I have a question about my hard drive. When I look at the hard drive in resource monitor, it says I have 417,241MB out of 476,838 MB. However, when I look at the C Drive, it says I only have 407GB out of 465GB? I'm not sure which to follow in terms of how much space I have left.
And I can't seem to figure out what is taking up the majority of the space as I only have 2 games installed, and the program files says it only takes around 18GB (including programs).
The difference between 407GB and 417,241MB is due to the arcane way in which Microsoft displays disk sizes. 1MB is not 1,000,000 - it is actually 1024 * 1024. Similarly, 1GB is not 1,000,000,000, it is actually 1024^3. This means that the numbers given as GB and MB are not directly comparable, even though they are actually the same.
If you're short on space then check to make sure you don't have a lot of stuff in the recycle bin and also check to see how much space is being used by restore points by doing this:
- Start -> right-click "Computer" and select "Properties"
- Click "System Protection" in the left pane
- Select the drive in question to highlight it and then click "Configure"
The resulting dialogue box will show you how much space is used by restore points and give you a slider to adjust how much you'll allow.
People keep trying to fit a base 2 language into their base 10 education. Computers speak in Base 2, because a bit can only be marked 1 or 0 (2 choices). We count to 10 (choices 0 - 9) and then set aside that 10 with a 1 in the next digit to the left ..... 15 items is 1 ten + 5 ones in base 10 (15) ..... 15 is one eight + 1 four + 1 two + 1 one in base 2 (1111).
People (well generally) use base 10 numbering system based no doubt on the fact that we have 10 fingers. When PC's were used only by technologically savvy people, this was never a problem. When advertising execs, got into the fray, it became apparent that they could make non savvy folks think they were buying something bigger than it really was. The sales literature on my 1 GB hard drive that I bought in 1993 ($1000) contained 1,024 MB. Since the mid to late 90's, HD sales literature says a GB only contains 1,000 MB's.
Unfortunately, since computers are not (at least in my lifetime) ever going to start working in anything other than Base 2, PC systems will correctly report GB's based upon the original definition that a GB containing 1024 MBs. Many standards bodies have "re-defined" GB to fit the now common base 10 vernacular. However I still find it amazing that peeps are quite comfortable with the fact that a GB of RAM space contains 1,024 MB and yet a GB of storage space only contains 1,000 MB.
Kinda like a box containing a dozen apples allowing me to eat an apple a day for 12 days but a box of a dozen oranges at one a day would only last me 10 days. Before ya think that I just gave the VP of sales at Tropicana a big idea, he's already here....a pint of OJ now only contains 14.5 ounces.
...PC systems will correctly report GB's based upon the original definition that a GB containing 1024 MBs.
"Correct" is in the eye of the beholder. RAM sizes are always reported in binary units because the capacity of RAM chips is always a power of 2. This is not true of hard drives - hard drive sizes depend on density and geometry considerations that are completely independent of powers of 2. Similarly, transmission speeds have always been quoted in decimal units because speeds have nothing to do with powers of 2.
In an industry which universally agrees that transmission speeds are measured in decimal units, tell my why on earth my 1GByte file should take anything other than 100 seconds to transfer over a 10MByte/sec link?
Microsoft prides itself on designing systems that are easy for non-technical users - yet it insists on reporting binary units for MBytes and GBytes, despite the fact that there is no advantage to doing so and it constantly causes questions such as the one posed in this thread.
Here's the real test: If Windows Explorer had an option to display file and disk sizes using binary or decimal units, which ones would you choose? Despite almost 40 years in the computer industry with an extensive background in machine and assembler language programming, I'd choose decimal. There's just no good reason for me to choose otherwise - and I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people would agree with me.