[SOLVED] 960 GB vs 1 TB

[MdAyq0l]

Some manufacturers produce 960 GB SSD SATA III 2.5 inch drives (but not 1 TB drives). Example: Intel® D3-S4510.
Others produce 1 TB SSD SATA III 2.5 inch drives (but not 960 GB drives). Example: Samsung 860 EVO.
Sometimes I see also 1000 GB in a drive description, but I can't find any such drive at this moment.

The actual capacities of these drives are probably very close (960 = 1000 − 4 % if we omit the units of measurement).
Is there a real difference, measured in bytes? Or do these drives have the same capacity in bytes, but the manufacturers count differently and employ different conventions on what a terabyte and a gigabyte are exactly? Or is there a well-known compatibility requirement that 960 GB drives satisfy but 1 TB (and, perhaps, 1000 GB) drives don't satisfy (and that's why it makes sense to sell drives of capacity slightly less than 1 TB)?

 

[MdAyq0l]

Nostalgia for old stuff is fine, but don't look at them through rose colored glasses.

Off-topic: I recall ditching an old scanner of mine for only one reason: I sold my old desktop, and the new laptop had no parallel DB-25 port. The scanner itself was working. I lived without a scanner for a year until buying a USB-connected one. I could have tried a USB-to-LPT adaptor, but it was in advance unclear whether such an adaptor would have allowed me to use my old scanner (and nobody could tell me). That's why we have mountains of garbage consisting of working but useless devices now.

 

[popatim]

There is no issue with any drives between 138GB and 2TB on either Intel or AMD systems. None.
It's just that 2TB laptop drives did not exist at the time.