Lost space on hard drive

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I have a samsung SP1614N which should be 160Gb. In XP after formatting
I get 150Gb. How does one reclaim this lost space please? Reason I
need it is because I want to use it in a PVR and it does not like the
"lost" area it seems.

Alternatively how can I restore the drive to it's "original state"
i.e. as it came from the manufacturer? Will a low level format do?
Samsung site does not have a utility for it.
16 answers Last reply
More about lost space hard drive
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    DRSAP wrote:
    > I have a samsung SP1614N which should be 160Gb. In XP after formatting
    > I get 150Gb. How does one reclaim this lost space please? Reason I
    > need it is because I want to use it in a PVR and it does not like the
    > "lost" area it seems.
    >
    > Alternatively how can I restore the drive to it's "original state"
    > i.e. as it came from the manufacturer? Will a low level format do?
    > Samsung site does not have a utility for it.

    There's nothing missing and the two numbers are the same thing; just 'said'
    differently.

    The 'real' number is the 160 gigabytes but there is no such thing as a
    binary "giga" because "giga" is a decimal system, base 10, prefix, as is
    mega, and kilo, etc. They're powers of 10 and 2 don't go into 10.

    So Windows uses a cross breed, pseudo decibinal (my invention to describe
    half breed decimal prefixes tacked onto binary numbers) approximation that
    considers 1024 to be a 'Kilo' and 1,048,576 to be a 'Meg' and 1,073,741,824
    to be a 'Gig'.

    So 160 real decimal system gigabytes translates into 149 Gig as Windows
    figures it in decibinal.

    However, do a properties on the drive and you'll see it listed in both
    decimal (the number with a bunch of digits showing the exact byte count)
    and 'decibinal' (the small one to the right).
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    The reference to a 160 GB harddrive refers to its UNFORMATTED capacity. To
    use the drive you have to Format it and that reduces the useable space to
    150 GB. Nothing you can do about it.

    --
    DaveW


    "DRSAP" <a@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:b36s211j5qf50lmi2l184d98f8th9ibmko@4ax.com...
    >
    > I have a samsung SP1614N which should be 160Gb. In XP after formatting
    > I get 150Gb. How does one reclaim this lost space please? Reason I
    > need it is because I want to use it in a PVR and it does not like the
    > "lost" area it seems.
    >
    > Alternatively how can I restore the drive to it's "original state"
    > i.e. as it came from the manufacturer? Will a low level format do?
    > Samsung site does not have a utility for it.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "DRSAP" <a@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:b36s211j5qf50lmi2l184d98f8th9ibmko@4ax.com...
    >
    > I have a samsung SP1614N which should be 160Gb. In XP after formatting
    > I get 150Gb. How does one reclaim this lost space please? Reason I
    > need it is because I want to use it in a PVR and it does not like the
    > "lost" area it seems.
    >
    > Alternatively how can I restore the drive to it's "original state"
    > i.e. as it came from the manufacturer? Will a low level format do?
    > Samsung site does not have a utility for it.

    You have the correct size and nothig is lost. Hard drive manufacturers
    list their drive capacities using 1MB = 1,000,000 bytes while
    the real definition (which Windows displays) is 1,048,576 bytes.
    When you convert your a 160GB drive to the real GB value
    it comes out to ~149GB. You can also see that value
    when you right click on your drive in My Computer
    and then Properties.


    ---
    Kevin Chalker, Owner KC COMPUTERS
    E-mail: kc@kc-computers.com Web: www.kc-computers.com
    Internet dealer since 1991!!! See WWW.RESELLERRATINGS.COM!!!
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    KC Computers wrote:

    >
    > "DRSAP" <a@nospam.com> wrote in message
    > news:b36s211j5qf50lmi2l184d98f8th9ibmko@4ax.com...
    >
    >>
    >> I have a samsung SP1614N which should be 160Gb. In XP after formatting
    >> I get 150Gb. How does one reclaim this lost space please? Reason I
    >> need it is because I want to use it in a PVR and it does not like the
    >> "lost" area it seems.
    >>
    >> Alternatively how can I restore the drive to it's "original state"
    >> i.e. as it came from the manufacturer? Will a low level format do?
    >> Samsung site does not have a utility for it.
    >
    >
    > You have the correct size and nothig is lost. Hard drive manufacturers
    > list their drive capacities using 1MB = 1,000,000 bytes while
    > the real definition (which Windows displays) is 1,048,576 bytes.

    Your numbers are correct except the "real definition" is 1MB = 1,000,000.

    Kilo, Mega, and Giga are *decimal system* prefixes and using them on binary
    numbers is a closest fit hack, albeit a common hack.

    > When you convert your a 160GB drive to the real GB value
    > it comes out to ~149GB. You can also see that value
    > when you right click on your drive in My Computer
    > and then Properties.
    >
    >
    > ---
    > Kevin Chalker, Owner KC COMPUTERS
    > E-mail: kc@kc-computers.com Web: www.kc-computers.com
    > Internet dealer since 1991!!! See WWW.RESELLERRATINGS.COM!!!
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    yep my seagate 160gn shows as 149gb

    time they sorted this as the drives get bigger the gap gets ridiculous!


    "KC Computers" <kc@REMOVEkc-computers.com> wrote in message
    news:obpXd.116785$nC5.61045@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
    >
    > "DRSAP" <a@nospam.com> wrote in message
    > news:b36s211j5qf50lmi2l184d98f8th9ibmko@4ax.com...
    > >
    > > I have a samsung SP1614N which should be 160Gb. In XP after formatting
    > > I get 150Gb. How does one reclaim this lost space please? Reason I
    > > need it is because I want to use it in a PVR and it does not like the
    > > "lost" area it seems.
    > >
    > > Alternatively how can I restore the drive to it's "original state"
    > > i.e. as it came from the manufacturer? Will a low level format do?
    > > Samsung site does not have a utility for it.
    >
    > You have the correct size and nothig is lost. Hard drive manufacturers
    > list their drive capacities using 1MB = 1,000,000 bytes while
    > the real definition (which Windows displays) is 1,048,576 bytes.
    > When you convert your a 160GB drive to the real GB value
    > it comes out to ~149GB. You can also see that value
    > when you right click on your drive in My Computer
    > and then Properties.
    >
    >
    > ---
    > Kevin Chalker, Owner KC COMPUTERS
    > E-mail: kc@kc-computers.com Web: www.kc-computers.com
    > Internet dealer since 1991!!! See WWW.RESELLERRATINGS.COM!!!
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    DaveW wrote:

    > The reference to a 160 GB harddrive refers to its UNFORMATTED capacity. To
    > use the drive you have to Format it and that reduces the useable space to
    > 150 GB. Nothing you can do about it.
    >

    Wrong. It's the difference between using true decimal and binary pseudo
    decimal prefixes.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 21:27:04 GMT, DRSAP <a@nospam.com>
    wrote:

    >
    >I have a samsung SP1614N which should be 160Gb. In XP after formatting
    >I get 150Gb. How does one reclaim this lost space please?

    This is the kind of thing that Google can find.

    >Reason I
    >need it is because I want to use it in a PVR and it does not like the
    >"lost" area it seems.

    That isn't the problem. Maybe you've formatted it in a
    format the PVR doesn't support. Try formatting it per the
    PVR's manual, instructions.

    >
    >Alternatively how can I restore the drive to it's "original state"
    >i.e. as it came from the manufacturer? Will a low level format do?
    >Samsung site does not have a utility for it.

    Have you made the Samsung diagnostic/utilities floopy(s)?
    There might be an option in those... it wouldn't actually be
    a low level format as that hasn't been possible in years,
    but a "zero fill" would be the closest an end-user can do,
    and should be unnecessary towards your goal.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    news:112tag1if9e7t01@corp.supernews.com...
    > DaveW wrote:
    >
    >> The reference to a 160 GB harddrive refers to its UNFORMATTED capacity.
    >> To use the drive you have to Format it and that reduces the useable space
    >> to 150 GB. Nothing you can do about it.
    >>
    >
    > Wrong. It's the difference between using true decimal and binary pseudo
    > decimal prefixes.
    >

    I like decibinal better.........:-) Never know, Webster might go for it.
    Now you need to create a decibinal system theory to go with it.

    Ed
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Ed Medlin wrote:

    > "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    > news:112tag1if9e7t01@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    >>DaveW wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>The reference to a 160 GB harddrive refers to its UNFORMATTED capacity.
    >>>To use the drive you have to Format it and that reduces the useable space
    >>>to 150 GB. Nothing you can do about it.
    >>>
    >>
    >>Wrong. It's the difference between using true decimal and binary pseudo
    >>decimal prefixes.
    >>
    >
    >
    > I like decibinal better.........:-) Never know, Webster might go for it.
    > Now you need to create a decibinal system theory to go with it.
    >
    > Ed

    Hehe. Thanks.

    It does sort of capture the angst of it.


    On a more serious note, there actually is a movement growing in the
    international standards community to define new prefixes for 'decibinal'
    that, to avoid unnecessary confusion, would be similar to the decimal ones
    but different, to avoid unnecessary confusion, which will probably lead to
    a whole new round of unnecessary confusion. But at least it would be a well
    defined and technically precise confusion ;)
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Try this:

    http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html


    --
    Tumppi
    Reply to group
    =================================================
    Most learned on nntp://news.mircosoft.com
    Helsinki, Finland (remove _NOSPAM)
    (translations from FI/SE not always accurate)
    =================================================


    "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> kirjoitti viestissä
    news:112uaa9540dl42@corp.supernews.com...
    > Ed Medlin wrote:
    >
    > > "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    > > news:112tag1if9e7t01@corp.supernews.com...
    > >
    > >>DaveW wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>The reference to a 160 GB harddrive refers to its UNFORMATTED capacity.
    > >>>To use the drive you have to Format it and that reduces the useable
    space
    > >>>to 150 GB. Nothing you can do about it.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>Wrong. It's the difference between using true decimal and binary pseudo
    > >>decimal prefixes.
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > > I like decibinal better.........:-) Never know, Webster might go for
    it.
    > > Now you need to create a decibinal system theory to go with it.
    > >
    > > Ed
    >
    > Hehe. Thanks.
    >
    > It does sort of capture the angst of it.
    >
    >
    > On a more serious note, there actually is a movement growing in the
    > international standards community to define new prefixes for 'decibinal'
    > that, to avoid unnecessary confusion, would be similar to the decimal ones
    > but different, to avoid unnecessary confusion, which will probably lead to
    > a whole new round of unnecessary confusion. But at least it would be a
    well
    > defined and technically precise confusion ;)
    >
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Thomas Wendell wrote:

    > Try this:
    >
    > http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
    >
    >
    >

    Right. I've seen it but while IEC adopted the terminology it wasn't clear
    to me that it's been universally adopted.

    If you look at hard drive manufacturer sites, though, you'll see they've
    got, somewhere, the IEEE 'disclosure' about what 'megabyte' means even
    though they're using the officially correct default definition needing no
    explanation. Western Digital puts it in their product specifications
    datasheet. Like:
    http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1328&p_created=1109874848

    "Western Digital defines a megabyte (MB) as 1,000,000 bytes and a gigabyte
    (GB) as 1,000,000,000 bytes."

    A bit arrogant of them to claim they 'define' it though ;) More like that's
    the one they "use." And rightly so since the others are only permitted "if
    such usage is explicitly pointed out on a case-by-case basis."

    Btw, the datasheet also answers the erroneous claim that the discrepancy is
    due to "formatting."

    Specifications for the 200GB Caviar Serial ATA drive (model WD2000BD)

    Formatted Capacity 200,049 MB
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    news:1130cj7esngm6c1@corp.supernews.com...
    > Thomas Wendell wrote:
    >
    >> Try this:
    >>
    >> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    > Right. I've seen it but while IEC adopted the terminology it wasn't clear
    > to me that it's been universally adopted.
    >
    > If you look at hard drive manufacturer sites, though, you'll see they've
    > got, somewhere, the IEEE 'disclosure' about what 'megabyte' means even
    > though they're using the officially correct default definition needing no
    > explanation. Western Digital puts it in their product specifications
    > datasheet. Like:
    > http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1328&p_created=1109874848
    >
    > "Western Digital defines a megabyte (MB) as 1,000,000 bytes and a gigabyte
    > (GB) as 1,000,000,000 bytes."
    >
    > A bit arrogant of them to claim they 'define' it though ;) More like
    > that's the one they "use." And rightly so since the others are only
    > permitted "if such usage is explicitly pointed out on a case-by-case
    > basis."
    >
    > Btw, the datasheet also answers the erroneous claim that the discrepancy
    > is due to "formatting."
    >
    > Specifications for the 200GB Caviar Serial ATA drive (model WD2000BD)
    >
    > Formatted Capacity 200,049 MB
    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >

    I still think that a decibinal system would take care of the confusion,
    even if it is well defined and technically precise "confusion". There would
    have to be a differentiation between speed and storage if I read the
    datasheet correctly. With decibinal, kdb* per second to make it distinct
    from say a 200gdb HDD (for the above mentioned formatted HDD). IMO, the
    datasheet info is much more confusing than decibinal, if kept simple, would
    be...........:-)

    Ed
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Ed Medlin wrote:
    > "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    > news:1130cj7esngm6c1@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    >>Thomas Wendell wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Try this:
    >>>
    >>>http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>Right. I've seen it but while IEC adopted the terminology it wasn't clear
    >>to me that it's been universally adopted.
    >>
    >>If you look at hard drive manufacturer sites, though, you'll see they've
    >>got, somewhere, the IEEE 'disclosure' about what 'megabyte' means even
    >>though they're using the officially correct default definition needing no
    >>explanation. Western Digital puts it in their product specifications
    >>datasheet. Like:
    >>http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1328&p_created=1109874848
    >>
    >>"Western Digital defines a megabyte (MB) as 1,000,000 bytes and a gigabyte
    >>(GB) as 1,000,000,000 bytes."
    >>
    >>A bit arrogant of them to claim they 'define' it though ;) More like
    >>that's the one they "use." And rightly so since the others are only
    >>permitted "if such usage is explicitly pointed out on a case-by-case
    >>basis."
    >>
    >>Btw, the datasheet also answers the erroneous claim that the discrepancy
    >>is due to "formatting."
    >>
    >>Specifications for the 200GB Caviar Serial ATA drive (model WD2000BD)
    >>
    >>Formatted Capacity 200,049 MB
    >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>
    >
    >
    > I still think that a decibinal system would take care of the confusion,

    Well, 'decibinal' is what we already got in all but name, which I just
    coined so we got that too ;)

    > even if it is well defined and technically precise "confusion". There would
    > have to be a differentiation between speed and storage

    Where did "speed" come into this?

    > if I read the
    > datasheet correctly. With decibinal, kdb* per second to make it distinct
    > from say a 200gdb HDD (for the above mentioned formatted HDD).

    Speed is already distinct from capacity. I don't understand what you're
    getting at.

    > IMO, the
    > datasheet info is much more confusing than decibinal, if kept simple, would
    > be...........:-)
    >
    > Ed
    >
    >
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    news:1130tg78asvkh23@corp.supernews.com...
    > Ed Medlin wrote:
    >> "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    >> news:1130cj7esngm6c1@corp.supernews.com...
    >>
    >>>Thomas Wendell wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Try this:
    >>>>
    >>>>http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Right. I've seen it but while IEC adopted the terminology it wasn't clear
    >>>to me that it's been universally adopted.
    >>>
    >>>If you look at hard drive manufacturer sites, though, you'll see they've
    >>>got, somewhere, the IEEE 'disclosure' about what 'megabyte' means even
    >>>though they're using the officially correct default definition needing no
    >>>explanation. Western Digital puts it in their product specifications
    >>>datasheet. Like:
    >>>http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1328&p_created=1109874848
    >>>
    >>>"Western Digital defines a megabyte (MB) as 1,000,000 bytes and a
    >>>gigabyte (GB) as 1,000,000,000 bytes."
    >>>
    >>>A bit arrogant of them to claim they 'define' it though ;) More like
    >>>that's the one they "use." And rightly so since the others are only
    >>>permitted "if such usage is explicitly pointed out on a case-by-case
    >>>basis."
    >>>
    >>>Btw, the datasheet also answers the erroneous claim that the discrepancy
    >>>is due to "formatting."
    >>>
    >>>Specifications for the 200GB Caviar Serial ATA drive (model WD2000BD)
    >>>
    >>>Formatted Capacity 200,049 MB
    >>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> I still think that a decibinal system would take care of the
    >> confusion,
    >
    > Well, 'decibinal' is what we already got in all but name, which I just
    > coined so we got that too ;)
    >
    >> even if it is well defined and technically precise "confusion". There
    >> would have to be a differentiation between speed and storage
    >
    > Where did "speed" come into this?

    It was mentioned in the datasheet above as one of the new standards
    considered along with storage values. Guess I got off on a tangent......:-)
    Not the first time.......

    >
    >> if I read the datasheet correctly. With decibinal, kdb* per second to
    >> make it distinct from say a 200gdb HDD (for the above mentioned formatted
    >> HDD).
    >
    > Speed is already distinct from capacity. I don't understand what you're
    > getting at.

    Yes, I know. Terminalogy is all I was speaking of. Speed should be dealt
    with as a different issue really. Is a kbps REALLY a kbps? I guess what I
    was getting to is that a kb, when it pertains to storage, is not the same as
    a kb when it comes to speaking of data transfer speed. How in the hell did I
    get to here anyway......... ?? .............:-) Too early, not enough
    coffee.....I dunno.

    Ed

    >
    >> IMO, the datasheet info is much more confusing than decibinal, if kept
    >> simple, would be...........:-)
    >>
    >> Ed
    >>
    >>
    >
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Ed Medlin wrote:

    > "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    > news:1130tg78asvkh23@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    >>Ed Medlin wrote:
    >>
    >>>"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    >>>news:1130cj7esngm6c1@corp.supernews.com...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Thomas Wendell wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Try this:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Right. I've seen it but while IEC adopted the terminology it wasn't clear
    >>>>to me that it's been universally adopted.
    >>>>
    >>>>If you look at hard drive manufacturer sites, though, you'll see they've
    >>>>got, somewhere, the IEEE 'disclosure' about what 'megabyte' means even
    >>>>though they're using the officially correct default definition needing no
    >>>>explanation. Western Digital puts it in their product specifications
    >>>>datasheet. Like:
    >>>>http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1328&p_created=1109874848
    >>>>
    >>>>"Western Digital defines a megabyte (MB) as 1,000,000 bytes and a
    >>>>gigabyte (GB) as 1,000,000,000 bytes."
    >>>>
    >>>>A bit arrogant of them to claim they 'define' it though ;) More like
    >>>>that's the one they "use." And rightly so since the others are only
    >>>>permitted "if such usage is explicitly pointed out on a case-by-case
    >>>>basis."
    >>>>
    >>>>Btw, the datasheet also answers the erroneous claim that the discrepancy
    >>>>is due to "formatting."
    >>>>
    >>>>Specifications for the 200GB Caviar Serial ATA drive (model WD2000BD)
    >>>>
    >>>>Formatted Capacity 200,049 MB
    >>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I still think that a decibinal system would take care of the
    >>>confusion,
    >>
    >>Well, 'decibinal' is what we already got in all but name, which I just
    >>coined so we got that too ;)
    >>
    >>
    >>>even if it is well defined and technically precise "confusion". There
    >>>would have to be a differentiation between speed and storage
    >>
    >>Where did "speed" come into this?
    >
    >
    > It was mentioned in the datasheet above as one of the new standards
    > considered along with storage values. Guess I got off on a tangent......:-)
    > Not the first time.......
    >
    >
    >>>if I read the datasheet correctly. With decibinal, kdb* per second to
    >>>make it distinct from say a 200gdb HDD (for the above mentioned formatted
    >>>HDD).
    >>
    >>Speed is already distinct from capacity. I don't understand what you're
    >>getting at.
    >
    >
    > Yes, I know. Terminalogy is all I was speaking of. Speed should be dealt
    > with as a different issue really. Is a kbps REALLY a kbps? I guess what I
    > was getting to is that a kb, when it pertains to storage, is not the same as
    > a kb when it comes to speaking of data transfer speed. How in the hell did I
    > get to here anyway......... ?? .............:-) Too early, not enough
    > coffee.....I dunno.

    Oh, I see. Well, mbps not always being mbps was a new one to me when I
    first read that article. Sounds like decibinal software types dabbling in
    telecom because I find it hard to believe any hardware engineers did it.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    news:1133071fb94ql2c@corp.supernews.com...
    > Ed Medlin wrote:
    >
    >> "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    >> news:1130tg78asvkh23@corp.supernews.com...
    >>
    >>>Ed Medlin wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    >>>>news:1130cj7esngm6c1@corp.supernews.com...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Thomas Wendell wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Try this:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Right. I've seen it but while IEC adopted the terminology it wasn't
    >>>>>clear to me that it's been universally adopted.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>If you look at hard drive manufacturer sites, though, you'll see
    >>>>>they've got, somewhere, the IEEE 'disclosure' about what 'megabyte'
    >>>>>means even though they're using the officially correct default
    >>>>>definition needing no explanation. Western Digital puts it in their
    >>>>>product specifications datasheet. Like:
    >>>>>http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1328&p_created=1109874848
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"Western Digital defines a megabyte (MB) as 1,000,000 bytes and a
    >>>>>gigabyte (GB) as 1,000,000,000 bytes."
    >>>>>
    >>>>>A bit arrogant of them to claim they 'define' it though ;) More like
    >>>>>that's the one they "use." And rightly so since the others are only
    >>>>>permitted "if such usage is explicitly pointed out on a case-by-case
    >>>>>basis."
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Btw, the datasheet also answers the erroneous claim that the
    >>>>>discrepancy is due to "formatting."
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Specifications for the 200GB Caviar Serial ATA drive (model WD2000BD)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Formatted Capacity 200,049 MB
    >>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I still think that a decibinal system would take care of the
    >>>> confusion,
    >>>
    >>>Well, 'decibinal' is what we already got in all but name, which I just
    >>>coined so we got that too ;)
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>even if it is well defined and technically precise "confusion". There
    >>>>would have to be a differentiation between speed and storage
    >>>
    >>>Where did "speed" come into this?
    >>
    >>
    >> It was mentioned in the datasheet above as one of the new standards
    >> considered along with storage values. Guess I got off on a
    >> tangent......:-) Not the first time.......
    >>
    >>
    >>>>if I read the datasheet correctly. With decibinal, kdb* per second to
    >>>>make it distinct from say a 200gdb HDD (for the above mentioned
    >>>>formatted HDD).
    >>>
    >>>Speed is already distinct from capacity. I don't understand what you're
    >>>getting at.
    >>
    >>
    >> Yes, I know. Terminalogy is all I was speaking of. Speed should be dealt
    >> with as a different issue really. Is a kbps REALLY a kbps? I guess what I
    >> was getting to is that a kb, when it pertains to storage, is not the same
    >> as a kb when it comes to speaking of data transfer speed. How in the hell
    >> did I get to here anyway......... ?? .............:-) Too early, not
    >> enough coffee.....I dunno.
    >
    > Oh, I see. Well, mbps not always being mbps was a new one to me when I
    > first read that article. Sounds like decibinal software types dabbling in
    > telecom because I find it hard to believe any hardware engineers did it.

    Those were my thoughts too. Back to more coffee.......

    Ed
    >
    >
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Hardware Hard Drives Systems