Lacie External HD missing GIGS???

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by forthebrave, Mar 29, 2005.

  1. forthebrave macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    #1
    I just bought the Lacie External HD 200GB but when I hooked up it was missing like 10 gigs!!! what's up????
     
  2. jobutex macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Location:
    Arlington, TX
    #2
    One of the problems with HD manufacturers is that they consider a gigabyte as 1000 megabytes... it is actually 1024 megabytes (because that's how the computer figures it.) If you look on the box (I know it's this way on the Western Digital drives) it details what they consider the terminology to be. That's probably why it's reporting as 195GB:

    (200GB * 1000)/1024 = 195.3125GB
     
  3. solaris macrumors 6502a

    solaris

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    Oslo, Norway
    #3
    Almost true.
    They actually use 1000 (instead of 1024) all the way from byte, so its actually even smaller. :(
    200 000 000 000 byte / 1024*1024*1024 = 186GB
     
  4. johnnyjibbs macrumors 68030

    johnnyjibbs

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #4
    Didn't you ever wonder why your Mac internal drive was only 74.5GB instead of the advertised 80GB or 37 instead of 40, etc? :p
     
  5. forthebrave thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    #5
    thanks guys! oh well 186 GB is not that bad....
     
  6. MacFan25863 macrumors 6502a

    MacFan25863

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
  7. combatcolin macrumors 68020

    combatcolin

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Location:
    Northants, UK
    #7
    My 500GB :eek: Lacie triple Interfcae lost 33 Gb after formatting to NTFS.
     
  8. MacFan25863 macrumors 6502a

    MacFan25863

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    #8
    Dude...did you try FAT32 or HFS+? 33 GB sounds like too much. I lost 5 GB on my 60 GB drive in NTFS.


    Actually, now that I think about it, proportionally, 33 GB sounds just about right...maybe even a little low...
     
  9. solaris macrumors 6502a

    solaris

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    Oslo, Norway
    #9
    You did not loose the 33GB because of formatting.
    The drive is wrongly sold and markedet as a 500GB, while it actually is 467GB. Because the manufacturer use 1000 instead of 1024 bit in a kilobit.
     
  10. Rod Rod macrumors 68020

    Rod Rod

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    #10
    Is this the first time you ever bought a hard drive?
     
  11. Mitthrawnuruodo Moderator emeritus

    Mitthrawnuruodo

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Bergen, Norway
    #11
    Because harddrive manufacturers count 1 GB as 1 000 000 000 bytes and a computer counts 1 GB as 1024 MB = 1024^2 KB = 1024^3 bytes any harddrive with size given in GB will be ~93% of the given size. So a 60 GB disk is really ~56 and a 500 GB disk is ~465... just as combatcolin experienced, and others have explained...

    Kind of stupid, and there has been some talks about a class action suit (which would be even more stupid, but that's for the political forums), because of this practice...

    Formatting, on large, modern disks should not take noticable space, just a couple of MB, which were an issue when large disks was 200 MB some 10-15 years ago, but with more than 1000 times larger drives you don't have that problem...
     
  12. combatcolin macrumors 68020

    combatcolin

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Location:
    Northants, UK
    #12
    When you buy a drive most people with some computing experience realise that they will not get the "full" size of the hard drive and expect to "lose some" after formatting.

    As for proper descriptions, well it would be nice but if it was going to happen it would have done so by now.

    And if one company did attempt to, by properly stating a 500GB HD as 467GB, another company would simply call theirs 500GB and put a small discalimer on the box, of course by then your intrested in the higher speced drive and you can guess where im going.

    Never did happen with CRT monitors did it?
     
  13. Platform macrumors 68030

    Platform

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    #13
    The sammler HDD..."smaller space" = smaller loss ;)
     
  14. hcuar macrumors 65816

    hcuar

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    Dallas
    #14
    Actually different formats will result in different sizes in a drive. I'm not so sure about HFS+, however NTFS/fat32/fat16 all had different "overhead" sizes.
     
  15. solaris macrumors 6502a

    solaris

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    Oslo, Norway
    #15
    Thats true.
    But you will never loose 33GB to "overhead" on a 500GB drive. Which is what I answered!
     

Share This Page