brand new drive, 80 Meg "used space"...?

[Guest Word Painter]

Hi, just low-level formatted a new 500 gig SATA drive. Under XP's disk

properties box, it reports 82 megs as being used (no files written to disk

at all yet, except sys vol info from windows)

 

what in the world would take up 82 megs on a brand new disk?

 

thanks for any opinion!

 

Wp

[Guest Big_Al]

Re: brand new drive, 80 Meg "used space"...?

 

Word Painter wrote:

> Hi, just low-level formatted a new 500 gig SATA drive. Under XP's disk

> properties box, it reports 82 megs as being used (no files written to disk

> at all yet, except sys vol info from windows)

>

> what in the world would take up 82 megs on a brand new disk?

>

> thanks for any opinion!

>

> Wp

>

>

 

Not sure what you mean by low-level format. I have not heard that used

since the days of DOS 5.x days when you could do that to a drive.

Then you formatted the drive.

 

I would just say use Windows Disk Manager and remove and remake the

partition and then reformat it.

 

The other suggestion is to change permissions on the sys vol folder and

look inside. Maybe it does have junk in there. Shouldn't if you just

formatted but.......

[Guest BillW50]

Re: brand new drive, 80 Meg "used space"...?

 

In news:OE1ERpa$IHA.3464@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,

Big_Al typed on Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:07:41 -0400:

> Word Painter wrote:

>> Hi, just low-level formatted a new 500 gig SATA drive. Under XP's

>> disk properties box, it reports 82 megs as being used (no files

>> written to disk at all yet, except sys vol info from windows)

>>

>> what in the world would take up 82 megs on a brand new disk?

>>

>> thanks for any opinion!

>

> Not sure what you mean by low-level format. I have not heard that

> used since the days of DOS 5.x days when you could do that to a drive.

> Then you formatted the drive.

>

> I would just say use Windows Disk Manager and remove and remake the

> partition and then reformat it.

>

> The other suggestion is to change permissions on the sys vol folder

> and look inside. Maybe it does have junk in there. Shouldn't if

> you just formatted but.......

 

Yes you could low level format the old MFM drives, but that often made them

worse. As you should only low level format them in a lab environment. I for

example low level formatted a MFM drive when it was cold. And you guessed

it, it only worked when it was cold. Then I low level formatted when it was

hot. Yes, it would only work when it was hot. I tried to get it low level

formatted somewhere in between and I could never get it to work right at the

extremes.

 

This laptop is a 120GB HD. Under properties it says capacity 120,031,477,760

bytes. And states it is 111GB. Remember the stated capacity is always in

unformatted condition. As formatting adds bits to the drive that can't be

used for storage. Thus depending on the format, the format will use some of

the capacity.

 

Now back in the old MFM format days, the drives always showed bad sectors.

And it is virtually impossible to produce drives without a single bad

sector. And people were sending them back.

 

Nowadays with IDE drives, manufactures got smart and the drive actually

hides bad sectors so you can't see them. So you can do a surface scan and it

will not show up a single bad sector. But they are still there, but only the

drive knows where they are. So like in my case, all 120GB hard drives will

not show all of the same capacity. As the number of bad sectors are not all

going to be the same.

 

Now there might come a time when you can see bad sectors show up. And that

happens when the drive exceeds XX amount of bad sectors and can't hide the

overflow anymore. And if you can still return it, you should. But before

that happens, there is nothing really wrong with the drive.

 

--

Bill

Gateway Celeron M 370 (1.5GHZ)

MX6124 (laptop) w/2GB

Windows XP Home SP2 (120GB HD)

Intel® 910GML (64MB shared)

[Guest Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: brand new drive, 80 Meg "used space"...?

 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:58:46 GMT, "Word Painter" <paint@word.cm>

wrote:

> Hi, just low-level formatted

 

 

 

Exactly what did you do, and how? Low-level formatting hasn't been

possible on modern drives for many years now. If you try to do so, you

will ruin the drive entirely.

 

> a new 500 gig SATA drive. Under XP's disk

> properties box, it reports 82 megs as being used (no files written to disk

> at all yet, except sys vol info from windows)

>

> what in the world would take up 82 megs on a brand new disk?

 

 

82MB is a tiny amount, a few pennies worth of the drive. It's almost

certainly just the normal overhead associated with the drive--MFT,

directory, etc.

 

 

 

> thanks for any opinion!

>

> Wp

>

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Guest Word Painter]

Re: brand new drive, 80 Meg "used space"...?

 

>> a new 500 gig SATA drive. Under XP's disk

>> properties box, it reports 82 megs as being used (no files written to

>> disk

>> at all yet, except sys vol info from windows)

>>

>> what in the world would take up 82 megs on a brand new disk?

>

>

> 82MB is a tiny amount, a few pennies worth of the drive. It's almost

> certainly just the normal overhead associated with the drive--MFT,

> directory, etc.

>

 

True Ken, 82 Meg is not much compared to a half-terabyte. But still, odd

that it would appear "used".

 

sorry for the misnomer, "low-level format", I meant the "thorough" format as

opposed to the "quickie format" that XP's properties box allows for. just

completed a 76 GIG format on a secondary partition, different drive, and

noticed a similar thing, 69 megs "used space" out of a new 76 GIG partition.

Not much, no, but... 69 Megs for WHAT?

 

well, ok.

 

even Imaginary Bloatware takes up space!!

 

wp

[Guest Trevor Lawrence]

Re: brand new drive, 80 Meg "used space"...?

