hard disk size ??

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I don't understand why my HD's aren't fully useable.
A 80Gb drive shows 76Gb useable, A 120Gb shows 111Gb useable, 160 =149, 200
= 186, etc.
What gives?
I have WinXP professional sp2, and AMD 2Ghtz system.
Any ideas?
TIA
John

 

[jad]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

unformatted size Vs formatted



"prophetsdad" <cmiink@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news5e3e.1755$44.1084@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> I don't understand why my HD's aren't fully useable.
> A 80Gb drive shows 76Gb useable, A 120Gb shows 111Gb useable, 160 =149,
200
> = 186, etc.
> What gives?
> I have WinXP professional sp2, and AMD 2Ghtz system.
> Any ideas?
> TIA
> John
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

prophetsdad wrote:
> I don't understand why my HD's aren't fully useable.
> A 80Gb drive shows 76Gb useable, A 120Gb shows 111Gb useable, 160 =149, 200
> = 186, etc.
> What gives?
> I have WinXP professional sp2, and AMD 2Ghtz system.
> Any ideas?
> TIA
> John

Hard drive vendors define a GB differently than your operating system.
It's something a lot of people complain about, but since they explicitly
tell you what they mean when they say "GB" on the box, they really
aren't doing anything wrong. It's something people have argued about
for a long time.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:51:11 GMT, "prophetsdad" <cmiink@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>I don't understand why my HD's aren't fully useable.
>A 80Gb drive shows 76Gb useable, A 120Gb shows 111Gb useable, 160 =149, 200
>= 186, etc.
>What gives?
>I have WinXP professional sp2, and AMD 2Ghtz system.
>Any ideas?
>TIA
>John

It is marketing and semantics really.
The HD makers say 1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes,
but we commonly say 1 GB = 1,073,741,824 bytes.

--
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/

 

[anna]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> "prophetsdad" <cmiink@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news5e3e.1755$44.1084@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> I don't understand why my HD's aren't fully useable.
>> A 80Gb drive shows 76Gb useable, A 120Gb shows 111Gb useable, 160 =149,
> 200
>> = 186, etc.
>> What gives?
>> I have WinXP professional sp2, and AMD 2Ghtz system.
>> Any ideas?
>> TIA
>> John


"JAD" <kapasitor@earthcharter.net> wrote in message
news:nxe3e.750$yL2.125@fe08.lga...
> unformatted size Vs formatted


No, the "problem" is the difference between the hard drive manufacturer's
advertised capacity vs. the "real" capacity (in binary terms) the drive, at
least as seen by the OS.

So...

a advertised 80 GB HD will show as 75.5 GB (approx.)
" " 120 " " " " " 112 GB (approx)
" " 160 " " " " " 149 GB (approx)
" " 200 " " " " " 186 GB (approx)
etc.

You can multiply the advertised capacity of the HD by 93% to get the "real"
capacity of the disk (at least as measured by the OS).
Anna

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Kind of like motorcycles?
You never get what they advertise.
A "750cc" might have 699 or 732 or whatever, but if it had 750, they'd
call it a 760 or an 800.

 

[jad]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

yeah that popped out from my mouth before coffee...however the numbers he
through up seemed to be a bit more than just the 'lie' in advertising.


"Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
news:IbGdnb04Se954dDfRVn-sA@adelphia.com...
> > "prophetsdad" <cmiink@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news5e3e.1755$44.1084@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >> I don't understand why my HD's aren't fully useable.
> >> A 80Gb drive shows 76Gb useable, A 120Gb shows 111Gb useable, 160 =149,
> > 200
> >> = 186, etc.
> >> What gives?
> >> I have WinXP professional sp2, and AMD 2Ghtz system.
> >> Any ideas?
> >> TIA
> >> John
>
>
> "JAD" <kapasitor@earthcharter.net> wrote in message
> news:nxe3e.750$yL2.125@fe08.lga...
> > unformatted size Vs formatted
>
>
> No, the "problem" is the difference between the hard drive manufacturer's
> advertised capacity vs. the "real" capacity (in binary terms) the drive,
at
> least as seen by the OS.
>
> So...
>
> a advertised 80 GB HD will show as 75.5 GB (approx.)
> " " 120 " " " " " 112 GB (approx)
> " " 160 " " " " " 149 GB (approx)
> " " 200 " " " " " 186 GB (approx)
> etc.
>
> You can multiply the advertised capacity of the HD by 93% to get the
"real"
> capacity of the disk (at least as measured by the OS).
> Anna
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

The "80GB", "120GB", etc. ratings are the UNFORMATTED capacity of the
harddrives. They MUST be formatted before they can be used, and then you
get the "76GB", "111GB", etc. readings.
Everything's fine.

--
DaveW



"prophetsdad" <cmiink@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news5e3e.1755$44.1084@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>I don't understand why my HD's aren't fully useable.
> A 80Gb drive shows 76Gb useable, A 120Gb shows 111Gb useable, 160 =149,
> 200 = 186, etc.
> What gives?
> I have WinXP professional sp2, and AMD 2Ghtz system.
> Any ideas?
> TIA
> John
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Michael Cecil wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:51:11 GMT, "prophetsdad" <cmiink@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't understand why my HD's aren't fully useable.
>>A 80Gb drive shows 76Gb useable, A 120Gb shows 111Gb useable, 160 =149, 200
>>= 186, etc.
>>What gives?
>>I have WinXP professional sp2, and AMD 2Ghtz system.
>>Any ideas?
>>TIA
>>John
>
>
> It is marketing and semantics really.
> The HD makers say 1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes,
> but we commonly say 1 GB = 1,073,741,824 bytes.
>

And why do you "commonly say 1 GB = 1,073,741,824 bytes" when the prefix
Giga is defined as 10^9?

