320GB Hard drive turned 298GB after formatting

[WaXT]

GUYS I need your help so I have the Seagate 320GB HDD, then it got a few virus, and I already quarantined the virus using eset, then I formatted it, then after that it only has 298GB. I mean, WHY? I lost 22GB, and I assume that hard drive "system volume information" won't be as big as 1GB. But I don't get this one. Is there any way to get it back to 320?

this also happened when I formatted my hard drive for my laptop because it could not install windows 7 on my laptop so I tried to format it and then it went from 500 to 465. (QUITE ALLOT)

 

[Maban]

This is perfectly normal and intentional. There is a 7.37% pseudo-overhead in capacity with hard drives. Manufacturers use 1,000,000,000 Bytes as one gigabyte while operating systems use 1,073,741,824 bytes as one gigabyte/gibibyte.

 

[the54thvoid]

...Manufacturers use 1,000,000,000 Bytes as one gigabyte while operating systems use 1,073,741,824 bytes as one Gigabyte/gibibyte.

I take issue with your numeracy, could you be more exact please.

 

[Arctucas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibibyte.

1GiB ≈ 1.074GB

320GB ÷ 1.074 ≈ 298GiB.

 

[jsfitz54]

The non complicated way to determine capacity after formating is to subtract 7%.

So in your case: 320 - 7% = 297.6 approx.

500 - 7% = 465.
1000 - 7% = 930 and so on.

This is normal. You have to format.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

What confuses me is he should have known it was 298 already, since you have to run it obviously to get viruses on it...

 

[jsfitz54]

What confuses me is he should have known it was 298 already, since you have to run it obviously to get viruses on it...

Yes, I noticed this as well.

I suspect that is why the others gave the complicated explanations with the major math formulas.

 

[WaXT]

Oh, so now I understand that this is normal, but is there a way to get those 22GB back? I installed windows 7 once on this 320HDD and it became 298. (2.5" HDD)

 

[Maban]

You never had the other 22GB to begin with. There is nothing to get back.

 

[Widjaja]

Yep regardless of the viruses which may have been in your system.
The volume size able to be used once the drive is formatted is 298GB.

The size of the overhead gets larger too.
My 2TB has 1.8TB available to use after formatting, not 2TB.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

GUYS I need your help so I have the Seagate 320GB HDD, then it got a few virus, and I already quarantined the virus using eset, then I formatted it, then after that it only has 298GB. I mean, WHY? I lost 22GB, and I assume that hard drive "system volume information" won't be as big as 1GB. But I don't get this one. Is there any way to get it back to 320?

this also happened when I formatted my hard drive for my laptop because it could not install windows 7 on my laptop so I tried to format it and then it went from 500 to 465. (QUITE ALLOT)

Hard drive manufacturers go by gigabyte (1,000,000,000 or 10^9 bytes) and Microsoft goes by gibibyte (1,073,741,824 or 2^30 bytes). Gigabyte is appropriately labeled with GB and Gibibyte is appropriately labeled with GiB. Your drive has:
320 GB / 1.073741824 = 298.023223876953125 GiB

It has exactly how many bytes it should have. Microsoft has labeled HDD capacities wrong since forever.

The non complicated way to determine capacity after formating is to subtract 7%.

So in your case: 320 - 7% = 297.6 approx.

500 - 7% = 465.
1000 - 7% = 930 and so on.

This is normal. You have to format.

The higher you go, the greater the difference. 1TB = 0.909 TiB or ~10% difference.

The size of the overhead gets larger too.
My 2TB has 1.8TB available to use after formatting, not 2TB.

2 TB / 1.099511627776 = 1.818989403545856475830078125 TiB

Nope, nothing to with "overhead," just Microsoft's incorrectly labeled units.

 

[Mussels]

You never had the other 22GB to begin with. There is nothing to get back.

^ that

 

[theeldest]

It's like using canadian money in the US. You think something only cost 3 dollars so you pay with a 5 but you only get a dollar in change.

You didn't lose anything, they're just not equal units.

(damn, just checked the exchange rate. US money sucks)

 

[St.Alia-Of-The-Knife]

lets say u buy a 500gb drive, you get like 450gb cuz the rest is for the MBR and stuff

 

[microtrash]

It has exactly how many bytes it should have. Microsoft has labeled HDD capacities wrong since forever.

Microsoft is not wrong. Disk manufacturer are. Long long time ago, at the time of sub-1GB hard drive (when I had a 100MB), disk where labeled with their true capacity, in base 2 (1024 bytes for 1 kbytes). Then, I can't remember exactly when, they decided to use base 10 for advertising disk capacity (1000 bytes for 1kbytes) just because... that make the disk appear bigger to the user (but not the system!!!)

