The KB fight

[knowledgegranted]

Well, we all hate HardDrive manufacturers taking advantage of us with their 1kb = 1000b crap. When really 1kb = 1024b.

But what happend to the word kilo? Why would they use kilo in this instance if it is totally wrong. So in a way harddrive manufacturers really are correct in this matter.

[FuzzyPlushroom]

There's been a push by the IEC for nearly a decade to call exponents-of-1024 "kibi", "mebi", "gibi", "tebi", and so forth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibibyte), but nobody ever seems to listen.

[Zephik]

The only problem I have is when you buy a supposedly 500GB hard drive when in reality you are getting only like 465GB or something like that. Its pretty much false advertising. If they are going to use this standard, then they should advertise by that standard.

[NightrainSrt4]

Except the standard they are using is far older than the 1GB = 1024MB. kilo/mega/giga have ALWAYS been base 10.

When the OS/pc industry took off, memory and storage were at such small levels that the differences were almost indistinguishable. They just didn't have the foresight to see that we would have such big discrepancies today.

OS 10.6 switched over to a base 10 system. So your hard drive reads the full capacity. What many don't realize is that all their apps and data take up "more space" than they did before.

[knowledgegranted]

I find these to be no confusing but really annoying cause you really don't know what you are buying. I'm gonna start a poll in 2 mins.

[Xpirate]

I'm just glad that the LCD monitors have ended the 18" monitors (with the small print showing 17.1" viewable)

Now we just need some technology that will end the kilobyte = 1000 bytes once and for all.

[si-skyline]

I guess the reason why it has stuck the way it was because it would get complacated in totting up space.

in the example above 6 x 500gb is quick to see 3000gb where as 6 x 512gb is a little harder. Plus if you see a hard drive what says 342gb a average buyer would be thinking what a odd number.

The bigger reason why its not changed because its hard to say how much useable space you will have after formatting and other options on a disk.

This is why I always say to people this drive will give you a extra 500GB advertsed space as I have had people complain of rip offs and such before. Its not funny when you get into the big storage solutions and there are whole disk drives lost to the conversion.

[Mark_Hardware]

Yeah, like my 2tb hdd that shows up as 1.86tb. That's a fair difference.

[mtekk]

I'm just glad that the LCD monitors have ended the 18" monitors (with the small print showing 17.1" viewable)

Now we just need some technology that will end the kilobyte = 1000 bytes once and for all.

Uh, 1 KiloByte = 1000 bytes and will always be that way. CD's have it wrong, DVD's have it right, Blu-ray have it right, hard drive makers have it right. We need MS to step up to the plate, as it looks like Apple has, and fix Windows' definition of kilo.

[slaveofconvention]

I suppose it comes down to this - has kilobyte become a word in it's own right, with it's own meaning - or is it still kilo byte - doesn't really matter - nothing is going to change lol - MS never listens to anyone, and the HD manufacturers would have to all change over simultaneously to avoid any one of them looking like thier drives are bigger or smaller than anyone elses...

[chaksq]

I've noticed some linux distros seem to be using a 10 base system as well. My netbook running an ubuntu variant reports everything as marked capacity not slightly less like my windows machines.

[Xpirate]

Hard drives also have the problem of formatting. Manufacturers advertise the non-formatted capacity of their drives. It would be tedious to make and read a list on every hard drive for how all of the different types of drive formatting and operating systems will display the space. But I suppose they could list the major OS's and formats.

[NightrainSrt4]

I always find it funny how many people, not necessarily here, think the hard drive manufacturers should change, when it is so much more simple to implement the change on a software based level.

Just change the way the OS reports the space to the user. Then the only difference would be when file downloads still report the old size of files, they would be just marginally bigger (in appearance) once you downloaded them. It solves the issue and is essentially transparent to the user.

[TheGreatSatan]

I would be fine with them changing the packaging to read the actual capacity. So instead of saying 500GB, it should say 465GB or whatever that equates to

[FuzzyPlushroom]

I have to wonder why they don't design the drives to have 500 real gigabytes, one real terabyte, and so forth of capacity. Come on, just a little denser, guys.

It would allow a manufacturer to advertise "the first honestly labelled hard drive!" too.

[mtekk]

I have to wonder why they don't design the drives to have 500 real gigabytes, one real terabyte, and so forth of capacity. Come on, just a little denser, guys.

It would allow a manufacturer to advertise "the first honestly labelled hard drive!" too.

Uh, they do. My 250GB drive is 250,892,775,424 bytes in size, that is just over 250 "real" gigabytes. Silly Windows thinks that kilo = 1024, mega = 1024^2, giga = 1024^3 and tera = 1024^4. When in reality kilo = 1000, mega = 1000^2, giga = 1000^3 and tera = 1000^4, it's an SI standard.

[TheGreatSatan]

Does thee same thing happen in Macs or Linux?

[NightrainSrt4]

Yes, pretty much every OS reads them the same, at least from my experience.

