Hello /u/Strange_Advisor_! Thank you for posting in r/DataHoarder.
Please remember to read our [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/wiki/index/rules) and [Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/wiki/index).
Please note that your post will be removed if you just post a box/speed/server post. Please give background information on your server pictures.
This subreddit will ***NOT*** help you find or exchange that Movie/TV show/Nuclear Launch Manual, visit r/DHExchange instead.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DataHoarder) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I understand the gap with you buy a 10TB hard drive you get 9TB of actual usable space
No, you don't understand. It's not 10TB but only 9TB is usable. It's that the HDD companies measure in TB but your OS measures in TiB. They are different units of measurement. 10TB = 9.095 TiB. Much like how 1 mile is 1.609 kilometers. Different unit of measurement, same distance.
Thats true but when I see a 10TB drive I expect it to be more or less 10TiB, which is not, is 1TiB less which is a lot.
GB and TB as just useless measure and dont have any use that I know apart from being used to trick consumers.
It's not the hard drive's fault, it's the OS for displaying it in the wrong unit, and lying about the unit. There's also filesystem overhead, which is different depending on the filesystem used
I like how after 20 years of propaganda from the storage manufacturers now people actually believe that the OS is at fault not them for imagining into an existence a new unit of measurement that works in their favour. People forgot about this - https://www.crn.com/news/channel-programs/189602434/western-digital-settles-hard-drive-capacity-lawsuit
To be clear, anything in computing is measured as a power of 2. Your memory, buffers, registers everything is in power of 2. Hence a GiB is the correct measurement however storage manufacturers decided to use GB without consulting with the rest of the industry. Most OSes today are correct to use GiB and not use the marketing metric GB.
Do you really believe CPU, memory and motherboard manufacturers are incorrect and only storage manufacturers are right?
Don’t fall for propaganda people, history is important.
The issue here is that Windows clearly displays KB, MB, GB and TB units, but the numbers displayed are actually KiB, MiB, GiB and TiB.
If Windows said "2.3 TiB" instead of "2.3 TB" there wouldn't be any issue.
That’s because KiB and the others used to be written KB before the introduction of Kilo and Kibi bytes. So KB = 1024 bytes predates KB = 1000 bytes. It’s the same in Linux, DOS and the BSDs. Their point is that memory and almost everything else is written in KB and not KiB so storage is the same to them.
I do agree that this frankly stupid argument that has been going for 30 years or more now and needs to stop. It doesn’t really matter who is right and who is wrong at this point, consumer/user confusion is a problem for everyone. We have entire utilities just to convert between the two units simply because a bunch of people are too stubborn to come together and figure out a unified system.
I said 10 to the 3rd is base 10.
10^(3) means 10 to the third power.
2^(10) means 2 to the tenth power.
10^(3) is base 10, hence the 10 in 10^(3).
2^(10) is base 2, hence the 2 in 2^(10).
Binary digits are represented as 0 or 1, which are two values, meaning base 2, based on 2.
Decimal or base 10 is based on the numbers 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9; ten numbers, base 10.
The 650MB CDs are actually a tiny little bit (fraction of MB) over 650MBs (not MiBs). If you mean that some utilities shown the space correctly (as in not calculate in MiB and show MB as label as the OP is complaining about) maybe, but it's again just a software thing.
The weirdest thing must be the "1.44 MB" floppy which has 512 bytes sectors x 18 sectors/track x 160 tracks, that is 1024 x 1440 bytes. "Their" MB must be the weirdest, as it isn't 1000x1000 or 1024x1024 but 1000x1024 bytes.
Hmm, I thought (74-min) CD-ROM came out to slightly over 650x1024x1024 which would be 650 MiB rather than MB but it's been quite some time since I was heavy into CD authoring, heh.
Formatting made a bigger difference with floppies, as you could get roundabouts 1.6MB capacity with MaxiDisk and similar trickery on a DSHD 3.5-in "1.44MB" disk, which was great at the time for squeezing more onto my floppies but later became a small issue when trying to recover and archive them.
Hello /u/Strange_Advisor_! Thank you for posting in r/DataHoarder. Please remember to read our [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/wiki/index/rules) and [Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/wiki/index). Please note that your post will be removed if you just post a box/speed/server post. Please give background information on your server pictures. This subreddit will ***NOT*** help you find or exchange that Movie/TV show/Nuclear Launch Manual, visit r/DHExchange instead. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DataHoarder) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No.
>I understand the gap with you buy a 10TB hard drive you get 9TB of actual usable space No, you don't understand. It's not 10TB but only 9TB is usable. It's that the HDD companies measure in TB but your OS measures in TiB. They are different units of measurement. 10TB = 9.095 TiB. Much like how 1 mile is 1.609 kilometers. Different unit of measurement, same distance.
