Prev: Installing Firefox4 and Firefox3 in parallel?
Next: Mighty Mouse update
From: David Empson on 31 Jul 2010 17:51
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%'.

How is 1.0995 vs 1.0000 almost exactly 11%? It is 9.95% larger, i.e.
almost 10%.

> 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.

I'm curious to know how you get an extra whole percentage point out of
that ratio.

--
David Empson
dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz
From: Justin C on 31 Jul 2010 18:19
In article <1jmjhw0.i1fsrz1vp7rv5N%dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson wrote:
> 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%'.
>
> How is 1.0995 vs 1.0000 almost exactly 11%? It is 9.95% larger, i.e.
> almost 10%.
>
>> 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.
>
> I'm curious to know how you get an extra whole percentage point out of
> that ratio.

I'd put it down to me being plain old stupid and replying before I
thought about it. Chalk (another) one up to Justin being dumb. I
apologise for the inconvenience, normal service will resume as soon as I
stop posting.

Justin.

--
Justin C, by the sea.
From: Rowland McDonnell on 31 Jul 2010 22:53
David Empson <dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> > David Empson <dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> >
> > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > John wrote:
> > > > > > In the past, all the external HDs I've had, always shown the space
> > > > > > available to be less than the HDs specs. I have just finished
> > > > > > setting up a Lacie D2 Quadra 1TB HD, after getting rid of the
> > > > > > Windows software I have 999.3 GB available. What have they done
> > > > > > different to the HD to achieve this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing.
> > > >
> > > > They have changed the way MacOS X reports disc space.
> > > >
> > > > MacOS X 10.6 shows size in multiples of a thousand rather than powers of
> > > > two, which is what the HD adverts use by way of a capacity spec.
> > > >
> > > > I /think/ this is a new thing for 10.6.
> > >
> > > It is. You have to watch out, though: 10.6 Finder reports capacities in
> > > powers of ten, but third party applications may still be usign powers of
> > > two, resulting in an apparent difference (7% out if the figures are
> > > measured in gigabytes).
> >
> > But what's a gigabyte?
>
> According to Leopard's Finder (and earlier), it is 1073741824 bytes.
>
> According to Snow Leopard's Finder, it is 1000000000 bytes.

Yeah - the point is you've got to find out what they mean. `Freedom' to
American firms like Apple means `the freedom to rip people off with lies
like this'.

> Hence my comment about a 7% difference (actually 7.3741824%), depending
> on whether you are talking about "power of ten" or "power of two"
> gigabytes.
>
> Terabytes are even worse: almost exactly 10% (1099511627776 vs
> 1000000000000).
>
> Megabytes are almost 5%: 1048576 vs 1000000.

4.8576% exactly.

> Kilobytes are about 2%: 1024 vs 1000.

2.4% exactly.

> > 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.

You might well do. There are plenty of readers of this newsgroup who
didn't until they read that, though.

> 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.

Of course its misleading - it's advertising, marketing, lies, lies,
lies.

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Installing Firefox4 and Firefox3 in parallel?
Next: Mighty Mouse update