999.86 Gb <> 1 Tb

[Wotan31]

You are absolutely wrong. From the first moment kilobyte was used, 50 years ago, it was 1024 bytes. The supposed standard wasn't promulgated until the late nineties. Computer engineers still use base 2. The "kilo" is reserved argument is faulty; by that argument there should be 10 bits in a byte.

In 10 years no one has paid attention to kibibyte, and no one ever will.

Amen. Finally someone who gets it. Who gives a crap about the prefixes. A computer operates in a Base 2 number system. 0 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024. That's how the machine works, at the hardware level. That's how EVERY computer works.

Call it what you want, but at least display the proper numbering. Don't blow smoke up my ass.

 

[clayj]

LMAO you can't be serious. This thread = FAIL.

Then kindly please stop posting replies in it. That goes for all of you who don't get the point which I am making.

 

[roadbloc]

 

[cmaier]

Then kindly please stop posting replies in it. That goes for all of you who don't get the point which I am making.

So now this is your own personal forum where only people who agree with you can post?

 

[heatmiser]

Hard drive manufacturers are not lying. "Base 10" is the correct way to use these standardised prefixes. Hard drive manufacturers never used anything else; they did not switch at all, especially not for marketing.

It's the memory manufacturers who lie—and operating systems prior to Snow Leopard.

Nah. Base 2 is the standard in computing, not Base 10. If Apple is smart, they'll release an update allowing users to turn base2 sizing back on, and soon. Snow Leopard is hardly a "truth teller" compared to other OSes on file size; it just looks stupid.

 

[Richard1028]

Nah. Base 2 is the standard in computing, not Base 10. If Apple is smart, they'll release an update allowing users to turn base2 sizing back on, and soon.

I'm guessing Apple will be able to cut their support staff in half because they just eliminated the, "Hey! My mac only says I got 137gb left on a new 160gb drive!" calls.

So sorry all you techie-nerds out there. I think Apple's new math is here to stay. Base 2 is so 1989 anyway.

 

[cmaier]

I'm guessing Apple will be able to cut their support staff in half because they just eliminated the, "Hey! My mac only says I got 137gb left on a new 160gb drive!" calls.

So sorry all you techie-nerds out there. I think Apple's new math is here to stay. Base 2 is so 1989 anyway.

All they've done is replace those calls with the "my thumb drive reports one size on windows and a different size on my mac" calls.

And us techie-nerds are the reason you have your mac in the first place.

 

[scaredpoet]

Richard, you've missed the point entirely. I'm not talking about the "free space" figure, which of course is going to fluctuate all over the place. I'm talking about the "TOTAL space" figure, which remains constant. I have FOUR 1 TB hard drives in my Mac Pro and they ALL say "999.86 GB" for the total space figure -- I'd like for them to say 1 TB instead.

I think you're complaining about the wrong thing. It's bad enough that hard drive manufacturers are advertising base 10 capacities, and I'm not entirely happy (but I'll live) that Apple decided to side with them on this. But in your case, it sounds like HD Manufacturer didn't even give you a full terabyte of storage capacity even in base 10.

MY hard drives now say 1TB capacity on my mac because I was sold a full terabyte (base 10), paid for a full terabyte, and it was delivered as promised (actually, the drives show as having 1,000,070,627,328 Bytes each, so I guess I got slightly more than promised).


Apparently, you didn't fare so lucky. Instead of complaining that Apple isn't being enough of an apologist to the HD manufacturer than they already are being, you should probably be complaining to the company that sold you the hard drive, for jipping out out the promised storage capacity. the box the drive came in may have said 1TB, but that's not what you got, and the capacity being shown reflects that.

 

[sammich]

Aren't there small portions of each hard drive that are reserved when bad sectors are encountered? The drive remaps the bad sectors with these 'backup sectors'. Maybe you've run out of 'backup sector' in a drive?

 

[scaredpoet]

Aren't there small portions of each hard drive that are reserved when bad sectors are encountered? The drive remaps the bad sectors with these 'backup sectors'. Maybe you've run out of 'backup sector' in a drive?

He'd probably be seeing file corruption errors if that's the case, or the SMART status would have changed in Disk Utility.

In any case, given that 1TB drives haven't been around for that long, if it IS bad sectors then it might still be covered under warranty. More likely than not though, the vendor got lazy and decided that being a couple hundred megabytes short of a terabyte was "close enough." Then again, a couple hundred megabytes can still be pretty useful to people.

 

[sammich]

If you head into Disk Utility, click any drive (the drive, not the partition below it) and note the 'Total Capacity'. Now click on the partition(s) below it (add for multiple partitions), and compare with your first total capacity. The difference is in the formatting of the drive and other bits that are invisible to the user side of the system.

 

[The General]

I wish it would just round that stuff up and show me even numbers. I don't care if it's not completely accurate. I just want it to say 500GB and not 499.63GB.