paulmd@efn.org wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> paulmd@efn.org wrote
>>> TW wrote

>>>> I've got an old HDD Western Digital Caviar 33200.
>>>> The label on the drive says that the capacity of the
>>>> disk is 32493 MB (6296 cyl. 16 heads 63 spt.)

>>> 3249.3MB, It's NOT a 30GB drive. Pesky decimal
>>> points. The label may be worn on that old drive.

>>>> However information in the Internet says that it is
>>>> 3.2 GB, ~6296 Cylinders, ~16 heads, ~63 spt
>>>> During a try of Windows XP installation it shows
>>>> 3099 MB but the disk can be corrupted.

>>> What you're probably getting is an "unformatted or corrupted"
>>> note on XP installation. It's almost certianly just unformatted.

>> Its just the binary/decimal MBs.

>>> Not to worry overmuch.

>> Not to worry at all.

>>> Not a big enough difference to suspect corruption.
>>> The formatting eats up some space.

>> Nothing to do with formatting.

> Quite a lot to do with formatting.

Nope, the difference in the numbers that the OP
posted are JUST due to the drive manufacturer
using decimal MBs and XP using binary MBs.

> For instance, the 3.5" floppy disk that we all refer to as 1.44MB,
> actually will hold up to 2mb of data, and there are utilities that will
> allow you do do this (you really shouldn't, but you can). The same
> media, formatted with DMF, holds 1.68MB data. The same
> principle applies to harddrives. Formatting matters.

Not to the two numbers the OP posted above. That
is JUST due to the use of decimal MBs by the hard
drive manufacturer and binary MBs by XP.

> http://www.pcmech.com/show/harddrive/67/

Completely irrelevant to the two numbers the OP posted
above. That is JUST due to the use of decimal MBs by
the hard drive manufacturer and binary MBs by XP.

> The 3099MB is the max (yes, the difference
> in this case is binary vs decimal),

Never ever could ******** its way out of a wet paper bag.

> If you were to format it fat32, you will wind up wasting lot of
> space to the format, and to "slack". NTFS is a little more efficient
> in both areas. The full picture is more complex, of course.

Completely irrelevant to the two numbers the OP posted
above. That is JUST due to the use of decimal MBs by
the hard drive manufacturer and binary MBs by XP.

> See this table, your drive is reporting correctly.

> http://www.wdc.com/en/library/eide/7...abytes%20WD%22

Never ever could ******** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> The disk is a tad too small for XP.

>> Nope, I've installed it on a lot less than that, with Office Pro as well.

> This is an example, of you CAN, but you shouldn't.

Never ever could ******** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Its fine.

> If you're stuck with limitations like this, you should use an older OS.

Wrong, as always, its plenty big enough for XP as long
as you dont get too carried away with apps and data.

> 3GB is more comfortable on Win2k, and plenty of room for win98.

Pity about your stupid pig ignorant claim below.

> If this drive came with your computer, you're almost certialy better
> off with an older OS, considering the computers at this time were
> all running win98, and had much slower processors and less RAM.

Pity about your stupid pig ignorant claim below.

>>> It MAY install. But there's not much room for much else.

>> Wrong. Plenty of room for Office.

> I didn't say NO room, I said Not Much room.

Never ever could ******** its way out of a wet paper bag.

> Add in an HP all in 1 printer, that's, -I kid
> you not-, an extra 50mb-200MB or more.

Still plenty of room for that too.

> I've even seen these bloated things offer a 1GB "full" version.
> Add in an antivirus program, a firewall, and some other basic
> applications and you're in a world of hurt.

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasyland.

> It adds up real fast.

Never ever could ******** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> Certianly no updates or service packs.

>> Wrong again.

> Archiving sp2 eats up several hundred MB

Plenty of room for that even with Office installed too.

> (Actual size depends on system), There are about 70MB in updates
> (again, depending on system, and whether you want to do "optionals"
> like Media player 10), that are also archived so they can be uninstalled.

Plenty of room for that even with Office installed too.

> It adds up real fast.

Cant even manage even the most basic arithmetic.

> And having a small drive forces you to do things like remove
> the hidden archives, which most people don't even know about.

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasyland.

> Slipstreaming helps, but, again, it's one of those
> things that only the geekier set bother with.

Taint even necessary, even with Office installed.

> Overall, it's a higher maintence deal.

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasyland.