dingo

Law Suit On Size Of Harddrives !

Recommended Posts

People do but not normally directly (eg via zip/rar or compressed individual files, even movies/mp3)

even though those file types are less common than you probably think, zip/rar/movies/mp3s are compressed _before they hit the cd_. no change in effective size. if you put a text file on a tape drive, using compression, it will dramatically reduce in size while staying the same on the source media.

But if the binary system REALLY is the system computers must measure things in , then by all means use that system, BUT don't mix and match using the same suffix.

People can cope with different systems, Imperial/Metric/time etc... but not to say which system your using is plain stupid. Even using it context in computer doesn't help in this situation

this is the way people understand it to be already, so it's not at all complex. people think 32mb of ram ends up as 32mb of ram - it doesn't, but they don't care. people think a 2.4ghz cpu is exactly 2.4ghz - it isn't, but they don't care. people DO care about storage numbers, because the difference is abundantly visible in general use of their system, and when they run out they RUN OUT.

nobody would require re-education, and nobody would require even knowing what the difference between binary and decimal is. they would simply go about their life, the way they do right now, only the boxes would say what 'is correct'. the only people who have to deal with the confusion are the people who understand the difference already - the technical people. nobody else cares about fractions of differences in systems that aren't meaningful to them. storage space is meaningful to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

honald, I thought you where for the standard use of a measurment and not the cross usage seen today?

That's what my last part your quoting is saying.

Get one standard way of saying the size be it decimal or binary.

To the computer industry.... Just pick one and stick to it gaddamit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seek some help honold. This topic is remotely worth the novel you have written. As the thread has gone on, your argument has gotten weaker and weaker. By the end of it, what was left of your "case" would have been laughed out of court, which is what this thread was originally about, the court case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gremlin, if you have something of substance to offer, please feel free to do so.

if you had at all been reading the thread, you would have observed that on numerous occasions that i have did not, do not, and will not believe that the objective of this case was to succeed in (or even enter) a courthouse. the point is to issue the message. as evidenced by the fact that we are discussing it, the case has already achieved its objective

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...they don't understand that for the rest of us the above conversation is nothing more than... spor.gif

I wish I could blow.gif the one and bangin.gif the other. Then lock this thread and party.gif!

This conversation was great to master my English and see the limits of human stubborness. You are both right! This debate goes nowhere because it's totally philosophical. It's not mathematics, it's policy-making, so you can both be right.

Please, let "natural selection" do the trick about the best method to count storage capacity. Personally, I think they should write it in both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

prof, you are mistaken if you think my objective is to debate with a specific individual or to change everyone's mind. i am simply presenting my side, and i believe it is obvious to both jtr and i that there is a lot of overlap in our beliefs. i agree that it would be nice to have a single standard.

however, i disagree that we should make it tougher on consumers to figure out what they're buying, and i think the best solution is the _simplest one_. usage of binary for storage is not a complex, dual standard for consumers because it's how they think things are already! they're not concerned with how anything other than mass storage devices are measured.

the only people who could potentially become confused about this are those who actually understand the differences, so i believe that is a non-issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prof, you are mistaken if you think my objective is to debate with a specific individual or to change everyone's mind.  i am simply presenting my side, and i believe it is obvious to both jtr and i that there is a lot of overlap in our beliefs.  i agree that it would be nice to have a single standard.

You don't have to present yourself to me. :)

I know you and I respect this kind of thinking. You stick to your point of view and don't become easily convinced. That's a good thing.

(Remember a PM back in SF I sent you?!)

however, i disagree that we should make it tougher on consumers to figure out what they're buying, and i think the best solution is the _simplest one_.  usage of binary for storage is not a complex, dual standard for consumers because it's how they think things are already!  they're not concerned with how anything other than mass storage devices are measured.

the only people who could potentially become confused about this are those who actually understand the differences, so i believe that is a non-issue.

honold, we should give MB and GB their real significance. Standards are out there to obey them. If manufacturers have done wrong and misleading for so long (as in monitors), then it's time to correct it. At first by using dual standards for a transational period and then only the right measure.

But this how I (and jtr if I understood correctly) see it. It's policy-making, that's the essence of my previous posts in this thread. It's policy-making and is very subjective... time to ask Eugene to make it a poll maybe?! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's policy-making and is very subjective... time to ask Eugene to make it a poll maybe?! ;)

Then mass-mail the results to all major HDD manufacturers... how about it?

StorageReview.com IS the largest independent storage site, isn'it? B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that are stating that the use of the binary method should be kept because of reasons such as it's what most people use/understand (honold comes to mind, simply because he has been the most vocal, even if his reasoning is solution-oriented rather than 'correct'-oriented), it may be worth reconsidering that point.

I'm sure there's a point where everybody here reached the level of knowledge where they learnt about k=1024 situation. As honold mentioned, we often have somebody ask the 'where did my hard drive space go?' question, so people are still learning it. The only reason they need to learn this is that the metric-based prefixes being used aren't being used correctly. Everybody has already learnt what K, M, etc means, then they have to re-learn it's alternate usage in the computer industry.

