2048 GB Hard Disk

Ed Cryer wrote June 10th 2012 in :

PS. We did once try doing without royals. Some bird-brained idiot cut
the king's head off, but when his heir recovered the throne he dug up
the mortal remains of the aforesaid bird-brained idiot and hanged them.
Bravo!

Both heads still exist (i.e. that of King Charles I and that of Oliver
Cromwell).

Iceman wrote:
Ed Cryer wrote June 10th 2012 in :

PS. We did once try doing without royals. Some bird-brained idiot cut
the king's head off, but when his heir recovered the throne he dug up
the mortal remains of the aforesaid bird-brained idiot and hanged them.
Bravo!

Both heads still exist (i.e. that of King Charles I and that of Oliver
Cromwell).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ1yPz14LrU
--
Crash

"Something there is that doesn't love a wall, that wants it down."
~ Robert Frost ~

Char Jackson wrote:


I think the answer is actually "NO", because there is no such
thing as a 2048GB hard drive.

That's silly, (and pedantic).

If one of my customers came to me with a question like that and I
launched into a lengthy dissertation on capacity measurements, I'd
find that I have one less customer.


And I would say, "show me the advert where you saw this".
And then I'd explain how the advert was wrong.

This is an example of an advert, where a customer could need
help decoding what it says. In fact, this product has a
single 500GB hard drive.

http://www.pacificgeek.com/product.asp?ID=94671&P=RS

"Intel Pentium e2140 1.8GHz 2048GB 500GB DVD+RW HD audio"

*******

I'm still waiting for you opinion on this. The reason I ask,
is more than one person has made this statement.

"Software bundle

Windows cannot recognise more than 2048GB of a drive in the
legacy MBR mode (known as the 2.2TB ceiling problem)."

And why is this important ? It's important, because too many
people shrug off what they see in Disk Management with
a "well, it's overhead", when in fact part of a noted
difference in capacity is overhead, and part is due to the
wrong units being used in a utility display.

Paul

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 15:37:45 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 15:43:48 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

XS11E wrote:

"Dave \"Crash\" Dummy" wrote:

Hard disk Size wrote:
Is 2048GB Hard Disk same as 2TB Hard Disk?

Yes.

First correct answer to a yes-or-no question!

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

A yes-no response means the OP doesn't learn how to decipher on his own.
Knowledge weans the child from ignorance and dependence.

However, in this instance the yes answer isn't in fact correct :-)

Hmm, I would say the yes answer is indeed correct and I have to marvel
at some of the drawn out responses this simple yes/no question has
generated. The funny things is that most (all?) of the longest replies
failed to give a yes/no answer at all. A forest versus trees thing, I
suppose.

Trouble is, the apparent simplicity of the question (-:!

The OP used "GB" and "TB" without explaining whether he meant the binary
version most of us in computing do (as I've already said, does anyone
actually ever use "GiB", "TiB" and the rest except when this discussion
comes up), or the decimal one that disc drive manufacturers do.

A _fairly_ simple answer to the question might be something like:

If you're a disc drive manufacturer, then no - 2TB is 2000 GB. For
almost everyone else, then yes, more or less.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I am the person for whom 'one size fits all' never fits. - Chris McMillan in
UMRA, 2011-11-12

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:22:39 -0400, Paul wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:


I think the answer is actually "NO", because there is no such
thing as a 2048GB hard drive.

That's silly, (and pedantic).

If one of my customers came to me with a question like that and I
launched into a lengthy dissertation on capacity measurements, I'd
find that I have one less customer.


And I would say, "show me the advert where you saw this".
And then I'd explain how the advert was wrong.

I'd have no problem with that, but only if the person asked for an
explanation. Given only the initial question, I'd answer yes and be
done with it.

--

Char Jackson

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 21:36:02 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 15:37:45 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 15:43:48 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

XS11E wrote:

"Dave \"Crash\" Dummy" wrote:

Hard disk Size wrote:
Is 2048GB Hard Disk same as 2TB Hard Disk?

Yes.

First correct answer to a yes-or-no question!

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

A yes-no response means the OP doesn't learn how to decipher on his own.
Knowledge weans the child from ignorance and dependence.

However, in this instance the yes answer isn't in fact correct :-)

Hmm, I would say the yes answer is indeed correct and I have to marvel
at some of the drawn out responses this simple yes/no question has
generated. The funny things is that most (all?) of the longest replies
failed to give a yes/no answer at all. A forest versus trees thing, I
suppose.

Trouble is, the apparent simplicity of the question (-:!

