I feel gipped...

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by iParis, Dec 24, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. iParis macrumors 68040

    iParis

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    New Mexico
    #1
    So today I go a 640GB Western Digital MyBook External Hard drive.
    Turns out it's only 595GB's!
    I mean I can understand 11GB's because that's about the amount I lost on my 160GB WD Passport external HD that ended up being 149GB's.
    Damn disk format.
    I'm a little concerned that if I would have gotten the 1TB or 1.5TB that I would have ended up being gipped something like 200GB (1TB) or even 350GB (1.5TB).
     
  2. Prof. macrumors 601

    Prof.

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    #2
    The bigger the HDD capacity is, the bigger amount of GB's will be lost from formatting.

    For example. My 1GB memory stick only has a formatted capacity of around 940MBs. My 120GB MacBook only has 111.47GB's
     
  3. swiftaw macrumors 603

    swiftaw

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Location:
    Omaha, NE, USA
    #3
    Here we go again.

    Hard Drive manufacturers use decimal measurements, so they equate 640GB to 640,000,000,000 bytes.

    However, computers are binary, so they equate 640,000,000,000 bytes as 640,000,000,000/(1024^3) GB = 596.8 GB.

    You haven't been gipped.

    Edit: Rereading your original message it seems you understood what I explained above, sorry for stating the obvious. Yes, the bigger the HD, the bigger the difference between the stated and actual number of GB.
     
  4. t0mat0 macrumors 603

    t0mat0

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Home
    #4
    160GB -> 11GB "not there"
    640GB -> 45GB "not there"

    so 11GB for 160GB. 160GB is 25% of 640

    so 11GB x 4 is ~44GB assuming linear loss

    Gyp (sp) can be used normally indicating pain.
     
  5. iParis thread starter macrumors 68040

    iParis

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    New Mexico
    #5
    I do not understand the second part of your post.
     
  6. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #6
    How has "gypped" survived as a colloquial racist term?
     
  7. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #7
    The file system isn't "eating up" a portion of the drive to cause what you observe... it uses a different counting system than the advertised capacity.

    Every kilobyte in the filesystem has 1024 bytes, while every kilobyte of advertised capacity is only 1000 kilobytes.

    So it scales up. The bigger the hard drive gets, the proportion by which the formatted capacity is smaller than the advertised capacity stays the same, but the actual size difference gets bigger.

    It's like saying 1 kilometer = 0.6 miles. If you drive 10 km, that's about 6 miles. It's not 9.4 miles because you "already made the trade off in your first km."
     
  8. swiftaw macrumors 603

    swiftaw

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Location:
    Omaha, NE, USA
    #8
    I think he was saying that as a 160GB is 'missing' 11GB and 640GB is 4 times as big as 160GB then it will be 'missing' 4 times as much, that is 4*11 = 44GB which is approximately 45GB which is what you are missing.
     
  9. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #9
    Swap "mile" and "kilometer" and you'll be right.
     
  10. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #10
    Aww nuts, pwned. :eek:
     
  11. iParis thread starter macrumors 68040

    iParis

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    New Mexico
    #11
    Ok, it's because of formatting and difference in numbering that the manufacturer and the computer use.
    The fact is I still can't store 640GB's of files.
     
  12. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #12
    The fact is you can. You still have 640,000,000,000 (approx) bytes. You haven't lost anything.
     
  13. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #13
    Ugh.
     
  14. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #14
    i think he realizes that. i too wish hd makers would advertise capacity in binary vs base 10
     
  15. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #15
    The decimal conversion is right on compared to the base 2. Making it about 7% off when converted back

    640 * .93 = 595.2

    swiftaw did what you need for an exact conversion ... but 7% is a quick ballpark and easier to remember.
     
  16. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #16
    I hear you buddy. Kind of like the feeling when you found out your iPod touch can't store 16 GB of data.
     
  17. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #17
    read the fine print on the box. says right there that its not actual capacity.
     
  18. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #18
    You really expect people to read the warnings, read the manual, or read the fine print?

    That's what lawyers are for, to help sue the big corporation for supplying illiterate customers.
     
  19. Schtumple macrumors 601

    Schtumple

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Location:
    benkadams.com
    #19
    You can't be serious? I thought everybody knew this...

    The bigger the hard drive, the bigger the gap, it's simple, you don't loose any data, it's just HD companies fudging numbers to make their HDs look that tiny bit bigger...
     
  20. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #20
    yeah i know. but its not that hard to see or find on most of the packaging ive seen.

    NOW it is. but back when the practice started the difference was tiny and negligible. now that hard drive capacities are going up so fast and more readily available are we seeing people complain.
     
  21. Demosthenes X macrumors 68000

    Demosthenes X

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    #21
    Agreed. Companies should start advertising the "real" capacity. Is there a technical reason advertised space is measured differently from calculated space? Because if there isn't, then I would call that false advertising, even if they "explain it away" on the box.

    It's like buying a new car that's advertised with 500 horsepower, but in the fine print is says "actually only 300 horsepower"...
     
  22. iParis thread starter macrumors 68040

    iParis

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    New Mexico
    #22
    Actually, I think it's 596GB, not 595GB.

    Then they should sell and advertise it as the actual capacity.
     
  23. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #23
    they do, they just use a different definition

    a gigabyte is 1000^3 bytes

    a gibibyte is 1024^3 bytes
     
  24. JNB macrumors 604

    JNB

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Location:
    In a Hell predominately of my own making
    #24
    I'd bet it's more of an "ease of labeling" issue. Sure, they could all advertise based on binary capacity, but that would just make for some ugly numbers, ads and forum questions.

    "Should I get two 465 GB drives or one 930GB?" Ick.

    "MacBook Air with 59.52GB SSD, only $1799." Even worse.

    Besides, as has already been noted, one still gets the full measure of the advertised capacity, it's just that the computer counts it differently.
     
  25. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #25

    Oh please. Do you really see companies offering things like a 14.57 GB iPod touch or a 147.9 GB hard drive?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page