Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!gauss.rutgers.edu!math.rutgers.edu!bumby From: bumby@math.rutgers.edu (Richard Bumby) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: Unformatted vs. Formatted capacity Message-ID: Date: 26 Nov 90 20:59:53 GMT References: <36113@cup.portal.com> <1014@demott.COM> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 32 Cc: bumby In article <1014@demott.COM> kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt) writes: > In article <36113@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: . . . . . . > > > FAT tables, directories, and boot sectors have > >been written to the disk. > > Incorrect. Only the data necessary for allowing physical sector > read/writes is considered overhead. The rest of these examples are data. > I agree that the original interpretation is incorrect, but the confusion may come from the fact that the chkdsk program in DOS (at least in version 2.11) excludes all of the goodies up to the ROOT directory from its count. Here is a sample of chkdsk output on my 640K "hard-RAM" 632832 bytes total disk space = 618K 3072 bytes in 3 directories (excluding root) 612352 bytes in 43 user files 1024 bytes in bad sectors (an interesting story) 16384 bytes available on disk The "bad sector" is my own creation. It seems that the pointer to cluster #100H kept getting corrupted into 000, so I declared that cluster bad to keep it from being allocated. -- --R. T. Bumby ** Math ** Rutgers ** New Brunswick ** NJ08903 ** USA -- above postal address abbreviated by internet to bumby@math.rutgers.edu voice communication unreliable -- telephone ignored -- please use Email