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
>
>
>
>