#### Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary. Now with pictures!

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:58:33 -0800, Robert Heiling

I was getting tired of the thread frankly, how many times

can one rehash this discussion? It's already a giant thread

and in the end it won't cover anything that wasn't covered

in one of the dozens it succeeds.

1024, even if someone does similar to a HDD manufacturer and

tries to round down for misleading specs.

Was it supposed to be a trick question? There are several

references to it,

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Akilobit

In the end there are only two camps - thouse who know how to

use the binary system, and those who either accidentally or

deliberately misused it.

I was getting tired of the thread frankly, how many times

can one rehash this discussion? It's already a giant thread

and in the end it won't cover anything that wasn't covered

in one of the dozens it succeeds.

1024, even if someone does similar to a HDD manufacturer and

tries to round down for misleading specs.

Was it supposed to be a trick question? There are several

references to it,

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Akilobit

In the end there are only two camps - thouse who know how to

use the binary system, and those who either accidentally or

deliberately misused it.

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

kony wrote:

Can't say I blame you as I've reached that point already myself.

That's what I had loosely called a "conspiracy" theory and got at least one

person confused in the process. I don't see how you can call those "misleading

specs" when that usage is well known. Do you personally get taken by surprise

when you find out how many bytes are on that HD you just bought? Of course you

don't. It's only the people who haven't taken efforts to educate themselves who

are surprised that their unfounded assumptions are incorrect.

Nothing trick at all. Just attempting to understand what was behind your

thinking and that appears to be that, if the term is a computer term, then kilo

= 1024.

There are indeed two camps. Those who are informed and those who are not.

Bob

Can't say I blame you as I've reached that point already myself.

That's what I had loosely called a "conspiracy" theory and got at least one

person confused in the process. I don't see how you can call those "misleading

specs" when that usage is well known. Do you personally get taken by surprise

when you find out how many bytes are on that HD you just bought? Of course you

don't. It's only the people who haven't taken efforts to educate themselves who

are surprised that their unfounded assumptions are incorrect.

Nothing trick at all. Just attempting to understand what was behind your

thinking and that appears to be that, if the term is a computer term, then kilo

= 1024.

There are indeed two camps. Those who are informed and those who are not.

Bob

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

kony wrote:

The difference is based on the difference between base 10 (decimal) and

base 2 (binary). You are correct in that 1 kilo is 1,000 in decimal.

But for base 2, 1 kilo is an approximation of the number 2^10 and used

in computing since counting in computers is binary in nature. "Kilo" in

this context is 2^10 or 1024 bytes. 1 megabyte for computers is not

1,000,000 bytes, but is actually a "decimalized" approximation of the

2^20 or 1,048,576 bytes. Likewise, for gigabytes (2^30 vs. 1,000,000,000).

Manufacturers took the opportunity to state the capacity of their drives

in base 10 numbers, not base 2.

Its just the way it is.

The difference is based on the difference between base 10 (decimal) and

base 2 (binary). You are correct in that 1 kilo is 1,000 in decimal.

But for base 2, 1 kilo is an approximation of the number 2^10 and used

in computing since counting in computers is binary in nature. "Kilo" in

this context is 2^10 or 1024 bytes. 1 megabyte for computers is not

1,000,000 bytes, but is actually a "decimalized" approximation of the

2^20 or 1,048,576 bytes. Likewise, for gigabytes (2^30 vs. 1,000,000,000).

Manufacturers took the opportunity to state the capacity of their drives

in base 10 numbers, not base 2.

Its just the way it is.

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

No, kilo is 1000 in any base. If you want to refer to 2^10, thats a kibi

(kilo binary)!! A kilobyte is 1,000 bytes a kibibyte is 1024 bytes.

No, kilo in any context is 1000, never 1024.

Yes it is. Mega means 1,000,000

No, Mega is not an approximation of anything. Mega is 1,000,000. A mebibyte

(mega binary byte) is 2^20 or 1048576. Likewise, giga is 10^9 and Gibi (giga

binary) is 2^30.

That's their choice and they are using the correct terminology, it is simply

confusing and being misinterpretted by lots of people in the computing

field.

True!

Kony, Cal, everyone:

What we refer to as a 100GB hard disk can hold 100,000,000,000 bytes. This

number can be abbreviated to 100x10^9 bytes. 10^9 can be written as Giga, so

we can further abbreviate the figure to 100 Gigabytes (or even 0.1

TeraBytes). This is mathematically accurate, so would you prefer that that

hard disk label said something else? What else could it possibly say?

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

Can't have it both ways, either 1000 is limited to a decimal

only definition, or it is invalid in binary.