My main point that I'm leading to here is that there are many who are assuming that the majority of people know that k=1024 already, where I think it's quite possible that the majority doesn't know. I'll use the 'Where did my hard drive space go?' example here again as supporting evidence. I'm sure there are millions upon millions of others who don't have the technical knowledge to have reached that question yet. My girlfriend is an example of somebody who uses computers at work to write reports, spreadsheets, emails, and uses email and browses the web at home. She's competent in this typical usage, but wouldn't even know what a GB is, let alone that there is a decimal and binary version. If I asked her to guess what a kilobyte is, I'd bet money that she would think 'hmm.. kilo means 1000, must mean 1000 bytes'.

As final evidence of this, is the lawsuit itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we should give MB and GB their real significance. Standards are out there to obey them. If manufacturers have done wrong and misleading for so long (as in monitors), then it's time to correct it. At first by using dual standards for a transational period and then only the right measure.

But this how I (and jtr if I understood correctly) see it. It's policy-making, that's the essence of my previous posts in this thread. It's policy-making and is very subjective... time to ask Eugene to make it a poll maybe?! ;)

You're right, that pretty much sums up my opinion, Prof. Even honold liked my idea of labeled drives in both GB and GiB, along with a statement in bold letters in a prominent place that says most common operating systems show capacity in GiB. This would be for a transition period. After most software was written to give sizes either in proper decimal GB or use the GiB prefix if in binary then the storage manufacturers could standardize on one or the other(or even continue to use both). Most things in a grocery store in the US are labeled in both Imperial and Metric units. For the longest time soda has been sold by the liter, even though the volume in ounces is also present. It hasn't really caused alot of confusion.

....they don't understand that for the rest of us the above conversation is nothing more than... spor.gif

I wish I could blow.gif the one and bangin.gif the other. Then lock this thread and party.gif!

I thought this was very funny. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure there's a point where everybody here reached the level of knowledge where they learnt about k=1024 situation.  As honold mentioned, we often have somebody ask the 'where did my hard drive space go?' question, so people are still learning it.  The only reason they need to learn this is that the metric-based prefixes being used aren't being used correctly.  Everybody has already learnt what K, M, etc means, then they have to re-learn it's alternate usage in the computer industry.

Bzzzt. Wrong answer.

Remember how there was this suit about harddrive manufacturers giving sizes in decimal bytes? People are confused because they bought an 120 decimal gigabyte drive, and Windows says that the drive only has 115 binary gigabytes. But nobody says, clearly that one is decimal and the other is binary.

Might as well be long tons and short tons. Took me a while to sort that one out....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure there's a point where everybody here reached the level of knowledge where they learnt about k=1024 situation.  As honold mentioned, we often have somebody ask the 'where did my hard drive space go?' question, so people are still learning it.  The only reason they need to learn this is that the metric-based prefixes being used aren't being used correctly.  Everybody has already learnt what K, M, etc means, then they have to re-learn it's alternate usage in the computer industry.

Bzzzt. Wrong answer.

Remember how there was this suit about harddrive manufacturers giving sizes in decimal bytes? People are confused because they bought an 120 decimal gigabyte drive, and Windows says that the drive only has 115 binary gigabytes. But nobody says, clearly that one is decimal and the other is binary.

Might as well be long tons and short tons. Took me a while to sort that one out....

Sorry, I've got no idea what you are trying to say here. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check this. Manufacturers surely are not helping with that sort of confusing information. How can a GB be "a unit of data measurement equal to 1 billion bytes or 1 thousand megabytes (MB)?"

Here it is claimed that "By Q4CY2003, disk transfer rates are targeted to be beyond the ATA-100 level." How likely is that without at least doubling the areal density?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Check this.  Manufacturers surely are not helping with that sort of confusing information.  How can a GB be "a unit of data measurement equal to 1 billion bytes or 1 thousand megabytes (MB)?"

That's the whole point of this topic. What Dell is saying is technically correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I've got no idea what you are trying to say here.  :huh:

The reason people are confused is because they think that they are getting one thing, but end up with another, i.e. 120GB (decimal) versus 115GB (binary).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I've got no idea what you are trying to say here.  :huh:

The reason people are confused is because they think that they are getting one thing, but end up with another, i.e. 120GB (decimal) versus 115GB (binary).

That much I worked out. It's what the whole thread has been discussing.

I just didn't get the context to what you quoted me on. I was debating whether we should enforce the 'correct' use of binary and decimal terms to clear up the confusion you're referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So this means that my drives are performing 6% better than they should be? Or is it worse?

Do you even care at that point?? :lol:

Not really. I still have to fsk a bajillion GB every 35 reboots no matter which way the hdd is measured.

Thank you for your time,

Frank Russo

PS, I know I could use tune2fs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now