🚀 go-pugleaf

"Rocket J. Squirrel" <rocky@bullwinkle.com> wrote in message news:94fa00e143a994153c6edd1af73156fe@news.teranews.com...

> "Mongrel GB"...that's a new one on me. I
> actually think you are overcomplicating this topic.

Nope, just clearly stating the reality seen.

> The term '120 GB' is used for marketing purposes.

Nope.

> Computers work on the binary system,

Wrong. The speed of the cpu has never
been stated using the binary system.

Its really only ram that has an intrinsically binary organisation.
The number of sectors on a hard drive doesnt.

> of course, so 120 GB translated in binary terms
> works out to far fewer than 120 billion bytes.

> Kind of reminds me of the days before 'truth
> in advertising' came to the monitor industry.

Nothing like it. The decimal GB is actually the ISO standard.

> In those days, a 15-inch monitor was actually less than 15 inches in size.

And the number of bytes available on the hard drive was never less
than the stated decimal GBs. And the datasheets have spelt out
explicitly that they are using 1,000,000,000 byte GBs for years now.

> There was a similar thing going on in the
> boys locker room during high school,

Nothing like it with hard drives.

> but that's way OT.


> "Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bvb6od$qe8sf$1@ID-151056.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > In article <0L3Sb.28740$qx2.3400569@stones.force9.net>,
> > "John J. Burness" <JohnJBurnessAT@ieeDOT.org> wrote:
> > >Chuck Lapre wrote:
> > >> I installed my new Dimension XPs today.  The HD is supposed to be 120
> GB.
> > >> Yet, the total size is listed as 111 GB.  Free space is 104 GB.
> > >> I was only going to pay for 80 GB.  This was an upgrade.
> > >> Is there a reasonable explanation, or did Dell mess up?
> > >
> > >You do HAVE a 120G HDD!!
> > >
> > >If you right-click on the Drive (within Explorer) do you get a total
> > >size that exceeds 120,000,000,000? That is 120G (although I have seen
> > >199,9xx,xxx,xxx which is NOT 120G but is "near enough").
> > >
> > >By definition, within EVERY International Standard:-
> > >1k = 1,000
> > >1M = 1,000k = 1,000,000
> > >1G = 1,000M = 1,000,000k = 1,000,000,000
> > >
> > >In the early days of Computing, simply because it was binary based & far
> > >simpler to calculate, 1k was assumed to be 1,024 (in those days nobody
> > >had ever thought about 1M, certainly it beyond any dreams to talk about
> > >1G). The odd 24 bits were not worth bothering about!!
> > >
> > >In other words, a "slang", but technically incorrect, definition started
> > >to be used.
> > >
> > >The consequence of the error (or mis-understanding) this creates is
> > >guaranteed to confuse most people!
> > >
> > >Keeping it in strictly Computer Slang definitions
> > >1k = 1,024
> > >1M = 1,024 x 1,024 = 1,048,576
> > >1G = 1,024 x 1,024 x 1,024 = 1,073,741,824
> > >
> > >For a HDD that is correctly defined as 120G (i.e. 120,000,000,000) this
> > >would be displayed as 111.7G.
> > >
> > >Incidentally, your original 80G HDD would have been displayed as 74.5G!
> >
> > I actual fact I ran across three definitions of "gigabyte" when
> > looking at some hard disk specs on my Dell Dimension 4100 the other
> > day -- depending on which source was quoting the data.
> >
> > 1. Dell itself defines GB as 1000^3 bytes for HDDs, IIRC.
> > 2. Windows Explorer (Win ME) uses 1024^3 in "properties".
> > 3. Device Manager uses a hybid, 1000^2*1024.
> >
> > The 1000^3 definition seems to be used universally by manufacturers
> > for HDDs these days.  Call it the "HDD GB".
> >
> > The 1024^3 definition is used widely (always?) for memory. ("RAM GB".)
> >
> > The hybrid definition(s) seem to apply at whim.  ("Mongrel GB". ;-)
> >
> >
> > Cheers, Phred.
> >
> > -- 
> > ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
> >
>
>