Kilo 10^3
Mega 10^6
Giga 10^9

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

DaveW wrote:

> The "80GB", "120GB", etc. ratings are the UNFORMATTED capacity of the
> harddrives. They MUST be formatted before they can be used, and then you
> get the "76GB", "111GB", etc. readings.

Wrong, as anyone who reads the specification can tell by the statement
"FORMATTED CAPACITY 120 GB."

> Everything's fine.

A correct conclusion arrived at by incorrect reasoning.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

prophetsdad wrote:

> I don't understand why my HD's aren't fully useable.
> A 80Gb drive shows 76Gb useable, A 120Gb shows 111Gb useable, 160 =149, 200
> = 186, etc.
> What gives?
> I have WinXP professional sp2, and AMD 2Ghtz system.
> Any ideas?
> TIA
> John
>
>

You're going to get a lot of incorrect information so here's the reality of it.

Giga, Mega, Kilo, et al, are decimal prefixes but computers operate in
binary and, to 'simplify' things, they've bastardized the decimal prefixes
into what I call 'decibinal' (to correctly note that it is not decimal nor
binary but a strange 'combination'): a pseudo binary nomenclature using
not-quite-right decimal prefixes. (Because no one likes saying 1073741824
bytes and the poor binary folks didn't have binary prefixes to use for
shortening it so bastardizing the decimal ones seemed the 'quick and easy'
thing to do.)

I.E. the closest thing to a kilo, 10^3, in binary is 1024 (2^10) so even
though it's not really a kilobyte they call it one anyway. Same with Mega,
10^6. The nearest binary number is 1048576 (2^20). And for giga, 10^9, the
nearest binary number is 1073741824 (2^30).

So you need to know which 'number system' is being used to know how the
prefixes are being used: the correct decimal way or the 'decibinal' way.

Hard drive manufacturers use the decimal number system, just like everyone
else in the (decimal) world, so "120 GB" means 120 x 10^9, just as one who
took any reasonable math class would expect.

File Manager, however, reports things in 'decibinal' so GB means 1073741824
bytes and that means something reported in 'decibinal' gigabytes will
appear smaller than when reported in decimal GigaBytes even though they are
talking about the same thing.

E.g. 120 Decimal GigaBytes will come out as 120/1.073741824 decibinal
GigaBytes, or 111.76 (decibinal) GB (they tend to truncate numbers rather
than 'round up' so the 111.76 shows as 111GB).

So, 120GB = 111GB. Same size, same number of bytes.

It has nothing to do with 'formatting' or anything else.

Now, you can get the 'real' size by doing a properties on the drive from
either My Computer or Windows Explorer. Right click on the drive and select
Properties. You'll see the *real* "Capacity" reported down to the byte, as
on my 120GB drive "120,031,478,272 bytes" with the 'decibinal' size to the
right, as on mine "111GB." Same drive, same size, same number of bytes, two
ways of saying it.

Btw, you can get the *real* size of any file by right clicking on it and
selecting Properties too. The decimal size will be in (). For example, this
"Size: 47.6 MB" file on my system shows "47.6 MB (49,920,000 bytes)" in
it's Properties and, to confirm the math, 49,920,000 divided by 'decibinal'
MB (1048576 byes) is 47.607421875 or, truncated, 47.6 MB. See? Same thing,
same size, same number of bytes, different way of saying it.

So, to summarize, all is perfectly fine with your drives. You got what you
paid for, it's all there, no data is lost or missing, no one is lying,
there's no 'marketing gimmick', and everything is usable. You just need to
know the math, which you now do.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

prophetsdad wrote:
> I don't understand why my HD's aren't fully useable.
> A 80Gb drive shows 76Gb useable, A 120Gb shows 111Gb useable, 160 =149, 200
> = 186, etc.
> What gives?
> I have WinXP professional sp2, and AMD 2Ghtz system.
> Any ideas?
> TIA
> John
>
>
1GB = 1024MB as far as the rest of the world is concerned...

But hard drive manufacturers state on the box that they measure 1GB =
1000MB.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Timbertea wrote:

>
>
> prophetsdad wrote:
>
>> I don't understand why my HD's aren't fully useable.
>> A 80Gb drive shows 76Gb useable, A 120Gb shows 111Gb useable, 160
>> =149, 200 = 186, etc.
>> What gives?
>> I have WinXP professional sp2, and AMD 2Ghtz system.
>> Any ideas?
>> TIA
>> John
>>
> 1GB = 1024MB as far as the rest of the world is concerned...

You have that backwards. The "rest of the world" defines giga as 10^9 and
it's only the binary world that's bastardized decimal prefixes into
something else.


> But hard drive manufacturers state on the box that they measure 1GB =
> 1000MB.

Actually, they measure it like anyone using proper decimal prefixes as 10^9
but you'd be right if by "MB" you meant 10^6. However, I suspect you think
it's 1048576.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