The OP used "GB" and "TB" without explaining whether he meant the binary
version most of us in computing do (as I've already said, does anyone
actually ever use "GiB", "TiB" and the rest except when this discussion
comes up), or the decimal one that disc drive manufacturers do.

A _fairly_ simple answer to the question might be something like:

If you're a disc drive manufacturer, then no - 2TB is 2000 GB. For
almost everyone else, then yes, more or less.

I take some comfort and pleasure in seeing that you got to the right
answer in the end, despite a small bit of initial mental anguish
regarding the apparent ambiguity of the question.

Fortunately, most of us aren't disk drive manufacturers, so for us
it's pretty easy.

--

Char Jackson

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 21:36:02 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 15:37:45 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 15:43:48 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

XS11E wrote:

"Dave \"Crash\" Dummy" wrote:

Hard disk Size wrote:
Is 2048GB Hard Disk same as 2TB Hard Disk?

Yes.

First correct answer to a yes-or-no question!

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

A yes-no response means the OP doesn't learn how to decipher on his own.
Knowledge weans the child from ignorance and dependence.

However, in this instance the yes answer isn't in fact correct :-)

Hmm, I would say the yes answer is indeed correct and I have to marvel
at some of the drawn out responses this simple yes/no question has
generated. The funny things is that most (all?) of the longest replies
failed to give a yes/no answer at all. A forest versus trees thing, I
suppose.

Trouble is, the apparent simplicity of the question (-:!

The OP used "GB" and "TB" without explaining whether he meant the binary
version most of us in computing do (as I've already said, does anyone
actually ever use "GiB", "TiB" and the rest except when this discussion
comes up), or the decimal one that disc drive manufacturers do.

A _fairly_ simple answer to the question might be something like:

If you're a disc drive manufacturer, then no - 2TB is 2000 GB. For
almost everyone else, then yes, more or less.

I take some comfort and pleasure in seeing that you got to the right
answer in the end, despite a small bit of initial mental anguish
regarding the apparent ambiguity of the question.

Fortunately, most of us aren't disk drive manufacturers, so for us
it's pretty easy.

Yes, but unfortunately, we have to buy from drive manufacturers (and
most resellers maintain the decimal descriptions).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

(If you are unlucky you may choose one of the old-fashioned ones [language
schools] and be taught English as it should be, and not as it is, spoken.)
George Mikes, "How to be Decadent" (1977).

On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 15:50:02 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

As an aside, I just canceled the sending of this message to point out
that my spell checker (in Forte Agent) flagged KiB as a spelling
error, but accepts KB.

My spell checker keeps me alert...

But I'm too lazy to find out whether I can fix it (or its dictionary) or
to find out whether I can find and connect another checker :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 22:43:50 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 21:36:02 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 15:37:45 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 15:43:48 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

XS11E wrote:

"Dave \"Crash\" Dummy" wrote:

Hard disk Size wrote:
Is 2048GB Hard Disk same as 2TB Hard Disk?

Yes.

First correct answer to a yes-or-no question!

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

A yes-no response means the OP doesn't learn how to decipher on his own.
Knowledge weans the child from ignorance and dependence.

However, in this instance the yes answer isn't in fact correct :-)

Hmm, I would say the yes answer is indeed correct and I have to marvel
at some of the drawn out responses this simple yes/no question has
generated. The funny things is that most (all?) of the longest replies
failed to give a yes/no answer at all. A forest versus trees thing, I
suppose.

Trouble is, the apparent simplicity of the question (-:!

The OP used "GB" and "TB" without explaining whether he meant the binary
version most of us in computing do (as I've already said, does anyone
actually ever use "GiB", "TiB" and the rest except when this discussion
comes up), or the decimal one that disc drive manufacturers do.

A _fairly_ simple answer to the question might be something like:

If you're a disc drive manufacturer, then no - 2TB is 2000 GB. For
almost everyone else, then yes, more or less.

I take some comfort and pleasure in seeing that you got to the right
answer in the end, despite a small bit of initial mental anguish
regarding the apparent ambiguity of the question.

Fortunately, most of us aren't disk drive manufacturers, so for us
it's pretty easy.

Yes, but unfortunately, we have to buy from drive manufacturers (and
most resellers maintain the decimal descriptions).

I hope I don't respond again in this thread, but in *this* response I
say:

I have known for years that to disk manufacturers, 1K is 1000, not 1024,
and the same for powers of that value. So I expect to get only
2000000000000 bytes when I buy a 2TB drive. (If I got the number of
zeros wrong, please be so kind as to think of it as though I got it
right.)

