Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: The Great Capacity Swindle  (Read 8044 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HopperJFTopic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2003
  • Posts: 1531
    • Show only replies by HopperJF
    • http://www.michael-powell.blogspot.com
The Great Capacity Swindle
« on: April 30, 2008, 11:30:56 PM »
I bought an external hard drive today, the internal 40Gb was simply too small for my music collection and everything else I was used to having on the Mac's 60Gb drive. I have kept the internal and got a cheap Western Digital Elements drive at 160Gb for £49, only it's er.... not 160Gb.

Unfortunately this is nothing new in the market, disk manufacturers have been rounding up capacities for many years.
Take the 1980s for example. The Double-Density floppy disk advertised having a whopping 720k storage at the time, but actually DOS systems could only access 713k of it. The Amiga was not whiter than white either, with its standard 880k disks only usually containing 837k of space.

The so-called 40Gb hard disk in my box is actually only 33, and today I discovered the 160Gb drive I just purchased is actually only 149Gb. This is ridiculous.

This isn't a few megabytes of difference, it is a whopping 11 gigabytes less than advertised. Enough for a fully configured OS install and a fat wad of applications and some MP3s thrown in. A lot of space.

Now if it was 159Gb then that would be understandable, marketing a "160Gb" drive makes more sense. It would also be understandable if they marketed my drive as having a "150Gb" capacity.

I think manufacturers need to be more honest and stop this before eventually we will be seeing 1Tb drives with only around 800Gb of actual storage space.

Being the modest honest guy I am, when people ask me the capacity of the drive, I will say 150Gb. It's a shame manufacturers can't apply the same honesty.
Religion is for people who believe in hell.
Spirituality is for people who have been there.
 

Offline AmiKit

Re: The Great Capacity Swindle
« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2008, 11:38:30 PM »
Yes, I understand you. I've never noticed the real capacity of my new HDDs although I knew it's bit lower. But that much? Doesn't it depend on filesystem too? I am not an expert...

Offline doctorq

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2003
  • Posts: 2082
    • Show only replies by doctorq
Re: The Great Capacity Swindle
« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2008, 11:40:06 PM »
Or else you should just realise how the manufactures calculate their GBs.

Manufaturer
160 GB = 160 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000

Computer system
(160 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000) / (1024 x 1024 x 1024) = 149 GB.

Now do the math, and you will know how much storage space you have from your future TB drive.
 

Offline HopperJFTopic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2003
  • Posts: 1531
    • Show only replies by HopperJF
    • http://www.michael-powell.blogspot.com
Re: The Great Capacity Swindle
« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2008, 11:40:49 PM »
Well without altering the filesystem on my new one, it shows as 149Gb, it uses the somewhat appropriately named "vfat" filesystem  :lol:
Religion is for people who believe in hell.
Spirituality is for people who have been there.
 

Offline JKD

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2002
  • Posts: 287
    • Show only replies by JKD
Re: The Great Capacity Swindle
« Reply #4 on: April 30, 2008, 11:40:56 PM »
Welcome to the early 1990s ?

Seriously man...it's common knowledge that the decimal powers of ten are in use since then for storage...and the rest goes to formatting.

Although you did actually get 720kB on a floppy back in the day...7 was used for formatting.
 

Offline HopperJFTopic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2003
  • Posts: 1531
    • Show only replies by HopperJF
    • http://www.michael-powell.blogspot.com
Re: The Great Capacity Swindle
« Reply #5 on: April 30, 2008, 11:44:48 PM »
Quote

doctorq wrote:
Or else you should just realise how the manufactures calculate their GBs.

Manufaturer
160 GB = 160 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000

Computer system
(160 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000) / (1024 x 1024 x 1024) = 149 GB.

Now do the math, and you will know how much storage space you have from your future TB drive.


Nowhere near a full terrabyte.
I'm amazed no one has complained about this sort of thing in the past, on the lines of false-advertising or at least misleading the public into thinking they will have a full X amount of space when really they get significantly less.
Religion is for people who believe in hell.
Spirituality is for people who have been there.
 

