Actual hard drive space?

[Rod Speed]

Not really,

Corse you can and the industry does too.

it is an invalid expression to have more than
one system mangled into a single quantity.

Have fun explaining comms speeds which are universally
decimal counts of bytes/sec etc when bytes are used.

Wrong, it is just as real a part of a number system as any other
term, or if you want to call it a "concept", so is any numerical term.

Its just the item being counted. That is never part of the number system.

Nope, it would be equally absurd to put byte in front of a decimal
system value. Can't mix two systems in one expression.

Corse can, and its done all the time most obviously with
comms speeds which never use the binary multiplier.

 

[Rod Speed]

Forget bits and binary... They aren't really related to the problem here...

In English, "kilo" means thousand, "mega" means million, giga means
billion, "tera" means trillion, etc...

A "five kilogram" bag of sugar weights 5,000 grams. "25 megawatts" of
power is 25,000,000 watts. To a person, a megabyte is a million
bytes. A gigabyte is a billion bytes.

The reason for this is that 1,000 is a natural boundary for people to
use. Would it make any sense that a kilo is 893 of something? No,
because we can count to 999 before we need to add more digits.

In computer terminology, "kilo" means 1,024, "mega" means
1024x1024=1,048,576, "giga" means 1024x1024x1024=1,073,741,824,
"tera" means 1024x1024x1024x1024=1,099,511,627,776.

Wrong with cpu speed, comms speed, hard drive capacity, etc etc etc.

The reason that computer terminology bases it's numbering system
around 1,024 is because it's a natural boundary for computers.

Wrong with everything except memory which does have an
intrinsically binary organisation with most, but not all, memory.

Since computers use base 2,

Not all do that either.

their boundaries are numbers like 8, 16, 32...etc...1024, 2048...etc...
1073741824, 2147483648, 4294967296...etc. Writing these in base 2 we can see the pattern...

Pity there is no pattern with cpu speed, comms speed, hard drive capacity, etc etc etc.

1000 is 8, 10000 is 16, 100000 is 32, 1000000000 is 1024, 10000000000 is 2048,
10000000000000000000 is 1073741824, 100000000000000000000 is 2147483648.

So when you buy your drive at the store, the saleman tells you it has
100gigabytes, meaning it has 100 billion bytes of space. When you put
it in your computer, it will tell you that you have a 93gigabyte drive, meaning that you have
93x1024x1024x1024 bytes of space (93.1322... actually).

Not all computers do that either.

 

[Rod Speed]

(e-mail address removed) wrote

(e-mail address removed) wrote
(e-mail address removed) wrote
I notice there is always a great disparity between stated hard
drive capacity and actual usable capacity after formatting.
Is there a chart or other paper anywhere showing maybe
comparisons of this between drives, and maybe an explanation
of why and how it happens?
the relationship between a megabyte( 2^20) and an approximation
of the megabyte, (10^6), is a factor of 1.048576.
Meaning that to get from one to the other, you multiply or
divide by
1.048576 A megabyte is 1,048,576 bytes. The Approximation is
1,000,000. Somtimes one is called the binary megabyte and the
other
the decimal megabyte, but it's not a different number system.
It is actually, different base.
The approximation or decimal megabyte is just using 10^ instead
of 2^.
So its a different number system.
No,
Fraid so.
what is the point your style?

What is the point of yours ?

I go on to explain why it's not a different number system.

And I went on to explain why its not and rubbed your nose in what a
number base actually is.

You just deny everything.

Bare faced lie.

2^x cannot even be binary. The number 2 doesn't even exist in
binary.
Utterly mangled and completely irrelevant to which base is used.
I am clear in telling you what I mean.

Pity that is utterly mangled and completely irrelevant to which base
is used.

Perhaps the term base has 2 meanings.
Base^Exponent, and base as in number system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_system
But Binary - as far as I know - only applies to number systems,
and
that is the term I use here. It is in that context that I use the
word base.
And you can have any base you like in that context.
Yes, and in that context you can't write 2 and call it binary.

Wrong. That is the common description of a base 2 number system.

I don't know what from that wikipedia article contradicts me.

Its rubbing your nose in the fact that you havent got a clue about
what a number system actually is.

