large drive

how does vista handle large drive compared to xp? with XP pro large drive (300GB) I found it 30% less effective than small drive for the data I had. Furthermore windows xp would give me only 279GB out of the 300GB

It should support large drives just fine. When you say 30% less effective, I suspect you are attributing this to performance of the OS. Earlier versions of the beta did not support RAW disk and had to be installed on a logical partition, from the sound of things, this has changed in BETA 2 I suspect. Maybe as we move to RC1 and then the final release we will see a tremendous increase in performance, since Vista currently has a lot of debug code.
Also, the performance can be affected by the amount of RAM you have installed, Vista loves RAM, the more you give it, the better. Thats why I would tell anyone investing Vista to get as much memory they can afford.
Large hard disk support in XP depended on the file system you were using NTFS or if your BIOS supported it. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"gs" wrote in message

how does vista handle large drive compared to xp? with XP pro large drive (300GB) I found it 30% less effective than small drive for the data I had. Furthermore windows xp would give me only 279GB out of the 300GB

You are probably seeing the discrepancies in hard disk capacity measurements. Windows XP uses typically NTFS and 4KB clusters to aid in not wasting space, compared to FAT32 using 32KB clusters at 300GB (which can be used in Windows XP if selected, but not at 300GB without some partition editing software). For example, if you have a 1K file on your hard disks, the smallest area it would take up on the hard disk is 4KB using NTFS with 4KB clusters - on the same drive using FAT32 it would occupy 32KB of space. Two 1KB files could take 64KB using FAT32. NTFS would be 8KB. Windows Vista handles this the same.
Got off on a tangent a little, but do the following to probably see what your problem is: Right click the drive in My Computer and view it's properties. See if Windows XP reports it as 300 billion byes. Then look out to the right of that figure and see the GB measurement. If the bytes measurement is 300 billion, then you are seeing the discrepancy in capacity measurements.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk#Capacity_measurements to compare how hard disks are measured in size.
Jeff Warren
"gs" wrote in message

how does vista handle large drive compared to xp? with XP pro large drive (300GB) I found it 30% less effective than small drive for the data I had. Furthermore windows xp would give me only 279GB out of the 300GB

Hi,
A drive manufacturer describes a GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes or 1,000*1,000*1,000 bytes. To a computer math, a kb is 1,024 bytes, so a GB would be 1,024*1,024*1,024 or 1,073,741,824 bytes. To a computer, 300GB (300 billion bytes) is 300,000,000,000/1,073,741,824 or 279.4GB. So, what you are seeing is the computer version of the size of a drive versus the manufacturer's description of the drive size. They are both the same, but the difference is in how a kb is defined (remember computers use base2 math, not base 10).
-- Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/ Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
"gs" wrote in message

how does vista handle large drive compared to xp? with XP pro large drive (300GB) I found it 30% less effective than small drive for the data I had. Furthermore windows xp would give me only 279GB out of the 300GB

inline
"Rick Rogers" wrote in message

Hi,
A drive manufacturer describes a GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes or 1,000*1,000*1,000 bytes.

Correctly so.

To a computer math,

You mean "to a person who is dead flat wrong".

a kb is 1,024 bytes, so a GB would be 1,024*1,024*1,024 or 1,073,741,824 bytes. To a computer, 300GB (300 billion bytes) is 300,000,000,000/1,073,741,824 or 279.4GB. So, what you are seeing is the computer version

You mean "the wrong version"

of the size of a drive versus the manufacturer's description of the drive size. They are both the same, but the difference is in how a kb is defined (remember computers use base2 math, not base 10).

Please see http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html in particular the statement "Because the SI prefixes strictly represent powers of 10, they should not be used to represent powers of 2." Also see http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html . Let's hope Microsoft fixes their operating system.

