CDRLabs.com

I bought a "120 GB" Maxtor hard drive with a 8 mb cache and it only has 114 GB.
I also bought a "120" GB Seagate with 8 mb cache, 111 GB actual size.
Why dont hard drive companies say that it's really a 115 or 110 GB hard drive, i mean they were off by 6-9 gigs!!
6 gigs can hold 2400 songs.....
9 can hold 3600 songs....

Actually, they do.

The advertisers advertise in decimal form, where 1GB=1,000MB, and so on and so forth.

Your operating system reports this in binary form, where 1GB=1,024MB.

In reality, you are getting the correct advertised amount of hard drive space. Then of course there is bits and pieces lost in formatting the drive with a file system.

thankyou, i feel better now

all hard-drive companies are part of this scam. deliberate misinformation.

So are optical disk makers then!!!

UALOneKPlus wrote:So are optical disk makers then!!!

why?
650MB is true 650MB of 1024K per MB.
OK yeah right they are "lying" on the DVD front. 4.7GB per disck phooey! liers

Once again, they are not lying, just the decimal vs binary difference.

The average consumer wouldn't want to see a box that says "74.59236587 GB" They just want it to say, straight and simple "80 GB"

OK so they're not lying.
deliberately deceptive misinformation might be a better wording.

and 74.59236587 GB should be reported as 75GB not 80GB.

dodecahedron wrote:OK so they're not lying.
deliberately deceptive misinformation might be a better wording.

and 74.59236587 GB should be reported as 75GB not 80GB.

Nope, because 74.59236587 is roughly 80 GB in decimal form, anyways, Deliberately deceptive misinformation is the standard in the industry. If someone didn't report thier size in decimal form, it could likely hurt sales.

aviationwiz wrote:

dodecahedron wrote:OK so they're not lying.
deliberately deceptive misinformation might be a better wording.

and 74.59236587 GB should be reported as 75GB not 80GB.

Nope, because 74.59236587 is roughly 80 GB in decimal form, anyways, Deliberately deceptive misinformation is the standard in the industry. If someone didn't report thier size in decimal form, it could likely hurt sales.

yep. it IS misinformation as the rest of the computer industry is using Binary (OSes for example). that's why many people ARE surprised when their hard drive isn't "up to spec".

and no 74.59236587 GB isn't roughly 80 GB in decimal form, it's roughly 75 GB.

and if "Deliberately deceptive misinformation is the standard in the industry" it doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize and ostracize it.

The problem is really the use of decimal prefixes for binary multipliers. This is tradition in parts the computer field (not for transfer rates, for example- Gigabit Ethernet means 10^9) because the values are so close, but that doesn't make it any better. The use of proper binary prefixes as advocated by the IEEE, e.g. GiB (Gibibyte) for 2^30 bytes, equivalent to 1073741824 bytes or ca. 1.074 GB (1.074 * 10^9) would obviate the entire confusion (see the discussion starting about here). You can't really fault the hard drive manufacturers for publishing larger numbers, especially since they're an SI standard- after all, they are marketroids. The IEEE document has some even more abstruse examples.

The SI prefixes are a valuable good- look at the confusion that can arise from the differing use of "billion" in North America (=10^9, a thousand million) and Europe (=10^12, a million million). These numbers are different enough that the variant usage is obvious. The binary quantities are close enough to the decimal ones, though, to cause the kind of grief evident here.

I've used the binary prefixes ever since I found out about them and encourage others to do so as well- be a part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

Dodecahedron: your example should read "74.59236587 GiB isn't roughly 80 GB in decimal form, it's roughly 75 GiB", which is like saying 1" = 2.54 cm.

G

ah yes that old discussion...
fact is that most people do not use ghe GiB etc. we have to make do with what we have.

and cosidering that the customer who is buying a drive that is labelled as 80 GB, and once he puts it in a computer will show as 74.whatnot GB, well if the drive makers are still insisting on "artificially" inflating the capacity of their drives, this is IMO Deliberately deceptive misinformation.

why cant they be like the CDR makers, who say it's a 700 MB disc but it's really a 703?

Turkeyscore.com wrote:why cant they be like the CDR makers, who say it's a 700 MB disc but it's really a 703?

they are guilty too. they advertise a 4.37GB DVD disc as 4.7GB!

CDR makers...
DVDR doesnt apply to me....yet, so i cant complain....

Turkeyscore.com wrote:CDR makers...

yes but they're most of the times the same companies.

I agree with Dodecahedron.

Since day one, hard drive manufactures seemed completely happy
with indicating the proper size but then suddenly (5 or 10 years ago)
felt the need to JUICE up the numbers.

Ummm..... kind a like 3 year warranties becoming 1 year warranties.
Is that one of those binary/decimal deals, as well?

There was alot more complaining about the manufactures spicing
up the Gig's, back then, than the shrinking warranties.

I dread the day where I give $80 for something priced at $74.52
and not get any change back. Since when do you round up to 80
instead of 75.

Tubtanic

dodecahedron wrote:

aviationwiz wrote:

dodecahedron wrote:OK so they're not lying.
deliberately deceptive misinformation might be a better wording.

and 74.59236587 GB should be reported as 75GB not 80GB.