this thread is funny


"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message news:114rtsuf9kr6kc4@corp.supernews.com...
> prophetsdad wrote:
>
>> I don't understand why my HD's aren't fully useable.
>> A 80Gb drive shows 76Gb useable, A 120Gb shows 111Gb useable, 160 =149, 200 = 186, etc.
>> What gives?
>> I have WinXP professional sp2, and AMD 2Ghtz system.
>> Any ideas?
>> TIA
>> John
>
> You're going to get a lot of incorrect information so here's the reality of it.
>
> Giga, Mega, Kilo, et al, are decimal prefixes but computers operate in binary and, to 'simplify' things, they've bastardized the
> decimal prefixes into what I call 'decibinal' (to correctly note that it is not decimal nor binary but a strange 'combination'): a
> pseudo binary nomenclature using not-quite-right decimal prefixes. (Because no one likes saying 1073741824 bytes and the poor
> binary folks didn't have binary prefixes to use for shortening it so bastardizing the decimal ones seemed the 'quick and easy'
> thing to do.)
>
> I.E. the closest thing to a kilo, 10^3, in binary is 1024 (2^10) so even though it's not really a kilobyte they call it one
> anyway. Same with Mega, 10^6. The nearest binary number is 1048576 (2^20). And for giga, 10^9, the nearest binary number is
> 1073741824 (2^30).
>
> So you need to know which 'number system' is being used to know how the prefixes are being used: the correct decimal way or the
> 'decibinal' way.
>
> Hard drive manufacturers use the decimal number system, just like everyone else in the (decimal) world, so "120 GB" means 120 x
> 10^9, just as one who took any reasonable math class would expect.
>
> File Manager, however, reports things in 'decibinal' so GB means 1073741824 bytes and that means something reported in 'decibinal'
> gigabytes will appear smaller than when reported in decimal GigaBytes even though they are talking about the same thing.
>
> E.g. 120 Decimal GigaBytes will come out as 120/1.073741824 decibinal GigaBytes, or 111.76 (decibinal) GB (they tend to truncate
> numbers rather than 'round up' so the 111.76 shows as 111GB).
>
> So, 120GB = 111GB. Same size, same number of bytes.
>
> It has nothing to do with 'formatting' or anything else.
>
> Now, you can get the 'real' size by doing a properties on the drive from either My Computer or Windows Explorer. Right click on
> the drive and select Properties. You'll see the *real* "Capacity" reported down to the byte, as on my 120GB drive "120,031,478,272
> bytes" with the 'decibinal' size to the right, as on mine "111GB." Same drive, same size, same number of bytes, two ways of saying
> it.
>
> Btw, you can get the *real* size of any file by right clicking on it and selecting Properties too. The decimal size will be in ().
> For example, this "Size: 47.6 MB" file on my system shows "47.6 MB (49,920,000 bytes)" in it's Properties and, to confirm the
> math, 49,920,000 divided by 'decibinal' MB (1048576 byes) is 47.607421875 or, truncated, 47.6 MB. See? Same thing, same size, same
> number of bytes, different way of saying it.
>
> So, to summarize, all is perfectly fine with your drives. You got what you paid for, it's all there, no data is lost or missing,
> no one is lying, there's no 'marketing gimmick', and everything is usable. You just need to know the math, which you now do.
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
news:114rtsuf9kr6kc4@corp.supernews.com...
> prophetsdad wrote:
>
>> I don't understand why my HD's aren't fully useable.
>> A 80Gb drive shows 76Gb useable, A 120Gb shows 111Gb useable, 160 =149,
>> 200 = 186, etc.
>> What gives?
>> I have WinXP professional sp2, and AMD 2Ghtz system.
>> Any ideas?
>> TIA
>> John
>
> You're going to get a lot of incorrect information so here's the reality
> of it.
>
> Giga, Mega, Kilo, et al, are decimal prefixes but computers operate in
> binary and, to 'simplify' things, they've bastardized the decimal prefixes
> into what I call 'decibinal' (to correctly note that it is not decimal nor
> binary but a strange 'combination'): a pseudo binary nomenclature using
> not-quite-right decimal prefixes. (Because no one likes saying 1073741824
> bytes and the poor binary folks didn't have binary prefixes to use for
> shortening it so bastardizing the decimal ones seemed the 'quick and easy'
> thing to do.)
>
> I.E. the closest thing to a kilo, 10^3, in binary is 1024 (2^10) so even
> though it's not really a kilobyte they call it one anyway. Same with Mega,
> 10^6. The nearest binary number is 1048576 (2^20). And for giga, 10^9, the
> nearest binary number is 1073741824 (2^30).
>
> So you need to know which 'number system' is being used to know how the
> prefixes are being used: the correct decimal way or the 'decibinal' way.
>
> Hard drive manufacturers use the decimal number system, just like everyone
> else in the (decimal) world, so "120 GB" means 120 x 10^9, just as one who
> took any reasonable math class would expect.
>
> File Manager, however, reports things in 'decibinal' so GB means
> 1073741824 bytes and that means something reported in 'decibinal'
> gigabytes will appear smaller than when reported in decimal GigaBytes even
> though they are talking about the same thing.
>
> E.g. 120 Decimal GigaBytes will come out as 120/1.073741824 decibinal
> GigaBytes, or 111.76 (decibinal) GB (they tend to truncate numbers rather
> than 'round up' so the 111.76 shows as 111GB).
>
> So, 120GB = 111GB. Same size, same number of bytes.
>
> It has nothing to do with 'formatting' or anything else.
>
> Now, you can get the 'real' size by doing a properties on the drive from
> either My Computer or Windows Explorer. Right click on the drive and
> select Properties. You'll see the *real* "Capacity" reported down to the
> byte, as on my 120GB drive "120,031,478,272 bytes" with the 'decibinal'
> size to the right, as on mine "111GB." Same drive, same size, same number
> of bytes, two ways of saying it.
>
> Btw, you can get the *real* size of any file by right clicking on it and
> selecting Properties too. The decimal size will be in (). For example,
> this "Size: 47.6 MB" file on my system shows "47.6 MB (49,920,000 bytes)"
> in it's Properties and, to confirm the math, 49,920,000 divided by
> 'decibinal' MB (1048576 byes) is 47.607421875 or, truncated, 47.6 MB. See?
> Same thing, same size, same number of bytes, different way of saying it.
>
> So, to summarize, all is perfectly fine with your drives. You got what you
> paid for, it's all there, no data is lost or missing, no one is lying,
> there's no 'marketing gimmick', and everything is usable. You just need to
> know the math, which you now do.
>
>

David:

Excellent post. The most thorough explanation I have seen on this subject.
Even though I am not the O. P. I have to say "thank you."

