Solved How can I gain available storage on an external drive?

And now I have had my drive space lesson for today . . .

For simplicity, I have always just accepted that the drive has less usable space than advertised because Microsoft used it (even if they didn't).

Windows and other OSes state the drive capacity in real GB or TB (GB = 1024^3 Bytes) as they should. The drive manufacturers deliberately state the capacity as if it were decimal (GB = 1000^3 Bytes) to appear their products have greater capacity than the actual. If you ask them about it they claim it is dependent on the file format and nonsense like that. There is no difference if you format as ExFAT, NTFS, Mac OS Extended Journaled or Linux EXT4. The drive capacity it won't magically be larger. It is all marketing tricks to sell their products. In computers it is binary, it is 2^10 = 1024, not decimal 10^3 = 1000.

MisterEd said:

If Samsung quoted a standard then show me the standard. I haven't found where such a standard even exists.

Click to expand...

Google Systeme Internationale!

spapakons said:

Windows and other OSes state the drive capacity in real GB or TB (GB = 1024^3 Bytes) as they should. The drive manufacturers deliberately state the capacity as if it were decimal (GB = 1000^3 Bytes) to appear their products have greater capacity than the actual. If you ask them about it they claim it is dependent on the file format and nonsense like that. There is no difference if you format as ExFAT, NTFS, Mac OS Extended Journaled or Linux EXT4. The drive capacity it won't magically be larger. It is all marketing tricks to sell their products. In computers it is binary, it is 2^10 = 1024, not decimal 10^3 = 1000.

Click to expand...

SI definiti

spapakons said:

Windows and other OSes state the drive capacity in real GB or TB (GB = 1024^3 Bytes) as they should. The drive manufacturers deliberately state the capacity as if it were decimal (GB = 1000^3 Bytes) to appear their products have greater capacity than the actual. If you ask them about it they claim it is dependent on the file format and nonsense like that. There is no difference if you format as ExFAT, NTFS, Mac OS Extended Journaled or Linux EXT4. The drive capacity it won't magically be larger. It is all marketing tricks to sell their products. In computers it is binary, it is 2^10 = 1024, not decimal 10^3 = 1000.

Click to expand...

The definition of kilo, mega, giga etc. predates computers by decades.


You can argue all you like but you are wrong.

Giga is defined as 10 to power 9.

Apple defines a Gigabyte as 1 to power 9 (1000 to power 3) Windows defined it as 1024 to power 3.

The correct (retrospective) term for 1024 to power 3 is GiB.

You are also wrong about all OSs using 1024 basis.

Apple uses True GB. Windows uses False GB i e. GiB.

As I said, it is just an illusion and drive manufacturers are disingenuous as it suits them.

This is 100% the correct explanation.

cereberus said:

Google Systeme Internationale!

Click to expand...

Like I said the only the reference is something in a Samsung FAQ that says

Why is the capacity of my Samsung Solid State Drive displayed differently from the actual capacity?
Samsung SSDs conform to the International Disk Drive Equipment and Materials (IDEMA) standard, which classifies approximately 93 percent of their actual physical memory capacity as usable space for storage.

To make calculations easier for consumers, manufactures rate drive capacity based on the assumption that 1 GB is equal to 1,000 Megabytes (MB) rather than 1,024 MB. When calculating capacity, the OS uses the more accurate 1,024MB, resulting in the discrepancy you notice when looking at the reported capacity versus the actual capacity.

Click to expand...

All I asked for was what proof there was for this claim? Which IDEMA standard were they referring to? I am sure that since you are a Google expert you can find that in no time.

MisterEd said:

Like I said the only the reference is something in a Samsung FAQ that says

All I asked for was what proof there was for this claim? Which IDEMA standard were they referring to? I am sure that since you are a Google expert you can find that in no time.

Click to expand...

Its bollards - whoever wrote that faq is talking out of where the sun does not shine!

The definition of giga etc is fully enshrined in the SI standards.

