On CHOW: Why do onions make you cry?
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 14 of 19:
Next »
« Previous
Re 1000 vs 1024
Why mass storage has consistently used the one defintion instead of the other is beyond me -- but they have been consistent over the years.

It's nothing but advertising. Back in the days when HDD sizes were measured in the low MB, some advertising type figured out that they could claim slightly larger sizes if they used 1,000,000 instead of 1,048,576 as a MB. Once the first manufacturer did it, the rest followed. After all, 20MB sounds larger than 19.1MB, even though they're actually the same size.
Posted by: Letophoro   Posted on: 06/07/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

500 GB isn't 1/2 a terabyte  emcee_z | 06/06/05
Mount them in front of a fan  osreinstall | 06/06/05
Agreed  erdiko@... | 06/06/05
Just the exact opposite...  bad2thebone_z | 06/07/05
Nah, nah, nah, Seagate's reliability is well documented...  MepisLINUXuser | 06/07/05
New dell with maxtor died  Protector | 06/07/05
From my experience  voska | 06/07/05
Then what is it?  erdiko@... | 06/06/05
1000 vs 1024  __howard__ | 06/07/05
Just a small correction ...  Ludovit | 06/07/05
1024 vs 1000  CrazY_UKRaiNiaN | 06/07/05
Actually  voska | 06/07/05
Still not quite right  emcee_z | 06/07/05
Re 1000 vs 1024  Letophoro | 06/07/05
Very easy to figure  osreinstall | 06/07/05
250 hours of HDTV?  __howard__ | 06/07/05
Ahh, you're right.  UncleBubba | 06/07/05
At 2 GB per DVD movie  voska | 06/07/05
and who takes pictures that are 300k ?  MIS Master | 06/07/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

Meet Doc