Offline HopperJFTopic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2003
  • Posts: 1531
    • Show only replies by HopperJF
    • http://www.michael-powell.blogspot.com
Re: The Great Capacity Swindle
« Reply #6 on: April 30, 2008, 11:46:37 PM »
Quote

JKD wrote:
Welcome to the early 1990s ?

Seriously man...it's common knowledge that the decimal powers of ten are in use since then for storage...and the rest goes to formatting.

Although you did actually get 720kB on a floppy back in the day...7 was used for formatting.


It is common knowledge, but why? It is wrong and misleading IMO. Not everyone is as knowledgeable about computers as the people who use this forum, and it might seem like a small petty issue to some but in my opinion if Joe Public buys a hard drive marketed at a certain capacity, then they should be able to access that capacity.

If a chunk of it is used for other data then take that extra off the marketed capacity.
Religion is for people who believe in hell.
Spirituality is for people who have been there.
 

Offline DBAlex

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2005
  • Posts: 304
    • Show only replies by DBAlex
Re: The Great Capacity Swindle
« Reply #7 on: April 30, 2008, 11:57:25 PM »
Off topic issue but you were ripped off anyway...

I got a 320gb external IOMega drive for about £50 just after christmas...

But yeah, they allways do calculate the capacity wrongly, I thought it was common knowledge.

Only problem I have with the external HD is the speed, backing  up over USB2.0 isn't really realistic... and I haven't found anything nearly as good as Time Machine for XP/Vista.

Machines:
- A1200, Blizzard 1260 w/ 64MB RAM, 1.2GB HD, PCMCIA WiFi, AGA w/ RGB Adapter, OS3.9
- Pegasos I, G3 600Mhz, 512MB, Radeon 9200se, 80GB HD, AmigaKit WiFi Card, MOS 1.4.5
- Mac Mini, G4 1.5ghz, 512MB (1GB Soon), Radeon 9200 64MB, 80GB HD, OSX 10.5 (Leopard)
- PCs, Laptops... *yawn*... :D
 

Offline JKD

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2002
  • Posts: 287
    • Show only replies by JKD
Re: The Great Capacity Swindle
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2008, 12:01:42 AM »
Quote
If a chunk of it is used for other data then take that extra off the marketed capacity.


That'd be confusing...since it depends on operating system and file system.

Maybe an 'estimate of formatted capacity based on windows'...who knows? who cares? The cost per GB is insanely low even if you factor in the decimal vs. binary difference

My first Amiga HDD was 85MB and it cost hundreds of pounds..but I think they were decimal MB too ;)
 

Offline Golem!dk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Dec 2002
  • Posts: 414
    • Show only replies by Golem!dk
    • http://www.google.com/
Re: The Great Capacity Swindle
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2008, 12:03:19 AM »
From wdc.com:

Quote
One gigabyte (GB) = one billion bytes.
One terabyte (TB) = one trillion bytes.
Total accessible capacity varies depending on operating environment.


This is nothing new.
~
 

Offline Boudicca

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jul 2002
  • Posts: 438
    • Show only replies by Boudicca
Re: The Great Capacity Swindle
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2008, 12:04:55 AM »
Not Really a Swindle....

Heres a explanation from wikipedia.

"Hard disk drive manufacturers specify disk capacity using the SI prefixes mega-, giga- and tera-, and their abbreviations M, G and T. Byte is typically abbreviated B.

Most operating-system tools report capacity using the same abbreviations but actually use binary prefixes. For instance, the prefix mega-, which normally means 10^6 (1,000,000), in the context of data storage can mean 2^20 (1,048,576), which is nearly 5% more. Similar usage has been applied to prefixes of greater magnitude. This results in a discrepancy between the disk manufacturer's stated capacity and the apparent capacity of the drive when examined through most operating-system tools. The difference becomes even more noticeable (7%) for a gigabyte. For example, Microsoft Windows reports disk capacity both in decimal-based units to 12 or more significant digits and with binary-based units to three significant digits. Thus a disk specified by a disk manufacturer as a 30 GB disk might have its capacity reported by Windows 2000 both as "30,065,098,568 bytes" and "28.0 GB". The disk manufacturer used the SI definition of "giga", 10^9 to arrive at 30 GB; however, because the utilities provided by Windows, Mac and some Linux distributions define a gigabyte as 1,073,741,824 bytes (2^30 bytes, often referred to as a gibibyte, or GiB), the operating system reports capacity of the disk drive as (only) 28.0 GB."

