Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Data Storage News

Computer Makers Sued Over Hard Drive Size 1090

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the yep-size-still-matters dept.
FPCat writes "Finally, some one is doing something about one of my pet peeves. It seems a group of people are suing Apple, Dell, Gateway, HP, and others for misleading consumers about hard disk sizes. About time someone spoke up and said '1000 MB != 1 GB'" It's not much of a mystery to anyone who's up on industry practices, but it's similar to the way graphic displays are sized, cereal boxes are filled, and so on. Andy Rooney could have a field day with this one.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Computer Makers Sued Over Hard Drive Size

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:00PM (#6999384)
    It's how you use it. (Look, someone had to make the joke.)
    • by KikassAssassin (318149) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:12PM (#6999522)
      [dark helmet]
      So, I see that your hard drive is as BIG AS MINE! Now... let's see how well you handle it.
      [/dark helmet]
    • by Compact Dick (518888) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:12PM (#6999525) Homepage
      But the truth is most women find bigger is better.

      Yes I would know.
    • ads (Score:5, Funny)

      by QEDog (610238) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:35PM (#6999718)
      This is insanely stupid, I can imagine in the near future the ads:

      This computer comes with 100GB of HD*!

      *HD size may vary. Some restrictions apply. Professional in a closed course. Caution, do not eat, migh be hot. Do not insert into ear canal. May cause seizure. May cause drowsyness...

      • Re:ads (Score:5, Informative)

        by arkanes (521690) <arkanes@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:56PM (#6999896) Homepage
        Most of the boxes have fine print them already that says "1 megabyte is 1 million bytes" or something similar. At least the ones that I've seen.
        • Re:ads (Score:5, Funny)

          by zurab (188064) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @10:01PM (#7000382)
          This reminds me - just today I was looking at Rio portable players and when I checked out newer Nitrus model [digitalnetworksna.com] with "1.5GB" storage, it actually has an asterisk explaining that figure that says:

          *1 GB equals 1,000,000,000 bytes

          I was thinking how can they get away with that outright lie! Imagine this type of advertizing:

          New Item! - Buy Ten* CD-R Discs and get 5 more FREE! Low price of $5.00 for 15 CD-R discs!!!
          *Ten cd-r discs = 9 cd-r discs

          And then I see this /. story and a lawsuit. I wonder if multi-media storage manufacturers are next.
      • Re:ads (Score:5, Funny)

        by Epistax (544591) <epistax@noSPam.gmail.com> on Friday September 19, 2003 @12:08AM (#7001060) Journal
        This does really matter from advertising, and one has to wonder how long they are allowed to lie. 1024 bytes aren't far from 1000, but how about a terabyte harddrive? With the current trend, you'd only get 91% of what you expect.
  • by tarquin_fim_bim (649994) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:00PM (#6999388)
    In SI units [ex.ac.uk] (which most civilised counties use) M means mega which is defined as 10^6, i.e. 1000000 , it is only the computer industry that deems K (1000) to equal 1024 which it does not, then extrapolates this to give 1M = 1024 x 1024. This is absolute rubbish, a different system of quantification should be used when referring to binary powers, as the borrowing of those from SI is clearly misleading.
  • SI definitions (Score:3, Informative)

    by Chmarr (18662) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:01PM (#6999399)
    Actually, 1000MB == 1GB...

    you're probably thinking 1024MiB = 1GiB

    If someone is suing Apple, etc, over the definition of 'mega', then they're going to lose.
    • Re:SI definitions (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jucius Maximus (229128) <zyrbmf5j4x AT snkmail DOT com> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:06PM (#6999460) Homepage Journal
      I expect that this is really confusing for the typical customer. These are the observations I generally accept as true:

      1. For hard drives, the industry defines 1000 MB = 1 GB
      2. For RAM, the industry defines 1024 MB = 1 GB
      3. For mp3 players, it depends
      4. For CD-R, DVD-R/w, the industry defines 1024 MB = 1 GB
      5. For USB flash drives, the industry defines 1000 MB = 1 GB.

      Unless you are very used to dealing with these markets, they can be hellishly difficult to understand.

      • Judging by the typical end-users I deal with, a mere 24MiB/MB per gig isn't going to help - to them 1GB == FREE.

        10GB == Their Email archive.
        20GB == How much space they chew up when they .copy their entire hard disk up to the fileserver!
        50GB == How much space they deserve.

        Do any users actually pay attention to disk space, or do they just fill it up? You decide...

