[Date Prev][Date
Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date
Index][Thread Index]
Re: 180gb Drive Format ?
- To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: 180gb Drive Format ?
- From: "Graham Howe" <graham@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:09:02 -0000
- Mailing-list: list ukha_d@xxxxxxx; contact
ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
- Reply-to: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
--- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "Graham Howe" <graham@s...> wrote:
> --- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "Ian Willoughby" <ian@i...>
wrote:
> > Correct. It is the same as Miles and Nautical Miles. The disk
> industry choose 1000 as their yardstick because geometry of a
hardisk
> has no real relation to any particular numberbase (Except maybe
> numbers of heads) and 1000 is a much easier number to base
> calculations on for us mere mortals :-)
> >
>
> Yeah, I'm sure that the hard disk manufacturers use 1000 as their
> multiplier number because it is easier for us and them to count
that
> way. Or could it be that their marketting department think that
180Gb
> looks better on the box than 171Gb ;-)
BTW, a noticable exception to this practice was IBM who for example
used to sell a 123Gb drive that actually showed up as 120Gb in
windows (123 * 1000 / 1024 = 120 ish).
I'm not sure if they still do this as I would rather give up all my
computers and go back to using an abacus than buy another ibm disk.
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index
|