• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is a 1.0 TB Hard drive false advertising?

Quasmo

Quasmo

Diamond Member
So hard drive manufacturers started releasing "1.0 TB" Hard drives that actually show up in windows as 931 GBs. Should Hard drive manufacturers start making drives that are actually 1.0 TBs now that they've reached a new plataeu?

I'm sick of this "false" advertising.

As of now the 1 TB drives that ship in reality need another 100GBs to actually show up as a 1 TB drive in windows, that's almost 10% of the drive itself.

I'm saying that now that they've hit a new era in hard drives they should start making them with a more accurate measurement.
 
Its been beaten to death. Somewhere on the box it says "1 tb in 1,000,000mb theoretical gb, not actual real-world mb."
 
Originally posted by: Pathogen03
Its been beaten to death. Somewhere on the box it says "1 tb in 1,000,000mb theoretical gb, not actual real-world mb."
Click to expand...

See thats the difference, on the new boxes it says that 1 TB = 1000GBs that's what pissed me off.
 
I think it is a little misleading, but generally speaking, it is a moot point to me. If I am so close to the limits that a 70 MB overhead will effect me I need to buy more drives anyways.

To me it is like when companies say "for under two thousand dollars" and the product is 1999.99 before tax. Especially since it is the computer software that is the one that is technically breaking from normal metric, not the manufacturer.
 
Originally posted by: Tsaico
I think it is a little misleading, but generally speaking, it is a moot point to me. If I am so close to the limits that a 70 MB overhead will effect me I need to buy more drives anyways.

To me it is like when companies say "for under two thousand dollars" and the product is 1999.99 before tax. Especially since it is the computer software that is the one that is technically breaking from normal metric, not the manufacturer.
Click to expand...

You're loosing 70GBs not MB
 
For most things computer related, the binary approximations of the SI prefixes are used, but for hard drives they aren't. I think the binary approximations should be used in all cases, but some people disagree. In any event, it's not really false advertising.
 
Originally posted by: ViviTheMage
Originally posted by: amdhunter
Originally posted by: ViviTheMage
blame windows!
Click to expand...

Eh? Do other operating systems not have the same lossof space?
Click to expand...

yes, but it is easier to just point my finger at SOMEONE..and its generally windows.
Click to expand...

No, many people really do blame Windows for using the "incorrect" definition of MB/GB, even though the Windows definition makes a lot more sense in the context of computers.

Someone came up with abbreviations for the binary approximations of SI prefixes - KiB, MiB, GiB - you've probably seen them around. I refuse to use them out of spite. Bunch of pedants getting their panties in a wad. 😛
 
Originally posted by: Syringer
This is the STUPIDEST topic known to mankind in the history of the world. Get the fck over it.
Click to expand...

There's a saying that comes to mind, it relates a pot to a kettle and involves the color black.
 
Originally posted by: ViviTheMage
what IS the purpose of removing a certain % of the space? Is it about 2-3% that the drive 'removes' or put as overhead?
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that every time we go to a higher plateau we loose more and more of a % off of the drive.
 
They should denote the binary unit using a different name since the "Giga" prefix by definition is base10. The "GiB = 1024 MiB" convention that's already in place should work fine, but I guess it's not good for marketing to change over.
 
Originally posted by: Quasmo
Originally posted by: ViviTheMage
what IS the purpose of removing a certain % of the space? Is it about 2-3% that the drive 'removes' or put as overhead?
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that every time we go to a higher plateau we loose more and more of a % off of the drive.
Click to expand...

arr landlubber, ye be wrong in your addin' n' subtractin', harr
 
Originally posted by: Quasmo
Originally posted by: ViviTheMage
what IS the purpose of removing a certain % of the space? Is it about 2-3% that the drive 'removes' or put as overhead?
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that every time we go to a higher plateau we loose more and more of a % off of the drive.
Click to expand...

you sure? I think it has been withing 2-5% .. roughly.

It may depend on the manuf. but I have no proof of that.
 
Originally posted by: Quasmo
Originally posted by: ViviTheMage
what IS the purpose of removing a certain % of the space? Is it about 2-3% that the drive 'removes' or put as overhead?
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that every time we go to a higher plateau we lose more and more of a % off of the drive.
Click to expand...

The percentage stays the same, does it not?

Fixed, btw. 😉
 
Originally posted by: ViviTheMage
what IS the purpose of removing a certain % of the space? Is it about 2-3% that the drive 'removes' or put as overhead?
Click to expand...

That has to do with stuff like master file tables, file system (ntfs, fat, ext) overhead, etc. The bigger the drive is, the bigger that overhead is.
 
Originally posted by: clickynext
They should denote the binary unit using a different name since the "Giga" prefix by definition is base10. The "GiB = 1024 MiB" convention that's already in place should work fine, but I guess it's not good for marketing to change over.
Click to expand...

Giga is by definition base10 in the context of SI units. Byte is not an SI unit. The thing about languages is that they evolve. Over the last 25 years the SI prefixes have evolved to mean their binary equivalents in the context of computers. I'll be damned if I'm ever going to say "gibibyte." (And I'd wager that even the people who use GiB on the interweb say gigabyte in real life)

🙂
 
As of now the 1 TB drives that ship in reality need another 100GBs to actually show up as a 1 TB drive in windows, that's almost 10% of the drive itself.

I'm saying that now that they've hit a new era in hard drives they should start making them with a more accurate measurement.
 
Originally posted by: Quasmo
As of now the 1 TB drives that ship in reality need another 100GBs to actually show up as a 1 TB drive in windows, that's almost 10% of the drive itself.

I'm saying that now that they've hit a new era in hard drives they should start making them with a more accurate measurement.
Click to expand...

Then they would have to sell 1075GB drives, and no one would know why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top