Sure. And as soon as we start seeing "gibibyte" in common use I'll look up and see pigs flying.
"clyclopedic" wrote > You mean "the wrong version"

The binary prefixes are *not* part of the SI standard. If you prefer MarriottBytes or something, go ahead and propose it to some standards body. The important point is to STOP using the SI units incorrectly.
"Bill Marriott" wrote in message

Sure. And as soon as we start seeing "gibibyte" in common use I'll look up and see pigs flying.
"clyclopedic" wrote You mean "the wrong version"

I'm providing an explanation, I'm not defining who's right or wrong. They should all be on the same page but they're not. Complain to Microsoft, or complain to the drive manufacturers. One or the other would need to change, and I somehow doubt either of them will. Complaining to me may make you feel better but it's not going to change anything.
-- Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/ Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
"clyclopedic" wrote in message

inline
"Rick Rogers" wrote in message Hi,
A drive manufacturer describes a GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes or 1,000*1,000*1,000 bytes.
Correctly so.
To a computer math,
You mean "to a person who is dead flat wrong".
a kb is 1,024 bytes, so a GB would be 1,024*1,024*1,024 or 1,073,741,824 bytes. To a computer, 300GB (300 billion bytes) is 300,000,000,000/1,073,741,824 or 279.4GB. So, what you are seeing is the computer version
You mean "the wrong version"
of the size of a drive versus the manufacturer's description of the drive size. They are both the same, but the difference is in how a kb is defined (remember computers use base2 math, not base 10).
Please see http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html in particular the statement "Because the SI prefixes strictly represent powers of 10, they should not be used to represent powers of 2." Also see http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html . Let's hope Microsoft fixes their operating system.

"Rick Rogers" wrote in message

I'm providing an explanation,

The 'Historical Context' section of the binary prefixes page I cited does a more thorough job, I think.

I'm not defining who's right or wrong.

Standards bodies do that.

They should all be on the same page but they're not. Complain to Microsoft

My most vociferous campaign was in the Monad beta. Both Jeffrey Snover and I used to work for StorageTek (a disk manufacturer) so I thought I had a chance there.

or complain to the drive manufacturers.

I'm not inclined to try to change correct usage.

One or the other would need to change, and I somehow doubt either of them will. Complaining to me may make you feel better

All I can do is try to correct bad usage where I see it.

but it's not going to change anything.

You're welcome.

If a standards body explodes in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
"clyclopedic" wrote in message

The binary prefixes are *not* part of the SI standard. If you prefer MarriottBytes or something, go ahead and propose it to some standards body. The important point is to STOP using the SI units incorrectly.
"Bill Marriott" wrote in message Sure. And as soon as we start seeing "gibibyte" in common use I'll look up and see pigs flying.
"clyclopedic" wrote You mean "the wrong version"

Its clear that you don't care about the ambiguity that arises from misuse of the SI prefixes. In 1999 NASA lost a mars orbiter because one team used English units while another used metric. As far as I know the worst to happen so far from people mistakenly using Giga when they mean 2**9 is the filing of a couple of lawsuits. The potential exists for far worse consequences.
"Bill Marriott" wrote in message

If a standards body explodes in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
"clyclopedic" wrote in message The binary prefixes are *not* part of the SI standard. If you prefer MarriottBytes or something, go ahead and propose it to some standards body. The important point is to STOP using the SI units incorrectly.
"Bill Marriott" wrote in message Sure. And as soon as we start seeing "gibibyte" in common use I'll look up and see pigs flying.
"clyclopedic" wrote You mean "the wrong version"

2^9 is 512
"clyclopedic" wrote in message

Its clear that you don't care about the ambiguity that arises from misuse of the SI prefixes. In 1999 NASA lost a mars orbiter because one team used English units while another used metric. As far as I know the worst to happen so far from people mistakenly using Giga when they mean 2**9 is the filing of a couple of lawsuits. The potential exists for far worse consequences.
"Bill Marriott" wrote in message If a standards body explodes in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
"clyclopedic" wrote in message The binary prefixes are *not* part of the SI standard. If you prefer MarriottBytes or something, go ahead and propose it to some standards body. The important point is to STOP using the SI units incorrectly.
"Bill Marriott" wrote in message Sure. And as soon as we start seeing "gibibyte" in common use I'll look up and see pigs flying.
"clyclopedic" wrote You mean "the wrong version"

I shouldn't post that late in the evening. 2^30.