In the end, use of a different base to express a quantity

MUST NECESSARILY be expressing the same quantity, not

something rounded off (unless it is expressly stated to be

rounded off).

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

Are you seriously saying we can only use the number 1000 if we count in

decimal?!? Funny, but I can count 1000 units of anything in any base!!

Well, stop rounding it then - you're the one saying 10^3 = 1024!

Using decimal (base 10) to count any quantity is valid. There is nothing

wrong with writing 1000 bytes - this is a quantity. Given that 1000 is

entirely equivalent to 10^3, we can express the exact same quantity (no

rounding) as 10^3 bytes. Given that kilo is DEFINED as 10^3, then we can

express the exact same quantity, without rounding, as 1 (base10) kilobyte.

Therefore, 1 kilobyte = 1000 bytes.

I failed to clarify something in an earlier post as I was distracted by

talking about the number 1000 rather than the prefix kilo. The term kilo

means 10^3. This is the mathematical definition of Kilo and is independant

of base. In any base, 10^3 is valid - it means 1 unit from the second

'column' multiplied by itself 3 times. We are all familiar with the decimal

usage, kilo means 1 unit from the second column (base10) 10 cubed = (base10)

1000. In binary this still means 1 unit from the second column (base2) 10

cubed = (base2) 1000, which in decimal is 8. In hexidecimal this means 1

unit from the second column (base16) 10 cubed = (base16) 1000, which in

decimal is 4096.

So with all this in mind, please show us your calculation that demonstrates

1 kilobyte = 1024 bytes, without rounding?

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

That's the definition of it period. The numerical base doesn't matter, 1000

is 1000. and the dictionary definition of kilo is 10^3 = 1000. A byte is

simply a unit and can be quantified using any numerical base system.

Tell me at which step this statement goes wrong:

We can count bytes using any base including decimal? So it is valid to write

1 byte, or 5 bytes, or 1000 bytes, or 1024 bytes? If it is valid to write

1000 bytes, then we can abbreviate that number using the SI prefix kilo, so

instead of writing 1000 bytes, we can write 1KB. If we want to shorten 1024

bytes, we can write 1.024 KB.

I suspect that you will find fault with the statement that 1000bytes can be

shortened to 1KB. You will say something about it not being relevant to mix

a binary term with decimal, but we are not mixing any binary and decimal

terms. The word byte is the unit and refers to a collection of 8 bits, each

of which can be in one state at a time. a bit is a binary digit, but that is

irrelevant to the quantity. We can quantify bytes using any numerical base

and the term K means 10^3. So 1000 is simply a quantity of bytes, we can

write that 1000 in any base (see below). If we are using a decimal system,

then 1000 IS 1K, so if the units being quantitifies are bytes, then 1000

bytes = 1Kbyte.

Its perfectly valid to count any units (including bytes) using decimal,

binary, hexidecimal - we are simply expressing a quantity. Why do you not

conceed that any number is valid in binary, decimal or hex? Lets take the

base 10 number 16. This can be written like this:

Binary (base 2) - 10000

Octal (base 8) - 20

Decimal (base 10) - 16.

Hex (base 16) - 10

The units that we are actually counting are irrelivant. That might be 16

apples, 16 cars, 16 bits, 16 bytes, or 16 houses. It doesn't matter what the

units are. Any quantity can be written in binary, decimal or any other base

and is the same quantity.

A valid expression would always state the exact same quantity. Here is a

valid expression: kilo = 10^3. This can be written as 1000 in base 10. Lets

write 1000 in other bases:

base 2 = 1,111,101,000

base 8 = 1750

base 10 = 1000

base 16 = 3E8

Are you telling us that the translation from decimal 1000 to binary is not

1,111,101,000? Are you telling us that it is actually 10,000,000,000? Can

you please show us your working for this incorrect conversion.

Might I suggest that what you are actually saying is that it is not valid to

use the pre-fixes kilo, mega etc in reference to storage space in computing,

but relevant to everything else in the entire universe?

## Re: Actual hard drive space?

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22western+digital%22+%22class+action%22

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.

Corse they arent when the datasheet says quite explicity

how many bytes the drive is guaranteed to contain.

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.

#### Site Timeline

- » Newest MemTest86, MemTest86+ incompatible with Sandy, Ivy chipsets?
- — Next thread in » Computer Hardware

- » Advice on printer/scanner/fax please
- — Previous thread in » Computer Hardware

- » hardware, UEFI, dual-boot, USBstik ?
- — Newest thread in » Computer Hardware

- » HTML 5 validation software?
- — The site's Newest Thread. Posted in » HTML Authoring Forum