home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!mips!darwin.sura.net!wupost!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!uka!uka!news
- From: S_JUFFA@iravcl.ira.uka.de (|S| Norbert Juffa)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
- Subject: Re: Disk storage size?
- Date: 19 Aug 1992 15:47:13 GMT
- Organization: University of Karlsruhe (FRG) - Informatik Rechnerabt.
- Lines: 24
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <16tqe1INNd6t@iraul1.ira.uka.de>
- References: <0001@umd.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: irav1.ira.uka.de
- X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23
- In-Reply-To: pc@umd.edu's message of 18 Aug 92 19:14:21 GMT
-
- In <0001@umd.edu> pc@umd.edu writes:
-
- >
- >
- > When people talk about 200MB disk, do they mean 200x1,000,000 byte, or
- > 200x1024x1024 ? When talk about the RAM, people seems use 1k=1024, but
- > when go to disk, it is metric. Is this always the case?
-
-
- Actually, I think the use of a 'metric' megabyte has been introduced by a
- clever disk manufacturer to make his disks seem larger. Over time, many of
- the other disk manufacturers have followed suite. Most people don't know
- about the two ways to compute the disk capacity, so when looking at two
- disks, one having 210 MB (using the 'metric' megabyte) and the other having
- 200 MB (using the correct size of a megabyte) and selling for the same
- price, they go of course for the 'bigger' one. This has led to endless
- confusion. Quite a few people have called me up and asked why and where they
- had lost so much disk space, when in reality they only had run some utility
- that reported the correct size of the disk which was smaller than the inflated
- size given by the manufacturer.
-
- Norbert
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Norbert Juffa email: S_JUFFA@IRAVCL.IRA.UKA.DE Live and let live!
-