I hope Protogon will replace NTFS.. Go Microsoft Goooooooooo developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers
Well, let's hope its just not prone to defragmentation and that it'll get as close as possible to using as much space as advertised. (like how you only get 1.7gb of 2gb or like in my case 232GB out of 150hdd) BTW. great post ricky. simple to the piont and provided a source. Take notes ppl that's how every post should be.
what ever happened to the winfs file system we heard about before Vista released? Or am I imagining things....again.......
It's not the FS... Your hard drive has 250 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 bytes = 232GB, and not 250 x 1024 x 1024 x 1024 bytes, that would be 250GB.
didnt know that. i never really looked into why i just assumed. math hasnt been a strong subject for me though.
Manufacturers have always used 1000 bytes per kilobyte, 1000 kilobytes per megabyte, 1000 megabytes per gigabyte, 1000 gigabytes per terabyte. This is actually wrong, since in computer terms 2^10 is used. Windows reports the correct computer definition of 2^10 (1024), therefore will always read lower than what the manufacturers claim. The manufacturers use 1000 instead of the proper 1024, because technically kilo etc is based on 1000 etc. The issue is, the larger the drive, the larger the difference is between the proper computer amount and the manufacturers claim. This can be over 100GB on the larger drives! Even the old 1.44MB floppy disks were actually only 1.38MB, it had nothing to do with the filesystem
@burfadel: The manufacturer's definition is correct; in SI terms, "kilo" means 10^3, "mega" means 10^6, and "giga" means 10^9. The 2^10-based prefixes are actually "kibi", "mebi" and "gibi". It is Windows that gets this wrong by displaying capacities in gibibytes, then calling them "gigabytes". The "1.44MB" floppies were actually 1440 kibibytes - which is neither 1.44 megabytes nor 1.44 mebibytes.
The prefixes 'kibi', 'mebi', gibi' etc are relatively new (post Windows 98 era) as a means to stop the confusion between 1024 vs 1000. Before this time, kilo, mega, etc were the only terms for the capacity. 1.44MB floppies came out more than a decade before the terms were introduced. There was no such think as a mebibyte in 1987! The term kilobyte etc can be freely used in place of its counterparts (kibibyte) etc. Manufacturers of storage media only use 10^3 because it makes their storage sound larger, in practical terms computers are still 2^10 meaning the manufacturers use of 'kilo' etc useless. If manufacturers used 2^10, there wouldn't really be a confusion over 2^10 vs 10^3. If Windows just reported drives in mebibytes and gibibytes etc, people would be even more confused. They'd be wanting to know how mebibytes etc releate to megabytes etc for their storage, and therefore Windows would have to report both megabytes and mebibytes etc all the time. People would then wonder why Windows is reporting mebibytes to confuse people since they bought a drive in megabytes, not mebibytes, making the reporting of mebibytes etc pointless. Thats the exact reason why Windows doesn't use the terms! If manufacturers sold devices using 2^10 instead of 10^3, unless people were aware of the 2^10 thing with computers they wouldn't know, wouldn't question, and wouldn't otherwise care! Its only an issue now because (for example) a 1 terabyte drive is only 963 gibibytes in post-1999 computer terms. For people that use computers because they have to, not because they want to (a very large percentage of office workers and console gamers) they really don't want to learn otherwise meaningless extra set of prefixes. Also much of the computer industry is US based which don't use SI units (ever heard of a kiloyard?!).