On 19 Jan 2005 at 12:05, jose castro wrote:

>  It would be best if you change your drive well depending on how old
> it is and what you gonna do with it. Anyway if you are gonna run a nt
> based os then it would be best to upgrade and buy a bigger drive since
> the min. req ask for 30-60 gigs.

  Although it was fixed in Windows 2000, NT couldn't create an NTFS install
partition bigger than 4GB, and I ran plenty of NT servers on 2GB drives.  I
wouldn't build a new machine today with a primary drive of less than about
40GB, but that's hardly a "min. req", and SCSI drives that size are still
moderately expensive.
  My current home Win2K Pro machine boots from a system partition on a 1GB
SCSI drive; I intend to remove that drive and make a 4GB drive the
boot/system drive when I install Win2K Server on it sometime soon.

> Also i don't think theirs anything wrong with the drive since the more
> you format the more space the formated data takes in other words when
> you format a drive you are not technicly deleting it might look gone
> but its always their. for example i had a hard drive that maximum had
> a hold of 60 gigs after a couple of months (and a couple of formating)
> it had decrased to 55 gigs despiter the fact that it says it has 60.

  Obviously there's no way I can say this didn't happen, but I've never
observed or heard of any such phenomenon, and so I find it really hard to
believe that this is a normal behaviour, either of formatting or of these
OSes.
  What I *have* encountered multiple times is that the drive manufacturer
calls a drive "60GB" because it holds about 60x(10^6) bytes, and Windows
calls it 55GB because it holds about 55x(2^20) bytes -- which happen to be
the same number.  But that difference shows up right from the start and
doesn't change over time.

David Gillett

              The NOSPIN Group is now offering Free PC Tech
                     support at our newest website:
                          http://freepctech.com