Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

jeremy.king

macrumors 603
Jul 23, 2002
5,479
1
Holly Springs, NC
kugino said:
umm, no. not exponential...it's linear. my 80gb drive shows 74.5GB, which is about 93% of the "advertised" size...same for 56/60 and 111/120.

yeah, i can't believe how many of these posts always show up...

93.1322575 % to be exact
 

bousozoku

Moderator emeritus
Jun 25, 2002
15,674
1,837
Lard
Should we talk about speeds too? Something that's listed as running at 167 (like RAM) runs at 166.6 repeating and when it's DDR, it's 333, which is 333.3 repeating.

When Intel released the 486DX2 there wasn't any mention of fractions. It ran at 33 and 66 MHz. Then, when the DX4 arrived, things didn't really make sense because the external speed was still 33 MHz but the internal speed was nearly 100 MHz. Obviously, it should have been called DX3 instead of DX4.

Hard drive manufacturers can't really tell you how much less a drive will hold after formatting because it could be formatted with a lot of different file systems and none are going to take exactly the same amount of room for overhead. Even between FAT16, FAT32, HPFS, and NTFS, there are differences.

Remember when HFS+ arrived? Suddenly, the smaller cluster size allowed more available space when you had many small files such as text files.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.