From Wikipedia

The current version of the SI provides twenty-four metric prefixes that signify decimal powers ranging from 10−30 to 1030, the most recent being adopted in 2022. Most prefixes correspond to integer powers of 1000

Bollards

Would the forum auto-censor have an issue with b0ll0cks? I guess I'll find out. (Edit: converted it to nuts, if I left the O's in.)

The language in this debate (was it ever a discussion?) seems to be getting a bit out of hand.

I am fully aware of the SI system, I was attending Science in School. But this system doesn't apply in computers. The same letters K, M, G are used for convenience to describe the thousands, millions and billions of binary units. But they don't refer to the decimal 10^3, 10^6, 10^9 but to binary 2^10, 2^20, 2^30 etc. We all know computers talk on/off or 0 and 1. This is a bit, the smallest unit of information. 4 bits make a nibble (rarely used today), 8 bits make a byte, 16 bits or two bytes make a word and 32 bits or 4 bytes make a double word. 2^10 = 1024 bytes make 1KB. Similarly 1024KB make 1MB, 1024MB make 1GB and 1024GB make 1TB. The notation is used for convenience, not the same way as in SI. Read some computer books before you say we don't know what we are talking about.

bobkn said:

Bollards

Would the forum auto-censor have an issue with b0ll0cks? I guess I'll find out. (Edit: converted it to nuts, if I left the O's in.)

The language in this debate (was it ever a discussion?) seems to be getting a bit out of hand.

Click to expand...

bolox FTW

I don't care what Linux or Mac OS does, here we are talking about Windows and certainly 1GB is 1024MB. The disk manufacturers deliberately use the decimal values to seem the capacity of the disk is larger. No it isn't. A 120GB SSD is actually 112GB.

Hmmm!
I didn't imagine that my question would spark a lively debate. Isn't it about time to cease and desist before the thread becomes totally irrelevant? (if it hasn't already happened)
regards,
caffeine

caffeine said:

Hmmm!
I didn't imagine that my question would spark a lively debate. Isn't it about time to cease and desist before the thread becomes totally irrelevant? (if it hasn't already happened)
regards,
caffeine

Click to expand...

I think it got out of hand a long time ago. Seems as how the same thing is being said over and over and over, ad infinitum!

I get it. Microsoft says potato; Apple says potahto. We've had this issue since who knows when, so why are we whining about it now?

spapakons said:

I am fully aware of the SI system, I was attending Science in School. But this system doesn't apply in computers. The same letters K, M, G are used for convenience to describe the thousands, millions and billions of binary units. But they don't refer to the decimal 10^3, 10^6, 10^9 but to binary 2^10, 2^20, 2^30 etc. We all know computers talk on/off or 0 and 1. This is a bit, the smallest unit of information. 4 bits make a nibble (rarely used today), 8 bits make a byte, 16 bits or two bytes make a word and 32 bits or 4 bytes make a double word. 2^10 = 1024 bytes make 1KB. Similarly 1024KB make 1MB, 1024MB make 1GB and 1024GB make 1TB. The notation is used for convenience, not the same way as in SI. Read some computer books before you say we don't know what we are talking about.

Click to expand...

Sigh - you just are just regurgitating patronising rhetoric. I was using computers back in 60's!

I used to program 6502 microprocessors in machine/assembler years before MS was even heard of!

It is blooming simple - Windows uses term gigabyte incorrectly - end of story. Apple uses gigabyte correctly - end of story!

Here is an exercise for you:-
Plug any disk in Windows - read its capacity.
Plug same in Apple - read its capacity
Then blooming note which one agrees with the disk.

Use your brain - both use term gigabyte - one agrees with the drive capacity, one does not.
They cannot both be right (Apples predated Windows PCs)

Perhaps there is a little clue there that Windows uses term incorrectly!

No point in discussing anymore.

If you want to get the last word, please feel free to embarrass yourself.

cereberus said:

the maths was basically wrong

Click to expand...

I think you are saying that, when Windows reports a size in TB or GB, Windows is actually reporting values that have been measured in TiB or GiB but is using misleading labels?

Denis

Try3 said:

I think you are saying that, when Windows reports a size in TB or GB, Windows is actually reporting values that have been measured in TiB or GiB but is using misleading labels?

