hard disk size ??

[Guest]

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

"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
news:114rq1vprpc9c07@corp.supernews.com...
> 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
>
>
I think you already coined the correct word David



Ed

 

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

The word does fit though. At least it "defines" something correctly that
current gb/mb actually confuses. Decimal and binary values cannot be mixed
unless you redefine something with a new
word........i.e....decibinal.......



Ed

 

[Guest]

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

Ed Medlin 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
>>
>>... David Maynard accepts no guidance when arguing his closet bound ideas
>>
>
>
> The word does fit though. At least it "defines" something correctly that
> current gb/mb actually confuses. Decimal and binary values cannot be mixed
> unless you redefine something with a new
> word........i.e....decibinal.......
>
>
>
> Ed
>
>

Ya know, that was why I coined it, to show it's a decimal prefix on a
binary number, and it helps in talking about it to not further confuse the
issue by referring to the 'number' one is trying to explain as simply
'binary', or not, when the very problem is it's hybrid terminology.

That and it injects a bit of humor to help remember the point.

John Doe is just being an ass for complaining about a word I specifically
said was my own invention.

 

[Guest]

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

Ed Medlin wrote:

> "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
> news:114rq1vprpc9c07@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>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
>>
>>
>
> I think you already coined the correct word David
>
>
>
> Ed
>
>

Thanks.

I had no idea my humorous little word was going to stir up so much interest
both pro and con.

 

[Guest]

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

The final word
Gigabyte that is byte 8 bits in a byte.
For everything else it is
units
tens
hundreds
thousands
millions
billions

remember giga-byte.
"PWY" <pyork22@*mail.com> wrote in message
news:Cly3e.13685$9v2.395207@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>
> "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?)

"Ed Medlin" <ed@edmedlin.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
>> ... David Maynard accepts no guidance when arguing his closet
>> bound ideas
>
> The word does fit though. At least it "defines" something
> correctly that current gb/mb actually confuses. Decimal and
> binary values cannot be mixed unless you redefine something with
> a new word........i.e....decibinal.......

It's clear to 99% of us. The meanings are defined by the context.

To argue that hard disk drive marketing departments are using the
terms properly, that they would not resort to deception in an
attempt to make their products look better, is just spewing your
personal politics on high-technology.


> Ed
>
>
>
>
> Path: newssvr17.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm02.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr33.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!7fa07b2c!not-for-mail
> From: "Ed Medlin" <ed edmedlin.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> References: <P5e3e.1755$44.1084@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net> <114rtsuf9kr6kc4@corp.supernews.com> <Xns962D8633DAA88wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158>
> Subject: Re: hard disk size ??
> Lines: 28
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527
> Message-ID: <7194e.29137$hU7.19390 newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.88.110.9
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
> X-Trace: newssvr33.news.prodigy.com 1112612035 ST000 68.88.110.9 (Mon, 04 Apr 2005 06:53:55 EDT)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 06:53:55 EDT
> Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
> X-UserInfo1: TSU[@SREQBWART\XKBJ\_RLAUSXB@DTMNHWB_EYLJZ]BGIELLNTC@AWZWDXZXQ[K\FFSKCVM@F_N_DOBWVWG__LG@VVOIPLIGX\\BU_B@\P\PFX\B[APHTWAHDCKJF^NHD[YJAZMCY_CWG[SX\Y]^KC\HSZRWSWKGAY_PC[BQ[BXAS\F\\@DMTLFZFUE@\VL
> Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:53:55 GMT
> Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:432957
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

o-chan <poda@REMOVEmac.com> 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
>
> Hard drive vendors define a GB differently than your operating
> system.

Or memory chip, or floppy disk, or CD, or DVD.

> 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.

Which means they know the terminology is incorrect.
Using the terms properly would not hurt anything and then no one
would notice/complain.

A manufacturer must match the other's advertised capacity.
Otherwise, they would have to explain how virtuous they are for
correctly representing the size.

> It's something people have argued about for a long time.

Useful information that deserves sharing IMO.

 

[Guest]

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

John Doe wrote:
> "Ed Medlin" <ed@edmedlin.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
>>>... David Maynard accepts no guidance when arguing his closet
>>>bound ideas
>>
>>The word does fit though. At least it "defines" something
>>correctly that current gb/mb actually confuses. Decimal and
>>binary values cannot be mixed unless you redefine something with
>>a new word........i.e....decibinal.......
>
>
> It's clear to 99% of us. The meanings are defined by the context.
>
> To argue that hard disk drive marketing departments are using the
> terms properly,

Oh sure. After all, what does NIST, IEEE, IEC, and all the other standards
groups in the world know, right?


> that they would not resort to deception in an
> attempt to make their products look better, is just spewing your
> personal politics on high-technology.

