Window is stealing my HD size

Previously J. Clarke wrote:
Arno Wagner wrote:

Previously J. Clarke wrote:
Impmon wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:42:03 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Nope, the 200G is using decimal GBs, so is 200,000,000,000 bytes.
The 180G is using binary GBs and is 193,273,528,320 bytes

Anyone remember the lawsuit against monitor that the advertised CRT
size is not the actual viewable size?

Any such lawsuit is doomed to fail, as the method of measurement for CRTs
(in the US anyway) is prescribed by statute or regulation (I forget which
now) and the manufacturers have no choice in the matter.

I wonder if someone would try
to bring the lawsuit against hard drive stating advertised size and
actual size don't match. Even though nowday hard drive boxes do state
the disclaimer that advertised size is 1GB = 1,000,000 bytes

No doubt someone has tried it.

As the law requires SI units and prefixes, this is entirely futile.

What law where?

Well, I don't know about your country, but here there are laws on
units and measurements. There are also international treaties. For
example so that you may not write 1kg on you package but that is your
private unit, really equivalent to 800g SI.

Oh, and in most western countries it is illegal (and can be punished
with a fine) to use other measurements in any kind of business
transactions.

Arno

Previously Arno Wagner wrote:
Previously J. Clarke wrote:
Arno Wagner wrote:

[...]

As the law requires SI units and prefixes, this is entirely futile.

What law where?

P.S.: Since 1988 there is an IEC standard for the binary-deived
prefixes as well, and there is zero excuse not to do this correctly
today:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

Of course it takes pople a long time to adjust. See for example some
backward counties that are still not metric in daily life today. But
educated people should at least know that they are doing it wrong.

Arno

"Arno Wagner" wrote in message
Previously J. Clarke wrote:
Arno Wagner wrote:
Previously J. Clarke wrote:
Impmon wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:42:03 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Nope, the 200G is using decimal GBs, so is 200,000,000,000 bytes.
The 180G is using binary GBs and is 193,273,528,320 bytes

Anyone remember the lawsuit against monitor that the advertised CRT
size is not the actual viewable size?

Any such lawsuit is doomed to fail, as the method of measurement for CRTs
(in the US anyway) is prescribed by statute or regulation (I forget which
now) and the manufacturers have no choice in the matter.

I wonder if someone would try to bring the lawsuit against hard drive
stating advertised size and actual size don't match. Even though nowday
hard drive boxes do state the disclaimer that advertised size is 1GB =
1,000,000 bytes

No doubt someone has tried it.

As the law requires SI units and prefixes, this is entirely futile.

What law where?

Well, I don't know about your country, but

here

Which of course needs no further explanation since everybody
knows where babblemouth lives, right: the centre of the world.

there are laws on units and measurements. There are also international
treaties. For example so that you may not write 1kg on you package
but that is your private unit, really equivalent to 800g SI.

Babble, babble, rant.


Oh, and in most western countries it is illegal (and can be punished with
a fine) to use other measurements in any kind of business transactions.

Arno

wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
As the law requires SI units and prefixes, this is entirely futile.

What law where?

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/...ric-conv.html:
"The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 (later amended by the Omnibus Trade
and Competitiveness Act of 1988, the Savings in Construction Act of
1996, and the Department of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization
Act of 2004) designated the metric system as the preferred system of
weights and measures for US trade and commerce, and directed federal
agencies to convert to the metric system, to the extent feasible,
including the use of metric in construction of federal facilities."

"Sec. 205b. Declaration of policy

It is therefore the declared policy of the United States--

[...]
(2) to require that each Federal agency, by a date certain and to the
extent economically feasible by the end of the fiscal year 1992, use
the metric system of measurement in its procurements, grants, and other
business-related activities, except to the extent that such use is
impractical or is likely to cause significant inefficiencies or loss of
markets to United States firms, such as when foreign competitors are
producing competing products in non- metric units;
[...]"