The 10^6 figure is a smaller unit.. So more of it are used to
equal a corresponding amount of the the 'binary megabyte', which
is a larger unit. "they say" that Hard Drive marketting people
use
the 'decimal megabyte' because it sounds better, larger numbers.
Only the pig ignorant fools. Its the SI standard, legally
required in many countrys.
Were they to not use the SI standard, and to use
[what you deny to be] the standard meaning in computing,
The binary form is nothing like the standard meaning in computing.
The decimal form is mostly whats used in computing, most
obviously with cpu speeds, comms speeds, etc etc etc .
I don't mean that the binary form is used in all aspects of
computer talk.

It isnt used when stating the capacity of the hard drive either.

My email address has the numbers 3 and 9 in it, yet it
isn't jameshanley00111001 (those are two nibbles).

Irrelevant to how the capacity of hard drives is universally stated.

Its only MEMORY that has an intrinsically binary organisation
where the binary form is in fact commonly used.
I know a little about addressing memory and
nothing about addressing data on a hard drive.

Each sector has a logical block number. Nothing
intrinsically binary in the organisation of the sectors.

Perhaps there's some kind of binary thinking in the organisation
of one that isn't in the organisation of the other. But addresses
are stored in binary, whether in memory or on a hard drive. In
Bytes.

Irrelevant to the LBA which is just a linear number of the sectors
on the drive.

then I am not convinced that they'd be sued for
understating the specification of their product.
More fool you.
Were it to happen, I wouldn't be "fooled". Fool implies victim.

No it doesnt. Its just a foolish conviction in this case.

I couldn't care less. I may be amused though.

Irrelevant to whether that conviction is foolish.

Its the binary gigabyte that makes no sense with something
like a hard drive which isnt intrinsically binary organised.
And the 1.44MB floppy is actually a weird binary/decimal hybrid.
I haven't read about how they organise their data, but
electronics knows HIGHS and LOWS, ACTIVE or Not.
At the lowest level, it appears to me to be binary.
The lowest level is completely irrelevant. Clearly cpu speeds have
never been stated using binary multipliers, even tho they are
certainly digital devices.-
neither cpu speed nor multipliers are measured in Megabytes.

The Mega and Giga PREFIXES are used when stating the cpu speed.

(And I suppose that neither are even stored in binary, except
perhaps
for the sake of the human techie to see those values in the BIOS)
I was referring to Megabytes.

What was being discussed was the Mega and Giga PREFIXES.

Not to all numbers used while discussing computers
Pathetic.

why don't you just stick all your comments at the end.

Because it makes more sense to comment on specific bits of your original instead.

you've written absolute rubbish.

Wota stunningly rational line of arguement you have there.

To say that 2^3 is binary is as stupid as saying that 9^2 is not decimal (saying it's base 9).

Pathetic, really.

And this thread was not talking about GHz, but Megabytes.

Its actually talking about GBs.

And if you measure Megabyte as 2^20 as is done,
it doesn't mean the number is in binary.

Wrong, as always.

If you'd ever read of how computers store floating point numbers

Did that before you were ever born thanks.

then you'd know. It's along the lines of converting the mantissa
and exponent into binary. Because they are not in binary.

Pathetic, really.

I'm sure you know this, but we seem to be having a communication problem.

Yep, the problem is your ear to ear dog shit.

It's your "style" that's the problem.

Have fun explaining how come kony keeps pointing out your stupiditys too.

So go on, break the whole post up with comments after
every single line repeating the same denials and dismissive
buzzwords that have become your rotten trademark.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

 

[jameshanley39]

Not really, it is an invalid expression to have more than
one system mangled into a single quantity.

I can say 56 bytes. 56 is decimal. I'm counting something. In
decimal.

You misinterpreted what I meant when I said you can count bytes in any
number system.

You can also value a byte in any number system. A Byte can have the
value of 112 (that 112 i've written is in decimal). That's a decimal
representation of what is in the byte.

Of course, a byte is 8 bits, at the physical level, it's binary -
bits.

Wrong, it is just as real a part of a number system as any
other term, or if you want to call it a "concept", so is any
numerical term.

