|
Member Login:
|
|
 |
September 8th, 2002
|
Top | #1 |
Unregistered
Posts: n/a
|
Western Digital SUCKS
I bought a 80gig western digital harddrive today... after i installed it... it show 74.5 gig capacity... do you guy knows what's wrong with it?? it think western digital is calculating 1k byte as 1000 byte instead of what they should do as 1024 bytes.. then it counts their dirve bigger then it is... basicly they just ripped me off I recon... I bought an ibm b4 40gig... and I got 41gig actually... so I am happier with IBM then western digital and western digital is all you people remcomended... can you give me a reason why I am not getting 80gig from a 80gig harddrive and I should still be happy about it???  or you guys think it's really 80gig it's just that I am doing something wrong??? Please let me know.. Thanks
|
|
|
September 8th, 2002
|
Top | #2 |
Good grief Charlie Brown
Joined: May 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 5,920
Reputation: 560
Power: 187 |
Don't know about sizes but it has something to do with some sort of system file(s). I think.
|
|
|
|
September 8th, 2002
|
Top | #3 |
|
Good grief Charlie Brown
Joined: May 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 5,920
Reputation: 560
Power: 187 |
You were right paul_43
Found this> "Capacity: Even a hard drive’s advertised size can be misleading. In the hard-drive industry, 1MB is defined as 1 million bytes, not the more technically accurate 1,048,576 bytes. So what does this mean to you at the end of the day? Well, if you’re buying a 75GB drive, probably not much, because you’ll likely never fill your drive capacity anyhow. Just be aware that if you believe 1MB to be 1,048,576 bytes, your "75GB" hard drive is probably closer to 72GB." Ripped off again. 
|
|
|
|
|
September 8th, 2002
|
Top | #4 |
|
Unregistered
Posts: n/a
|
yeah... but it didn't happen to IBM ones... as I mentioned b4.. I bought a 40gig... and I actually got 41 gig...
 ....
|
|
|
|
September 8th, 2002
|
Top | #5 |
OSNN Veteran Addict
Joined: December 2001
Location: Turtle Island
Posts: 1,390
Reputation: 290
Power: 143 |
That's marketing for ya.
|
|
|
|
|
September 8th, 2002
|
Top | #6 |
|
Unregistered
Posts: n/a
|
80 gig is the unformatted capacity, when you format it you lose some of that, how much depends on the file system.
NTFS uses the least amount, is faster, more secure, throw FAT32 in the bin!!! |
|
|
|
September 8th, 2002
|
Top | #7 |
|
Unregistered
Posts: n/a
|
you are right.. and I am using NTFS .... and I am sure my calculation is right coz it checked it... Western digital sucks.. that's all about it... :X
|
|
|
|
September 8th, 2002
|
Top | #8 |
|
Unregistered
Posts: n/a
|
and umm... which one is more feature rich and cheaper?
WD sucks??? You just didn't do your homework before purchasing ur drive... |
|
|
|
September 8th, 2002
|
Top | #9 |
|
Unregistered
Posts: n/a
|
Then why do you think WD drive is better?? seek time is slower then all other brand in general... well.. if you say it's stable.. that's something that can't be tested easily...
|
|
|
|
September 8th, 2002
|
Top | #10 |
|
Unregistered
Posts: n/a
|
If you get a Western Digital get the special edition that has 8mb of cache, then you can get near SCSI prefformance.
|
|
|
|
September 8th, 2002
|
Top | #11 |
|
Unregistered
Posts: n/a
|
well... I am only gonna be using it for storage.. not gonna put an operating system or even installing programs on it.. so... a super speedy harddisk is not essential...
|
|
|
|
September 8th, 2002
|
Top | #12 |
OSNN Senior Addict
Joined: January 2002
Posts: 564
Reputation: 0
Power: 132 |
yeah i have the western digital 100gig hard drive with 8 meg buffer and its really mint, it shows up as 93.1gig but im not really complaining
|
|
|
|
|
September 8th, 2002
|
Top | #13 |
Extinction Agenda
Joined: April 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 972
Reputation: 294
Power: 135 |
I have that 80gig drive and yes it reports 74 gig after a NTFS format. Works great for me. I usually use quantum/maxtor drives.
|
|
|
|
|
September 8th, 2002
|
Top | #14 |
|
OSNN Senior Addict
Joined: January 2002
Posts: 564
Reputation: 0
Power: 132 |
is yours the one with 8meg buffer?
|
|
|
|
|
September 8th, 2002
|
Top | #15 |
|
Extinction Agenda
Joined: April 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 972
Reputation: 294
Power: 135 |
Nah two or four I think
|
|
|
|
|
September 8th, 2002
|
Top | #16 |
|
OSNN Senior Addict
Joined: January 2002
Posts: 564
Reputation: 0
Power: 132 |
oh dear you need the 8meg buffer ones, there like sh!t off a shovel
|
|
|
|
|
September 8th, 2002
|
Top | #17 |
Retired Mod
Joined: December 2001
Location: West Lafayette, IN, USA
Posts: 1,207
Reputation: 0
Power: 140 |
I have the 8mb buffer 80GB one (yes its detected as 74GB), but im happy with it, losing a couple of gigs is better then having a completly full 30GB like before. Overall with the speed and performacne i LOVE this drive
JJB |
|
|
|
|
September 8th, 2002
|
Top | #18 |
|
OSNN Junior Addict
Joined: February 2004
Posts: 39
Reputation: 0
Power: 102 |
Just wait til you have to send you ibm drive back.....worst track record on reliability....
I run WD drives...never a problem...had an ibm 40gb 75GXP ...died...replacement...died...gave up... sticking with WD |
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Western digital 15% off | zeke_mo | General Hardware | 1 | March 26th, 2005 4:23pm |
| maxtor or western digital? | Kush | General Hardware | 30 | February 26th, 2004 5:12am |
| Western Digital 120gb 8mb Buffer | poolmanmichael | General Hardware | 5 | March 30th, 2003 7:07pm |
| western digital or samsung? | canadian_divx | General Hardware | 6 | March 15th, 2003 6:43am |
| 120GB Western Digital HDD Capacity | Gouk | General Hardware | 9 | June 26th, 2002 6:12am |
Page generated in 0.17 seconds with 15 queries.
