my hard-disk capacity was 320GB.But inow it is just 297.4..how?
For shorter, it is because when you install a HDD it needs to format(not windows). The HDD needs the format for being able to run. After when you install windows, that takes a little more, so all formatting and other's, take space themselves
Actually the the reason is not formatting its because the actual space they advertise is different then actual real usable space. For instance most company's represent 100 MB as 100 million bytes when in fact its 104,857,600 bytes. FYI this occurs because of two different understandings in what the mega - giga and tera byte prefixes represent.
For instance most company's represent 100 MB as 100 million bytes when in fact its 104,857,600 bytes. FYI this occurs because of two different understandings in what the mega - giga and tera byte prefixes represent.
RAM sizes need to be represented as powers of 2 because the basic capacities of memory chips are always powers of 2. That's not true of disk drives, nor is it true of other computer terms such as transmission speeds, clock rates, etc. For all those other metrics, the "M" in "MByte", "MHz", etc means 1,000,000.
For some obscure reason that I have never understood, Microsoft (who pride themselves on usability in their products) has decided to have Windows Explorer report disk drive sizes using binary prefixes. It makes no sense, IMHO, because it's at odds with the sizes that the hardware industry uses (and has always used, right back to the days of 5MByte disk drives). It leads to contradictory information, such as Explorer reporting that the same file consumes 1,067,533,386 bytes, 1,042,514KB, or 0.99GB depending where you look. And it also means that you can't perform a nice simple calculation like "at 100MByte/sec it should take less than 10 seconds to transfer this 0.99GB file".
The problem is getting worse, because as drive sizes increase the spread between the two reporting systems is increasing. There's only about 2% difference between 1,000 and 1,024, but now that we're up into TB drives the discrepancy is almost 10% of the overall size.
I get pushback about this opinion from a lot of tech types. I'm a tech type myself, have been for almost 40 years. I've had a long career that started out writing machine code for the IBM 1620 and have written assembler-level programs for several computer architectures. But I still think that reporting disk and files sizes using binary prefixes is stupid. Nobody's been able to explain to me what the advantage of using binary prefixes is. For me the acid test is this: if Windows Explorer had an option to report disk and file sizes using binary or decimal prefixes, which would you choose?
as I said using Microsofts Binary prefix creates a " different understandings in what the mega - giga and tera byte prefixes represent" and I'am on the same page and if you think about that almost 10% lose in overall size for a TB its really shocking considering we are quickly moving to Multiple TB drives when you consider there are all ready 3TB drives and we could be looking at 5-10 in the near future you could be looking at some really massive losses in space. a 10TB drive not some thing unlike to see in the next couple years would see a almost 15% loss that's 1.5 TB that is just gone.