It's fascinating how you routinely accuse others of doing precisely what
*you* are. Get the mirror out from in front of your face and look at the
real world.

 

[Guest]

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

John Doe wrote:

> o-chan <poda@REMOVEmac.com> 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
>>
>>Hard drive vendors define a GB differently than your operating
>>system.
>
>
> Or memory chip,

A memory chip is a straight binary device. A hard drive isn't. There is
nothing that requires a 'binary' number of heads, or a 'binary' number of
tracks, or a 'binary' number of sectors.

or floppy disk,


Want to bet? Why do you think your 1.44 'meg' floppy shows as 1.38 'meg'?

Here's a shocker for you, it isn't measured in either 'binary' OR my custom
invented term 'decibinal'.

The tracks, number of sectors, and surfaces are multiplied in straight
decimal and then applied to the binary sector size to make a THIRD 'meg'.

I.E. 80 x 18 x 2 for 2880. And sectors are 'half a kilobyte' and two make a
'kilobyte' so they multiply the decimal number times the binary for 1.44 'meg'.

THAT 'meg' is 1,024,000 bytes and not the coveted 'decibinal' 1,048,576
bytes, nor the official, decimal system, standard of 1,000,000 bytes.

Gets to be fun when people cram a decimal prefix on just any old thing,
don't it?

> or CD, or DVD.
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Which means they know the terminology is incorrect.

It is the official terminology by every standards group on the planet.

There is NO standards group that defines 'mega-anything' as 1048576, unless
the non-standard usage is specifically noted.

> Using the terms properly would not hurt anything and then no one
> would notice/complain.

You've been shown the proper terms defined by the official standards
organizations and chose to close your eyes and sit in your closet.


> A manufacturer must match the other's advertised capacity.
> Otherwise, they would have to explain how virtuous they are for
> correctly representing the size.

They use the same number system that every other scientific and technical
discipline on the planet uses: decimal.


>>It's something people have argued about for a long time.
>
>
> Useful information that deserves sharing IMO.
>

 

[Guest]

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

A troll who will say anything, no matter how nakedly false
or misleading, sometimes apparently simply to extend discussion
of his closet bound beliefs.

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!newshub.sdsu.edu!tethys.csu.net!nntp.csufresno.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: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:22:58 -0500
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Message-ID: <1153tk2fh0huefb 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$44.1084@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net> <114rtsuf9kr6kc4@corp.supernews.com> <Xns962D8633DAA88wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <7194e.29137$hU7.19390@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com> <Xns962E8C7A09B3Dwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158>
> In-Reply-To: <Xns962E8C7A09B3Dwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
> Lines: 45
> Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:432998
>
> John Doe wrote:
>> "Ed Medlin" <ed@edmedlin.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
>>>>... David Maynard accepts no guidance when arguing his closet
>>>>bound ideas
>>>
>>>The word does fit though. At least it "defines" something
>>>correctly that current gb/mb actually confuses. Decimal and
>>>binary values cannot be mixed unless you redefine something with
>>>a new word........i.e....decibinal.......
>>
>>
>> It's clear to 99% of us. The meanings are defined by the context.
>>
>> To argue that hard disk drive marketing departments are using the
>> terms properly,
>
> Oh sure. After all, what does NIST, IEEE, IEC, and all the other standards
> groups in the world know, right?
>
>
>> that they would not resort to deception in an
>> attempt to make their products look better, is just spewing your
>> personal politics on high-technology.
>
> It's fascinating how you routinely accuse others of doing precisely what
> *you* are. Get the mirror out from in front of your face and look at the
> real world.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r3/savannah/acronym/acropc.htm

IEEE

PERSONAL COMPUTER (PC) TERMS

KB... KILOBYTE = 1024 bytes

MB... Megabyte, 1024 Kilobytes

GB... GIGABYTE = 1024 Megabytes

Tb... TERABYTE = 1024 Gb

A troll who will say anything, no matter how nakedly
false/misleading, sometimes apparently simply to extend discussion
of his closet bound beliefs.

