New
#41
This all depends on how you define Kilo, Mega, and Giga. In the decimal system that we are all familiar with, these are represented by 10^3, 10^6, and 10^9 respectively. In the binary system, which is the system understood by computers, these same prefixes are represented by 2^10, 2^20, and 2^30.
Because the binary versions of these prefixes are larger than the equivalent decimal ones, we get this apparent discrepancy between the advertised disk capacity (which is the decimal value) and the actual capacity as reported by the computer (the binary value). Both values are correct, in other words 500GB = 465GiB. It is just marketing convention that dictates that disks are sold with the decimal equivalent of their capacity, afterall 500GB looks better than 465GiB even though they are both the same capacity. Incidentally, even floppy disks were subject to this marketing. They were sold as 1.44MB although their reported capacity was just 1.38MiB.
I can remember a few years back when, at the bottom of each ad flyer offering HD's and computers for sale wherein HD capacity was mentioned, there was a disclaimer about the actual HD capacity. It's been a while and I no longer see such a disclaimer. Another interesting tid-bit related to this topic:
link ...So where did the missing gigabytes go? Were they used by formatting? Nope. Did the hard drive manufacturer lie? Nope, but they did exploit the ambiguous definition of "gigabyte". What can you do about it? Nothing, really; just be aware of the difference between advertised capacity and actual capacity.
Note that different operating systems label things differently. Mac OS X 10.6 actually uses the SI definition of a gigabyte, so your 500 GB (advertised) drive will be listed as "499 GB" or even "500 GB". Windows uses the term "gigabyte" to refer to a gibibyte, et cetera. Linux and Unix usage varies, but Gnome uses the marking "GiB" to avoid ambiguity.
Sorry, but this quote was written by a retard. This is completely ridiculous.
ambiguous definition of "gigabyte
Apologies to all for the delayed response. Thanks, Dwarf, for what I think is an accurate and objective response. Can't get much clearer than that.
It doesn't have to be one or the other. I'm not against profit at all. I just believe that principle should play a guiding role. When it does, everyone wins.
Hi whs. No need for huge numbers. Real world numbers will do.
I guess what I'm saying is that (as a matter of principal) hard drive manufacturers should mark their products using the same 'math' that the OS's and thus real world users are subject to. They would have to do nothing more than market the drive size as '466 GB' rather than 500 GB.
James
The truth is that it is ambigous (not the math, but the marketing usage). At least to the public. Otherwise, there wouldn't be the constant barrage of 'I'm missing 40 GBs' threads.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I do think the line (along with its contextual text) is accurate, at least in part. To think that drive manufacturers don't recognize the marketing aspect of this is to call them idiots, which, certainly, they are not.
James
Explain SI units and the way Mac OSX reports the size of an HD then, whs.
I would proffer the meaning of a gigabyte is definitely an ambiguous term as the general, non-computer public sees it. Apparently, HD manufacturer's have taken advantage of this fact. Well, I guess, unless one owns a MAC.
The fact we're still discussing this is a poignant indication of the inherent ambiguity regarding gigabytes in the way HD manufacturer's report HD capacity and the actual capacity realized depending on the OS one uses.