Inside the byte, it's bits, physically. But logically, one can
represent that value in any number system. People do.
Programmers often use Hex to represent bytes because it's a shorthand

Nope, it would be equally absurd to put byte in front of a
decimal system value. Can't mix two systems in one
expression

***if*** you were correct, that it is absurd to say Million Bytes
because it's a "decimal system value" mixed with Byte which you say is
a "binary system value", and you say you can't mix 2 systems. Then
it's supposedly equally absurd to say 16 bytes, or 19 bytes. 16 and
19 are as decimal as a million.

 

[jameshanley39]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:

Because it makes more sense to comment on specific bits of your original instead.

Rubbish. I could jumble up every comment you've written and you'd be
saying the same thing.
The one unique statement in your post is irrelevant.

Its actually talking about GBs.

Irrelevant

Have fun explaining how come kony keeps pointing out your stupiditys
too.

I wouldn't count on you to judge who is right between me and kony, or
to understand the discussion correctly.

If somebody(you) can't communicate their ideas across, then I have no
evidence that they can reason properly. You write as if you have very
serious brain damage. It's no coincidence that so many here consider
you to be a troll.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.-

I don't bullshit. But you are not even intelligent enough to bullshit.
You can't even string sentences together.


You're like a freak show in a circus. You've discovered a way to
recycle your own shit. You shit then eat it and crap it out again.
That wet paper bag sentence is no more than your own recycled shit.
How many times have you repeated that to various people. Why don't you
recycle somebody elses shit. It's probably fresher than yours

 

[Rod Speed]

(e-mail address removed) wrote

Rubbish.

We'll see...

I could jumble up every comment you've written
and you'd be saying the same thing.
The one unique statement in your post is irrelevant.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Pathetic.

I wouldn't count on you to judge who is right between
me and kony, or to understand the discussion correctly.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

If somebody(you) can't communicate their ideas across,
then I have no evidence that they can reason properly.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

You write as if you have very serious brain damage. It's no
coincidence that so many here consider you to be a troll.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

I don't bullshit.

You clearly do. And you're clearly a pathological liar as well.

<reams of your desperate attempts to bullshit your way out of your
predicament that fools absolutely no one at all, flushed where it belongs>

 

[Noozer]

... that makes it binary

Not exactly. People don't need to know binary to know 2048 is twice as much
as 1024... etc.

 

[kony]

Not exactly. People don't need to know binary to know 2048 is twice as much
as 1024... etc.

.... but they do need to know binary to know why their drive
isn't the capacity the HDD manufacturer claimed it was.

 

[GT]

The significant detail is that 1,000,000 being called

megabyte is invalid.

Because byte only exists in a different system, not a
decimal system, the two different system terms can't be
intermixed. Mega on the other hand, exists in both systems
so it can be applied to a binary system number.

No, 'Byte' exists outwith any system - its a unit of measurement. Mega is a
mathematical (greek or latin?) term meaning 10^6 (10 to the power 6, or
1,000,000), so a MegaByte is 1,000,000 Bytes.

If someone wanted to call 1,000,000 as a megablob, or other
megaTHING, that would work, but it cannot be called megabyte
unless the number expressed is 1,048,576. Similarly a
kilobyte is never 1000, and a byte itself is never 10 bits.

Why do you even mention that a byte is not 10 bits - nobody said it was! We
know a byte is 8 bits and I don't see why that is relevant?
A KiloAnything is 10^3 (10 to the power 3, or 1,000) anythings and therefore
1 KiloByte is 1000 Bytes and, if you want to bring bits into it, 1KB is
therefore 8000 Bits.

1KG = 1,000 gramms
1KM = 1,000 metres
1KB = 1,000 bytes = 8,000 bits
1KHz = 1,000 Hz
1KDay = 1,000 days = over 33 months, or about 3 years.

Approximations aren't sufficient, and WD lost a class action
suit over that so precedence has been set in the legal world
as well as in the computer world. It's a shame the matter
wasn't pursued more when manufactureres first started
mislabeling drives, but on the other hand there are better
ways to spend the courts' time.