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:

> Path: newssvr19.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm06.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!l.newsfeed.yosemite.net!newsfeed.yosemite.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!sn-xit-02!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: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:48:39 -0500
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Message-ID: <1153v486cu5u82 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> <d2jtv9$541j$1@netnews.upenn.edu> <Xns962E95E29695Cwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158>
> In-Reply-To: <Xns962E95E29695Cwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
> Lines: 82
> Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:433002
>
> John Doe wrote:
>
>> o-chan <poda@REMOVEmac.com> 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
>>>
>>>Hard drive vendors define a GB differently than your operating
>>>system.
>>
>>
>> Or memory chip,
>
> A memory chip is a straight binary device. A hard drive isn't. There is
> nothing that requires a 'binary' number of heads, or a 'binary' number of
> tracks, or a 'binary' number of sectors.
>
> or floppy disk,
>
>
> Want to bet? Why do you think your 1.44 'meg' floppy shows as 1.38 'meg'?
>
> Here's a shocker for you, it isn't measured in either 'binary' OR my custom
> invented term 'decibinal'.
>
> The tracks, number of sectors, and surfaces are multiplied in straight
> decimal and then applied to the binary sector size to make a THIRD 'meg'.
>
> I.E. 80 x 18 x 2 for 2880. And sectors are 'half a kilobyte' and two make a
> 'kilobyte' so they multiply the decimal number times the binary for 1.44 'meg'.
>
> THAT 'meg' is 1,024,000 bytes and not the coveted 'decibinal' 1,048,576
> bytes, nor the official, decimal system, standard of 1,000,000 bytes.
>
> Gets to be fun when people cram a decimal prefix on just any old thing,
> don't it?
>
>> or CD, or DVD.
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> Which means they know the terminology is incorrect.
>
> It is the official terminology by every standards group on the planet.
>
> There is NO standards group that defines 'mega-anything' as 1048576, unless
> the non-standard usage is specifically noted.
>
>> Using the terms properly would not hurt anything and then no one
>> would notice/complain.
>
> You've been shown the proper terms defined by the official standards
> organizations and chose to close your eyes and sit in your closet.
>
>
>> A manufacturer must match the other's advertised capacity.
>> Otherwise, they would have to explain how virtuous they are for
>> correctly representing the size.
>
> They use the same number system that every other scientific and technical
> discipline on the planet uses: decimal.
>
>
>>>It's something people have argued about for a long time.
>>
>>
>> Useful information that deserves sharing IMO.
>>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

John Doe wrote:

> A troll who will say anything, no matter how nakedly false
> or misleading, sometimes apparently simply to extend discussion
> of his closet bound beliefs.

And you're apparently a illiterate nut who can't read the NIST links the
first two times I posted it to you.

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

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

With the IEEE and IEC 60027-2, Second edition, 2000-11, Letter symbols to
be used in electrical technology - Part 2: Telecommunications and
electronics references.

>
> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>John Doe wrote:
>>
>>>"Ed Medlin" <ed@edmedlin.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
>>>>>... David Maynard accepts no guidance when arguing his closet
>>>>>bound ideas
>>>>
>>>>The word does fit though. At least it "defines" something
>>>>correctly that current gb/mb actually confuses. Decimal and
>>>>binary values cannot be mixed unless you redefine something with
>>>>a new word........i.e....decibinal.......
>>>
>>>
>>>It's clear to 99% of us. The meanings are defined by the context.
>>>
>>>To argue that hard disk drive marketing departments are using the
>>>terms properly,
>>
>>Oh sure. After all, what does NIST, IEEE, IEC, and all the other standards
>>groups in the world know, right?
>>
>>
>>
>>>that they would not resort to deception in an
>>>attempt to make their products look better, is just spewing your
>>>personal politics on high-technology.
>>
>>It's fascinating how you routinely accuse others of doing precisely what
>>*you* are. Get the mirror out from in front of your face and look at the
>>real world.

 

[Guest]

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

John Doe wrote:

> http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r3/savannah/acronym/acropc.htm
>
> IEEE
>
> PERSONAL COMPUTER (PC) TERMS
>
> KB... KILOBYTE = 1024 bytes
>
> MB... Megabyte, 1024 Kilobytes
>
> GB... GIGABYTE = 1024 Megabytes
>
> Tb... TERABYTE = 1024 Gb
>
> A troll who will say anything, no matter how nakedly
> false/misleading, sometimes apparently simply to extend discussion
> of his closet bound beliefs.

You just proved you can't read.

No one said they can't be used WHEN THE NON STANDARD USAGE IS EXPLICITLY
POINTED OUT.

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

"the IEEE Standards Board decided that IEEE standards will use the
conventional, internationally adopted, definitions of the SI prefixes. 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)"



