> I notice there is always a great disparity between stated hard
> drive capacity and actual usable capacity after formatting.
Not if you use the right maths.
> 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 main problem is that the hard drive manufacturers state the size
in decimal GBs, 1,000,000,000 bytes because that is the SI standard.
Its often shown in binary GBs in the OS, 1,073,741,824 bytes.
You also lose a much smaller amount in the file structures, directorys etc.
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:05:40 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>
>> I notice there is always a great disparity between stated hard
>> drive capacity and actual usable capacity after formatting.
>
>Not if you use the right maths.
>
>> 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 main problem is that the hard drive manufacturers state the size
>in decimal GBs, 1,000,000,000 bytes because that is the SI standard.
>Its often shown in binary GBs in the OS, 1,073,741,824 bytes.
>
Okay - then please tell me. If a hard drive is stated to be say 40GB,
then how much usable space after formatting is to be expected, and
why? And if usable space turns out to be less than that, then why?
TIA
Jethro
>You also lose a much smaller amount in the file structures, directorys etc.
>
Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote
>>> I notice there is always a great disparity between stated hard
>>> drive capacity and actual usable capacity after formatting.
>> Not if you use the right maths.
>>> 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 main problem is that the hard drive manufacturers state the size
>> in decimal GBs, 1,000,000,000 bytes because that is the SI standard.
>> Its often shown in binary GBs in the OS, 1,073,741,824 bytes.
> Okay - then please tell me. If a hard drive is stated to be say 40GB,
> then how much usable space after formatting is to be expected,
Varys with the formatting, FAT32 or NTFS etc.
> and why?
Because the file structures are different with the different formatting.
> And if usable space turns out to be less than that,
No it doesnt except due to the space lost in the last cluster.
> then why?
Because files arent always big enough to fill the last cluster.
>> You also lose a much smaller amount in the file structures, directorys etc.
"Jethro" <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote in message
news:f2npt2dn8gsnvmbiqpuoua0obdtklu426l@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:05:40 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Jethro <Wilson@somewhere.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I notice there is always a great disparity between stated hard
>>> drive capacity and actual usable capacity after formatting.
>>
>>Not if you use the right maths.
>>
>>> 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 main problem is that the hard drive manufacturers state the size
>>in decimal GBs, 1,000,000,000 bytes because that is the SI standard.
>>Its often shown in binary GBs in the OS, 1,073,741,824 bytes.
>>
>
> Okay - then please tell me. If a hard drive is stated to be say 40GB,
> then how much usable space after formatting is to be expected, and
> why? And if usable space turns out to be less than that, then why?
>
Windows will report 37.25 gb if the whole drive is formatted to one
partition (many PCs use 3gb+ for a recovery partition). With 12% for system
restore, around 1gb for pagefile and 1gb for hibernate files and 15% free so
defrag will work well, you don't end up with much usable space!!
On 21 Feb, 22:48, Jethro <Wil...@somewhere.org> 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?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jethro
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. The approximation or
decimal megabyte is just using 10^ instead of 2^.
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.
The 'decimal megabyte' uses the mathemetical term Mega correctly,
since mathematically, Mega=10^6
A Kilobyte is 2^10
Megabyte is 2^20
Gigabyte is 2^30
So a megayte is 1024 kilobytes.
A gigabyte is 1024 megabytes e.t.c.
jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On 21 Feb, 22:48, Jethro <Wil...@somewhere.org> 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?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Jethro
>
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> The 'decimal megabyte' uses the mathemetical term Mega correctly,
> since mathematically, Mega=10^6
>
> A Kilobyte is 2^10
> Megabyte is 2^20
> Gigabyte is 2^30
>
> So a megayte is 1024 kilobytes.
> A gigabyte is 1024 megabytes e.t.c.
>
> The mathematical notation just uses thousands.
> Mega = 10^6
> Giga=10^9
> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html
> e.t.c.
On 23 Feb, 21:02, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > On 21 Feb, 22:48, Jethro <Wil...@somewhere.org> 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?
>
> >> Thanks
>
> >> Jethro
>
> > 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, 2^x cannot even be binary. The number 2 doesn't even exist in
binary.
Perhaps the term base has 2 meanings. Base^Exponent, and base as in
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.
>
> > 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, then I am not convinced that they'd
be sued for understating the specification of their product.
>
> 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.
>> So its a different number system.
>
>No, 2^x cannot even be binary. The number 2 doesn't even exist in
>binary.
>
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.
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.
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.
jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk wrote
>>> Jethro <Wil...@somewhere.org> 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.
> 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.
> Perhaps the term base has 2 meanings.
> Base^Exponent, and base as in 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.
>>> 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 .
Its only MEMORY that has an intrinsically binary organisation
where the binary form is in fact commonly used.
> then I am not convinced that they'd be sued for
> understating the specification of their product.
More fool you.