Federal agencies are by law required to deal in SI units. Part of the
SI are the decimal prefixes (like k,M,G etc). See also the NIST
publications about the SI -- there are some quite good ones. Start
he http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/introduction.html.

When federal agencies start manufacturing and selling data storage devices
then that requirement might have some bearing. However at the present time
they mostly manufacture hot air and annoyance, as they have always done, so
I fail to see what bearing such requirements have.

Also interesting in this context may be this:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html -- even though it seems
the involved industries at large would rather remain in the never
ending
confusion as to whether a k means 1000 or 1024 than to standardize on
anything else for 1024.

If you think this isn't a problem, you probably have never worked
between computer programmers (used to the 1024 meaning, like in a
"kilobyte") and communication engineers (used to the 1000 meaning, like
in "kbps" or "kilobits per second"). More of the same:
http://meta.ath0.com/articles/2005/0...lea-for-sanity

Whether it is a problem is irrelevant, what is at issue is whether there is
an applicable statute.

Some more about metrication in the USA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrica..._United_States
http://hpcrd.lbl.gov/staff/olken/metrication.htm

What of them? Where is the relevancy of anything there?



Gerhard

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:

snip
When federal agencies start manufacturing and selling data storage devices
then that requirement might have some bearing. However at the present time
they mostly manufacture hot air and annoyance, as they have always done, so
I fail to see what bearing such requirements have.
snip

Who do you suppose is one of the biggest buyers of disk drives?


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Previously wrote:
Just got a Maxtor Onetouch III 500Gb

Windows reports 465GB capacity (500,105,216,000 bytes), NTFS.
PartitionMagic reports 476,937.5Mb (4K cluster size), NTFS.

Hmmm... next time I buy a car I guess I should assume that legally I
should only get 3.94 wheels supplied with the full package. Hey ho.

You should instead try to understand what the numbers on the device
mean beforehand. And actually you got 500GB, not 500Gb, which is
64GB. And if you wanted 500GiB, then you should have bought that.

Units are not the most easy thing, but they are part of any complete
technical education. The vendor never cheated or even mislead you.

Arno

Previously CJT wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

snip
When federal agencies start manufacturing and selling data storage devices
then that requirement might have some bearing. However at the present time
they mostly manufacture hot air and annoyance, as they have always done, so
I fail to see what bearing such requirements have.
snip

Who do you suppose is one of the biggest buyers of disk drives?

Lets make it even shorter: SI is the law almost anywere on this
planet. The US is just a bit behind.

Arno

I'm sure nobody cheated me (I don't hold the same opinion as some) I'm
not complaining..... much. The situation just needs revising to avoid
consumer confusion. In the meantime I look forward to selling bananas
in units of 0.98

Cheers

Alex

p.s. I'm from the UK BTW.

"Arno Wagner" wrote in message
Previously wrote:
Just got a Maxtor Onetouch III 500Gb

Windows reports 465GB capacity (500,105,216,000 bytes), NTFS.
PartitionMagic reports 476,937.5Mb (4K cluster size), NTFS.

Hmmm... next time I buy a car I guess I should assume that legally I
should only get 3.94 wheels supplied with the full package. Hey ho.

You should instead try to understand what the numbers on the device
mean beforehand.

And actually you got 500GB, not 500Gb,

which is 64GB.

No kidding. 500/8 is 64 in Swissland? Astounding.
I can see now how Swissland is the most forward country in the world.

And if you wanted 500GiB, then you should have bought that.


Units are not the most easy thing, but they are part of any complete
technical education.

Another obvious stupid troll from the babblemouth.

The vendor never cheated or even mislead you.

Arno

Previously wrote:
I'm sure nobody cheated me (I don't hold the same opinion as some) I'm
not complaining..... much. The situation just needs revising to avoid
consumer confusion. In the meantime I look forward to selling bananas
in units of 0.98

Well, from some angle this is what is happening.

Arno