In information technology, where the binary approach is the basis, one kilobyte equals 1,024 or 210 bytes.
There is something really wrong with Patrick Schmid. Why hasn't he been fired. Honestly, this is the most fubar crap I've ever seen on THG, including the forumz.
Well, make up your mind you retard, is a kilobyte 1024 or 210 bytes? It can't be both, so pick one. If it's 1024 then you've just assigned it a unitless dimension, congratulations. If it's 210 bytes then it only is in your mind, nobody else has ever heard that before.
Just for those who saw that in the article and were thinking WTF?!?! here's what is actually meant:
HD manufacturers use the same principle as the metric system. Kilo = 1000, thus kilobyte = 1000 bytes.
Now, back in the day the difference caused between 1024 and 1000 was small, because drives were small, say 2GB or less. The difference in "missing size" was negligible and people readily passed it off as "overhead."
Then, as drive sizes increased the differences in actual GB got to be large -- at the 1TB level it looks like you're missing some 70GB, certainly that's not overhead. So, then it became popular to use kilobyte in HD manufacturing to be 1000 bytes, though it long has been. In computing, a kilobyte has for a long time meant 1024 (2^10) bytes, since that's the closest base 2 can get to 1000 with integer powers.
Now, it is common to hear the 1024 byte "kilobyte" referred to as a kibibyte (KiB).
Also, Windows uses the kibibyte definition, thus the GiB in place of GB. Now, you'll often find that (new) versions of Linux will measure it according to HD manufacturers definition. Therefore, using this drive in a Linux system should show 1.0TB capacity.
In the history of computing has 210 never meant anything to anyone at anytime anywhere. This is a fabrication by Patrick Schmid in its entirety, and shame on Achim Roos for not removing Patrick from the project at the mere sight of such a lamentable egregious error.
Why would Patrick Schmid include a comparison as to the pro/cons of a 1TB vs 2x500GB and then NOT include a comparison of the performance?? Is it possibly because the 1TB RAID0 array would have a minimum transfer speed of approximately that of the maximum transfer speed of the 1TB, and at more than 25% off the price?? Now who understands what's up, captain genius.
Honestly, fire this guy and get an crack addicted lounge chair.