# Actual hard drive space? - Page 2

•  Subject
• Author
• Posted on

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

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
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!

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:13:07 -0000, "GT"

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

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

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.

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:36:20 -0000, "GT"

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

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

NO, you are in error if you do.

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

Which is obviously wrong.

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.

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

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]

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.

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

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.

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:28:58 -0000, "GT"

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

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

kony wrote:

Then how many bits, according to you, are meant by kilobits?

Bob

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

<snip>

Why are you ducking my question, kony?

"Bits", as you know, is a computer term and its usage in the computerese jargon
predates "bytes". If "bytes" has some sort of effect on the meaning of kilo,
because it is computerese, then "bits" would also have that same effect

How many bits, according to you, are meant by kilobits?

Bob

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

I may almost agree with Kony in this aspect.

I don't agree that Byte is some kind of purely binary unit that can't
be mixed with decimal.

But the convention - and it's only convention - is that Kilo Mega
Giga, when used with Byte, use the 2^x definition.

The convention comes from the fact that computers reference bytes.
The number of bytes they can reference with x bits is 2^x

The whole KibiByte thing was a late attempt, and it never took off.
People always used Kilobyte to refer to 1024 bytes, and they still do,
and they understand each other. So there was/is no need for a new
terminology.

1000.

Only Bytes have this convention.

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

"jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk" wrote:

IMO kony has been on the losing side of this whole argument. I'm somewhat
surprised.

In fact, it is usually represented by 2 hexadecimal characters (base 16), not to
be confused with decimal (base 10).

It became convenient to adopt those terms by convention, but that doesn't change
their true meaning. The burden in any discussion is upon people to define their
terms, either implicitly or explicitly. When speaking of data storage, the
original meaning of those terms is in effect and there is no convention in
effect to have them mean otherwise. If some people misunderstand that, then it's
like any similar situation where they need to educate themselves.

Whenever I have used those terms in discussions with fellow software types, it
has always been clear as to how the terms were being used in any given context.
If not, it's pretty easy to clarify by asking a question.

And likewise for Kilobytes in data transmission.

Depends om who's talking and if they are using a certain convention. Unless they
have agreed to use 1024 for kilo as a convention, then kilo is 1000 as in
kilogram, kilometer, etc and also Kilobytes, as in KBps.

Bob

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

Robert Heiling wrote:

Base 16 only that each hex character is made up of four bits (2^4).

Bytes were created out of convenience.  A byte has 256 possible values
which allowed them to represent the entire alphabet, integer numbers,
special characters and still have room for control characters.

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

Cal Vanize wrote:

Yes. That's all quite well known. The term came into widespread use with the
introduction of the IBM System 360 and was tied into the word size of that
system. Systems from other manufacturers often tended to use octal.

Bob

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

Must be one of those rocket scientist stupid children.

Meaningless waffle.

You can do that with 7 bits too.

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

Rod Speed wrote:

So listen little shithead child.  You might just learn something before
you go back to the third grade for another year.

The use of half-bytes for packed numeric data doesn't work very well
with seven bits, does it?  Also didn't allow for much use of parity for
those 7-bit characterizations back then, did it.  Six bits plus parity
wasn't quite enough, was it dickmouth.

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

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

Plenty of definitions of ascii actually say that its a 7 bit code, fuckwit child.

Irrelevant to whether you can do the entire alphabet, integer numbers,
special characters and still have room for control characters in 7 bits.

Irrelevant to whether you can do the entire alphabet, integer numbers,
special characters and still have room for control characters in 7 bits.

Irrelevant to whether you can do the entire alphabet, integer numbers,
special characters and still have room for control characters in 7 bits.

Wota stunningly rational line of arguement you have there, child.

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

interesting. I wasn't aware of the data transmission convention
regarding Bytes , being standard SI.

As Word size grows (and i'm not sure if Word size, is size of data bus
or size of cpu registers). But if we're talking "data bus", then I
suppose that'd be standard SI too ?

What would you say is the convention for HDDs..
If the convention comes from designing them then it may not be not so
well known generally because the average person isn't designing them?!
If designers go by the apparently non binary organisation. And use
10^x, then it may be better known.

Most peoples' usage of the term Byte with HDDs goes by how the OS
defines it.  Windows uses the 2^x form.  If other OSs and software
does the same then perhaps 2^x should be the convention for HDDs.

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

"jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk" wrote:

I wouldn't be so quick to toss in the word "standard", but it;s the way that
most of the world seems to report it.

No need to even get into that as you're dealing with the finished product. The
manufacturer reports the size in base 10. Windows reports in base 2. It's a
surprise only to the uninformed.

Shrug.

Bob

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

<snip>

<snip>

when you say "base 2" and "base 10" you mean base as in
base^exponent,  rather than  binary and decimal, right?

As i'm sure we agree,
We could use any number system (binary,decimal,octal) to represent
either number.. A different number system doesn't change the
quantity.
The quantitiy is changing due to convention for kilo,mega e.t.c. Not
due to a change of number system.

<snip>

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

"jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk" wrote:

It's the same. I was attempting to be unambiguous by using the mathematical term
since we are dealing with mathematics. Binary is base 2, octal base 8, decimal
base 10, and hexadecimal base 16. See the Oxford Dictionary:
Base noun Mathematics a number used as the basis of a numeration scale.

Correct.

Just to be picky, because it's needed for the topic, the quantity doesn't change
at all, but the quantity *reported* does.

Bob

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

I don't know what a "numeration scale". It isn't defined there.
The Cambridge dictionary is very good. It says

binary number noun [C]
a number that is expressed using 1 and 0:

base (MATHEMATICS)   Show phonetics
noun [C usually singular] SPECIALIZED
the number on which a counting system is built:

Fair enough, that there's a definition of base that is base^exponent.
But that "base" has nothing to do with the number system - binary,
octal e.t.c.

I don't know for sure what Oxford dictionary mean by numeration scale.
But I can see that Cambridge dictionary is quite specific, a number
system. And just to be more clear, cambridge dictionary says a binary
number is in 1s and 0s.

2^x+2^y.   is not 1s and 0s.

I may even bet that Oxford dictionary agrees with cambridge on this
one(and umeration scale means number system like binary). Either way,
Oxford isn't disagree with cambridge's definition. Oxford may be
extending that definition of binary in a way i've never seen before,
and in a way that Cambridge dictionary doesn't agree with.  If you are
right in your interpetation of Oxford, then it's not a standard
definition.  The Cambridge one is, it's the common ground.

if one has in mind a product whose capacity or "speed" you are
specifying. Then yes.  But I didn't mean that.. (hence I said quantity
changes)

I meant if one has in mind the possible meanings of , say, 32MB !

The quantity of the unit changes! The number of bytes in the kilobyte
or megabyte.  As in your example.   But also, in my case, if all other
things are kept equal i.e. just changing the convention, keeping 32 of
them-...  32MB in one convention is a different quantity to 32MB in
another convention. So it's not just the quantity of the unit that
changes. It's the quantity of Bytes itself

I wonder .. Before partitioning, how many bytes are on a HDD marketted
as 40GB drive? I guess that HDDs don't have an exact  2^x or 10^x
number of bytes. That's just a guess.
In which case.. The number on the box is an approximation. The number
given by windows, which happens to use a different convention, is more
precise. So in a sense, the reported quantities are different (even in