>> 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.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk <jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> So its a different number system.
>> No, 2^x cannot even be binary. The number 2 doesn't even exist in binary.
> The significant detail is that 1,000,000 being called megabyte is invalid.
Corse it isnt.
> Because byte only exists in a different system, not a decimal
> system, the two different system terms can't be intermixed.
Wrong, as always. Its just a prefix.
> Mega on the other hand, exists in both systems
> so it can be applied to a binary system number.
Pathetic, really. Pity we happen to be discussing MB and GB.
> 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.
Completely off with the fucking fairys, as always.
> Similarly a kilobyte is never 1000, and a byte itself is never 10 bits.
Completely off with the fucking fairys, as always.
> 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.
Like hell it has when the drive manufacturer makes
clear that its using the decimal form of GB.
> It's a shame the matter wasn't pursued more when
> manufactureres first started mislabeling drives,
Nothing 'mislabeling' about using the SI standard prefix and
making it very clear that they are using the decimal form.
> but on the other hand there are better ways to spend the courts' time.
Courts are completely irrelevant. In spades with that sort of
terminally stupid decision made by that particular fool of a judge.
On 24 Feb, 19:37, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk wrote
> >>> Jethro <Wil...@somewhere.org> 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? I go on to explain why it's not a
different number system. You just deny everything.
> > 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.
> > 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.
I don't know what from that wikipedia article contradicts me.
> >>> 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.
My email address has the numbers 3 and 9 in it, yet it isn't
jameshanley00111001 (those are two nibbles).
> 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.
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.
> > 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. I
couldn't care less. I may be amused though.
> >> 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. (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.
Not to all numbers used while discussing computers
On 24 Feb, 19:32, kony <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2007 10:53:56 -0800, "jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk"
>
> <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >On 23 Feb, 21:02, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> So its a different number system.
>
> >No, 2^x cannot even be binary. The number 2 doesn't even exist in
> >binary.
>
> The significant detail is that 1,000,000 being called
> megabyte is invalid.
>
that's true but that's a different point to the one I made
> Because byte only exists in a different system, not a
> decimal system, the two different system terms can't be
> intermixed.
no.. Byte means 8 bits. But you can count bytes in any number system.
And a Byte itself is nothing to do with a number system at all really.
It's an "articificial" unit to count 8 binary digits. It's a concept.
It doesn't really exist dependent or as part of a number system.
Of course, its contents are bits - binary digits! Which is just a way
of writing a number. One could write its value in hex octal or
decimal. I suppose physically it's a component of the binary number
system. But logically it can be represented in any base. I think,
even a number is not a component of a number system, it's only
represented in whichever number system you write it in. A number
system is a system of representing numbers. Nothing is locked into it.
> Mega on the other hand, exists in both systems
> so it can be applied to a binary system number.
>
Indeed. It means 10^6 or if one were wacky enough to write that in
binary.
1010^0110
> 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.
I agree. But that is because CONVENTION is that Mega when used with
Byte, does not mean 10^6, it means 2^20.
> Similarly a
> kilobyte is never 1000, and a byte itself is never 10 bits.
>
that parallel is absurd.
A byte is a byte. 8 bits. Nobody debates this and calls it 10. Ever.
In contrast,
A Kilobyte is 1024 bytes.
But a mathematical Kilobyte (and we nkow what that means) SI, is 1000
Bytes. i.e. 8000 bits. Of course though, a Byte is still 8 bits.
Even by that traditional mathematical definition of Kilo.
(if you were to even attempt to redefine byte instead of the
prefix(kilo,mega), then you'd end up with a different factor or
definition of byte for each prefix. It'd be ridiculouly nobody does
it, nobody would do it. It's not in the same bag as SI units)
> 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.
If this is correct then Ron had it backwards.
But even without seeing an example, if it were the Ron's way around
it'd be totally absurd. "the defendent is guilty of understating the
specification of his product. The complainant was very err !! filled
with guilt!!!!! "
jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk wrote
>>>>> Jethro <Wil...@somewhere.org> 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.
>>> 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
On 25 Feb, 02:18, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk wrote
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk wrote
> >>>>> Jethro <Wil...@somewhere.org> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
why don't you just stick all your comments at the end.
you've written absolute rubbish.
To say that 2^3 is binary is as stupid as saying that
9^2 is not decimal (saying it's base 9).
And this thread was not talking about GHz, but Megabytes. And if you
measure Megabyte as 2^20 as is done, it doesn't mean the number is in
binary.
If you'd ever read of how computers store floating point numbers then
you'd know. It's along the lines of converting the mantissa and
exponent into binary. Because they are not in binary.
I'm sure you know this, but we seem to be having a communication
problem. It's your "style" that's the problem.
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.
On 24 Feb 2007 15:53:59 -0800, "jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk"
<jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On 24 Feb, 19:32, kony <s...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On 24 Feb 2007 10:53:56 -0800, "jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk"
>>
>> <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >On 23 Feb, 21:02, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> So its a different number system.