PWY

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

PWY wrote:
>
> "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
> news:114rtsuf9kr6kc4@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> prophetsdad wrote:
>>
>>> I don't understand why my HD's aren't fully useable.
>>> A 80Gb drive shows 76Gb useable, A 120Gb shows 111Gb useable, 160
>>> =149, 200 = 186, etc.
>>> What gives?
>>> I have WinXP professional sp2, and AMD 2Ghtz system.
>>> Any ideas?
>>> TIA
>>> John
>>
>>
>> You're going to get a lot of incorrect information so here's the
>> reality of it.
>>
>> Giga, Mega, Kilo, et al, are decimal prefixes but computers operate in
>> binary and, to 'simplify' things, they've bastardized the decimal
>> prefixes into what I call 'decibinal' (to correctly note that it is
>> not decimal nor binary but a strange 'combination'): a pseudo binary
>> nomenclature using not-quite-right decimal prefixes. (Because no one
>> likes saying 1073741824 bytes and the poor binary folks didn't have
>> binary prefixes to use for shortening it so bastardizing the decimal
>> ones seemed the 'quick and easy' thing to do.)
>>
>> I.E. the closest thing to a kilo, 10^3, in binary is 1024 (2^10) so
>> even though it's not really a kilobyte they call it one anyway. Same
>> with Mega, 10^6. The nearest binary number is 1048576 (2^20). And for
>> giga, 10^9, the nearest binary number is 1073741824 (2^30).
>>
>> So you need to know which 'number system' is being used to know how
>> the prefixes are being used: the correct decimal way or the
>> 'decibinal' way.
>>
>> Hard drive manufacturers use the decimal number system, just like
>> everyone else in the (decimal) world, so "120 GB" means 120 x 10^9,
>> just as one who took any reasonable math class would expect.
>>
>> File Manager, however, reports things in 'decibinal' so GB means
>> 1073741824 bytes and that means something reported in 'decibinal'
>> gigabytes will appear smaller than when reported in decimal GigaBytes
>> even though they are talking about the same thing.
>>
>> E.g. 120 Decimal GigaBytes will come out as 120/1.073741824 decibinal
>> GigaBytes, or 111.76 (decibinal) GB (they tend to truncate numbers
>> rather than 'round up' so the 111.76 shows as 111GB).
>>
>> So, 120GB = 111GB. Same size, same number of bytes.
>>
>> It has nothing to do with 'formatting' or anything else.
>>
>> Now, you can get the 'real' size by doing a properties on the drive
>> from either My Computer or Windows Explorer. Right click on the drive
>> and select Properties. You'll see the *real* "Capacity" reported down
>> to the byte, as on my 120GB drive "120,031,478,272 bytes" with the
>> 'decibinal' size to the right, as on mine "111GB." Same drive, same
>> size, same number of bytes, two ways of saying it.
>>
>> Btw, you can get the *real* size of any file by right clicking on it
>> and selecting Properties too. The decimal size will be in (). For
>> example, this "Size: 47.6 MB" file on my system shows "47.6 MB
>> (49,920,000 bytes)" in it's Properties and, to confirm the math,
>> 49,920,000 divided by 'decibinal' MB (1048576 byes) is 47.607421875
>> or, truncated, 47.6 MB. See? Same thing, same size, same number of
>> bytes, different way of saying it.
>>
>> So, to summarize, all is perfectly fine with your drives. You got what
>> you paid for, it's all there, no data is lost or missing, no one is
>> lying, there's no 'marketing gimmick', and everything is usable. You
>> just need to know the math, which you now do.
>>
>>
>
> David:
>
> Excellent post. The most thorough explanation I have seen on this
> subject. Even though I am not the O. P. I have to say "thank you."
>
> PWY

Thank you.

Btw, the usage of decimal prefixes in binary numbers goes way back before
there were such things as 'PCs' and the folks who used them were mystical
'computer geniuses' akin to 'rocket scientists' and other strange absent
minded professor types as far as the public was concerned. It didn't matter
much because the 'computer geniuses' knew what was going on and no one else
was exposed to the oddity.

It's when computers hit the public domain with 'PCs' that it became
generally confusing because the public wasn't privy to 'the secret' nor why
it came about.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Facts:

.... the English word "kilobyte" is defined by all dictionaries as "1024 bytes"

.... "megabyte" as "1,048,576 bytes"

.... "gigabyte" as "1,073,741,824 bytes"

.... the term "decibinal" is undefined and has been used in two instances, both times by David Maynard

.... David Maynard accepts no guidance when arguing his closet bound ideas

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:

> Path: newssvr19.news.prodigy.com!newscon03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!HSNX.atgi.net!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-08!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
> From: David Maynard <nospam private.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: hard disk size ??
> Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 19:38:38 -0600
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Message-ID: <114rtsuf9kr6kc4 corp.supernews.com>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> References: <P5e3e.1755$44.1084@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>
> In-Reply-To: <P5e3e.1755$44.1084@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
> Lines: 70
> Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:432806
>
> prophetsdad wrote:
>
>> I don't understand why my HD's aren't fully useable.
>> A 80Gb drive shows 76Gb useable, A 120Gb shows 111Gb useable, 160 =149, 200
>> = 186, etc.
>> What gives?
>> I have WinXP professional sp2, and AMD 2Ghtz system.
>> Any ideas?
>> TIA
>> John
>>
>>
>
> You're going to get a lot of incorrect information so here's the reality of it.
>
> Giga, Mega, Kilo, et al, are decimal prefixes but computers operate in
> binary and, to 'simplify' things, they've bastardized the decimal prefixes
> into what I call 'decibinal' (to correctly note that it is not decimal nor
> binary but a strange 'combination'): a pseudo binary nomenclature using
> not-quite-right decimal prefixes. (Because no one likes saying 1073741824
> bytes and the poor binary folks didn't have binary prefixes to use for
> shortening it so bastardizing the decimal ones seemed the 'quick and easy'
> thing to do.)
>
> I.E. the closest thing to a kilo, 10^3, in binary is 1024 (2^10) so even
> though it's not really a kilobyte they call it one anyway. Same with Mega,
> 10^6. The nearest binary number is 1048576 (2^20). And for giga, 10^9, the
> nearest binary number is 1073741824 (2^30).
>
> So you need to know which 'number system' is being used to know how the
> prefixes are being used: the correct decimal way or the 'decibinal' way.
>
> Hard drive manufacturers use the decimal number system, just like everyone
> else in the (decimal) world, so "120 GB" means 120 x 10^9, just as one who
> took any reasonable math class would expect.
>
> File Manager, however, reports things in 'decibinal' so GB means 1073741824
> bytes and that means something reported in 'decibinal' gigabytes will
> appear smaller than when reported in decimal GigaBytes even though they are
> talking about the same thing.
>
> E.g. 120 Decimal GigaBytes will come out as 120/1.073741824 decibinal
> GigaBytes, or 111.76 (decibinal) GB (they tend to truncate numbers rather
> than 'round up' so the 111.76 shows as 111GB).
>
> So, 120GB = 111GB. Same size, same number of bytes.
>
> It has nothing to do with 'formatting' or anything else.
>
> Now, you can get the 'real' size by doing a properties on the drive from
> either My Computer or Windows Explorer. Right click on the drive and select
> Properties. You'll see the *real* "Capacity" reported down to the byte, as
> on my 120GB drive "120,031,478,272 bytes" with the 'decibinal' size to the
> right, as on mine "111GB." Same drive, same size, same number of bytes, two
> ways of saying it.
>
> Btw, you can get the *real* size of any file by right clicking on it and
> selecting Properties too. The decimal size will be in (). For example, this
> "Size: 47.6 MB" file on my system shows "47.6 MB (49,920,000 bytes)" in
> it's Properties and, to confirm the math, 49,920,000 divided by 'decibinal'
> MB (1048576 byes) is 47.607421875 or, truncated, 47.6 MB. See? Same thing,
> same size, same number of bytes, different way of saying it.
>
> So, to summarize, all is perfectly fine with your drives. You got what you
> paid for, it's all there, no data is lost or missing, no one is lying,
> there's no 'marketing gimmick', and everything is usable. You just need to
> know the math, which you now do.
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns962D8633DAA88wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
> Facts:
>
> ... the English word "kilobyte" is defined by all dictionaries as "1024
> bytes"
>
> ... "megabyte" as "1,048,576 bytes"
>
> ... "gigabyte" as "1,073,741,824 bytes"
>
> ... the term "decibinal" is undefined and has been used in two instances,
> both times by David Maynard

He states that it is a word that he made up.

> ... David Maynard accepts no guidance when arguing his closet bound ideas
>
> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>> Path:
>> newssvr19.news.prodigy.com!newscon03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!HSNX.atgi.net!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-08!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
>> From: David Maynard <nospam private.net>
>> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
>> Subject: Re: hard disk size ??
>> Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 19:38:38 -0600
>> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
>> Message-ID: <114rtsuf9kr6kc4 corp.supernews.com>
>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4)
>> Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
>> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> References: <P5e3e.1755$44.1084@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>
>> In-Reply-To: <P5e3e.1755$44.1084@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
>> Lines: 70
>> Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:432806
>>
>> prophetsdad wrote:
>>
>>> I don't understand why my HD's aren't fully useable.
>>> A 80Gb drive shows 76Gb useable, A 120Gb shows 111Gb useable, 160 =149,
>>> 200
>>> = 186, etc.
>>> What gives?
>>> I have WinXP professional sp2, and AMD 2Ghtz system.
>>> Any ideas?
>>> TIA
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You're going to get a lot of incorrect information so here's the reality
>> of it.
>>
>> Giga, Mega, Kilo, et al, are decimal prefixes but computers operate in
>> binary and, to 'simplify' things, they've bastardized the decimal
>> prefixes
>> into what I call 'decibinal' (to correctly note that it is not decimal
>> nor
>> binary but a strange 'combination'): a pseudo binary nomenclature using
>> not-quite-right decimal prefixes. (Because no one likes saying 1073741824
>> bytes and the poor binary folks didn't have binary prefixes to use for
>> shortening it so bastardizing the decimal ones seemed the 'quick and
>> easy'
>> thing to do.)
>>
>> I.E. the closest thing to a kilo, 10^3, in binary is 1024 (2^10) so even
>> though it's not really a kilobyte they call it one anyway. Same with
>> Mega,
>> 10^6. The nearest binary number is 1048576 (2^20). And for giga, 10^9,
>> the
>> nearest binary number is 1073741824 (2^30).
>>
>> So you need to know which 'number system' is being used to know how the
>> prefixes are being used: the correct decimal way or the 'decibinal' way.
>>
>> Hard drive manufacturers use the decimal number system, just like
>> everyone
>> else in the (decimal) world, so "120 GB" means 120 x 10^9, just as one
>> who
>> took any reasonable math class would expect.
>>
>> File Manager, however, reports things in 'decibinal' so GB means
>> 1073741824
>> bytes and that means something reported in 'decibinal' gigabytes will
>> appear smaller than when reported in decimal GigaBytes even though they
>> are
>> talking about the same thing.
>>
>> E.g. 120 Decimal GigaBytes will come out as 120/1.073741824 decibinal
>> GigaBytes, or 111.76 (decibinal) GB (they tend to truncate numbers rather
>> than 'round up' so the 111.76 shows as 111GB).
>>
>> So, 120GB = 111GB. Same size, same number of bytes.
>>
>> It has nothing to do with 'formatting' or anything else.
>>
>> Now, you can get the 'real' size by doing a properties on the drive from
>> either My Computer or Windows Explorer. Right click on the drive and
>> select
>> Properties. You'll see the *real* "Capacity" reported down to the byte,
>> as
>> on my 120GB drive "120,031,478,272 bytes" with the 'decibinal' size to
>> the
>> right, as on mine "111GB." Same drive, same size, same number of bytes,
>> two
>> ways of saying it.
>>
>> Btw, you can get the *real* size of any file by right clicking on it and
>> selecting Properties too. The decimal size will be in (). For example,
>> this
>> "Size: 47.6 MB" file on my system shows "47.6 MB (49,920,000 bytes)" in
>> it's Properties and, to confirm the math, 49,920,000 divided by
>> 'decibinal'
>> MB (1048576 byes) is 47.607421875 or, truncated, 47.6 MB. See? Same
>> thing,
>> same size, same number of bytes, different way of saying it.
>>
>> So, to summarize, all is perfectly fine with your drives. You got what
>> you
>> paid for, it's all there, no data is lost or missing, no one is lying,
>> there's no 'marketing gimmick', and everything is usable. You just need
>> to
>> know the math, which you now do.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe wrote:

> Facts:
>
> ... the English word "kilobyte" is defined by all dictionaries as "1024 bytes"
>
> ... "megabyte" as "1,048,576 bytes"
>
> ... "gigabyte" as "1,073,741,824 bytes"

That is how they are 'used' in a binary number system context, which I also
clearly stated. The prefixes are, however, mathematically incorrect, as
anyone who took a proper math class would know, and I fully explained how
the improper usage came about and why.

Just in case you are unaware of it, a dictionary is not a math primer.

The official IEC 60027-2, Second edition, 2000-11, Letter symbols to be
used in electrical technology - Part 2: Telecommunications and electronics,
for *binary* numbers are:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

Prefixes for binary multiples
------------------------------------------

Factor Name Symbol Origin Derivation
2^10 kibi Ki kilobinary: (2^10)^1 kilo: (10^3)^1
2^20 mebi Mi megabinary: (2^10)^2 mega: (10^3)^2
2^30 gibi Gi gigabinary: (2^10)^3 giga: (10^3)^3



SI DECIMAL prefixes are, as they always have been:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html

10^9 giga G
10^6 mega M
10^3 kilo k
10^2 hecto h
10^1 deka da

The *official* IEEE Standards requirements are:

"Mega will mean 1 000 000, except that the base-two definition may be used
(if such usage is explicitly pointed out on a case-by-case basis) until
such time that prefixes for binary multiples are adopted by an appropriate
standards body."

Note that means drive manufacturers are in perfect compliance with official
standards and it is anyone using "megabyte" to mean "1 048 576 bytes" that
must make an *explicit* statement as to the non-standard usage.


> ... the term "decibinal" is undefined and has been used in two instances, both times by David Maynard

And, if you had any reading comprehension skills you'd have noticed that I
specifically said it was my own invention.

But then your modus operandi is to snip the hell out of what one says to
misrepresent and make false accusations.


> ... David Maynard accepts no guidance when arguing his closet bound ideas

That's a real knee slapper coming from someone singularly incapable of
learning anything.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

ModeratelyConfused wrote:

> "John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns962D8633DAA88wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
>
>>Facts:
>>
>>... the English word "kilobyte" is defined by all dictionaries as "1024
>>bytes"
>>
>>... "megabyte" as "1,048,576 bytes"
>>
>>... "gigabyte" as "1,073,741,824 bytes"
>>
>>... the term "decibinal" is undefined and has been used in two instances,
>>both times by David Maynard
>
>
> He states that it is a word that he made up.

John Doe is just cultivating his ass but if he isn't careful it's going to
overgrow his whole body. It's already taken over his head and mouth.


>>>prophetsdad wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't understand why my HD's aren't fully useable.
>>>>A 80Gb drive shows 76Gb useable, A 120Gb shows 111Gb useable, 160 =149,
>>>>200
>>>>= 186, etc.
>>>>What gives?
>>>>I have WinXP professional sp2, and AMD 2Ghtz system.
>>>>Any ideas?
>>>>TIA
>>>>John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>You're going to get a lot of incorrect information so here's the reality
>>>of it.
>>>
>>>Giga, Mega, Kilo, et al, are decimal prefixes but computers operate in
>>>binary and, to 'simplify' things, they've bastardized the decimal
>>>prefixes
>>>into what I call 'decibinal' (to correctly note that it is not decimal
>>>nor
>>>binary but a strange 'combination'): a pseudo binary nomenclature using
>>>not-quite-right decimal prefixes. (Because no one likes saying 1073741824
>>>bytes and the poor binary folks didn't have binary prefixes to use for
>>>shortening it so bastardizing the decimal ones seemed the 'quick and
>>>easy'
>>>thing to do.)
>>>
>>>I.E. the closest thing to a kilo, 10^3, in binary is 1024 (2^10) so even
>>>though it's not really a kilobyte they call it one anyway. Same with
>>>Mega,
>>>10^6. The nearest binary number is 1048576 (2^20). And for giga, 10^9,
>>>the
>>>nearest binary number is 1073741824 (2^30).
>>>
>>>So you need to know which 'number system' is being used to know how the
>>>prefixes are being used: the correct decimal way or the 'decibinal' way.
>>>
>>>Hard drive manufacturers use the decimal number system, just like
>>>everyone
>>>else in the (decimal) world, so "120 GB" means 120 x 10^9, just as one
>>>who
>>>took any reasonable math class would expect.
>>>
>>>File Manager, however, reports things in 'decibinal' so GB means
>>>1073741824
>>>bytes and that means something reported in 'decibinal' gigabytes will
>>>appear smaller than when reported in decimal GigaBytes even though they
>>>are
>>>talking about the same thing.
>>>
>>>E.g. 120 Decimal GigaBytes will come out as 120/1.073741824 decibinal
>>>GigaBytes, or 111.76 (decibinal) GB (they tend to truncate numbers rather
>>>than 'round up' so the 111.76 shows as 111GB).
>>>
>>>So, 120GB = 111GB. Same size, same number of bytes.
>>>
>>>It has nothing to do with 'formatting' or anything else.
>>>
>>>Now, you can get the 'real' size by doing a properties on the drive from
>>>either My Computer or Windows Explorer. Right click on the drive and
>>>select
>>>Properties. You'll see the *real* "Capacity" reported down to the byte,
>>>as
>>>on my 120GB drive "120,031,478,272 bytes" with the 'decibinal' size to
>>>the
>>>right, as on mine "111GB." Same drive, same size, same number of bytes,
>>>two
>>>ways of saying it.
>>>
>>>Btw, you can get the *real* size of any file by right clicking on it and
>>>selecting Properties too. The decimal size will be in (). For example,
>>>this
>>>"Size: 47.6 MB" file on my system shows "47.6 MB (49,920,000 bytes)" in
>>>it's Properties and, to confirm the math, 49,920,000 divided by
>>>'decibinal'
>>>MB (1048576 byes) is 47.607421875 or, truncated, 47.6 MB. See? Same
>>>thing,
>>>same size, same number of bytes, different way of saying it.
>>>
>>>So, to summarize, all is perfectly fine with your drives. You got what
>>>you
>>>paid for, it's all there, no data is lost or missing, no one is lying,
>>>there's no 'marketing gimmick', and everything is usable. You just need
>>>to
>>>know the math, which you now do.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"ModeratelyConfused" <moderatelyconfused@guess.com> wrote:
> "John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message

