Prev: Installing Firefox4 and Firefox3 in parallel?
Next: Mighty Mouse update
From: J. J. Lodder on 31 Jul 2010 10:04
Richard Kettlewell <rjk(a)greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) writes:
> > Yes, I know all that.
> >
> > I happen to think the use of power-of-ten capacities was misleading,
> > because the sector sizes and hence units of allocation are actually
> > powers of two.
>
> We measure RAM in binary units, leading to the somewhat curious effect
> that a megabyte in RAM won't fit into a disk vendor's short megabyte.
>
> RAM vendors don't seem to feel any need to advertize in the smaller
> units, it's a pity disk vendors didn't take a lesson from them.

No, it's the same muddle.
You don't know without looking
how many bytes will fit on a 256 GB SSD,

Jan
From: Justin C on 31 Jul 2010 09:26
In article <1jmir5z.b5g3d453e9muN%dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson wrote:
>
> Terabytes are even worse: almost exactly 10% (1099511627776 vs
> 1000000000000).

That's actually closer to 'almost exactly 11%'.

I can't help being pedantic about this, especially seeing as we're
talking of being short-changed by disk vendors. Actually, I don't think
that I am being pedantic, that's a gross error of reporting and I am
correcting it.

Justin.

--
Justin C, by the sea.
From: J. J. Lodder on 31 Jul 2010 10:14
Justin C <justin.1007(a)purestblue.com> wrote:

> In article <1jmir5z.b5g3d453e9muN%dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson wrote:
> >
> > Terabytes are even worse: almost exactly 10% (1099511627776 vs
> > 1000000000000).
>
> That's actually closer to 'almost exactly 11%'.
>
> I can't help being pedantic about this, especially seeing as we're
> talking of being short-changed by disk vendors.

Right! Sue them!
(and Americans being what they are
they did just that)
It did change the letters on the boxes somewhat.

Jan
From: Richard Kettlewell on 31 Jul 2010 11:24
nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <rjk(a)greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>> We measure RAM in binary units, leading to the somewhat curious
>> effect that a megabyte in RAM won't fit into a disk vendor's short
>> megabyte.
>>
>> RAM vendors don't seem to feel any need to advertize in the smaller
>> units, it's a pity disk vendors didn't take a lesson from them.
>
> No, it's the same muddle.
> You don't know without looking
> how many bytes will fit on a 256 GB SSD,

That's not RAM; at least, not in the relevant sense.

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
From: Woody on 31 Jul 2010 17:17
David Empson <dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:

> > Don't forget that MS-DOS 1.44MB floppies are just like Mac 1.4MB
> > floppies - only the Mac capacity is measured in multiples of 1024 x
> > 1024, while the MS-DOS capacity is measured in multiples of 1024 x 1000.
> >
> > Honest.
>
> Yes, I know all that.
>
> I happen to think the use of power-of-ten capacities was misleading,
> because the sector sizes and hence units of allocation are actually
> powers of two.

Is it relevant what the measurement is, as long as it is the same
measurement for all of them?

It isn't like memory that makes actual sense, in that 1000 bytes of
memory on a mac / PC or whatever, can take 1000 bytes.

How much a disk can contain is entirely relative to what disk format,
what operating system etc, before you even get onto how it is measured.

As a result, you can say that a 200GB disk is 'about twice' as big as a
100GB disk, but that is about the only really useful way of measuring
it.

--
Woody

www.alienrat.com
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Installing Firefox4 and Firefox3 in parallel?
Next: Mighty Mouse update