Main > Everything Else

Seagate to compensate for GB confusion

(1/8) > >>

patrickl:
Wow, didn't know this could actually happen. They have been suing and winning (?) hard disk manufacturers over the confusion of GB in the binary sense (2^30) vs decimal sense (10^9) Which means that a 300GB disk is actually 279GB in filesize.


A Download for Your Troubles: Seagate Hard Drive Settlement Now Online


--- Quote ---Cho v. Seagate was filed in April of 2005 by Sara Cho over claims that Seagate falsely advertised the capacity of their hard drives, overstating it by 7%. The nature of these claims lies in the difference between a gigabyte (1,000,000,000 bytes of 1 GB) and a giga binary byte (1,073,741,824 bytes or 1 GiB), as the abbreviation of “GB” is often used for both.

Seagate has denied and continued to deny both the false advertising claims and the fact that it has harmed anyone, and as of yet the courts have not ruled on the merits of the case.
--- End quote ---

SavannahLion:
HDD manufacturers aren't the only one.

I'm old school. I seriously think that all memory measurements need to be done on the 2^* scale and not the 10^* scale. I'm still royally pissed off that at the CS majors who collectively collapsed to the inane pressures of those who use the 10^* scale and renamed the notations such as giga to gibi.  :angry: :badmood: :angry: :badmood:

So instead of fixating on just ONE ---smurfing--- notation and sticking to it, we have this mismash of ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- up notations where GB could mean anything from 1024MB or 1000MB or neither at all (when overhead is included but not counted). Of all the inane ---smurfing--- retarded dip :censored: moronic third grade subject to commercialism things to do, this is squarely in the top ten of stupid ---Cleveland steamer--- things CSE have done.

Changing ATA to PATA to accomodate SATA is another moronic move. Should've just left it at ATA and added SATA, save everyone the ---smurfing--- confusion.

Go one way, stick to it, and leave it the ---fudgesicle--- alone. If they need to add new technology then go ahead and just do it, don't change old technology terminology mid-beat.

gonzo90017:

--- Quote ---Changing ATA to PATA to accomodate SATA is another moronic move. Should've just left it at ATA and added SATA, save everyone the ---smurfing--- confusion.
--- End quote ---

No wonder.  :o The last time I went to buy a hard drive, I was like where the ---fudgesicle--- are all the ATA drives? All they had was PATA.  :dizzy:

ChadTower:

The mass market has no interest in binary calculations... I've been asked that by a few different people...

"I bought a 300gb drive and it only has 278gb on it!"
"Windows is using a different method to calculate the capacity"
"What?  A gigabyte is a gigabyte, right?"
"doesn't seem that way"

patrickl:
Windows is not using a different way to calculate capacity. All computer software under any OS does it that way. Only the hard disk manufacturers are using "a different way to calculate capacity". Anyway, with some luck they are now forced to use the proper capacity calculation.

Much like the screen diagonal measurement with monitors: What are you complaining about, that tube is 21". "Ehm yeah, but the outer 2" is behind the bezel so I really only get 19".

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version