 

 

I don't follow this NG much, but some of the statements here are interesting

in a historical context

 

My first PC had a TOTAL of 20 MEGAbytes on its hard disk

 

And of course the first "modern"computer had a hard disk with about 10

KILObtyes, IIRC - it may have been more, say 20 KB.

--

Trevor Lawrence

Canberra

Web Site http://trevorl.mvps.org

 

 

"Word Painter" <paint@word.cm> wrote in message

news:OJQok.7042$%b7.6265@edtnps82...

>>> a new 500 gig SATA drive. Under XP's disk

>>> properties box, it reports 82 megs as being used (no files written to

>>> disk

>>> at all yet, except sys vol info from windows)

>>>

>>> what in the world would take up 82 megs on a brand new disk?

>>

>>

>> 82MB is a tiny amount, a few pennies worth of the drive. It's almost

>> certainly just the normal overhead associated with the drive--MFT,

>> directory, etc.

>>

>

> True Ken, 82 Meg is not much compared to a half-terabyte. But still, odd

> that it would appear "used".

>

> sorry for the misnomer, "low-level format", I meant the "thorough" format

> as opposed to the "quickie format" that XP's properties box allows for.

> just completed a 76 GIG format on a secondary partition, different drive,

> and noticed a similar thing, 69 megs "used space" out of a new 76 GIG

> partition. Not much, no, but... 69 Megs for WHAT?

>

> well, ok.

>

> even Imaginary Bloatware takes up space!!

>

> wp

>

[Guest Mick Murphy]

Re: brand new drive, 80 Meg "used space"...?

 

A low level format used to be done by the manufacturer, years ago..

If you did it to a Drive today, you'd screw it!

 

In XP, System Restore takes up 12% of the full capacity of your Hard Drive.

500 X 12% = 60Gigs

 

I hope your 82 megs = 82 Gigs!!!!

--

Mick Murphy - Qld - Australia

 

 

"Word Painter" wrote:

> >> a new 500 gig SATA drive. Under XP's disk

> >> properties box, it reports 82 megs as being used (no files written to

> >> disk

> >> at all yet, except sys vol info from windows)

> >>

> >> what in the world would take up 82 megs on a brand new disk?

> >

> >

> > 82MB is a tiny amount, a few pennies worth of the drive. It's almost

> > certainly just the normal overhead associated with the drive--MFT,

> > directory, etc.

> >

>

> True Ken, 82 Meg is not much compared to a half-terabyte. But still, odd

> that it would appear "used".

>

> sorry for the misnomer, "low-level format", I meant the "thorough" format as

> opposed to the "quickie format" that XP's properties box allows for. just

> completed a 76 GIG format on a secondary partition, different drive, and

> noticed a similar thing, 69 megs "used space" out of a new 76 GIG partition.

> Not much, no, but... 69 Megs for WHAT?

>

> well, ok.

>

> even Imaginary Bloatware takes up space!!

>

> wp

>

>

>

[Guest Jim]

Re: brand new drive, 80 Meg "used space"...?

 

 

"Word Painter" <paint@word.cm> wrote in message

news:arLok.6967$%b7.22@edtnps82...

> Hi, just low-level formatted a new 500 gig SATA drive. Under XP's disk

> properties box, it reports 82 megs as being used (no files written to disk

> at all yet, except sys vol info from windows)

>

> what in the world would take up 82 megs on a brand new disk?

>

> thanks for any opinion!

>

> Wp

>

The system volume information folder can easily be that large. In fact, it

is usually much larger than that.

 

In addition, when you formatted the drive, you actually created the MFT

which also can be that size if not larger.

 

And, as posters have mentioned, you did not actually do what was called

low-level format once upon a time anyway.

Jim

[Guest Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: brand new drive, 80 Meg "used space"...?

 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 06:59:58 GMT, "Word Painter" <paint@word.cm>

wrote:

> >> a new 500 gig SATA drive. Under XP's disk

> >> properties box, it reports 82 megs as being used (no files written to

> >> disk

> >> at all yet, except sys vol info from windows)

> >>

> >> what in the world would take up 82 megs on a brand new disk?

> >

> >

> > 82MB is a tiny amount, a few pennies worth of the drive. It's almost

> > certainly just the normal overhead associated with the drive--MFT,

> > directory, etc.

> >

>

> True Ken, 82 Meg is not much compared to a half-terabyte. But still, odd

> that it would appear "used".

 

 

No, it's not odd. As I explained, "it's almost certainly just the

normal overhead associated with the drive--MFT, directory, etc."

 

> sorry for the misnomer, "low-level format", I meant the "thorough" format as

> opposed to the "quickie format" that XP's properties box allows for. just

> completed a 76 GIG format on a secondary partition, different drive, and

> noticed a similar thing, 69 megs "used space" out of a new 76 GIG partition.

> Not much, no, but... 69 Megs for WHAT?

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Guest Twayne]

Re: brand new drive, 80 Meg "used space"...?

 

> Hi, just low-level formatted a new 500 gig SATA drive. Under XP's

> disk properties box, it reports 82 megs as being used (no files

> written to disk at all yet, except sys vol info from windows)

>

> what in the world would take up 82 megs on a brand new disk?

>

> thanks for any opinion!

>

> Wp

 

That's the normal overhead required when the disk is formatted. It has

tables, locations of sector marks and sizes, types, plus several other

things. Perfectly normal.

 

Enjoy your new hard drive.

 

Twayne