displaying in decimal how many binary numbers it has. Binary to Decimal conversion has everything to do with understand this!

 

I see what onion is saying. The definition of Kilo is 1000, not 1024. So 1KB should be 1000 bytes not 1024. Therefore, the manufacturers 320GB is in the pure sense of giga byte as to say 1000,000,000 bytes. Where is gets confusing is that the generally accepted value of a Kilobyte is 1024KB, because of computing's reliance on binary not decimal.

So, I think we're all right.

 

I said as much in my first (and second) posts.

 

Well it seems not eevryone understood!

 

We're all right, but we all lose (and hard drive manufacturers win). Every program uses the binary notation for space, every computer, and pretty much every person.

HDD manufacturers simply choose to use a scheme more convenient for them.

 

Greg...i would say its more of marketing technique rather than convenience..

in the 7 components of marketing mix it comes under Promotion...


I realized last month that my 120GB HD was actually 111.1 GB..


Marketing guys are not like us... they know that great technology doesnt sell but what sells is great technology

 

has everyone forgetten about the old tube monitors 17" was actually only a 16" , 15" was a 14" and a 14" was a 13" pick up a 2 x 4 100yrs ago it was actually 2" x 4"

sure this has nothing to do with drive space LOL

 

No we're not-. Binary numbers look like this: 100101011001. Numbers like "320" or "298.1" which are the numbers we're discussing, are not binary. There is a slight relation to binary in that the *common* definition of gigabyte is a nice round number in binary notation (where it's exactly 10000000000 megabytes), but the binary representation itself has nothing to do with it.
The decimal representation of 320 is 320, no matter the unit. It's 320 whether the unit is kilogram, meter, hertz or bytes.
However, 320 of what you call decimal gigabytes equals 298.1 of what you call binary gigabytes, yes. But decimal representation has nothing to do with it. All the numbers discussed here are decimal numbers. The magic is not in decimal vs binary at all. It's simply in which unit you choose to use. Just like you the number of miles between two cities is not the same as the number of kilometers. The units change, the number base doesn't.
What you call binary gigabytes is only called binary because they happen to be more convenient to use with binary numbers. But they *are* not binary in any way. They're simply a unit.

No there isn't, because the commonly accepted definition of gigabyte is 1024 megabyte.

What you mean is not decimal numbers (as I said, both values are decimal), but SI-units. They are the ones where you have milli, kilo, mega, giga and so on. And no, "humans" do not communicate using those. Half the world uses miles, inches or feet instead, which is *not* nice and clean with multiples of 10 everywhere. Only the SI system has that handy feature.
And yes, if gigabyte had been a SI unit, then it should have meant 10^9 megabytes. The IEC has tried to make it so, but the general and common definition is not. That is instead 2^10 megabytes, or 1024.
And I don't know if you've noticed this, but this is a rounding. The IEC (and harddrive manufacturers) decided "Hmm, 1024 MB is an ugly number, let's pretend it's 1000 instead, and represent disk capacities using that special definition". That is a rounding, exactly what you insulted Jess for saying they used.

But it's simply using a different unit. It's nothing to do with binary or decimal.

I know about the Kibibyte nonsense, but the fact is, it's hardly ever used. Which makes it irrelevant. And when people write GB, it *usually* means 1024 MB. It may, if you live in Wikipedia, mean 1000MB, but that is not exactly common practice.

Simply jump in the ocean if you think you'll impress anyone with personal insults.
Come back when you can carry out a sentence without trying to insult people. It's getting a bit too common.

Sooo.. how did "1024 b = 1kb" turn into "1000b = 1kb", if not by rounding?
Rounding is precisely what it is. They rounded off the units in the same way I round off inches when I have to talk to one of those crazy people who uses that particular unit to represent lengths.
The only difference is that when I use rounded off inches, I don't pretend it's a distinct and precise unit. I know it's an approximation.
In this case, they did invent a new unit based on this rounded-off value. they just named it the same as the old one. But it's still a new and distinct unit. And a unit is all it is. It doesn't care if your numbers are written in decimal, binary or base42. It just tells you how many bytes go on a gigabyte.

Oh, they're decimal... What a surprise... You know, the simple fact that they use digits such as "3" in the numbers is a good hint that they're not binary.

Here's what I don't think you've grasped.
So-called "binary gigabytes" have nothing to do with binary numbers.
So-called "decimal gigabytes" have nothing to do with decimal numbers.
320 is a decimal number regardless of whether you're talking about gigabytes(IEC's version), gigabytes(the common version) or gibibytes (the IEC version that equals the common version of gigabytes)
IEC's version of gigabyte was made by rounding off from the conventional definition of gigabyte. When you take a number like 1024, and turn it into 1000, solely so that it looks prettier, that process is called rounding. That is precisely what the IEC did.
When someone simply write gigabyte, or GB, they will 99.9% of the time refer to what you insist on calling a gibibyte.

Errr, no.
If Windows says I have a 320GB harddisk, it'll say 320GB. 320 looks like this in binary: 101000000, and Windows doesn't say that. That means exactly 320 though. it doesn't mean 298.1 or any other value. The conversion between decimal and binary is precise, it doesn't change the number. 320 is 320 in *any* number base, and with *any* unit. 320 KM is 320 KM, 320 miles are 320 miles.

 

It means it's irrelevant. A gigabyte is best defined as "what people understand when you say gigabyte".

Err, yes it does. It means that the standard is not a standard. Look up the word "standard", please. Something that isn't used can never be a standard.

Until IEC did this, we didn't have two definitions for the same term. Until then, a kilobyte was 1024 byte. Simple as that. True, it was a unusual usage of the word "kilo", but it was unambiguous.

IEC were the ones who decided to redefine it, which means that we *now* use the same term for two different things.
They created the confusion.

"Established standard"? That is exactly what they're doing. The established standard is the one where 1KB = 1024B"
Now if only the international standards bodies such as the IEC would adhere to established standards as well, the confusion would never have arisen.

 

Kilo = 1000, there's no getting around this fact. By the literal definition of the word, kilobyte = 1000 bytes. It was a lazy programmer that decided that 2^10 was close enough to 1000 to name 2^10 bytes as 1 kilobyte.

A GigaFLOP is 1 billion FLOPs, not 2^30.

/end thread

 

boy am i glad I asked the question! I think everyone got something off their chest that otherwise would've made them age faster or something!

 

my 160gb is really 149gb shame tho that the tech companies havent figured out how to get over block. they should advertise 160gb as 160gb