From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 20 22:16:40 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA29E16A474 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:16:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mlt01+OQ=00191e6b@mlists.homeunix.com) Received: from turtle-out.mxes.net (turtle-out.mxes.net [216.86.168.191]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C358F13C4AA for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:16:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mlt01+OQ=00191e6b@mlists.homeunix.com) Received: from mxout-03.mxes.net (mxout-03.mxes.net [216.86.168.178]) by turtle-in.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BACE810583 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:30:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com. (unknown [87.81.140.128]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 793365197C for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:29:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:29:15 +0100 From: RW To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20070920182915.01608491@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <20070920091920.H10999@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <7f28909c2f575ccd98796e2af18d4e05@prodigy.net> <20070920091920.H10999@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.0.0 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i386-portbld-freebsd6.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Hard drive RPM X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:16:41 -0000 On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:22:00 +0200 (CEST) Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > not a case of misrepresentations that I have found on network > > attached hard disk storage devices and Firewire drives. > > I have one that was expressly advertised on the package to be > > 120 Gb capacity, and in fact only 111Gb are available for storage. > > common marketlie: telling capacity not in gigabytes (2^30) but in > billions of bytes. in computers giga always meant 2^30 (like mega > 2^20 and kilo 2^10) Not really, it's mostly to do with the fact that mechanical and electrical engineers have never really bought into the lazy kludge of using binary approximations for k,M and G. And there's no incentive because of the way tape and disk devices are accessed. It's the same with telecoms too. The sooner the computer industry get it's act together and starts using Ki, Mi Gi the better.