Computer Makers Sued Over Hard-Drive Size Claims

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by asdf, Sep 24, 2003.

  1. FORE!!!!!

    Russell Smithies, Sep 29, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. asdf

    Jerry Guest

    Jerry, Sep 29, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. asdf

    MarkH Guest

    Now THAT I agree with.

    Maybe there needs to be two definitions of the prefixes. There’s the ISO
    standard normal Kilo (10^3), then there is the MS standard approximate Kilo
    (actually a binary version equal to 2^10).
    MarkH, Sep 29, 2003
  4. asdf

    Jay Guest

    "fore" is not an ISO unit therefore you should use 4.
    Jay, Sep 29, 2003
  5. asdf

    Jay Guest

    The actual bits. Whether they comprise compressed data or not is irrelevant.
    Whether it is compressed or not the number of bits transferred over the wire
    is 56kbps. The end user can double all the bytes if they want and claim to
    have transferred 112k - but that isn't the point.
    Jay, Sep 29, 2003
  6. It's not an MS thing. I'm pretty sure that the convention of a "kilo"
    in the IT world being 2^10 pre-dates MS's existence.
    As a software producer, they have no say in things like that, anyway.
    They just go along with whatever the hardware people decree.

    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
    Matthew Poole, Sep 29, 2003
  7. It's not an MS standard, it's a COMPUTER standard. My commodore 64 has 64
    kilobytes of memory (64*1024 bytes).

    Nicholas Sherlock
    Nicholas Sherlock, Sep 29, 2003
  8. asdf

    T.N.O. Guest

    heh, ok.
    T.N.O., Sep 29, 2003
  9. asdf

    T.N.O. Guest

    ok, well in that case it depends... what speed uplink do you have?
    T.N.O., Sep 29, 2003
  10. asdf

    MarkH Guest

    (Matthew Poole) wrote in

    For RAM the computer industry have used kilo and mega for 2^10 and 2^20 for
    quite a while, but the HDD size has been provided by the manufacturers in
    the 10^3, 10^6 and 10^9 versions of kilo, mega and giga for a long time
    too. But when you check the properties of the HDD in windows, it is always
    listed in the binary versions of kilo, mega and giga (2^10, 2^20 and 2^30).

    Obviously MS wants to list the size of the RAM and the size of the HDD in
    consistent terms, whereas the HDD manufacturers just want their products to
    sound better.

    Does my computer have 1GB RAM or is it 1.07GB RAM?
    MarkH, Sep 30, 2003
  11. asdf

    Jay Guest

    Really? Where do you get that juicy piece of information from?
    Which hard disk manufacturer has said they will use standard ISO units
    to describe their product (a product which has absolutely no relationship
    with powers of 2 in any form or other) so as to somehow fleece the customer.

    A customer who sees the words 200GB, which is clearly a description which
    conforms to the *only* official standard there is, is somehow being
    unwittingly misled?

    Or maybe, just maybe, there is a huge amount of conspiratorial supposition
    on your part which contrives that no disk manufacturer in their right mind
    could possibly decide to adhere to the ISO standard just because it is
    a clear an entirely appropriate standard.

    Your blithe determination that "... HDD manufacturers just want their
    products to sound better ..." hopefully includes the possibility that a
    dsik description that conforms to the ISO standard "sounds better" to
    a customer who already knows what a kilo etc means.

    I suppose 56k diualup modem manufacturers are up to the same conspiracy.
    Or sugar manufacturers are refusing to put 1024 grams in their bags of
    sugar as a conspiracy against customers to just "make their product sound

    Tell me - what relationship does a disk drive have with powers of two?
    Jay, Sep 30, 2003
  12. asdf

    Jerry Guest

    It depends on where you want to round off the number doesn't it? YOu
    could say it has 1.073741824 gigabytes of RAM, but if you say you have
    a gigabyte, then everyone knows what you are talking about

