I'm missing 35gb's of space can you help me please

[BluePower]

Sorry to bother you nice folks again but I have a real problem. Let me explain.

 

So I have a 500gb Samsung Evo SSD m.2 nvme hard drive in this new computer. I put windows 10 on it. When I did it I partitioned the system to only give 50gb's of space to windows 10 and the rest separated. 

 

I'm an idiot. Soon enough after installing drivers and basic things now I only have 9.99gb's of space left.

 

So I decided okay, I can't merge the partitions together (I tried) so I went to reinstall Windows. Low and behold there was no option to just completely wipe the thing. So my friend is over and he suggested to delete the other partitions and only leave the 465gb so I did and we installed Windows on the 465gb.

 

However during and after doing that we discovered there's actually no way to get the 35gb's back. I have searched the internet's and I can't find a way. Just a load of problems that sound similar but nothing specific to this. 

 

When in disk management well I'll just attach a picture to show you guys what shows up. 

 

I'm more than willing to reinstall Windows and erase every thing if need be.

 

Thank you guys for any help, I'm thankful your all here, I don't know of anywhere else this reputable. Thanks for any help friend's.

[Electronics Wizardy]

Your drive is 465 GiB or 500GB, everything seems right. Drives are measured in GB, windows uses GiB(but incorrectly reports it as GB).

 

You aren't missing any space.

[Snipergod87]

You reinstalled Windows that 35GB used is Windows and your page file.

 

Theres nothing wrong here.

 

The reason why your drive isnt shown as 500GB has to do with the difference between marketing terms and actual capacity.

 

Marketing says 1000MB =1GB

But in actuality 1024MB=1GB, all that adds up to quite alot

[JustMATT]

3 minutes ago, BluePower said:

-snip-

Theres a TQ video about this, the advertised storage capacity is not completely accurate, there is still space being used for the controller and also space reserved to extend the life of your SSD

[ZcanKal]

Just now, Electronics Wizardy said:

Your drive is 465 GiB or 500GB, everything seems right. Drives are measured in GB, windows uses GiB(but incorrectly reports it as GB).

 

You aren't missing any space.

What is GiB?

[Electronics Wizardy]

Just now, ZcanKal said:

What is GiB?

gibibyte, or 2^30 bytes.

[Electronics Wizardy]

1 minute ago, Snipergod87 said:

You reinstalled Windows that 35GB is Windows and your page file.

nope, page file, is visible and is on the C drive as a file, this is gb vs gib here.

 

1 minute ago, JustMATT said:

Theres a TQ video about this, the advertised storage capacity is not completely accurate, there is still space being used for the controller and also space reserved to extend the life of your SSD

The advertised capacity is correct, they just use different units.

[Enderman]

If you look at your screen you will see that it says 499,513,290,752 bytes, which is equal to 499.5GB which is equal to 465GiB.

You are not missing any space.

Windows is just showing the letter "GB" when it really means "GiB".

[BluePower]

Thanks for your responses. So you guys are saying when one installs windows 10 it by default takes up 35gb's of space? I'm shocked. 

[Glenwing]

6 minutes ago, ZcanKal said:

What is GiB?

A GB (gigabyte) is a group of 1,000,000,000 bytes (1 billion or 1000³).

A GiB (binary gigabyte) is a group of 1,073,741,824 bytes (1024³).

 

Your hard drive has about 500,000,000,000 bytes (500 billion).

 

That is 500 groups of 1,000,000,000 bytes, or 500 GB.

It is also the same as 465 groups of 1,073,741,824 bytes, or 465 GiB.

 

500 × 1,000,000,000 = 500,000,000,000

465 × 1,073,741,824 = 500,000,000,000 (≈)

 

Everything is good, other than Windows counting in groups of 1,073,741,824 and labeling it "GB" instead of "GiB".

[BluePower]

5 minutes ago, Enderman said:

If you look at your screen you will see that it says 499,513,290,752 bytes, which is equal to 499.5GB which is equal to 465GiB.

You are not missing any space.

Windows is just showing the letter "GB" when it really means "GiB".

Well if that's right then this solves my issue. It must be that my issue was simply inexperience. I thank you much greatly for your time friend. 

 

Are you guys saying you see GiB in the photo I took? 

[Enderman]

3 minutes ago, BluePower said:

Thanks for your responses. So you guys are saying when one installs windows 10 it by default takes up 35gb's of space? I'm shocked. 

If you're talking about the "35GB used space" yes that is what windows takes up, and as you install more stuff it will use more.

If you're talking about the "465GB" that it says there instead of 500GB that is just how windows displays the drive capacity in GiB.

 

Either way, your drive has 500GB capacity and nothing is wrong.

[Electronics Wizardy]

2 minutes ago, BluePower said:

Thanks for your responses. So you guys are saying when one installs windows 10 it by default takes up 35gb's of space? I'm shocked. 

No, This has nothing to do with windows, Its just that windows uses GIB and your drive uses GB. Its a units problem. There is no 35gb of space that is used.

[Electronics Wizardy]

Just now, BluePower said:

re you guys saying you see GiB in the photo I took? 

When windows says gb it means gib.

[BluePower]

Well anyways I really am sorry to bother you guys with this nonsense then. I really do appreciate it though. Thanks everyone.

[Glenwing]

9 minutes ago, BluePower said:

Thanks for your responses. So you guys are saying when one installs windows 10 it by default takes up 35gb's of space? I'm shocked. 

Basically this is what happened:

You bought a piece of lumber advertised as 3 yards long, and it really is 3 yards long.

 

You measure it with a measuring tape, and it tells you it is only 2.7 yards long. But in reality your tape is measuring in meters, and is mislabeled as "yards". In reality your lumber is 2.7 meters long, which is the same as 3 yards.

