Question About Hard-Drive In New Laptop

[colchar]

This may be a stupid question (I can be really brain-dead when it comes to computers) but I'm hoping someone here can answer it for me.

I just bought the new laptop that I was asking about in a previous thread. It is supposed to have a 200GB HD but, when I look at the C drive it lists it as being Drive C - 173GB and Drive D - 5.87GB (let's call this one 6GB). Obviously, it is partitioned which doesn't bother me. What I am concerned about is the total size.

Does the system that was delivered to me therefore have a smaller HD than it was supposed to (ie. 180GB instead of 200GB) or is the rest of it simply being eaten up by the abominatin that is Vista?

[DevilAlumna]

This may be a stupid question (I can be really brain-dead when it comes to computers) but I'm hoping someone here can answer it for me.

I just bought the new laptop that I was asking about in a previous thread. It is supposed to have a 200GB HD but, when I look at the C drive it lists it as being Drive C - 173GB and Drive D - 5.87GB (let's call this one 6GB). Obviously, it is partitioned which doesn't bother me. What I am concerned about is the total size.

Does the system that was delivered to me therefore have a smaller HD than it was supposed to (ie. 180GB instead of 200GB) or is the rest of it simply being eaten up by the abominatin that is Vista?

Watch it... ;)

Your computer probably has a hidden partition (not listed as a separate drive); you may have to enter into the BIOS to see it. I know my Dell Vostro had a "support" partition that took up about 8GB, until I wiped the whole thing out and installed Vista afresh.

Something I recommend you do, by the way, particularly if your machine came with a lot of cra... I mean bloatware.

[colchar]

Watch it... ;)

Your computer probably has a hidden partition (not listed as a separate drive); you may have to enter into the BIOS to see it. I know my Dell Vostro had a "support" partition that took up about 8GB, until I wiped the whole thing out and installed Vista afresh.

Something I recommend you do, by the way, particularly if your machine came with a lot of cra... I mean bloatware.

Thanks. Is there any way to remove that hidden partition without installing Vista afresh? I am seriously considering dumping Vista to install XP but haven't decided yet as I've been reading on the web that this model is notoriously tough to downgrade (driver issues apparently). If I do dump Vista, XP will take care of the partition for me. If I don't dump it though, I'd like to be able to undo that extra partition without reloading Vista. Is that possible?

[Clipsfan]

This may be a stupid question (I can be really brain-dead when it comes to computers) but I'm hoping someone here can answer it for me.

I just bought the new laptop that I was asking about in a previous thread. It is supposed to have a 200GB HD but, when I look at the C drive it lists it as being Drive C - 173GB and Drive D - 5.87GB (let's call this one 6GB). Obviously, it is partitioned which doesn't bother me. What I am concerned about is the total size.

Does the system that was delivered to me therefore have a smaller HD than it was supposed to (ie. 180GB instead of 200GB) or is the rest of it simply being eaten up by the abominatin that is Vista?

You're probably a victim of the marketing BS which is used for all computer HDs. Basically, the 200GB isn't truly 200GB, but rather 200 billion bytes. By the time you factor in that there are 1024 bytes (not 1000) in a K, and 1024 K in a MB, and 1024 MB in a GB, you find that 200 billion bytes is only 186 GB.

[Jarhead]

I haven't even thought about this for a long time, but I recall that the operating system gloms on to a pretty good chunk of the hard drive for paging, that is, swapping of program pages. That would not show up when you check the hd properties.

[colchar]

You're probably a victim of the marketing BS which is used for all computer HDs. Basically, the 200GB isn't truly 200GB, but rather 200 billion bytes. By the time you factor in that there are 1024 bytes (not 1000) in a K, and 1024 K in a MB, and 1024 MB in a GB, you find that 200 billion bytes is only 186 GB.

Yep, definitely a victim of that marketing BS. But, now that you point it out, that does make sense (and everything in my system adds up).

Thanks for pointing that out.

[billybreen]

I haven't even thought about this for a long time, but I recall that the operating system gloms on to a pretty good chunk of the hard drive for paging, that is, swapping of program pages. That would not show up when you check the hd properties.

The page file is typically around 2GB. That would take 2GB away from free disk space, but it wouldn't change the number reported for total disk space. I think Colchar is talking about total disk size.

[xenic]

This may be a stupid question (I can be really brain-dead when it comes to computers) but I'm hoping someone here can answer it for me.

I just bought the new laptop that I was asking about in a previous thread. It is supposed to have a 200GB HD but, when I look at the C drive it lists it as being Drive C - 173GB and Drive D - 5.87GB (let's call this one 6GB). Obviously, it is partitioned which doesn't bother me. What I am concerned about is the total size.

