Today in 2008, how are HD makers still get away with the number scam?

[torpid]

I thought the monitor issue was that some monitors have a non viewable area on the screen itself, not that they were including the housing...

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: E equals MC2

Originally posted by: sdifox
get over it...it is not the hardware maker's fault.

THEN? They make the drives and packaging but the numbers NEVER register as advertised in neither windows or mac platform.

You guys need to calm down. I know how the numbering differs. But that doesn't excuse the makers to to be misleading.

At the end of the fvcking day, that 200 GB an avg consumer bought as written on the box is just 176~. WTF do you call that?

It was caused by software people since they started using SI nomenclature for non SI units. How is that the hardware maker's fault? Blame Microsoft if you want to blame someone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk

PS Judging by your latest posts, You seem to bottle up a lot of anger, let it go and you will live happier.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: torpid
I thought the monitor issue was that some monitors have a non viewable area on the screen itself, not that they were including the housing...

it was an issue with tube size vs viewable area. In the US, TVs had to be labelled 27" if the viewable area is 27" even if the tube is 29".

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: torpid
I thought the monitor issue was that some monitors have a non viewable area on the screen itself, not that they were including the housing...

it was an issue with tube size vs viewable area. In the US, TVs had to be labelled 27" if the viewable area is 27" even if the tube is 29".

Isn't that the same thing I said, or is there some difference that I don't understand?

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: torpid
I thought the monitor issue was that some monitors have a non viewable area on the screen itself, not that they were including the housing...

it was an issue with tube size vs viewable area. In the US, TVs had to be labelled 27" if the viewable area is 27" even if the tube is 29".

Isn't that the same thing I said, or is there some difference that I don't understand?

just adding back history...

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
I guess that's the difference between MB/GB and MiB/GiB.

i've never heard of measuring screen size by adding in the border.

A 17" CRT, for instance, typically says 16" viewable. I do remember a 15" CRT that said 13.8" viewable. LCDs are measured differently (i.e. correctly).

LCD doesn't have the masking issue that is why it does not need to say x" viewable.

 

[daveshel]

It all started with lumber. Ever measure a 2x4?

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: daveshel
It all started with lumber. Ever measure a 2x4?

You are telling me a 2x4 really isnt 2 inches by 4 inches?

The revelations revealed in this thread are epic wins for sure

/end sarcasm

 

[KentState]

Originally posted by: daveshel
It all started with lumber. Ever measure a 2x4?

How about going back to when measurements where based on the length of some kings foot?

 

[randay]

learn2mathsnoob

 

[Insomniator]

I dont care, consumers don't care. I think most people just know the deal or assume it's like the operating system taking up that much space.

Its not like hard drives are expensive.. 500 gigs for 130 bucks I dont really care if its only 460.

 

[SSSnail]

It's not the drives manufacturer, if you know CHS (or LBA), they don't lie. It's the formating that's taking up that space.

 

[Arkaign]

Heh, a 1.44 floppy is actually only 1.38 usable.

That said, I wish the 'usable' size of the disk was advertised on the box.

IBM/Hitachi are among the best in this category, AFAIK, I remember having weird stuff like a ~41gb hard drive, a far cry from 37.5gb or whatever that I got with Seagate/WD.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: pontifex
isn't it still the same reason for HDs? i forget thew exact reason, but its like how the pc reads the drive or something?

i've never heard of measuring screen size by adding in the border.

Yeah back when CRT monitors were the shit, they measured the monitors including the borders (CRT monitors had big borders). I have a 17" CRT monitor back home which actually only has a ~15" viewing screen.

They did not measure including the plastic borders. They measured the over size of the picture tube, which is always partially obscured by the borders. That has been common practice since the very beginning of CRT technology.

ZV

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
It's not the drives manufacturer, if you know CHS (or LBA), they don't lie. It's the formating that's taking up that space.

