I feel gipped...

[iParis]

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).

 

[Prof.]

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

 

[swiftaw]

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.

 

[t0mat0]

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.

 

[iParis]

640GB -> 45GB "not there"
160GB -> 11GB "not there"

640/160 = 4
4x 11GB = 44GB

...

I do not understand the second part of your post.

 

[.Andy]

How has "gypped" survived as a colloquial racist term?

 

[mkrishnan]

I do not understand the second part of your post.

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."

 

[swiftaw]

I do not understand the second part of your post.

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.

 

[plinden]

It's like saying 1 mile = 0.6 kilometers. If you drive 10 miles, that's about 6 kilometers. It's not 9.4 kilometers because you "already made the trade off in your first mile."

Swap "mile" and "kilometer" and you'll be right.

 

[mkrishnan]

Swap "mile" and "kilometer" and you'll be right.

Aww nuts, pwned.

 

[iParis]

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.

 

[plinden]

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.

The fact is you can. You still have 640,000,000,000 (approx) bytes. You haven't lost anything.

 

[NT1440]

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.

Ugh.

 

[dukebound85]

The fact is you can. You still have 640,000,000,000 (approx) bytes. You haven't lost anything.

i think he realizes that. i too wish hd makers would advertise capacity in binary vs base 10

 

[Sun Baked]

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.

 

[rdowns]

gipped

I hear you buddy. Kind of like the feeling when you found out your iPod touch can't store 16 GB of data.

 

[PlaceofDis]

read the fine print on the box. says right there that its not actual capacity.

 

[Sun Baked]

read the fine print on the box. says right there that its not actual capacity.

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.

 

[Schtumple]

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...

 

[PlaceofDis]

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.

yeah i know. but its not that hard to see or find on most of the packaging ive seen.

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...

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.

 

[Demosthenes X]

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"...

 

[iParis]

Actually, I think it's 596GB, not 595GB.

read the fine print on the box. says right there that its not actual capacity.

Then they should sell and advertise it as the actual capacity.

 

[dukebound85]

Actually, I think it's 596GB, not 595GB.



Then they should sell and advertise it as the actual capacity.

they do, they just use a different definition

a gigabyte is 1000^3 bytes

a gibibyte is 1024^3 bytes

 

[JNB]

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.

 

[rdowns]

Actually, I think it's 596GB, not 595GB.



Then they should sell and advertise it as the actual capacity.

Oh please. Do you really see companies offering things like a 14.57 GB iPod touch or a 147.9 GB hard drive?