Does the system that was delivered to me therefore have a smaller HD than it was supposed to (ie. 180GB instead of 200GB) or is the rest of it simply being eaten up by the abominatin that is Vista?

That's normal. I'm surprised that there hasn't been a class action lawsuit about this (like there was for monitor size a while back).

[hc5duke]

That's normal. I'm surprised that there hasn't been a class action lawsuit about this (like there was for monitor size a while back).

If you think there could have been one, there already was one (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/western-digital-settles-hard-drive-capacity-lawsuit-183980.php)...

[billybreen]

That's normal. I'm surprised that there hasn't been a class action lawsuit about this (like there was for monitor size a while back).

Actually, there has been (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/western-digital-settles-hard-drive-capacity-lawsuit-183980.php). Western Digital settled.

[billybreen]

If you think there could have been one, there already was one (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/western-digital-settles-hard-drive-capacity-lawsuit-183980.php)...

Aww, man. You beat me by seconds, and we used the same link. I lose.

[hc5duke]

Aww, man. You beat me by seconds, and we used the same link. I lose.

PWNED!

[billybreen]

PWNED!

Me == http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u59/wolfclown1/fail.jpg

[hc5duke]

Me == http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u59/wolfclown1/fail.jpg

I love those, there's plenty more over here (http://faildogs.com/)
http://data.tumblr.com/zcTqHiK8c6ak51cftak5OSnr_400.jpg

[xenic]

If you think there could have been one, there already was one (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/western-digital-settles-hard-drive-capacity-lawsuit-183980.php)...

Interesting. I didn't hear about it at the time... wish I would have known, as I'm pretty sure I have a couple WD drives bought during that time... that being said, it seems like a cop-out settlement... they're compensating people with a piece of software that they don't need, and most will never use.

Also, AFAIK, disk drives are still labeled differently than operating systems calculate size... shouldn't the result of a class action lawsuit involve some change in advertising process?

[hc5duke]

Interesting. I didn't hear about it at the time... wish I would have known, as I'm pretty sure I have a couple WD drives bought during that time... that being said, it seems like a cop-out settlement... they're compensating people with a piece of software that they don't need, and most will never use.

Also, AFAIK, disk drives are still labeled differently than operating systems calculate size... shouldn't the result of a class action lawsuit involve some change in advertising process?

Now they all have fine prints saying "X gigabyte = X,000,000,000 bytes"... sorta like McDonalds saying "contents may be hot" I guess?

[billybreen]

I love those, there's plenty more over here (http://faildogs.com/)

Oh man, that's the mother lode. I'm glad my office is empty. I'm dorking out.

http://data.tumblr.com/zcTqHiK8c65q1bm8BDBgOcRC_400.jpg

Apologies to Colchar for abusing this thread.

[colchar]

Apologies to Colchar for abusing this thread.

No worries. I've been laughing my you-know-what off looking at thos photos (especially the first one with the dog and the tire).

[colchar]

Alright, so I have one more question about this new laptop (I swear this will be my last one!) and I figure I might as well post it in this thread rather than starting a new one.

I ended up buying a Toshiba A200 and plan to downgrade from Vi$ta to XP. I did some quick research online and found a few sites on which people were reporting all kinds of problems downgrading these units (they actually had me believing that they were somehow set up for Vi$ta and not XP but, from what I understand, that's a falsehood). Do any of the experts here know of any potential problems with doing this downgrade? Or does anyone know anyone who has downgraded one of these units and ended up either having problems or no problems at all?

Apparently, the difficulties stem from driver issues and having to slipstream some drivers. I have no idea what the heck that means so I am having a friend do it for me. She took comp sci at school and is a systems analyst at the university where I did my undergrad so she's a pro as opposed to myself who has less than no clue (it doesn't hurt that I have a rather large dose of the hots for her and will be taking her out to dinner as a thank-you for doing the downgrade).

But I don't want to go through with the downgrade if it is only going to create problems and ultimately mess up my machine. Does anyone here have any experience with this and can anyone offer any advice?

Here are some links that provide more info:

http://my.opera.com/NFGman/blog/xp-on-new-toshiba-laptop


http://www.tamalecart.com/toshibaA200/


It seems Micro$oft is now allowing those who have bought machines with Vi$ta pre-installed to downgrade to XP using their Vi$ta product key. Unfortunately for me, I got a machine with Vi$ta Home Premium and it doesn't qualify so I'll have to buy a copy of XP (thankfully I can get it cheap through school).

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9040318