>> Facts:
>> ... the English word "kilobyte" is defined by all dictionaries
>> as "1024 bytes"
>> ... "megabyte" as "1,048,576 bytes"
>> ... "gigabyte" as "1,073,741,824 bytes"
>> ... the term "decibinal" is undefined and has been used in two
>> instances, both times by David Maynard
>
> He states that it is a word that he made up.

I guess it doesn't really matter, as long as someone he is
supposed to be helping can separate his eccentric nonsense from
fact on issues of any importance and complexity.



>
>
>
> Path: newssvr19.news.prodigy.com!newscon03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 13:52:47 -0500
> From: "ModeratelyConfused" <moderatelyconfused guess.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> References: <P5e3e.1755$44.1084@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net> <114rtsuf9kr6kc4@corp.supernews.com> <Xns962D8633DAA88wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158>
> Subject: Re: hard disk size ??
> Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 14:52:55 -0400
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> Message-ID: <qOKdnSwmcZ_ips3fRVn-3A comcast.com>
> Lines: 136
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.242.58.251
> X-Trace: sv3-ZntKOlqTr1Aj7+7lCcbVy0hdWHFw3bCBbbZxZjY3g5iL+bDg4GuuAH05zu1bQk8zFXoaCpHSSL4mOW1!w2wcHUyH6zlrQ9a9n2x0ONz1Z/EzCm/jcIIDxVFbGkz5kCW866TiVHRG7t04Aw==
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
> X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.31
> Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:432926
>
>
>> ... David Maynard accepts no guidance when arguing his closet bound ideas
>>
>> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
....

 

[BobR]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard wrote in message <114uijb510of758@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>Btw, which number system would you use and what would a "kilo" be after you
>multiply that out?

1G = 40000000h bytes as usual.
:-}

<bob logic>
So, you see, it wasn't the binars ('decibinals') that started the 1024
anomaly, it was the hexites. Notice how *round* that representation is? You
are free to use 3b9aca00h if you want. <G>
</bob logic>
[Not saying you or any of the other posters are wrong. just havin' fun.]

I liked your other (long) post. Too bad firearms are off topic here, I'd ask
you to explain 'caliber' vs. 'mm'.
--
Bob R
POVrookie

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

BobR wrote:

> David Maynard wrote in message <114uijb510of758@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>>Btw, which number system would you use and what would a "kilo" be after you
>>multiply that out?
>
>
> 1G = 40000000h bytes as usual.
> :-}
>
> <bob logic>
> So, you see, it wasn't the binars ('decibinals') that started the 1024
> anomaly, it was the hexites. Notice how *round* that representation is? You
> are free to use 3b9aca00h if you want. <G>
> </bob logic>
> [Not saying you or any of the other posters are wrong. just havin' fun.]

Hehe. I can see how you might think the Hexites are to blame but 1024 isn't
an even power of hex digits and one would expect the Hexites to define
'kilo' as 4096, 16^3, or some other power of 16 if they didn't keep the
exponent of 3, but certainly not a fraction. And there's a similar problem
with blaming it on the Octars. No, the evidence clearly suggests the Binars
are the culprits in this

As for 3b9aca00h, the purist in me leans towards the 'real' number
111011100110101100101000000000b

>
> I liked your other (long) post. Too bad firearms are off topic here, I'd ask
> you to explain 'caliber' vs. 'mm'.

No need to. Caliber comes from the latin qualibra 'of what weight' or,
loosely, 'what size (measure)'? and, as used, simply 'size or measure'.
(also from Arabic "model, mold" which can be, itself, a size or measure.)

".38 caliber" can be said as ".38 size" or "size .38."

Or, to take the measure of a man is to know what caliber he is.

mm is a unit of measure. Caliber isn't (regardless of it being commonly
thought of as US small bore diameters in inches). There is no "vs" involved.

To illustrate, naval cannon 'caliber' is bore diameter and the length of
the barrel measured in how many bore diameters long it is. E.g. The main
guns of Iowa class battleships can be referred to as 16"/50 caliber. They
are 16 inches in diameter and the barrel is 800 inches long (16 * 50 = 800).

