home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19 / NN_1992_19.iso / spool / comp / benchmar / 1344 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Text File  |  1992-08-30  |  1.2 KB  |  27 lines
  1. Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!jjb
  3. From: jjb@sequent.com (Jeff Berkowitz)
  4. Subject: Re: Disk storage size?
  5. Message-ID: <1992Aug29.223458.28682@sequent.com>
  6. Sender: usenet@sequent.com (usenet )
  7. Nntp-Posting-Host: eng3.sequent.com
  8. Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
  9. References: <0001@umd.edu> <1992Aug19.152525.15741@ornl.gov> <1992Aug19.172246.8264@news.eng.convex.com> <1992Aug24.224751.1471@cadlab.sublink.org>
  10. Distribution: sqnt
  11. Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 22:34:58 GMT
  12. Lines: 13
  13.  
  14. FYI - Sequent used to use the "2^20" definition of "Meg" for disks.
  15. There came a time, however, when a competitive vendor (who I will
  16. not name, so don't ask) was selling the EXACT SAME DISK DRIVES WE
  17. WERE SELLING, but claiming more capacity per drive - because they
  18. were using the "10^6" definition.  That is, they had a few percent
  19. more "megabytes" because they were using a smaller megabyte.
  20.  
  21. So against the best wishes of almost everybody here who had an
  22. opinion, we switched to the "10^6" definition.  Silly as it seemed,
  23. I had to agree that it was unreasonable to ask our salespeople to
  24. explain why our [identical] drives were smaller than their drives.
  25. -- 
  26. Jeff Berkowitz, Sequent Computer Systems   jjb@sequent.com  uunet!sequent!jjb
  27.