Beyond that: I have enjoyed this thread, mostly because I have a sense
of whimsy :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:22:59 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

I have known for years that to disk manufacturers, 1K is 1000, not 1024,
and the same for powers of that value. So I expect to get only
2000000000000 bytes when I buy a 2TB drive. (If I got the number of
zeros wrong, please be so kind as to think of it as though I got it
right.)



You got the number of zeroes right, but if you wanted me to check g
you should have put commas in.

Char Jackson wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 08:38:56 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

Hmm, I would say the yes answer is indeed correct and I have to marvel
at some of the drawn out responses this simple yes/no question has
generated. The funny things is that most (all?) of the longest replies
failed to give a yes/no answer at all. A forest versus trees thing, I
suppose.

Understand that the OP says 2 TB (decimal prefix), not 2 TiB (binary
prefix, aka tebibyte or TiB). snip

Understand that the OP asked a simple question. Why read more into it
than what was given? What was in that question that prompted a few of
you to launch into a scientific and technical discussion of capacity
measurements? Does "2048GB" refer to a 1TB drive? No. Does it refer to
a 3TB drive? No. Does it refer to a 2TB drive. Obviously, yes, so why
not just say yes, which in fact is what some of us did.

Which some of you were wrong and you, as one of them, are now trying to
cover your butt with rationalization.

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:47:59 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 08:38:56 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

Hmm, I would say the yes answer is indeed correct and I have to marvel
at some of the drawn out responses this simple yes/no question has
generated. The funny things is that most (all?) of the longest replies
failed to give a yes/no answer at all. A forest versus trees thing, I
suppose.

Understand that the OP says 2 TB (decimal prefix), not 2 TiB (binary
prefix, aka tebibyte or TiB). snip

Understand that the OP asked a simple question. Why read more into it
than what was given? What was in that question that prompted a few of
you to launch into a scientific and technical discussion of capacity
measurements? Does "2048GB" refer to a 1TB drive? No. Does it refer to
a 3TB drive? No. Does it refer to a 2TB drive. Obviously, yes, so why
not just say yes, which in fact is what some of us did.

Which some of you were wrong and you, as one of them, are now trying to
cover your butt with rationalization.

I guess I was hoping that being obviously right would mean that I
wouldn't have to cover anything. You apparently see it differently.

--

Char Jackson

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 22:43:50 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Char Jackson
writes:

Fortunately, most of us aren't disk drive manufacturers, so for us
it's pretty easy.

Yes, but unfortunately, we have to buy from drive manufacturers (and
most resellers maintain the decimal descriptions).

I'll take your word for the situation being unfortunate. That's not a
conclusion I would have arrived at by myself.

--

Char Jackson

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:30:39 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 14:26:13 +0100, Ed Cryer
wrote:

One thing I forgot to mention; we do it all in style! We're a
constitutional monarchy, when God alone knows just what would happen if
the Queen said "no" to just one little Parliamentary suggestion.
We have royal style, though. All that pageantry and riding in old
carriages brings in the bucks and respect. Did you see the concert
outside Buckingham Palace for the Jubilee? Man, what a concert! Who else
in the world could get a gig like that together?
It works, and it's working better and better the further we get away
from Dianagate.

I'm probably in the minority, but I'm embarrassed for you guys. A
"royal family" may have been unavoidable a thousand years ago, but I
don't know why you put up with it now. Willingly, even.

Because it works, that's why. The Queen carries out the ceremonial
role and provides a national symbol that is above politics. We don't
have anything like that in the US, except maybe the Constitution, but
it can't go and open hospitals. The US could really use a figure
that is above politics, but it's impossible in our system.

And as for the Queen saying no to legislation, that hasn't happened
for three hundred and five years now, and every royal knows it's
constitutionally impossible. If Parliament passes a bill for her own
deposition, she has no choice but to sign it.

I'm tempted to crosspost this to alt.talk.royalty, because it's been
so quiet there. But this kind of stuff would be the Nth repetition
there, so I won't.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

Stan Brown wrote:

And as for the Queen saying no to legislation, that hasn't happened
for three hundred and five years now, and every royal knows it's
constitutionally impossible. If Parliament passes a bill for her own
deposition, she has no choice but to sign it.

It was rumoured that one particularly unpopular and unworkable bill did
not meet with the Queen's approval, a quiet word was said to Mrs.
Thatcher (Something along the lines of "Do you think that's agood
idea?", and the bill was quietly and unobtrusively dropped.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.