Windows 7 Forums
Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: Hard Drive - why is 2 TB only 1.8 TB ??

24 Dec 2010   #41
James Colbert

 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by ignatzatsonic View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by James Colbert View Post
It strikes me that 'integrity in marketing' would dictate listing the 'user usable capacity' on the box.

Is there some valid reasoning behind this?

James
The reasoning is utterly valid.

"Integrity in marketing"

A non sequitur if ever I heard one and surely you jest.

Marketing 101 states that if 4 is good, then 5 is better.

If a 100 Watt stereo system is good, then surely a 200 Watt stereo system is better. Witness any audio retailer advertisement.

It follows that if 1000 is good, then 1024 is better, if .9313 is good, then 1.000 is better, and if 465 GB is good, then 500 GB is better.

Ad vomitum.

The measuring method is used because it is thought to be effective---a certain unknown percentage of rubes would shy away from a drive advertised at 465 GB and buy the adjacent drive measured at 500 GB, even though they have the same usable capacity.

The measuring method will be abandoned when it is thought not to be effective or when it is outlawed. Neither are on the horizon.

Can you imagine WD adopting the measuring method that yields 465 GB while Seagate continues to use the method that yields 500 GB? It won't happen as long as WD believes the rube census is greater than zero.
An appropriate assessment, I think. IOW (if I might 'boil it down'), profit driven, as suspected. But what's interesting is that today's world considers this 'valid reasoning'. I myself still consider such behavior corporate greed.

James


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
24 Dec 2010   #42
James Colbert

 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Buddahfan View Post
[Actually...
Thanks for a thorough response, Buddahfan.

James
My System SpecsSystem Spec
24 Dec 2010   #43
Dwarf

Windows 8.1 Pro RTM x64
 
 

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.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

24 Dec 2010   #44
ignatzatsonic

Microsoft Community Contributor Award Recipient

Windows 7 Home Premium SP1, 64-bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by James Colbert View Post

An appropriate assessment, I think. IOW (if I might 'boil it down'), profit driven, as suspected. But what's interesting is that today's world considers this 'valid reasoning'. I myself still consider such behavior corporate greed.

James
I'll grant you that it is not a particularly easy pill to swallow and subjects us all to the worst aspects of human nature, but in the absence of "profit driven", we would be using an abacus at best. Otherwise, why would anyone get out of bed?

Pick your poison.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
24 Dec 2010   #45
whs
Microsoft MVP

Vista, Windows7, Mint Mate, Zorin, Windows 8
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by James Colbert View Post
The mathmatical part is a given, but one does have to wonder why drive manufacturer's continue to rate capacities as x1000 when the majority of use will be for OS's that use x1024 (which is the actual usable capacity). It strikes me that 'integrity in marketing' would dictate listing the 'user usable capacity' on the box.

Is there some valid reasoning behind this?

James
James, what do you want then to do? it is 2 billion or 2 trillion bytes in both cases. You want them to put a huge number on the box? If someone who works with a computer does not unerstand binary, I am sorry. We had to work in Hex - now that is really fun.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
24 Dec 2010   #46
mikedl

Windows 7 Ultimate x64 SP1
 
 

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:
Quote:
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.
link ...
My System SpecsSystem Spec
24 Dec 2010   #47
whs
Microsoft MVP

Vista, Windows7, Mint Mate, Zorin, Windows 8
 
 

Sorry, but this quote was written by a retard. This is completely ridiculous.

Quote:
ambiguous definition of "gigabyte
My System SpecsSystem Spec
24 Dec 2010   #48
James Colbert

 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Dwarf View Post
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.
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.


Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by ignatzatsonic View Post
I'll grant you that it is not a particularly easy pill to swallow and subjects us all to the worst aspects of human nature, but in the absence of "profit driven", we would be using an abacus at best. Otherwise, why would anyone get out of bed?

Pick your poison.
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.


Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by whs View Post
James, what do you want then to do? it is 2 billion or 2 trillion bytes in both cases. You want them to put a huge number on the box? If someone who works with a computer does not unerstand binary, I am sorry. We had to work in Hex - now that is really fun.
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
My System SpecsSystem Spec
24 Dec 2010   #49
James Colbert

 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by whs View Post
Sorry, but this quote was written by a retard. This is completely ridiculous.

Quote:
ambiguous definition of "gigabyte
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
My System SpecsSystem Spec
24 Dec 2010   #50
mikedl

Windows 7 Ultimate x64 SP1
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by whs View Post
Sorry, but this quote was written by a retard. This is completely ridiculous.

Quote:
ambiguous definition of "gigabyte
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.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 Hard Drive - why is 2 TB only 1.8 TB ??




Thread Tools




Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
Cloning a hard drive partition onto a smaller hard drive
I have an old 320GB hard drive that's dying and slowing my computer down. The OS is on a 20GB partition. I want to copy that partition onto an empty, 110GB hard drive. Will the data copied be corrupted? am I better off re-installing windows? How can I do this?
General Discussion
hard drive failed, system image not found on hard drive
hi all, i hope someone can help me out, i am a newbie to all this so bare with me. my hard drive failed over a month ago but i managed to do a system image with win7 to my new 2tb internal hard drive. i cannot get the image recovery to work as i says "no image can be found on hard disk". i am at...
Backup and Restore
how to make your internal hard drive into and external hard drive ?
I have an internal hard disk not in use ,and I would like to make it as external disk ! I looked on the net and I found I should have the " encelsure " butt I think I wont find it here in my city . So is there another way ? like usb -esata cable ?
Hardware & Devices
Internal Hard Drive acting like an External Hard Drive
Hi guys, I'm new on any sort of forums so go easy if it's a stupid question..but here goes. Me and my brother built me a new computer from scratch (he did the building - i did the watching). To cut a long story short - I purchased an internal hard drive from Overclockers UK. It's a Samsung...
Hardware & Devices
How do I transfer files from bad sata hard drive to new hard drive
Hi. I have a virus infected sata hard drive with windows 7 on it. It has the win 7 anti virus 2012 on it, and it's a cybercriminal virus. I have lots of files I want to transfer to the new sata drive. I already have windows 7 installed on the new drive. How do I get the files from the bad drive to...
Installation & Setup
Computer Not Booting Hard Drive/Unresponsive Hard Drive
Hey guys, I have a HP Touchsmart IQ500. Turning my computer PC on today, all I got was a blue HP invent screen with setup, boot menu, system recovery, and system diagnosis, and I could not get past it. I entered the BIOS and figured out that the hard drive was listed as "not installed."...
Hardware & Devices


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:15.
Twitter Facebook Google+ Seven Forums iOS App Seven Forums Android App