Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Platinum Lounger
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    5,016
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Reported HD size

    I'm setting up an external USB HD for my daughter. She wants to use it for backup of her NTFS XP system, as well as to transport files, which MAY have to be read by a Mac (audio/ video files). The specs say it's 320GB, but XP (Pro SP3) reports a size of 298GB. It's currently formatted to FAT32. Two questions:

    Why the discrepancy in reported size?
    Is it worth, for any reason, keeping the FAT32 formatting rather than go for NTFS?

    Alan

  2. #2
    Plutonium Lounger
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    12,107
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: Reported HD size

    Depends on what you mean and where you took the reading. Don't forget that almost all the time when Windows reports sizes it does so using the "true binary" calculation. By the way, I have no knowledge of Mac but I would think she'd be better off changing the file system to NTFS which isn't hard to do. Here's a shot of one of my 500 gig backup drives, for reference, absolute numbers plus Windows binary calculation.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  3. #3
    Platinum Lounger
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    5,016
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Reported HD size

    Quite right Al. Had a slight brain lapse there and forgot about the two calculations. The "nominal" figure is spot on with the manufacturer specs. I think I'll go for NTFS too, since she may want to mirror an NTFS volume for backup.

    Alan

  4. #4
    Super Moderator BATcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    A cultural area in SW England
    Posts
    3,420
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 195 Times in 175 Posts

    Re: Reported HD size

    Another good reason to use NTFS is the maximum filesize of FAT-32 files ... unless you go for the new exFAT!
    BATcher

    Time prevents everything happening all at once...

  5. #5
    Platinum Lounger
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    5,016
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Reported HD size

    Quite right - especially if she's going to mirror a NTFS drive to it!

    I split it into equal sized FAT32 & NTFS partitions. I believe Mac can read from, but not write to, NTFS.

    The reason I queried the size discrepancy in the first place is that it seemed "too" big. Then I realized I was dealing in GB not MB. With each new generation of storage, three orders of magnitude bigger than its predecessor, the relative difference increases by another factor of 1.024... I'm behind the times. <img src=/S/sad.gif border=0 alt=sad width=15 height=15>

    Alan

  6. #6
    Super Moderator BATcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    A cultural area in SW England
    Posts
    3,420
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 195 Times in 175 Posts

    Re: Reported HD size

    It's an interesting contrast, isn't it. To run Partition Magic 8 to change the partition sizes of a new Dell Optiplex this morning I was booting from a 1.44 MB floppy disk and working on a (nominal) 160 GB hard drive. Relative sizes 1 : 111,111 !
    BATcher

    Time prevents everything happening all at once...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •