 | 
07-14-2003, 02:54 AM
|
#1 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 320
| » 
ecs k7s5a and hard drive size
just installed a 160 GB Maxtor without a controller card. the drive is recognized only as 127 GB. is there a way to get it recognized as larger? i know some bios do not recognize greater than a certian size without an ata controller card. do i need to update the bios or am i stuck at 127? if so, not a big deal.....only need about 120 for editing video, but the 160 was a good deal. thanks for the info.
t
btw....not sure what version of bios i'm running. i can check if necessary. sure it's one of the earlier ones. everything else running good.
| 
|  | |
07-14-2003, 03:28 AM
|
#2 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 320
|
figured it out. using the disk management tools in control panel-->administrative tools-->computer management--> disk management. it showed the 127 gb partition and the remaining space as "unused space." was able to delete the 127gb partition and then create a new partion of 152.66 gb.
just to confirm....it is normal to "lose" a portion of the drive right? in this case 8.34 gb. what is the purpose of the loss. what is it being used for? thanks.
| |
| | |
07-14-2003, 03:28 AM
|
#3 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 320
|
double post
| |
| | |
07-14-2003, 03:30 AM
|
#4 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Finland
Posts: 3,838
|
It is normal, I think the confusion between size and real size goes with the bit/byte confusion.
The size on hd (160gb) is calculated with 1000 blocks and not as 1024 blocks as it should, thus the smaller real size.
-M
| |
| | |
07-14-2003, 03:39 AM
|
#5 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 320
|
i thought that the drive had the actual 160 gb, but that a portion of it is being used. when i install windows xp and am partitioning there, it always leaves a 8 gb portion per partion that was "not usable." anyhow, i'm happy now. 156gb is better than 127.
| |
| | |
07-14-2003, 06:19 AM
|
#6 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 221
|
These guys responded before I did, lol.
Well, your answer to the question of why you have 156GB instead of 160GB, is because...
You start off with 160GB of formatted space, after you partition the hard drive, you have 156GB of unformatted space.
| |
| | |
07-14-2003, 02:04 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Augsburg, Germany
Posts: 3,814
|
Nonono. This is an FAQ ever since hard drive makers started using decimal rather than real (binary) measures, for the larger numbers to impress the customers more (and confuse them half an hour later).
Hard drive marketing uses decimal gigabytes, 1,000,000,000 bytes each. Real computing gigabytes are on a binary basis, 2^30 or 1,073,741,824 bytes.
So a harddrive advertized as "160GB" has only 149 actual gigabytes. Nothing lost, except another slice of trust in marketing.
| |
| | |
07-15-2003, 09:07 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holmen, Wisconsin USA
Posts: 2,130
| Quote: Originally posted by lobo_pac
i thought that the drive had the actual 160 gb, but that a portion of it is being used. when i install windows xp and am partitioning there, it always leaves a 8 gb portion per partion that was "not usable." anyhow, i'm happy now. 156gb is better than 127. | Oops, it's actually 8Mb, not 8Gb. The 8Mb is overhead for the file system.
| |
| | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | | | Most Active Discussions  | | | | |
Recent Discussions | | | | | |