 

You bought a 500 GB hard drive, and it is 500 GB. Your operating system measures it as 465 GiB (which is equal to 500 GB, just measured in a different unit). The only issue is the operating system labels its numbers as "GB" instead of the unit it is actually using, which is "GiB". If you know it is really in GiB and do the conversion to get the real value in GB, you will see it is correct:

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&ei=lVHuWsWgG4aD8AOd8JuICQ&q=465.21+GiB+to+GB&oq=465.21+GiB+to+GB&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i71k1l8.0.0.0.12832.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.mSfOzteIR8A

[Guest The Viking]

 

i have the same nvme you do. That's how it's measured, 464GiB or 500GB

 

so it's normal, nothingto worry about.

[Snipergod87]

14 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

Basically this is what happened:

You bought a piece of lumber advertised as 3 yards long, and it really is 3 yards long.

 

You measure it with a measuring tape, and it tells you it is only 2.7 yards long. But in reality your tape is measuring in meters, and is mislabeled as "yards". In reality your lumber is 2.7 meters long, which is the same as 3 yards.

 

You bought a 500 GB hard drive, and it is 500 GB. Your operating system measures it as 465 GiB (which is equal to 500 GB, just measured in a different unit). The only issue is the operating system labels its numbers as "GB" instead of the unit it is actually using, which is "GiB". If you know it is really in GiB and do the conversion to get the real value in GB, you will see it is correct:

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&ei=lVHuWsWgG4aD8AOd8JuICQ&q=465.21+GiB+to+GB&oq=465.21+GiB+to+GB&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i71k1l8.0.0.0.12832.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.mSfOzteIR8A

Never been a fan of the change the made several years back for GB to turn into GiB, should have just had MFGR's list the actual GB capacity using 1024 not 1000.

Whats even worse that some OS's (UnRAID) both use GB and GiB interchangeably with just the GB notation, no consistency.

 

And if you tried to apple the GB and GiB to RAM everything would be messed up.

[kb5zue]

13 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

Basically this is what happened:

You bought a piece of lumber advertised as 3 yards long, and it really is 3 yards long.

 

You measure it with a measuring tape, and it tells you it is only 2.7 yards long. But in reality your tape is measuring in meters, and is mislabeled as "yards". In reality your lumber is 2.7 meters long, which is the same as 3 yards.

 

You bought a 500 GB hard drive, and it is 500 GB. Your operating system measures it as 465 GiB (which is equal to 500 GB, just measured in a different unit). The only issue is the operating system labels its numbers as "GB" instead of the unit it is actually using, which is "GiB". If you know it is really in GiB and do the conversion to get the real value in GB, you will see it is correct:

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&ei=lVHuWsWgG4aD8AOd8JuICQ&q=465.21+GiB+to+GB&oq=465.21+GiB+to+GB&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i71k1l8.0.0.0.12832.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.mSfOzteIR8A

Congratz, this has got to be the best explanation of them all.  I really appreciate it when someone uses an explanation with an example.  Makes it a LOT easier when trying to understand exactly what is going on.

 

[Glenwing]

1 hour ago, Snipergod87 said:

Never been a fan of the change the made several years back for GB to turn into GiB, should have just had MFGR's list the actual GB capacity using 1024 not 1000.

Whats even worse that some OS's (UnRAID) both use GB and GiB interchangeably with just the GB notation, no consistency.

 

And if you tried to apple the GB and GiB to RAM everything would be messed up.

It's not like using base 1000 is new, it's been used since the dawn of computers, as has 1024, just for different things. The only thing new is the notation. Some things are round numbers when expressed in groups of 1024 (like memory capacity), while others are round numbers when grouped by 1000 (like memory bandwidth). If you tried to switch everything to 1000 or everything to 1024, you'd end up with at least some things having crazy numbers.

 

For example 8 GiB 256-bit GDDR5 at 8 GHz has a memory bandwidth of 256 GB/s (256,000,000,000 bytes per second). If you notated everything with 1000, you'd have 8.59 GB instead of 8 GiB, and of course that's a bit ridiculous. It makes much more sense to use 1024.

 

But equally, if you notate everything in 1024, you'd have 8 GB of memory, but you'd also have memory bandwidth of 232.42 GB/s, which is just as unwieldy as having 8.59 GB of memory. This is because the effective memory speed is 8 GHz, which is 8,000,000,000 Hz. As a result, the memory bandwidth is a nice round decimal number, not a round binary number. To get 256 GB/s with binary gigabytes (274 billion bytes per second) you would need to raise the memory speed to 8.58993 GHz (8 × 1024³ Hz), and that's an SI unit so you can't change the definition of that. So you can't get away from the crazy numbers by just sticking to 1024.

 

The same is true of all communications actually; the entire industry uses 1000 notation, not 1024. Gigabit ethernet is 1,000,000,000 bit/s, not 1,073,741,824 bit/s. SATA 600 MB/s is decimal, HDMI 2.0's 18 Gbit/s bandwidth is decimal, JEDEC's memory bandwidth notation like PC4 25600 is 25,600 MB/s in decimal, not binary. All these things would have weird numbers in binary, because the rate at which they are transmitted is a decimal frequency.

 

If you only use one system or the other, some things will inevitably have "ugly numbers". Both systems are needed in various industries. While it's true the "GiB" notation is new (ish; circa 1999 IIRC), the use of base 1000 units is not new, only the notation, because previously we just used "GB" to refer to both of them, which is stupid.

 

Given that both the 1000 and 1024 systems need to be used,  you can't get away with just using one of them for everything, and assuming we agree that we shouldn't use the same name for both; which one (1000 or 1024) should be the "kilobyte" and which is the one that should have a different name... There's really only one sane answer you can give there.