Hard disk size - quoted & actual

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Kevin Buffardi <kevin.buffardi@email.com> wrote in message
news:427085db$0$79459$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...

>>> The acronym "bit" itself comes from Binary digIT, 0 or 1.

>> I didnt even comment on that.

> Well that was my comment.

Yep.

> Then you said it was wrong.

Nope, I said the next bit is wrong. Here it is again

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Well, the basis of the measurement of a bit (Binary digIT) is of course
>>>> binary.

>>> Thats not what base 2 means in this situation.

>>>> A byte = 8 bits, and traditionally, these measurements are portrayed in
>>>> powers of two.

>>> Thats just plain wrong. The 1.44MB floppy
>>> is in fact a weird binary/decimal hybrid.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> Its still just plain wrong. Its only really been true of memory. And
>> that is because it does have an intrinsically binary ORGANISATION.

> I'm sorry if my first post was misleading,

Much of it was just plain wrong.

> but I believe you are misinterpreting it from my intentions.

Nope.

> I never mentioned memory or storage.

I rubbed YOUR nose in the FACT that while memory does have
an intrinsically binary ORGANISATION, hard drives do not.

So while the binary 2^x form makes sense
with memory, it doesnt with hard drives.

> I am talking about the origin of the terms bit and byte.

Pity that was completely irrelevant to what was being discussed,
the use of the 2^x or 10^x forms for stating the amount of whatever.

> Those origins predate the use of the magnetic, non-volatile storage we use
> today.

Also completely irrelevant.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Nick" <no-email@published.nul> wrote in message
news:kl32719ei68vn4dt334l7bdih8gs739c6s@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:05:30 -0500, Kevin Buffardi
> <kevin.buffardi@email.com> wrote:
>
>>> Who get it wrong. There is nothing intrinsically binary about
>>> hard drive capacity. Thats only seen with ram and rom.
>>
>>Well, the basis of the measurement of a bit (Binary digIT) is of course
>>binary. A byte = 8 bits,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte
>
> The word "byte" has several meanings, all closely related:

> 1. A contiguous sequence of a fixed number of bits. On modern
> computers, an eight-bit byte or octet is by far the most common.
> This was not always the case. Certain older models have used
> six-, seven-, or nine-bit bytes - for instance on the 36-bit architecture
> of the PDP-10. Another example of a non eight-bit sequence is
> the 12-bit slab of the NCR-315. A byte is always atomic on
> the system, meaning that it is the smallest addressable unit.

Then you have a problem when using bytes with a PDP-10

The term used with that era was normally a word, not a byte.

> An eight-bit byte can hold 256 possible values (28 = 256)
> -- enough to store an unsigned integer ranging from 0 to
> 255, a signed integer from -128 to 127, or a character of a
> seven-bit (such as ASCII) or eight-bit character encoding.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:15o171t5uo3n3e21r68kke010g1q64klo2@4ax.com...
> Grunff wrote:

>> This is something I've often wondered about but never tried
>> to find out - why is it that when you buy a 400GB drive, hook
>> it up to your motherboard, you only get say 370GB? This is
>> before it's been formatted or anything.

> Hi all, This is something I've often wondered about but never tried to
> find out - why is it that cretins are always coming along asking
> questions like this, in the apparent belief that they are the first
> person ever to post the question on USENET? Do they think they're
> that unique? Have they never heard of doing a google search?

Its one of those things that arent that easy to use google
for if you arent very good at google searches, as most
of those who ask that sort of question arent.

We could also ask why you didnt answer
your own question using a google search too.

The answer is rather obvious, you've got nothing
better to do than ask stupid questions like that.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Kevin Buffardi <kevin.buffardi@email.com> wrote in message
news:4271bc7a$0$79459$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...

> Another thing to point out that is even more relavent to the thread:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilobyte

Doesnt make it gospel.

> As shown here, yes Rod is correct that 1KB = 1000 bytes in International
> System of Units standards. HOWEVER, "1,024 [...] is used to express memory
> capacity *and by most software to express storage capacity.* This was
> obviously the case for Grunff's mobo report of the hard drive capacity.

Duh.

Separate issue entirely to the errors in YOUR original.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Kevin Buffardi" <kevin.buffardi@email.com> wrote in message news:4271bc7a$0$79459$14726298@news.sunsite.dk
> Nick wrote:
> > 1. A contiguous sequence of a fixed number of bits. On modern
> > computers, an eight-bit byte or octet is by far the most common. This
> > was not always the case. Certain older models have used six-, seven-,
> > or nine-bit bytes - for instance on the 36-bit architecture of the
> > PDP-10.
>
> While it's true that a byte doesn't always have to be 8-bits, it's
> notable that these cases are rare. Even as the beloved Wikipedia says,
> "eight-bit byte [...] is by far the most common." But, no excuses for
> me... I should have said, "A byte *typically* = 8 bits."
>
> Another thing to point out that is even more relavent to the thread:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilobyte
>
> As shown here, yes Rod is correct that 1KB = 1000 bytes in International
> System of Units standards. HOWEVER, "1,024 [...] is used to express
> memory capacity *and by most software to express storage capacity.*

> This was

What was.

> obviously the case for Grunff's mobo report of the hard drive
> capacity.
>
> //Kevin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> What was.

This:
>>"1,024 [...] is used to express
>>memory capacity *and by most software to express storage capacity.*

//Kevin