Denis

Click to expand...

Both 1000 & 1024 were both used interchangeably until someone came with terms like GiB. The problem is that GiB is still not commonly used so the debate and confusion continues even today. All we have to remember is that drive manufactures will continue to use 1K=1000 and Windows will continue to use 1K=1024. I don't see that changing anytime soon. We need to stop pointing fingers because both usages are correct in their own context. It is a waste of time arguing about the matter and accept the way it is.

If the 93% number that Samsung came up is based upon some real standard then I would find that useful. That would give people something to refer to when they wonder why their drives have less free space than expected. The problem is that I can only find that number in a Samsung FAQ and not anywhere else. It would be nice if there was some official guidelines on this so people would have one less thing to be confused about.

Try3 said:

I think you are saying that, when Windows reports a size in TB or GB, Windows is actually reporting values that have been measured in TiB or GiB but is using misleading labels?

Denis

Click to expand...

100% Correct - Windows reports in GiB but, to be fair, the term Gib was later introduced to clarify the issue (and confused most people even more LOL).

The problem is as drives get larger, the "discrepancy" is more obvious and uninformed persons think there is something wrong - some of the explanations I see are truly laughable e.g. the usable ram is lower than actual ram due to provisioning. Provisioning is a separate subject of course.

Having said all that, if the drive manufacturers had not tried to use it as a marketing ploy, vast majority of users would never even know the difference (or need to know).

They are not the only ones guilty of being disingenous. We are subjected to it all the time.

A 72 Mb/s Internet plan sounds a lot niftier than an 8 MB/s plan.

A Gigabit Router sounds a lot faster than a 125 MB/s router.

Have you ever wondered why you inkjet ot laserjet seems to run out of ink much faster than the sellers quote?

They always quote (say) "up to 1000 pages" per cartridge.

The bit they do not tell you exceprt in microscopic print is the more accurate term is "up to 1000 pages with 5% coverage of page being printed on".

5% is rougly equivalent to printing half of page of text at a typical font like Calibri 10.

I print lots of reports and I have never got close to 1000 pages - that is because most pages in a report are full pages.

They should be forced to state an estimate of typically how many full pages of typical text a cartridge would print.
The "standard" should be based on 10%.

They are never going to agree to that of course.

MisterEd said:

Both 1000 & 1024 were both used interchangeably until someone came with terms like GiB. The problem is that GiB is still not commonly used so the debate and confusion continues even today. All we have to remember is that drive manufactures will continue to use 1K=1000 and Windows will continue to use 1K=1024. I don't see that changing anytime soon. We need to stop pointing fingers because both usages are correct in their own context. It is a waste of time arguing about the matter and accept the way it is.

If the 93% number that Samsung came up is based upon some real standard then I would find that useful. That would give people something to refer to when they wonder why their drives have less free space than expected. The problem is that I can only find that number in a Samsung FAQ and not anywhere else. It would be nice if there was some official guidelines on this so people would have one less thing to be confused about.

Click to expand...

93% only applies to Megabytes - how can using a number that does not apply to Terabytes be useful?
As most large drives are Terabytes now - 90.9% is the correct number!

I showed you the maths - who needs an official guideline to do maths!

cereberus said:

100% Correct

Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I now understand why we have been posting different conversion maths.

All the best,
Denis

caffeine said:

I was already familiar with the 1000* and 1024* factors for computational purposes. However, I had always assumed that the difference between advertised and real capacity was something very different. I expected the difference in available storage was because of reserved space for MBR, factory installed software for backup features, etc. With that in mind the difference on this drive seemed to be excessive.

Click to expand...

While a boot drive may lose some space due to boot/recovery/etc.. patitions, an external drive would not have that issue.

That's not to say there isn't overhead. the filesystem itself has some overhead, such as directory entries, journaling, etc.. but this is relatively small. Also, Windows keeps an area of the disk for system purposes (backups of key files, etc..) This is usually hidden unless you have show system files turned on.

The issue is entirely one of terminology. Drive makers count bytes with decimals (base 10) and OS's count them with binary (base 2).