I don't dispute that this case exists, but do you have a link or postable
documentation about this case - I would like to read about it. I do not
consider the manufacturers to be mislabelling their drives. 100GB is,
mathematically 100,000,000,000 Bytes. If we in the computing world decide to
interpret the term 1GB as anything other than 1 G(10^9 or 1,000,000,000)
B(bytes) , then that is our problem!

 

[kony]

No, 'Byte' exists outwith any system - its a unit of measurement. Mega is a
mathematical (greek or latin?) term meaning 10^6 (10 to the power 6, or
1,000,000), so a MegaByte is 1,000,000 Bytes.

It's a binary unit, and only exists in an binary system
until used improperly.

 

[GT]

It's a binary unit, and only exists in an binary system
until used improperly.

No, that a bit - Binary unIT and it exists regardless of system. A bit
refers to a logical 'true' or 'false' and can be counted using any
mathematical base in the same way as apples can be counted. A byte is a
collection of 8 bits and can be counted in any mathematical base. a KiloByte
is therefore 1000 of these units that we call Bytes. You can write 1000 in
base 10 as 1000 or in base 2 (binary) as 1111101000, but regardless of the
base there is the same quantity of these units.

 

[kony]

No, that a bit - Binary unIT and it exists regardless of system.

No, both are binary units. It does not exist without a
binary "thing" existing to have a "byte", it is in fact
binary only.

A bit
refers to a logical 'true' or 'false' and can be counted using any
mathematical base in the same way as apples can be counted.

NO it can't. Any other base would require more than only
two choices.

A byte is a
collection of 8 bits and can be counted in any mathematical base.

NO, you are in error if you do.

a KiloByte
is therefore

.... therefore nothing, because all the prior assumptions are
in error.

1000 of these units that we call Bytes.

Which is obviously wrong.

You can write 1000 in
base 10 as 1000 or in base 2 (binary) as 1111101000, but regardless of the
base there is the same quantity of these units.

You are ignoring that writing 1000 is not the same thing as
writing Kilobyte. Either number system can express that
quantity, but that is because the quantity is FIXED, it does
not vary based on which system is used. WIth the misuse of
Kilobyte as you did above, or Gigabyte as HDD manufacturers
do, the opposite is true and breaks a basic law- that no
matter what base is used, the actual quantity does not
change.

 

[Rod Speed]

No, 'Byte' exists outwith any system - its a unit of measurement.
Mega is a mathematical (greek or latin?) term meaning 10^6 (10 to the
power 6, or 1,000,000), so a MegaByte is 1,000,000 Bytes.


Why do you even mention that a byte is not 10 bits - nobody said it
was! We know a byte is 8 bits and I don't see why that is relevant?
A KiloAnything is 10^3 (10 to the power 3, or 1,000) anythings and
therefore 1 KiloByte is 1000 Bytes and, if you want to bring bits
into it, 1KB is therefore 8000 Bits.

1KG = 1,000 gramms
1KM = 1,000 metres
1KB = 1,000 bytes = 8,000 bits
1KHz = 1,000 Hz
1KDay = 1,000 days = over 33 months, or about 3 years.

I don't dispute that this case exists, but do you have a link or postable documentation about this
case - I would like to read about it.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q="western+digital"+"class+action"

Two points, its an absolutely classic example of how the US legal system
has been completely off the rails for centurys now, and secondly WD
settled, so there hasnt even been a definitive court decision anyway.

What WD offered the claimants was peanuts so it clearly made sense to settle.

I do not consider the manufacturers to be mislabelling their drives.

Corse they arent when the datasheet says quite explicity
how many bytes the drive is guaranteed to contain.

100GB is, mathematically 100,000,000,000 Bytes. If we in the
computing world decide to interpret the term 1GB as anything other
than 1 G(10^9 or 1,000,000,000) B(bytes) , then that is our problem!

And that consideration doesnt even apply when the datasheet says
quite explicity how many bytes the drive is guaranteed to contain.

The most you can really argue is that the box should have that number on it too.

 

[kony]

A gigabyte in the computing world is unquestionably the
target application of capacity of a hard drive. The moment
a term (byte) is used that is part of one number system, any
representation done in a different (base) has to, must, is
required to, still equal the original base quantity. This
is not subject to interpretation, or decision. It is the
very core of what numbers are, representation of an exact
quantity.

