185Gbs for a 200Gb Harddrive?

[yellow]

Yeah, I can't believe this made it past the second post. But I guess people need to chime in with exactly the same info over and over.

Didnachaknow?

A 200GB drive is actually 200,000,000,000 bytes larger blah blah blah.

I can't say much since I've been a first responder and a chimer-inner to this question far too often.

So much so that I ask it as an interview question now! You'd probably not be surprised how many people give me bullsh*t answers.

 

[killmoms]

They became an IEC standard in 1999. They became IEEE full-use standard in 2005 after a two-year trial period.

But yes, acceptance by hardware/software companies has been slow to non-existant.

There's a reason they haven't been accepted by the community of users, or hardware/software manufacturers:

Because they sound ****ing stupid.

 

[McGarvels]

I ordered a Macbook a few weeks ago with a 200Gb harddrive. It shipped with a 185Gb harddrive. Since I am(/was) a Windows user I'm not exactly sure if this is correct. I assumed that it would ship with 200Gbs useable space with OSx taking up ~10Gbs. I can currently only access the 185. Is 15 Gbs reserved for a restore partition?

Does the 185 seem correct to you guys?

Thanks!

I'm not exactly sure but doesn't a lot of the iDVD + Garageband extra features take up a couple of gigs of space as well. Not to mention all the languages installed that are not needed. I suggest a fresh install of OSX and remove all languages not needed. Also delete iDVD + Garageband if you don't need them (you can always reinstall later with the restore discs).

hope this helps.

Cheers.

 

[yellow]

Because they sound ****ing stupid.

I hate to admit it. But I completely second this. As an IT professional, I don't want to be uttering these words and subsequently be explaining to the difference to glassy-eyed users.

 

[killmoms]

I hate to admit it. But I completely second this. As an IT professional, I don't want to be uttering these words and subsequently be explaining to the difference to glassy-eyed users.

The terms that SHOULD be used are:

1024^3 bytes = 1 gigabyte
1000^3 bytes = 1 "we ****ing lie to you to make our drives sound bigger" gigabyte as defined by ripoff hard drive manufacturers

It's not as short, sure, but it's way more accurate, and (I feel) adequately conveys the sense of frustration I have with the aforementioned charlatans.

 

[WildCowboy]

The terms that SHOULD be used are:

1024^3 bytes = 1 gigabyte
1000^3 bytes = 1 "we ****ing lie to you to make our drives sound bigger" gigabyte as defined by ripoff hard drive manufacturers

It's not as short, sure, but it's way more accurate, and (I feel) adequately conveys the sense of frustration I have with the aforementioned charlatans.

Of course, as we go through every single time this thread pops up, the exact opposite is true.

The prefix "giga" has a specific meaning throughout base 10 measurement systems, and hard drive manufacturers are using it correctly. The problem is that the prefix was improperly applied to binary units decades ago, and it's now come back to haunt us.

So be frustrated with the software folks who refuse to correct the error made by their predecessors...

 

[majordude]

Yeah, I can't believe this made it past the second post. But I guess people need to chime in with exactly the same info over and over.

We need posts to get avatars.

 

[yellow]

We need posts to get avatars.

At least you're being honest with us and yourself.