This is not true at all. Space taken do to "Formatting", really meaning the File System, is negligible on modern drives. This hasn't been a viable excuse since the days of floppy disks, when 30KB was a big deal.

This started decades ago, possibly as a marketing gag, or possibly just by accident since the difference wasn't a big margin of error in the early days. Compare:
100,000 bytes and 100KB
102,400 actual bytes
This is a lot less noticeable than the difference between:
100,000,000,000 bytes and 100GB
107,374,182,400 actual bytes.

As I like to shout at work sometimes,
MATH!!!!!
<inhale>

No one is willing to be first in changing it, because it'll make their products appear to suddenly be "smaller." This will continue to confuse noobs until the end of time.

 

[biggestmuff]

Damn, dude. Stop whining. DOes someone need to post a third link to help you understand. I think all HDD packaging has an explanation as well.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: Foxery

Originally posted by: SSSnail
It's not the drives manufacturer, if you know CHS (or LBA), they don't lie. It's the formating that's taking up that space.

This is not true at all. Space taken do to "Formatting", really meaning the File System, is negligible on modern drives. This hasn't been a viable excuse since the days of floppy disks, when 30KB was a big deal.

This started decades ago, possibly as a marketing gag, or possibly just by accident since the difference wasn't a big margin of error in the early days. Compare:
100,000 bytes and 100KB
102,400 actual bytes
This is a lot less noticeable than the difference between:
100,000,000,000 bytes and 100GB
107,374,182,400 actual bytes.

As I like to shout at work sometimes,
MATH!!!!!
<inhale>

No one is willing to be first in changing it, because it'll make their products appear to suddenly be "smaller." This will continue to confuse noobs until the end of time.

Answer me this, how much % of total disk space will NTFS reserve for the MFT?

 

[Modelworks]

It would only be a scam if they didn't print it right there on the package how they are measuring it.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: daveshel
It all started with lumber. Ever measure a 2x4?

You are telling me a 2x4 really isnt 2 inches by 4 inches?

The revelations revealed in this thread are epic wins for sure

/end sarcasm

Exactly.

Though I have worked on a few houses that were old enough to have actual 2X4 lumber.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: daveshel
It all started with lumber. Ever measure a 2x4?

You are telling me a 2x4 really isnt 2 inches by 4 inches?

The revelations revealed in this thread are epic wins for sure

/end sarcasm

Exactly.

Though I have worked on a few houses that were old enough to have actual 2X4 lumber.

heh yeah i was going to say 2x4 used to actually be 2 inches by 4 inches!



anyway it amazes me when people do not understand why teh size is comeing up diffrent. well unless they are complete newbs.

 

[imported_Lothar]

It's only a scam if you're an idiot.

 

[eelw]

Last that I checked, this is a tech forum. Why the hell are people still complaing about binary vs decimal??????

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: E equals MC2

Originally posted by: sdifox
get over it...it is not the hardware maker's fault.

THEN? They make the drives and packaging but the numbers NEVER register as advertised in neither windows or mac platform.

You guys need to calm down. I know how the numbering differs. But that doesn't excuse the makers to to be misleading.

At the end of the fvcking day, that 200 GB an avg consumer bought as written on the box is just 176~. WTF do you call that?

It's not a scam.

In metric,
Kilo = 1000,
Mega = 1,000,000
Giga = 1,000,000,000

Then some yokel noticed that in binary, 1024 is "about" 1000, and so they figured that they'd call it a "kilo" byte. And it's all been downhill since then.

Just because you can't understand the system doesn't mean it's broken.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: daveshel
It all started with lumber. Ever measure a 2x4?

It's a man thing to overstate the size of our lumber. Same thing for our hard-drives.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: waggy
heh yeah i was going to say 2x4 used to actually be 2 inches by 4 inches!

i think the 2" by 4" is just the pre-planed and dried size. i would guess that it's first cut 2" by 4", then dry it so it shrinks, then they plane to it to 1.5" x 3.5".