>
> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Path: newssvr19.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm06.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!l.newsfeed.yosemite.net!newsfeed.yosemite.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!sn-xit-02!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: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:48:39 -0500
>>Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
>>Message-ID: <1153v486cu5u82 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> <d2jtv9$541j$1@netnews.upenn.edu> <Xns962E95E29695Cwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158>
>>In-Reply-To: <Xns962E95E29695Cwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
>>Lines: 82
>>Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:433002
>>
>>John Doe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>o-chan <poda@REMOVEmac.com> 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
>>>>
>>>>Hard drive vendors define a GB differently than your operating
>>>>system.
>>>
>>>
>>>Or memory chip,
>>
>>A memory chip is a straight binary device. A hard drive isn't. There is
>>nothing that requires a 'binary' number of heads, or a 'binary' number of
>>tracks, or a 'binary' number of sectors.
>>
>> or floppy disk,
>>
>>
>>Want to bet? Why do you think your 1.44 'meg' floppy shows as 1.38 'meg'?
>>
>>Here's a shocker for you, it isn't measured in either 'binary' OR my custom
>>invented term 'decibinal'.
>>
>>The tracks, number of sectors, and surfaces are multiplied in straight
>>decimal and then applied to the binary sector size to make a THIRD 'meg'.
>>
>>I.E. 80 x 18 x 2 for 2880. And sectors are 'half a kilobyte' and two make a
>>'kilobyte' so they multiply the decimal number times the binary for 1.44 'meg'.
>>
>>THAT 'meg' is 1,024,000 bytes and not the coveted 'decibinal' 1,048,576
>>bytes, nor the official, decimal system, standard of 1,000,000 bytes.
>>
>>Gets to be fun when people cram a decimal prefix on just any old thing,
>>don't it?
>>
>>
>>>or CD, or DVD.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>Which means they know the terminology is incorrect.
>>
>>It is the official terminology by every standards group on the planet.
>>
>>There is NO standards group that defines 'mega-anything' as 1048576, unless
>>the non-standard usage is specifically noted.
>>
>>
>>>Using the terms properly would not hurt anything and then no one
>>>would notice/complain.
>>
>>You've been shown the proper terms defined by the official standards
>>organizations and chose to close your eyes and sit in your closet.
>>
>>
>>
>>>A manufacturer must match the other's advertised capacity.
>>>Otherwise, they would have to explain how virtuous they are for
>>>correctly representing the size.
>>
>>They use the same number system that every other scientific and technical
>>discipline on the planet uses: decimal.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>It's something people have argued about for a long time.
>>>
>>>
>>>Useful information that deserves sharing IMO.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

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

John Doe wrote:

<snip>

Btw, nice job with your typical 'ignore anything to the contrary' about the
fact that 'megabyte' is neither 'megabyte' nor 'megabyte', take your pick,
in your 1.44 'megabyte' floppy example.


> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>

>>John Doe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>o-chan <poda@REMOVEmac.com> 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
>>>>
>>>>Hard drive vendors define a GB differently than your operating
>>>>system.
>>>
>>>
>>>Or memory chip,
>>
>>A memory chip is a straight binary device. A hard drive isn't. There is
>>nothing that requires a 'binary' number of heads, or a 'binary' number of
>>tracks, or a 'binary' number of sectors.
>>
>> or floppy disk,
>>
>>
>>Want to bet? Why do you think your 1.44 'meg' floppy shows as 1.38 'meg'?
>>
>>Here's a shocker for you, it isn't measured in either 'binary' OR my custom
>>invented term 'decibinal'.
>>
>>The tracks, number of sectors, and surfaces are multiplied in straight
>>decimal and then applied to the binary sector size to make a THIRD 'meg'.
>>
>>I.E. 80 x 18 x 2 for 2880. And sectors are 'half a kilobyte' and two make a
>>'kilobyte' so they multiply the decimal number times the binary for 1.44 'meg'.
>>
>>THAT 'meg' is 1,024,000 bytes and not the coveted 'decibinal' 1,048,576
>>bytes, nor the official, decimal system, standard of 1,000,000 bytes.
>>
>>Gets to be fun when people cram a decimal prefix on just any old thing,
>>don't it?
>>
>>
>>>or CD, or DVD.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>Which means they know the terminology is incorrect.
>>
>>It is the official terminology by every standards group on the planet.
>>
>>There is NO standards group that defines 'mega-anything' as 1048576, unless
>>the non-standard usage is specifically noted.
>>
>>
>>>Using the terms properly would not hurt anything and then no one
>>>would notice/complain.
>>
>>You've been shown the proper terms defined by the official standards
>>organizations and chose to close your eyes and sit in your closet.
>>
>>
>>
>>>A manufacturer must match the other's advertised capacity.
>>>Otherwise, they would have to explain how virtuous they are for
>>>correctly representing the size.
>>
>>They use the same number system that every other scientific and technical
>>discipline on the planet uses: decimal.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>It's something people have argued about for a long time.
>>>
>>>
>>>Useful information that deserves sharing IMO.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
news:11531ia71281837@corp.supernews.com...
> Ed Medlin wrote:
>
>> "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
>> news:114rq1vprpc9c07@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I think you already coined the correct word David
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed
>
> Thanks.
>
> I had no idea my humorous little word was going to stir up so much
> interest both pro and con.
>
>
Some folks just don't have any sense of humor either.......

Ed