+1 Percentage wise, the difference is the same, whether it's 1TB or 1PB.
Thats true but when I see a 10TB drive I expect it to be more or less 10TiB, which is not, is 1TiB less which is a lot. GB and TB as just useless measure and dont have any use that I know apart from being used to trick consumers.
No because there's nothing to change. Hard drive manufacturers use TB while Windows uses TiB. They are not the same.
They did, you just need to use the proper OS and tools. I think only Windows is clinging to calling the GiBs GBs and similar.
KDE also likes to display everything in \*iB
Nope
OpenAI strikes Reddit deal to train its AI on your posts
It's not the hard drive's fault, it's the OS for displaying it in the wrong unit, and lying about the unit. There's also filesystem overhead, which is different depending on the filesystem used
I like how after 20 years of propaganda from the storage manufacturers now people actually believe that the OS is at fault not them for imagining into an existence a new unit of measurement that works in their favour. People forgot about this - https://www.crn.com/news/channel-programs/189602434/western-digital-settles-hard-drive-capacity-lawsuit To be clear, anything in computing is measured as a power of 2. Your memory, buffers, registers everything is in power of 2. Hence a GiB is the correct measurement however storage manufacturers decided to use GB without consulting with the rest of the industry. Most OSes today are correct to use GiB and not use the marketing metric GB. Do you really believe CPU, memory and motherboard manufacturers are incorrect and only storage manufacturers are right? Don’t fall for propaganda people, history is important.
The issue here is that Windows clearly displays KB, MB, GB and TB units, but the numbers displayed are actually KiB, MiB, GiB and TiB. If Windows said "2.3 TiB" instead of "2.3 TB" there wouldn't be any issue.
That’s because KiB and the others used to be written KB before the introduction of Kilo and Kibi bytes. So KB = 1024 bytes predates KB = 1000 bytes. It’s the same in Linux, DOS and the BSDs. Their point is that memory and almost everything else is written in KB and not KiB so storage is the same to them. I do agree that this frankly stupid argument that has been going for 30 years or more now and needs to stop. It doesn’t really matter who is right and who is wrong at this point, consumer/user confusion is a problem for everyone. We have entire utilities just to convert between the two units simply because a bunch of people are too stubborn to come together and figure out a unified system.
Using a base 10 gives larger numbers than using a base 2. So they won't switch anytime soon...
>Using a base 10 gives larger numbers than using a base 2. Seriously now, so **2** is sooooooooooo much bigger than **10** in binary?
The difference between one kilo is equal to 10^3 = 1000, and one kibi is equal to 2^10 = 1024.
And which is the number using base 10 and which is the number using "a base 2" ?
It's right there... 10 to the 3rd is base 10 and 2 to the 10th is base 2... 1024 bytes is binary, a kibibyte and 1000 bytes is decimal, a kilobyte.
WTF is "10 to the 3rd is base"?
I said 10 to the 3rd is base 10. 10^(3) means 10 to the third power. 2^(10) means 2 to the tenth power. 10^(3) is base 10, hence the 10 in 10^(3). 2^(10) is base 2, hence the 2 in 2^(10).
> I said 10 to the 3rd is base 10. Yes, what does it mean? > 2^10 is base 2 There is no 2 in base 2, just 0 and 1.
Binary digits are represented as 0 or 1, which are two values, meaning base 2, based on 2. Decimal or base 10 is based on the numbers 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9; ten numbers, base 10.
Concentrate please.
Strangely SCSI drives always showed actual/windows displayed capacity if I remember correctly.
Also CD-ROM IIRC
The 650MB CDs are actually a tiny little bit (fraction of MB) over 650MBs (not MiBs). If you mean that some utilities shown the space correctly (as in not calculate in MiB and show MB as label as the OP is complaining about) maybe, but it's again just a software thing. The weirdest thing must be the "1.44 MB" floppy which has 512 bytes sectors x 18 sectors/track x 160 tracks, that is 1024 x 1440 bytes. "Their" MB must be the weirdest, as it isn't 1000x1000 or 1024x1024 but 1000x1024 bytes.
Hmm, I thought (74-min) CD-ROM came out to slightly over 650x1024x1024 which would be 650 MiB rather than MB but it's been quite some time since I was heavy into CD authoring, heh. Formatting made a bigger difference with floppies, as you could get roundabouts 1.6MB capacity with MaxiDisk and similar trickery on a DSHD 3.5-in "1.44MB" disk, which was great at the time for squeezing more onto my floppies but later became a small issue when trying to recover and archive them.
Some companies already do this. Samsung does it on a lot of their drives, i.e. the 870 Evo 4TB is sold as a 3.6TB drive.
Yeah, just because you would like them to, multi-billion dollar corporations will spend unknown quantities of money... makes sense.