See Pyrre explanation...thats better than wikipedia....good one! :). I couldn't be bothered to do the math.
was Enterprise Vault (Its an Exchange Fail!), now its EMC Avamar, Dedupe for mostly everything including brain cells.
 

Offline pyrre

Re: The Great Capacity Swindle
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2008, 12:07:34 AM »
 :-D

This is because windows (or other OS for that matter) multiply by decimal and not by binary...

one kilo binary byte is 1024 or 2^10
This is basic for what most OS calculate disk size.
But they multiply by 1000 not by 1024 as they should.
so
if you multiply 1024 by 1024 yo get:
1048576 which is the exact amount of binary bytes in one megabyte.
However
if you multiply by 1000:
1024 x 1000 = 1024000
And that is one megabyte calculated by most OS
And again
Binary:
1048576 x 1024 = 1073741824 byte or 1GB
If you multiply this by the expected size of your disk you should get the number of the size of your disk.

But os calculate:
1024000 x 1000 = 1024000000 as 1GB

This is the reason why disks appears to be smaller than they really are. But on a binary level they are the size they should be... However. some of the disk size is occupied by the File Allocation Table and its backup...

EIDT:
(300GB disk = 1073741824 * 300 = well :-) 300GB in binary. my calculator wont go so far.
My 300 GB disk is only 293GB in windows explorer, and in disk manager it is only 279GB... and in the bios post screen it is 298GB)
Amiga 1200 Tower Os 3.9
BPPC 603e+ 040-25/200, 256MBram, BVIsionPPC, Indivision AGA MK2.
Amiga 2000 (rev 4.0) Os 1.2/1.3
2088 bridgeboard, 2MB ram card, 2091 SCSI.
Amiga 500+ Os 2.1
Derringer 030, 32MBram, Buddha in sidecar, Indivision ECS.
Amiga CD32
Video decoder
 

Offline weirdami

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2003
  • Posts: 3776
    • Show only replies by weirdami
    • Http://Bindingpolymer.com
Re: The Great Capacity Swindle
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2008, 12:21:54 AM »
Quote
with its standard 880k disks only usually containing 837k of space.


I'm pretty sure I was able to squeeze more than that out of a disk using some of the updated file systems. But, there you go, really, (except for whether or not you think a kilobyte is 1024 or 1000 bytes) the file system needs some space, too.
----
Binding Polymer: Keeping you together since 1892.
 

Offline Golem!dk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Dec 2002
  • Posts: 414
    • Show only replies by Golem!dk
    • http://www.google.com/
Re: The Great Capacity Swindle
« Reply #13 on: May 01, 2008, 12:30:49 AM »
Right, with OFS you only had 488 bytes usable per block, resulting in 837k capacity for a DD floppy.
~
 

Offline HopperJFTopic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2003
  • Posts: 1531
    • Show only replies by HopperJF
    • http://www.michael-powell.blogspot.com
Re: The Great Capacity Swindle
« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2008, 11:51:09 AM »
Quote

DBAlex wrote:
Off topic issue but you were ripped off anyway...

I got a 320gb external IOMega drive for about £50 just after christmas...

But yeah, they allways do calculate the capacity wrongly, I thought it was common knowledge.

Only problem I have with the external HD is the speed, backing  up over USB2.0 isn't really realistic... and I haven't found anything nearly as good as Time Machine for XP/Vista.



I know, but it was bought on impulse and out of Maplin and Currys Digital (which are probably the same company anyway) the Currys Digital WD one was cheaper (Maplin wanted £80 for the same capacity but a DRM one)

Sooner or later though, they are going to have to change aren't they, because the gap is getting increasingly bigger everytime, when it goes into hundreds of gigabytes surely its time to change the way the capacity is marketed
Religion is for people who believe in hell.
Spirituality is for people who have been there.