>>
>> >No, 2^x cannot even be binary. The number 2 doesn't even exist in
>> >binary.
>>
>> The significant detail is that 1,000,000 being called
>> megabyte is invalid.
>>
>
>that's true but that's a different point to the one I made
>
>> Because byte only exists in a different system, not a
>> decimal system, the two different system terms can't be
>> intermixed.
>
>no.. Byte means 8 bits. But you can count bytes in any number system.
Not really, it is an invalid expression to have more than
one system mangled into a single quantity.
>And a Byte itself is nothing to do with a number system at all really.
>It's an "articificial" unit to count 8 binary digits. It's a concept.
>It doesn't really exist dependent or as part of a number system.
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.
>> Similarly a
>> kilobyte is never 1000, and a byte itself is never 10 bits.
>>
>
>that parallel is absurd.
Nope, it would be equally absurd to put byte in front of a
decimal system value. Can't mix two systems in one
expression.
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.
The reason that computer terminology bases it's numbering system around
1,024 is because it's a natural boundary for computers. Since computers use
base 2, 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... 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).
Now, on top of this, the drive must be formatted before it can be used at
all, so some space will always be used by your file system, even on an empty
drive, to keep track of empty drive space, partitions, etc. Also, the
manufacturer uses some of the drive to map sectors, etc. Any empty drive
really isn't empty at all.
"jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk" wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>>
>> Pathetic.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> why don't you just stick all your comments at the end.
What is this silly "Hide/Show quoted text" hung onto your posts?
The quotee (troll Speed) never wrote that. If it is another google
flaw just delete it before sending.
"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 07:11:34 GMT, "Noozer"
<dont.spam@me.here> wrote:
>Forget bits and binary... They aren't really related to the problem here...
>
<snip>
>The reason that computer terminology bases it's numbering system around
>1,024 is because it's a natural boundary for computers. Since computers use
>base 2, ...
On 25 Feb, 07:11, "Noozer" <dont.s...@me.here> wrote:
> Forget bits and binary... They aren't really related to the problem here...
>
> In English,
or maths !
> "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.
it's easy to write in Base 10
> 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.
>
> The reason that computer terminology bases it's numbering system around
> 1,024 is because it's a natural boundary for computers. Since computers use
> base 2, their boundaries are numbers like 8, 16, 32...etc...1024,
I know you know what you mean by natural boudnary, but it's an
artificial term. I'll elaborate on what I think you mean. I woujldn't
invent a term like that.
What you mean by "natural boundary".. Is the range and max number you
can reach with x digits.
It's as natural as us being able to reference 10,000 values -
0....9999 if given 4 decimal digits. But it's not "natural" to be
limited to 4 digits. Infact, it's not natural or unnatural. The term
natural doesn't apply !
what you call "natural boundaries" is more corectly the range or max
num of different values you are limited to when using x digits.
Computer designers don't just say I want to address 1000 memory
locations or 1016 of them. They may say that, then they'll say,
that'll need a minimum of 10 bits , and lo and behold, they can
address 2^10=1024 different locations 0..1023.
it's only limited to a number of digits and looking at the full range
you can reach, and max number of different numbers you can produce,
that you get this.
> 2048...etc...1073741824, 2147483648, 4294967296...etc. Writing these in base
> 2 we can see the pattern... 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.
indeed.
Giga=thousand mega (in byte or maths speak)
And HDD manufacturers use the mathematical meaning. So it's true to
say Giga=billion=thousand million.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk <jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>> kony <s...@spam.com> wrote
>>> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> So its a different number system.
>>>> No, 2^x cannot even be binary. The number 2 doesn't even exist in binary.
>>> The significant detail is that 1,000,000
>>> being called megabyte is invalid.
>> that's true but that's a different point to the one I made
>>> Because byte only exists in a different system, not a decimal
>>> system, the two different system terms can't be intermixed.
>> no.. Byte means 8 bits. But you can count bytes in any number system.
> 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.
>> And a Byte itself is nothing to do with a number system at all really.
>> It's an "articificial" unit to count 8 binary digits. It's a concept. It
>> doesn't really exist dependent or as part of a number system.
> 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.
>>> Similarly a kilobyte is never 1000, and a byte itself is never 10 bits.
>> that parallel is absurd.
> 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.
> 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.
> Now, on top of this, the drive must be formatted before it can be
> used at all, so some space will always be used by your file system,
> even on an empty drive, to keep track of empty drive space,
> partitions, etc. Also, the manufacturer uses some of the drive to map sectors, etc. Any empty
> drive really isn't empty at all.
jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On 25 Feb, 02:18, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk wrote
>>>>>>> Jethro <Wil...@somewhere.org> 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
>>> nothin
Actual hard drive space? 