    Jerry, Sep 30, 2003
  13. Every single disk drive I have every seen stores data in blocks. These
    blocks are always a power of two. Old floppy drives often used 256 bytes,
    later drives use 512 bytes. CD-ROMs use 2048 bytes. I have seen some old
    optical drives which used 1024 bytes. Because the data has to be stored
    on the drive in complete blocks, files always end up as a multiple of
    the block size. This is the reason why everyone, everyone _except_ for
    the hard drive manufacturers that is, measures storage space in the
    binary versions of kilo, mega, giga etc. Yes, now that it exists they
    should really be using kibi, mebi, gibi etc. but the accepted practice
    for _decades_ in the computer industry is that when used for storage the
    prefixes are assumed to be the binary versions.

    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand

    Apple II - FutureCop:LAPD - iMac Game Wizard
    "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes
    hurtling down the highway."

    Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Computer_Networks, Second Edition, p. 57
    Roger Johnstone, Sep 30, 2003
  14. asdf

    Jerry Guest

    And a 2 GHZ processor should clock 2.147 billion times a second.
    good question, none, none at all, nada, zip, doodly squat....
    Jerry, Sep 30, 2003
  15. asdf

    Jay Guest

    Absolute rubbish.

    Maybe the sector size has traditionally been a power of two (but internally
    there are more bits per sector than a power of two) but the number of
    cylinders and heads never have been.

    So you have a disk with 512 byte sectors but there are a total of
    97,808,000 sectors on the disk which gives you a total of
    50077696000 which is 50.08GB or 46.64GiB. As you can see there
    really isn't much of a relationship with an exact power of two.

    Also you cannot say that networking isn't a part of the computer industry
    and a kilo is *always* 1000 and giga is *always* 1000000000 in networking.

    So you assertion that somehow the accepted practice for _decades_ has been
    something else is complete baloney.
    Jay, Sep 30, 2003
  16. asdf

    Jerry Guest

    You've never seen a disk drive that stores variable record lengths?
    All IBM mainframe drives used to, but anyway, that is beside the

    Storage space, whether in RAM, HDD, tape is measured in decimal bytes.
    That number is usually then rounded to something even, and expressed
    in kilo, mega, giga or tetra bytes. RAM will always be rounded down,
    because of the nature of it, it is always an exact power of 2. if my
    hard drive stores 80,025,878,142 bytes of data, it is an 80 GB HDD,
    there is no logical reason to call it a 74.5 GB HDD.

    Jerry, Sep 30, 2003
  17. asdf

    Peter Ingham Guest

    However this is far from universal. I used large commercial systems
    for many years which had sector sizes that were not a power of two.

    Please remove '_SpamTrap' when replying. You know why :-(

    Peter Ingham
    Lower Hutt
    New Zealand
    Peter Ingham, Sep 30, 2003
  18. Along with disk sizes.
    Nope. they only changed to 10^ * representations about 1996 or so.

    Quantum was one of the first makers to start playing this marketing game.

    Initially it gave a selling advantage because the drives looked bigger
    when compared with Segate et al who were still quoting in 2^10/20/30 sizing
    I'd say it has 1073741824 bytes, but not all of that is available to the
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Sep 30, 2003
  19. asdf

    Mainlander Guest

    Primarily that sector size is a power of two, the size can be referenced
    thus as a multiple of a power of two e.g. a multiple of 2^10, 2^20 or 2^
    30 etc
    Mainlander, Oct 1, 2003
  20. asdf

    Mainlander Guest

    That's irrelevant.

    When the multiplication is carried out to get the total disk size, the
    disk can be described as a multiple of a power of 2.

    Suppose a disk has 19 sectors, 7 surfaces and 991 cylinders. The disk has
    therefore a whole number of sectors in total, being 131803. Because 512
    is 2^9, the disk capacity can be easily expressed as a multiple of a
    power of 2. We can say it is 131803 x 2^9 or more conventionally 65901.5
    KB (where K means 1024 bytes)

    There isn't much relationship with the power of 10 either.
    Mainlander, Oct 1, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.