OS 10.6 (mac) swapped over to base 10, so the hard drive DOES read as 500GB, if it is a 500GB drive. But all the apps and such take up slightly more space. So something that is 1.0MB would read as like 1.07MB or whatever. Doing quick numbers in my head so don't quote me on that, just real quick like, watching House lmafo.

To the user, they have a 500GB hard drive, not a 460ish drive.

[x88x]

Or hey, maybe if the manufacturers would just put a warning label:
1GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes
..oh wait...they do.
:P

Sorry, I just think it's ridiculous that everyone gets so upset over it. It's honestly never gonna be a significant amount in single drives. I mean, yes, in my 1.5TiB drives I "lose" ~130GB, but in context that's not any worse than "losing" 100MB in a 2.0MiB drive. Sure, it's more marked in enterprise stuff, with lots and lots of separate drives in the equation, but there nobody's confused, because the people who have to deal with it know exactly what's going on. Personally I just accept that what I'm getting doesn't have much to do with what they're advertising, and try to ignore the whole thing.

It's like all those crap "Politically Correct" terms they shove down our throats. Oh no, somebody might be confused/offended, so let's call it something else. It's still a lame horse, no matter how much you try and call it a mobility-challenged quadrupedal mammal. No matter what anybody decides to call it, a 250,892,775,424 byte HDD is always gonna be a 250,892,775,424 HDD. I look forward to the day when storage is so massive and cheap that nobody really gives a crap, and just throws stuff into a digital bag of holding...on the other hand, I have 6TiB sitting on my desk right now, and backblaze.com offers unlimited storage for $5/mo (no affiliation, it's just a good illustration of my point), so with any luck, that day will soon be upon us.

[/RANT]

In other news, several SSD manufacturers have actually started to label their drives closer the their GiB capacity, rather than their GB capacity.

[mtekk]

In other news, several SSD manufacturers have actually started to label their drives closer the their GiB capacity, rather than their GB capacity.

Most solid state devices use kilo = 1024, including RAM and flash (for the most part, unfortunately, I've seen flash go both ways).

[x88x]

Most solid state devices use kilo = 1024, including RAM and flash (for the most part, unfortunately, I've seen flash go both ways).

I didn't say they use kilo=1000, just that they report a figure closer to what you end up seeing, such as 60GB drives instead of 64. It's the same amount of storage, they just actually advertise what you actually see.

[mtekk]

I didn't say they use kilo=1000, just that they report a figure closer to what you end up seeing, such as 60GB drives instead of 64. It's the same amount of storage, they just actually advertise what you actually see.

Which would mean they are now reporting the incorrect, base 2 version (kilo = 1024). 64GB is the base 10 size and ~60GiB is the base 2 size.

[x88x]

Which would mean they are now reporting the incorrect, base 2 version (kilo = 1024). 64GB is the base 10 size and ~60GiB is the base 2 size.

I'll let them speak for themselves.

http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/flash_drives/ocz_vertex_series_sata_ii_2_5-ssd



Available in 30GB (32), 60GB (64), 120GB (128 ), 250GB (256) capacities*

*Consumers may see a discrepancy between reported capacity and actual capacity; the storage industry standard is to display capacity in decimal. However, the operating system usually calculates capacity in binary format, causing traditional HDD and SSD to show a lower capacity in Windows. In the case of SSDs, some of the capacity is reserved for formatting and redundancy for wear leveling. These reserved areas on an SSD may occupy up to 5% of the drive’s storage capacity. On the Vertex Series the naming convention reflects this and the 30 is equivalent to 32GB, the 60 is equivalent to the 64GB and so on.

[crenn]

I have 5x 1TB drives, and 1x 500GB Drive. I don't care really, it's storage, if you want to know how much you lose, you get roughly 93.1% of the 'rated capacity'. If you also want to complain about hard drive manufacturers, better do the same with ISPs. I'm on a 60GB plan.... I actually get 60000MB (58.59GB).

[FuzzyPlushroom]

Uh, they do. My 250GB drive is 250,892,775,424 bytes in size, that is just over 250 "real" gigabytes. Silly Windows thinks that kilo = 1024, mega = 1024^2, giga = 1024^3 and tera = 1024^4. When in reality kilo = 1000, mega = 1000^2, giga = 1000^3 and tera = 1000^4, it's an SI standard.

Sorry. I meant "why not design a hard drive that's actually 549.7 GB so that it shows up as a legitimate 500GB drive in Windows?"

[slaveofconvention]

Sorry. I meant "why not design a hard drive that's actually 549.7 GB so that it shows up as a legitimate 500GB drive in Windows?"

Business... Because if, for example, Seagate started selling 550GB hard disks as 500GB hard disks, they'd lose a fortune to, for example, Western Digital who'd market an identical Drive as 550GB.

Mr Joe Public would walk into the computer shop with his usual lack of a real clue, see Seagate 500GB sitting next to WD 550GB for the same price, and walk about with the WD....