Re: C: drive unusually small

<my-name@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:20060815210520.518$XC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 15 Aug 2006 18:31:36 GMT, my-name@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I recently bought an HP Pavilion a1560n with a 300 GB hard drive. I
verified through msinfo32 that the HD is 300 GB. But when I view My
Computer, then right click on C: (HP_PAVILION), then Properties, it
reports a C: total size of about 28 GB, with only 1 Gig or so free.

There is also the D: (HP_RECOVERY) but that is only using around 20 Gig.
So there should be around 250 GB still available.

It says 18 GB NTFS Healthy (even smaller than I remembered above) for
HP_PAVILION followed by 20 (27) GB FAT32 Healthy for HP_RECOVERY
followed by 234 GB unallocated.
Hi Doug where does these values come from?

Hi "my-name" alias "Doug" told first:
C: about 28 GB (but only 18 GB NTFS healthy) and D: about 20 (27) GB
FAT32 followed by 234 GB unallocated?
First make sure that You use WinXP SP2 before any more assumptions.
Or do You use any other OS?

So is it possible to extend the C: volume using the
unallocated space? If I right click on the unallocated space I can get to
a new partition wizard, but this looks like it only adds partitions.

This looks ok since a NTFS partition (28 or 18 GB) was followed by
a 27 GB FAT32 partition! What happens to the rest of 10 GB on NTFS?
Thus there's no way to combine the unallocated space to NTFS.

You would have to move the FAT32 space to the end of the disk before
You'll be able to combine NTFS spaces (by means of third party tools)?
But what is the difference (10 GB) against the first said 28 GB?
And what about the 7 GB difference on the FAT32 partition?

This is the way the new machine came; I didn't do anything myself.
A system partition of C: = 18 (28) GB is not to be treated as small.
But where does the differences (on C: and D:) come from?
It is too large to be related to decimal vs. binary countings.

And also the 2nd partition of 20 vs. 27 GB FAT32 makes no sense.
What OS is installed?
Your news-headers does not reflect any Win system?
Did You post from that system or another one?

An 300 GB drive is nothing special besides possible 128 GB limits.
But this should be no problem with current BIOS/WinXP updates.

Please report some more details.
Your findings do not match any WinXp behaviour.
Was this a new bought or used PC?
Horst

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: FAT32 Problems
    ... I could read to the FAT32 drive but I could not ... writing to my FAT32 partition but Konqueror, Krusader, & Midnight ... Something may have happened to the SuSE mechanism whereby partitions are ... tried the GIMP but it's far from easy), & reading from & writing to CDs ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • DOS doesnt work anymore!
    ... My OmniBook started making burnt-plastic smells so I got a new laptop. ... Wipe the disk, format it as FAT32, and reinstall XP. ... Make a FAT32 partition, install another copy of XP in it. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)
  • Re: Multiple partitions on external USB HDD?
    ... one FAT32 partition. ... Unfortunately, FAT32 does not allow files bigger than 4GB, and I ... Part of the issue is interference between hotplug and fstab mount points. ...
    (comp.os.linux.hardware)
  • Re: Multiple partitions on external USB HDD?
    ... one FAT32 partition. ... Unfortunately, FAT32 does not allow files bigger than 4GB, and I ... write ~15 GB tar files on it? ... How many surrealists does it take to change a light bulb? ...
    (comp.os.linux.hardware)
  • Re: partition ...arrangement ?
    ... partitions I don't believe this small partition is created (could be wrong ... here - long time since I used fat32). ... Richard Urban ... >I don't know how the 7.8mb unallocated space got there, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)