As a mater of language conventions (and unit of measurement)
'American/English' usage puts 'caliber' after the measurement as in ".38
caliber" while the EU would say "the caliber is 9mm." (not meaning to imply
that .38 is the same measure as 9mm)

If you want to know how caliber designations got so screwed up, that's
another whole ball of wax

> --
> Bob R
> POVrookie
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Living proof that sometimes logic fails us.

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:

> Path: newssvr19.news.prodigy.com!newscon03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-in.ntli.net!newsrout1-win.ntli.net!ntli.net!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
> From: David Maynard <nospam private.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: hard disk size ??
> Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 16:35:05 -0500
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Message-ID: <1150ocgd6g46hc3 corp.supernews.com>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> References: <P5e3e.1755$44.1084@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net> <114rtsuf9kr6kc4@corp.supernews.com> <Xns962D8633DAA88wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158>
> In-Reply-To: <Xns962D8633DAA88wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
> Lines: 69
> Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:432933
>
> John Doe wrote:
>
>> Facts:
>>
>> ... the English word "kilobyte" is defined by all dictionaries as "1024 bytes"
>>
>> ... "megabyte" as "1,048,576 bytes"
>>
>> ... "gigabyte" as "1,073,741,824 bytes"
>
> That is how they are 'used' in a binary number system context, which I also
> clearly stated. The prefixes are, however, mathematically incorrect, as
> anyone who took a proper math class would know, and I fully explained how
> the improper usage came about and why.
>
> Just in case you are unaware of it, a dictionary is not a math primer.
>
> The official IEC 60027-2, Second edition, 2000-11, Letter symbols to be
> used in electrical technology - Part 2: Telecommunications and electronics,
> for *binary* numbers are:
>
> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
>
> Prefixes for binary multiples
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Factor Name Symbol Origin Derivation
> 2^10 kibi Ki kilobinary: (2^10)^1 kilo: (10^3)^1
> 2^20 mebi Mi megabinary: (2^10)^2 mega: (10^3)^2
> 2^30 gibi Gi gigabinary: (2^10)^3 giga: (10^3)^3
>
>
>
> SI DECIMAL prefixes are, as they always have been:
>
> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html
>
> 10^9 giga G
> 10^6 mega M
> 10^3 kilo k
> 10^2 hecto h
> 10^1 deka da
>
> The *official* IEEE Standards requirements are:
>
> "Mega will mean 1 000 000, except that the base-two definition may be used
> (if such usage is explicitly pointed out on a case-by-case basis) until
> such time that prefixes for binary multiples are adopted by an appropriate
> standards body."
>
> Note that means drive manufacturers are in perfect compliance with official
> standards and it is anyone using "megabyte" to mean "1 048 576 bytes" that
> must make an *explicit* statement as to the non-standard usage.
>
>
>> ... the term "decibinal" is undefined and has been used in two instances, both times by David Maynard
>
> And, if you had any reading comprehension skills you'd have noticed that I
> specifically said it was my own invention.
>
> But then your modus operandi is to snip the hell out of what one says to
> misrepresent and make false accusations.
>
>
>> ... David Maynard accepts no guidance when arguing his closet bound ideas
>
> That's a real knee slapper coming from someone singularly incapable of
> learning anything.
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe wrote:

> Living proof that sometimes logic fails us.

Yes, you are.

> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>John Doe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Facts:
>>>
>>>... the English word "kilobyte" is defined by all dictionaries as "1024 bytes"
>>>
>>>... "megabyte" as "1,048,576 bytes"
>>>
>>>... "gigabyte" as "1,073,741,824 bytes"
>>
>>That is how they are 'used' in a binary number system context, which I also
>>clearly stated. The prefixes are, however, mathematically incorrect, as
>>anyone who took a proper math class would know, and I fully explained how
>>the improper usage came about and why.
>>
>>Just in case you are unaware of it, a dictionary is not a math primer.
>>
>>The official IEC 60027-2, Second edition, 2000-11, Letter symbols to be
>>used in electrical technology - Part 2: Telecommunications and electronics,
>>for *binary* numbers are:
>>
>>http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
>>
>>Prefixes for binary multiples
>>------------------------------------------
>>
>> Factor Name Symbol Origin Derivation
>> 2^10 kibi Ki kilobinary: (2^10)^1 kilo: (10^3)^1
>> 2^20 mebi Mi megabinary: (2^10)^2 mega: (10^3)^2
>> 2^30 gibi Gi gigabinary: (2^10)^3 giga: (10^3)^3
>>
>>
>>
>>SI DECIMAL prefixes are, as they always have been:
>>
>>http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html
>>
>>10^9 giga G
>>10^6 mega M
>>10^3 kilo k
>>10^2 hecto h
>>10^1 deka da
>>
>>The *official* IEEE Standards requirements are:
>>
>>"Mega will mean 1 000 000, except that the base-two definition may be used
>>(if such usage is explicitly pointed out on a case-by-case basis) until
>>such time that prefixes for binary multiples are adopted by an appropriate
>>standards body."
>>
>>Note that means drive manufacturers are in perfect compliance with official
>>standards and it is anyone using "megabyte" to mean "1 048 576 bytes" that
>>must make an *explicit* statement as to the non-standard usage.
>>
>>
>>
>>>... the term "decibinal" is undefined and has been used in two instances, both times by David Maynard
>>
>>And, if you had any reading comprehension skills you'd have noticed that I
>>specifically said it was my own invention.
>>
>>But then your modus operandi is to snip the hell out of what one says to
>>misrepresent and make false accusations.
>>
>>
>>
>>>... David Maynard accepts no guidance when arguing his closet bound ideas
>>
>>That's a real knee slapper coming from someone singularly incapable of
>>learning anything.