 

[Jetster]

Thats what she said Sorry had too

 

[WaXT]

lol. I laughed reading all these posts guys. Thank you all! much appreciated. I never knew that I couldn't get it back. But someone said it's Microsoft's fault. What if I use OSX? would it be still like 298 GB?

 

[Maban]

OSX (10.6 on) will report it as 320GB but that does not in any way mean you have more capacity. Mac is for the average user ie not tech savvy. They make it that way so people (no offense, but like you) won't complain that they are missing xxGB.

 

[microtrash]

Since OS 10.6, you'll get 320GB. But earlier system still report 298GB.

 

[boise49ers]

Wow what a thread

 

[RejZoR]

OSX (10.6 on) will report it as 320GB but that does not in any way mean you have more capacity. Mac is for the average user ie not tech savvy. They make it that way so people (no offense, but like you) won't complain that they are missing xxGB.

But quite frankyl some sort of regulators should press on storage media vendors to start marking devices with capacity based on 1024 bytes for kilobyte and not 1000 bytes for kilobyte. But no one seems to give a damn about it.

 

[Maban]

Business is business. If you can get more money from less product, wouldn't you do the same?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Microsoft is not wrong. Disk manufacturer are. Long long time ago, at the time of sub-1GB hard drive (when I had a 100MB), disk where labeled with their true capacity, in base 2 (1024 bytes for 1 kbytes). Then, I can't remember exactly when, they decided to use base 10 for advertising disk capacity (1000 bytes for 1kbytes) just because... that make the disk appear bigger to the user (but not the system!!!)

I dug up a 500 MB drive a long time ago and checked it. It was correct. It had 500 MB, not 500 MiB. I do believe I checked a 200 MB drive too. No, Microsoft has screwed up and continues to screw up. The only place where the industry (excluding Microsoft) uses base 2 is in RAM, not flash memory, not hard drives, not optical disks, not solid state drives, nothing. Only RAM. As such, Microsoft has their label correct in only one regard: when referring to RAM.

Frankly, which units are used doesn't matter so long as they are labeled correctly. All OS's, except Windows, now correctly use GB and GiB where appropriate. I bet the only reason why Microsoft hasn't fixed it is because Seagate sued and lost. If Microsoft corrects their label, the people that sued Seagate are likely to go after Microsoft. Microsoft made the mistake by not updating it, not Seagate. Seagate's only error was in not clarifying that Microsoft's interpretation of "GB" is wrong. Now everything from hard drives to optical disks have a disclaimer on their product stating "1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes." Microsoft is still wrong.

The reason why everything is base 10 is because, at the most fundamental levels, they aren't base 2. For example, hard drives have clusters and sectors and every sector can only hold so many bits. It makes more sense for them to operate on base 10 than base 2 because base 2 really means nothing to them. It is a lot like comparing English measurements to SI--which is better depends on the circumstances.

 

[Solaris17]

lets say u buy a 500gb drive, you get like 450gb cuz the rest is for the mbr and stuff

wat

 

[Peter1986C]

I dug up a 500 MB drive a long time ago and checked it. It was correct. It had 500 MB, not 500 MiB. I do believe I checked a 200 MB drive too. No, Microsoft has screwed up and continues to screw up. The only place where the industry (excluding Microsoft) uses base 2 is in RAM, not flash memory, not hard drives, not optical disks, not solid state drives, nothing. Only RAM. As such, Microsoft has their label correct in only one regard: when referring to RAM.

Frankly, which units are used doesn't matter so long as they are labeled correctly. All OS's, except Windows, now correctly use GB and GiB where appropriate. I bet the only reason why Microsoft hasn't fixed it is because Seagate sued and lost. If Microsoft corrects their label, the people that sued Seagate are likely to go after Microsoft. Microsoft made the mistake by not updating it, not Seagate. Seagate's only error was in not clarifying that Microsoft's interpretation of "GB" is wrong. Now everything from hard drives to optical disks have a disclaimer on their product stating "1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes." Microsoft is still wrong.

The reason why everything is base 10 is because, at the most fundamental levels, they aren't base 2. For example, hard drives have clusters and sectors and every sector can only hold so many bits. It makes more sense for them to operate on base 10 than base 2 because base 2 really means nothing to them. It is a lot like comparing English measurements to SI--which is better depends on the circumstances.

Well written "essay" mate. I agree with you that it doesn't matter as long as the right label (using an "i" in between the letters in case of the SI version of the scale, e.g. MiB, TiB). Gparted is doing this actually, IIRC.