Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

750 GIG HD really only 700 GIG???

smoking monkey

smoking monkey

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Mar 5, 2008
2,367
1,513
I HUNGER
having just set up my new beast I noticed that my HD was already down to about 680 gig. I found it odd that the pre installed software would amount to 70gig or so but assumed that imovie and idvd had so pretty big and thorough tute videos that I could easily delete.

I ordered the 750gig HD on a 3.06 machine and expected it to be a little smaller than 750...

BUT!!!

here is the system profiler readout for my HD...

Hitachi HDS721075KLA360:

Capacity: 698.64 GB
Model: Hitachi HDS721075KLA360
Revision: GK0KA9CA
Serial Number: GTA204P8GKYV4F
Native Command Queuing: Yes
Queue Depth: 32
Removable Media: No
Detachable Drive: No
BSD Name: disk0
Mac OS 9 Drivers: No
Partition Map Type: GPT (GUID Partition Table)
S.M.A.R.T. status: Verified
Volumes:
Macintosh HD:
Capacity: 698.32 GB
Available: 669.1 GB
Writable: Yes
File System: Journaled HFS+
BSD Name: disk0s2
Mount Point: /


What the buggers is going on here?

Has apple stuffed up and put the wrong HD in my pute? I reckon so and if so then I got me some compensation coming...

ANYBODY with the same BTO 750GIG HD machine out there? can you do a check for me?

I will call apple in the morning as well.
 
Sounds about right. I just ordered a 250 GB and placed it into my Powerbook G4 and it's formatted capacity was 232GB. About the same percentage as your 750 GB and my old 100 GB that i rep[laced had only 93 GB formatted.
 
Such is Hard Drives.

Too bad the size is not as advertised. For example, if advertised as a 500GB HD, that is the capacity you see because it is actually a 560GB HD. Until then I guess we are stuck with the way it is.
 
CanadaRAM said:
Welcome to MR

Nothing is wrong - see this Guide

Guides : Hardware : Hard Drive Size Discrepancy

In general you want to do a Search on the forum before posting a new thread, or check the Guides tab at the top of the window, as many frequently-asked questions are answered there.
Click to expand...

In general I agree. but seeing as this is a new release model I was after somebody with the exact some config. I do know that you get less than what is stated as I wrote in my opening post, but never expected it to be 51 gig smaller!
 
sushi said:
Such is Hard Drives.

Too bad the size is not as advertised. For example, if advertised as a 500GB HD, that is the capacity you see because it is actually a 560GB HD. Until then I guess we are stuck with the way it is.
Click to expand...

Oi, tha's confusing.

The OP's hard drive has 750,000,000,000 bytes of storage on it

The problem comes because there are 2 different methods of calculating what a GB is. In metric or decimal, a GB is 1000 x 1000 x 1000 Bytes -- the factor is x1000 just like kilometer is 1000 metres.

But in binary, a GB is 1024 x 1024 x 1024 Bytes. Because 1000 is not an 'even' multiple of 2, 1024 was chosen as the binary "Gigabyte" (or Gibibyte) because it is close to 1000 -- but it is off by about 7%

When people advertise and sell hard drives, they use metric - 750 GB

When the computer counts it up, it uses binary, so it reports approximately 7% less GB for the same number of bytes, or around 700 GB

The size is as advertised -- Either way, the 750 GB hard drive still has 750,000,000,000 Bytes of storage and is reported by the computer as 700 (binary) GB. It's just a difference in nomenclature.


Analogy: It's like saying my gas tank is advertised at 30 US gallons and I can only put in 24.9 Imperial gallons so the tank must be 5 gal smaller, and I feel ripped off.
 
Damn, and there I was all excited I could squeeze a freebie out of apple!

there goes my chance of getting a free ipod!

Sorry to have wasted youse all time here...
 
I still get sad when connecting new drives, even with knowing this info. When I plugged in my first 1 TB drive only to see it show as 932 GB I almost cried. Lost over 75 GB? *whimper* I still remember the first time this happened to me over 5 years ago and how mad I was that my HD wasn't reading the right size. Those were the days...
 
CanadaRAM said:
Oi, tha's confusing.

The OP's hard drive has 750,000,000,000 bytes of storage on it

The problem comes because there are 2 different methods of calculating what a GB is. In metric or decimal, a GB is 1000 x 1000 x 1000 Bytes -- the factor is x1000 just like kilometer is 1000 metres.

But in binary, a GB is 1024 x 1024 x 1024 Bytes. Because 1000 is not an 'even' multiple of 2, 1024 was chosen as the binary "Gigabyte" (or Gibibyte) because it is close to 1000 -- but it is off by about 7%

When people advertise and sell hard drives, they use metric - 750 GB

When the computer counts it up, it uses binary, so it reports approximately 7% less GB for the same number of bytes, or around 700 GB

The size is as advertised -- Either way, the 750 GB hard drive still has 750,000,000,000 Bytes of storage and is reported by the computer as 700 (binary) GB. It's just a difference in nomenclature.


Analogy: It's like saying my gas tank is advertised at 30 US gallons and I can only put in 24.9 Imperial gallons so the tank must be 5 gal smaller, and I feel ripped off.
Click to expand...
No, I completely understand the reason why things are as they are.

However, it would be nice to format a xGB hard drive and have xGB of storage showing. That's all I was saying.

Maybe just sell them using the binary figures. That would simplify things a bit. Of course from a manufacturers perspective, the larger they can show storage capacity the better for them so I doubt they will ever change.

I must admit, that when I purchase a 500GB HD, I want to see the formatted size as 500GB and not 460 something. Feels like I was ripped off even though I know better. ;)
 
sushi said:
No, I completely understand the reason why things are as they are.

However, it would be nice to format a xGB hard drive and have xGB of storage showing. That's all I was saying.

Maybe just sell them using the binary figures. That would simplify things a bit. Of course from a manufacturers perspective, the larger they can show storage capacity the better for them so I doubt they will ever change.
Click to expand...

It's not the manufacturer's fault. They're selling you (in a 1TB drive) 1000000000000 bytes - that is 1TB.

There aren't two ways of calculating a gigabyte, giga is one thousand million of something, no more, no less. For some odd reason they thought that naming something that wasn't quite a kilobyte a "kilobyte" would be fine but they're not adhering to the SI definition. Either the computer needs to start showing a gigabyte as 1 billion bytes in which case the drive's advertised capacity will reflect the computer-recorded capacity or the computer needs to start reporting capacity in GiB or TiB or MiB - the proper binary prefixes for capacity.

For too long the computer has flied in the face of SI standard naming conventions and it's time we stood up! Fight! Win! AAaaarrgghhh!
 
Chundles said:
For too long the computer has flied in the face of SI standard naming conventions and it's time we stood up! Fight! Win! AAaaarrgghhh!
Click to expand...
You are starting to see where I am coming from.

And as HD capacities get larger, this difference is becoming more pronounced.

Just imagine the days when it is not GBs that are missing but TBs! :D
 
sushi said:
You are starting to see where I am coming from.

And as HD capacities get larger, this difference is becoming more pronounced.

Just imagine the days when it is not GBs that are missing but TBs! :D
Click to expand...

But nothing is missing - the computer is lying to you! Lying!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back