Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21  
    I can attest as to that google quote being incorrect with regard to "Hard drive manufacturers have always used the decimal (base 10) number system to measure the storage capacities of hard drives."....I'm old enough to remember when this wasn't the case and I have had machines where 30 MB gave 30 MB and 1 GB gave 1024 MB. And what a load of crap that it's because we can't understand this stuff so they use base10 because we are more familiar with it......geez...how the hell do we manage buying 2048 MB of memory without a mental breakdown ? How the heck could we partition hard drives to the correct size when we were looking to minimize cluster slop...does cluster size change at multiples of 1,000 or multiples of 1024 ?

    You can be sure of one thing, if 2 to the 30th was 993,860,024 bytes they'd be using that instead or the "more easily understandable 1,000,000,000".

    If anything is confusing to the customer it's using two different definitions for the same thing.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Why not? And I did mention the 'Nix crowd.
    You support the validity of this lawsuit. So it falls in line to ask, If it is based on MS file structure capacity on a device that has universal application does that open the WD manufacturers open for lawsuit of misquoting drive capacity on their Linux, Unix, or MAC computer?
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 03/24/2006 at 01:45 PM.
  3. kvcobra's Avatar
    Posts
    446 Posts
    Global Posts
    450 Global Posts
    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by JackNaylorPE
    You can be sure of one thing, if 2 to the 30th was 993,860,024 bytes they'd be using that instead or the "more easily understandable 1,000,000,000".
    You got that right, Jack!

    I still think the lawsuit is frivolous, but I do recognize opportunism when I see it.
    ... Als sie mich holten, gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.
    ... Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out.
    -- Rev. Martin Niemöller

    Clie T615C + Nokia 6360 (SunCom) --> Treo 650 (Sprint) --> Treo 755p (Sprint) + BlackBerry 7130e (VZW)
    Palm (aka Plantronics) Ultralight Wireless headset
    Helix Holster
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    You support the validity of this lawsuit. So it falls in line to ask, If it is based on MS file structure capacity on a device that has universal application does that open the WD manufacturers open for lawsuit of misquoting drive capacity on their Linux, Unix, or MAC computer?
    Standard would be based on most prevelant use and stated so on the package. It's a simple matter of taking one's end user into account to diminish not delivering on PERCEIVED promises.

    Edited to add, I feel it's always better to underpromise and overdeliver.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Standard would be based on most prevelant use and stated so on the package. It's a simple matter of taking one's end user into account to diminish not delivering on PERCEIVED promises.
    So you feel that those Unix, Linux, and MAC users who buy the HD unaware that that advertised capacity is based on if they were using MS OS and were mislead into thinking a wrong actual user capacity for their OS are not eligible for filing a lawsuit just because there are more MS users?

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Edited to add, I feel it's always better to underpromise and overdeliver.
    BTW I have always felt this is a smart business principle to live by.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    So you feel that those Unix, Linux, and MAC users who buy the HD unaware that that advertised capacity is based on if they were using MS OS and were mislead into thinking a wrong actual user capacity for their OS are not eligible for filing a lawsuit just because there are more MS users?
    Yes. (ducks)
  7. #27  
    Unfortunately I think we (TreoCentral) and everyone (the courts, the world) have already spent too much time on this. If someone is going to whine about this, give them their bottle and move on. No one decides to buy one HD because it has 1GB more or less than some other.
  8. #28  
    They could just as easily make everyone happy and label each package and advertisement.

    Capacity = 300 GB*

    * 300 GB is based upon rounding the tru definition of a GB being rounded to 1,000,000,000 bytes. In reality, since a GB is actually 1,073,741,82 bytes, a 300GB Hard Drive will reuslt in an available capacity of 279 GB before formatting. Depending upon the methods used to format, the OS used and other factors, your actual available capacity will range from xx to yy % of the 279 GB figure.

    PHB's are against this cause they will be so nervous that of they do this and another manufacturer doesn't, their sales will suffer. Lawsuits of this type unfortunately are sometimes the only way to force manufacturers into "doing the right thing". If they did it on their own, the consumer is better off, the vendor saves money and the lawyers don't make a windfall.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yes. (ducks)
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions