 |
 |
Why my new 250 HD take only 232?
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
New Lacie 250, is empty and says 232 GB available. why is that? Why don't they call it a 232 HD?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Marketing people.
I find it very hard to believe that you have been posting here for nearly two years and have never realised that all of your HD's are not as big as claimed to be.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
especially since this subject is covered, like, every other week.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Admin Emeritus  Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yup. As the computer calculates it, 1GB=1024x1024x1024 bytes=1,073,741,824 bytes.
The box is labelled as 1GB=1000x1000x1000 bytes, or 1,000,000,000 bytes.
1,000,000,000 divided by (1024x1024x1024) is 0.93GB, which is where the discrepancy comes from.
All computer storage devices (including, bizarrely, flash drives) are labelled using the larger number, so you can always expect to "lose" 7%.
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Kilobyte explains it nicely, too.
tooki
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Seen it, but not to this extreme.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by kevs
Seen it, but not to this extreme.
Not the sharpest tool in the shed, eh?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by kevs
Seen it, but not to this extreme.
The bigger the drive, the worse it seems. Even a Zip disk only really held 97 megs when it was advertised as 100megs.
|
"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
excellent point severed hand.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status:
Offline
|
|
That is nothing!, my 160GB LaCie d2 FireWire HD was really a 80 GB model ! Guess my surprise 
|
"That plane's dustin' crops where there ain't no crops."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by kevs
Why don't they call it a 232 HD?
Because they're all trixy. They've been doing it for years.
Maximum theoretical is a term you can apply to a lot of things in computers.
Ethernet speeds.
CD-ROM read speeeds.
Modem speeds.
etc.
They have no trouble selling you a 40x CD-ROM drive that will maybe reach 40x on the outer edge of the disk, or a 40x CD-R that only finishes the disc at 40x. They like to leave out the details like that.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by CatOne
Not the sharpest tool in the shed, eh?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
It strikes me that this is less dramatic than it seems, because it's not like one or two manufacturers are doing this to gain competitive advantage - it's standard notation by ALL manufacturers.
Brain-dead and stupid, yes, but standard.
Nobody really loses, except countless geeks who spend endless amounts of time explaining it over and over and over and over and over and over and over again to hapless consumers.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status:
Offline
|
|
also this could be a formatting issue. or non-issue.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by macaddict0001
also this could be a formatting issue.
no. (or rather, just barely.)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