Nope, because 74.59236587 is roughly 80 GB in decimal form, anyways, Deliberately deceptive misinformation is the standard in the industry. If someone didn't report thier size in decimal form, it could likely hurt sales.

yep. it IS misinformation as the rest of the computer industry is using Binary (OSes for example). that's why many people ARE surprised when their hard drive isn't "up to spec".

and no 74.59236587 GB isn't roughly 80 GB in decimal form, it's roughly 75 GB.

and if "Deliberately deceptive misinformation is the standard in the industry" it doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize and ostracize it.

Exactly.
It is both misleading and INCORRECT: the computer industry is supposed to be binary-based.
This is simply false advertising.

The problem is that once one manufacturer started cheating, the others didn't want their drives to appear smaller than those of the manufacturer that started this ridiculous trend.

I have come to accept it as a fact of life and it doesn't bother me, but that doesn't make what the hard drive and DVD media manufacturers/rebadgers (is that a word ?) are doing.

If anyone can answer that question,they also should be able to answer why we have to send in rebates to get cd-r's for a reasonable price!!!!


E

dodecahedron wrote:ah yes that old discussion...
fact is that most people do not use ghe GiB etc. we have to make do with what we have.

and cosidering that the customer who is buying a drive that is labelled as 80 GB, and once he puts it in a computer will show as 74.whatnot GB, well if the drive makers are still insisting on "artificially" inflating the capacity of their drives, this is IMO Deliberately deceptive misinformation.

But if the internationally-recognised standard is that a Gb is base-10, then it's Microsoft who are misrepresenting the facts if they quote a Gb as base-2, not the drive manufacturers. If M$, and Apple and you and I and so on aren't using the correct notation, that's our mistake not theirs. That's why we have standards.

Yes, the drive makers are twisting the facts to suit themselves, but they are not misrepresenting their products. If we choose to use a de-facto standard notation when an official one exists, that's our lookout.

It's no different to floppy disc manufacturers who quote the formatted disc space as 1.44Mb when in fact it's 1.38Mb.

Actually, all this talk of standards reminds me of that recent Simpsons episode when Homer's in the Tower of London (I assume) and in order to try to get out he promises to use the Metric system. When in fact, the "American" system of pounds, miles, pints etc is an adaptation of the British Imperial measurement system in the first place, and most Brits refuse to use Metric as well!! I get the distinct impression Groening and his gand were trying to wind us limeys up here. Anyway, reason I mention this is that here as well, there are differences in the measurements between the Brit and US standards. So when you refer to a gallon of gas (or petrol), it can mean one of two different measurements. Another example of why using non-SI units is a bad idea.

since a major part of the computing community thinks of 1K=1024, the hard drive makers are misleading IMO.

true, it might be better if everyone moves over to standard SI units, 1K=1000 etc. but until this move had been made these are deceptions.

and you can't really think that the drive makers are doing what they're doing in order to promote a move to SI. such a move will have to originate from a more authoritative and acceptable company/organization.

I tend to agree with jase. I never thought the hard drive manufacturers were jipping me on storage space. They use one measurement and Microsoft uses another for Windows. Although, MS-DOS uses the base-10 that jase mentioned earlier. So, it appears that Microsoft uses both forms of measurement!

Do I think Nike makes my foot seem bigger (or smaller) on purpose because I use the US measurement system for shoes? No. In the UK, my shoe size is one less than what it is in the US. A size 12 in the US is an 11 in the UK, for example. Nike, and other shoe manufacturers, usually print several measurements on each shoe. So, maybe that's what the hard drive manufacturers need to do in order to make everyone happy. Although, when you are marketing a product like a hard drive, having the bigger size matters, therefore you are not going to print a smaller size on the box when you don't have to. With shoes, the problem isn't as important. I don't think people really care if they are a size 12 or 11 or 46 or whatever the number may be. ... Hmm, perhaps I should rephrase that to say, "Men really don't care if they are a size 12 or 11 or 46 or whatever."

SI = Sports Illustrated? Aye, it's a cool magazine.

It is the same deal as in car ripoffs. I used to have one with a 318 cubic inch engine, one with 350 cu in, etc. Now they sell 'em in liters and they are all smaller. RIP-OFF!

That's why you gotta buy older cars. The saying has some validity, "They don't make 'em like they used to." And it doesn't apply only to cars.

VEFF wrote:

dodecahedron wrote:

aviationwiz wrote:

dodecahedron wrote:OK so they're not lying.
deliberately deceptive misinformation might be a better wording.

and 74.59236587 GB should be reported as 75GB not 80GB.

Nope, because 74.59236587 is roughly 80 GB in decimal form, anyways, Deliberately deceptive misinformation is the standard in the industry. If someone didn't report thier size in decimal form, it could likely hurt sales.

yep. it IS misinformation as the rest of the computer industry is using Binary (OSes for example). that's why many people ARE surprised when their hard drive isn't "up to spec".

and no 74.59236587 GB isn't roughly 80 GB in decimal form, it's roughly 75 GB.

and if "Deliberately deceptive misinformation is the standard in the industry" it doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize and ostracize it.

Exactly.
It is both misleading and INCORRECT: the computer industry is supposed to be binary-based.
This is simply false advertising.

The problem is that once one manufacturer started cheating, the others didn't want their drives to appear smaller than those of the manufacturer that started this ridiculous trend.

I have come to accept it as a fact of life and it doesn't bother me, but that doesn't make what the hard drive and DVD media manufacturers/rebadgers (is that a word ?) are doing.

Ok what manuf. started it so we can boycot em'