 

[Rod Speed]

A gigabyte in the computing world is unquestionably the
target application of capacity of a hard drive. The moment
a term (byte) is used that is part of one number system, any
representation done in a different (base) has to, must, is
required to, still equal the original base quantity.

Wrong, as always.

This is not subject to interpretation, or decision.

Wrong, as always.

It is the very core of what numbers are, representation of an exact quantity.

Wrong, as always.

Have fun explaining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte

 

[Cal Vanize]

Wrong, as always.


Wrong, as always.


Wrong, as always.

Have fun explaining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte

You're citing Wikipedia? That's the worst of all sources.

Try citing a reliable source instead of some grade school kid's
published homework project.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

You're citing Wikipedia?

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist eejuts ?

That's the worst of all sources.

Pathetic, really.

How odd that plenty of authoritative sources say exactly the same thing.

Try citing a reliable source

Try the links at the bottom of that article, child.

Then try a very large towel for your face.

 

[GT]

No, 'Byte' exists outwith any system - its a unit of measurement. Mega

No, both are binary units. It does not exist without a
binary "thing" existing to have a "byte", it is in fact
binary only.

It doesn't matter how many 'states' something has, you can still count them
using any mathematical base. An example:

If I throw a coin in the air it will land on a head (0) or a tale (1) - a
binary choice, so lets call it a bit. There is nothing wrong with me
counting the quantity of these bits using any base I choose - binary,
decimal, octal, hexidecimal etc. The fact that a bit is a binary digit
doesn't matter, we are talking about how many of these throws (or bits)
there are. I might even choose to group my coin throws in clusters of 8 and
call these clusters of 8 throws a byte. I might then perform scientific
tests on probability and perform 1000 bytes, which I would refer to as a
kilobyte.

YES it can - Something can have any number of potential choices (2 or 50)
but it will only be in one of those choices or 'states' at any point in time
and we only need space to store one state for each element. For a bit we
need 2 possible states, but it doesn't matter how many states something has,
or what state each bit is in, its the number of elements that we are
counting. And we can count those elements using any base or any numbering
system we choose. If we choose to use a decimal (base 10) system, then we
can shorten the numbering using the standard mathematical mechanism of 1,000
chunks and refer to kilo, mega etc.

[snip]

You are ignoring that writing 1000 is not the same thing as
writing Kilobyte.

YES IT IS THE SAME - kilo means 1000. You said yourself that "Approximations
aren't sufficient", so kilo can't mean 1024 because that is a approximation
of the true definition of kilo - 1000.

Either number system can express that
quantity, but that is because the quantity is FIXED, it does
not vary based on which system is used. WIth the misuse of
Kilobyte as you did above

I didn't misuse kilobyte - kile means 1000 and byte is a unit to describe 8
bits.

, or Gigabyte as HDD manufacturers
do, the opposite is true and breaks a basic law- that no
matter what base is used, the actual quantity does not
change.

Precisly - the actual quantity does not change. kilo means 1000 so you can't
change it to mean 1024, mega means 1,000,000 and you can't change it to mean
1048,xxx.

 

[Cal Vanize]

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist eejuts ?


Pathetic, really.

How odd that plenty of authoritative sources say exactly the same thing.

They certainly do question Wikipedia as an information source. No
true expert or authorative source would ever reply on the information
presented in Wikipedia. The fact that you do causes question of your
credibility.

Try the links at the bottom of that article, child.

Then try a very large towel for your face.

Personal attacks? I questioned your source, now you cause question of
your own credibility.

Wilipedia is a source of papers written by non-experts in an effort to
populate a database. Nothing else.

 

[kony]

YES IT IS THE SAME - kilo means 1000. You said yourself that "Approximations
aren't sufficient", so kilo can't mean 1024 because that is a approximation
of the true definition of kilo - 1000.

That's the definition of it in a decimal system. If you'd
like to use Kilo in a decimal system, go right ahead...
without using byte since that makes it an invalid
expression. A valid expression would always state the exact
same quantity, which it obviously does not, hence this
thread.