Hard disk capacity on 2.0ghz macbook with 160gb hd

I don't have one but I think what you want to know is the actual formatted capacity: HDD Capacity_measurements

It should be 160*0.928 =~ 148.48

 

The problem is that the manufactures do not tell you how many GIGABYTES the harddisk is able to store. Instead they tell you how many 1.000.000.000 BYTES it is able to store. They do this because it looks better if they can say: "Hey, this is a great 160 GB harddisk!" - but that´s 148 GIGABYTES only. They know that nobody thinks in 1.000.000.000 bytes but in gigabytes. After buying that harddisk you may probably be surprised not to get 160 gigabytes of space; you´ve been manipulated a bit, unfortunately. :-(

 

Other way around. A gigabyte is 1,000,000,000 bytes. For some reason computer dudes way back when decided to use SI nomenclature for non-SI numbers. 1024 bytes is NOT a kilobyte, 1000 bytes is a kilobyte.

1024 bytes is a binary measurement that is close to a kilobyte but isn't.

When manufacturers say 160GB they mean it. You're buying at least 160 ,000,000,000 bytes. Only problem is when you put that in a computer, the machine, coming from a starting point of being told that 1024 bytes is a "kilobyte" makes the calculations from there and it appears that you've lost about 7% of your starting space even though you've got the same amount of space that you paid for.

The manufacturers are not at fault.

 

Well, 1000 bytes are "one kilo of bytes", but that is not a "kilobyte"! 1024 bytes are one "kilobyte" (kilobyte is a fixed size you can not adapt to your personal imagines). You could also say 1234 bytes are a kilobyte if you think that´s funny, but the only way your computer works is with 1024 bytes as a kilobyte!

 

It actually depends on the context what a kilobyte is. The memory addressing is in binary, and 1024 is a power of two and also close to 1000. kilo is a nice prefix so they used it. from there, there's some compound error since mega=kilo*kilo, etc.

 

No, there is no grey or context-dependant area of SI prefixes. Kilo means one thousand, no more, no less.

1024 bytes is not a kilobyte. The term kilobyte is the accepted way of saying 1024 bytes but it is erroneous.

 

This.

Chundles is correct. Standard units are an international, completely unwavering standard.

 

You are correct. The use of kilo has been used as an approximate term, but strictly speaking with SI units, it is incorrect.

It has been suggested to write kb as Kb instead to make it clear that the context is binary, but this hasn't happened.

The term that is actually catching on is kibibyte, meaning kilo binary byte. This is also extended to Gibibyte.

In regards to base 10 standard, from Wikipedia:

In regards to binary, from Wikipedia:

So indeed as stated earlier, most storage media actually are correct in using the number of bytes in standard SI units, and it is the software incorrectly showing the capacity as binary based on memory addressing conventions.

 

Why not telling a car-manufacturer that 1 hp is the power of one real horse? If you have a car with 100 hp it should give you the power of 100 real horses! But if you think your car isn´t able to give you the power of 100 real horses, then you should be able to realize that 1 hp is probably something different than YOU think. =P

 

That's why they use kilowatts and newton metres instead of horsepower.

Doesn't change the argument though. A kilo of anything is a thousand of that item, value, etc. If it's not a thousand it's not a kilo.

I believe the correct binary term should be Kibibyte or something but it's not used because we're all so comfortable using the (incorrectly applied) SI prefixes.