        Lurgen.com [lurgen.com]
        Lurgen's Blog [lurgen.com]

      • Re:SI definitions (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sootman (158191)
        What bugs *me* about MP3 players is the way when they first started coming out, they said a 32 MB model could hold "up to an hour of CD-quality music" which is BS because a 128k mp3 takes 1 MB per minute, so 32 MB ~= 1/2 hour. You'd have to encode your music at 64 kbps to fit 1 hour onto a 32 MB device. It's questionable to call a 128k mp3 "cd-quality" but a 64k mp3? No f'ing way.
      • DVDs: 1000MB = 1GB (Score:3, Interesting)

        by achurch (201270)

        For CD-R, DVD-R/w, the industry defines 1024 MB = 1 GB

        You'd be surprised: all the writable DVDs I have claim 4.7GB but offer 4,700,000,000 (+/- a tiny amount) bytes = 4.3*2^30. (CDs, on the other hand, do use 1024: the "700MB" CDs I use are 736,966,656 (data) bytes = 703*2^20.

        Good lord, this is confusing...

      • CD/DVD capacities (Score:5, Informative)

        by David Jao (2759) * <djao@dominia.org> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @09:42PM (#7000261) Homepage
        4. For CD-R, DVD-R/w, the industry defines 1024 MB = 1 GB

        No! CD-R uses binary prefixes and DVD-R uses decimal prefixes. Actually, in reality, both CD-R and DVD-R capacity labels are inaccurate under either the binary or the decimal interpretation, but you have to really be splitting hairs to notice.

        The exact expected capacity of normal sized CD-Rs (not counting overburning, yadda yadda) is as follows:

        • For 74 minute CD-Rs, the capacity is 74*60*44100*2*2*2048/2352 = 681984000 bytes, or 650.390625 binary MiB (exactly, no roundoff error).
        • For 80 minute CD-Rs, the capacity is 80*60*44100*2*2*2048/2352 = 737280000 bytes, or 703.125 binary MiB (again, this figure is exact, not rounded off).
        For DVD+/-R[W] media, the exact capacity is 4697620480 bytes, or just shy of 4.7 decimal GB. The capacity of a DVD-R is certainly nowhere near 4.7 binary GB.
    • by sheetsda (230887) <doug.sheets@gmai l . c om> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:27PM (#6999652)
      that I can store roughly one first person shooter per gib of drive space.
    • Re:SI definitions (Score:5, Insightful)

      by black mariah (654971) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @09:21PM (#7000077)
      I doubt it. Megabyte and Gigabyte are used in the computer industry to denote specific sizes, and have been for many years. This is like getting screwed over at a gas station because some dumbass decided that a gallon was equal to a pint because some Sumerian chicken measurements used a GAL prefix or something equally stupid.

  • Ewww! (Score:4, Funny)

    by HeroicAutobot (171588) * on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:01PM (#6999404) Homepage
    From the article (emphasis mine):

    The lawsuit asks for an injunction against the purportedly unfair marketing practices, an order requiring the defendants to disclose their practices to the public, restitution, disgorgement of ill-gotten profits and attorneys' fees.

    I'm not sure what disgorgement means, but it sounds really gross.

    • Re:Ewww! (Score:5, Funny)

      by civad (569109) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:07PM (#6999470)
      disgorge
      v. disgorged, disgorging, disgorges
      v. tr.

      1. To bring up and expel from the throat or stomach; vomit.
      2. To discharge violently; spew.
      3. To surrender (stolen goods or money, for example) unwillingly.

      I would love it if the statement "The lawsuit asks......" uses disgorgement to describe the first meaning. I doubt Apple, etc. would do as meaning (2) suggests. Meaning (3) seems appropriate in this context.
  • apple says (Score:5, Informative)

    by photoblur (552862) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:03PM (#6999425) Homepage
    According to Apple's website [apple.com]
    1GB = 1 billion bytes; actual formatted capacity less.
    it's in the fine print at the bottom of the above linked page
    • I'm glad you pointed out the fine print issue. I seem to remember that complaining in the past led to almost every manufacturer and retailer putting this info in the fine print. I challenge people to find a major company who doesn't disclose this info.

      Legally, I don't think they have much of a case. The fine print contains the discloser that they are suing about, so it is simply ignorance on the case of the consumer not to read it.

      Take this example:

      The U.S. court system has issued a ruling declaring t
  • by Lord_Dweomer (648696) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:03PM (#6999432) Homepage
    "That missing 10 gigabytes, they claim, could store an extra 2,000 digitized songs"

    Oh the horror!!!!!!!!

    • Great now the RIAA will sue the HD makers for making the disks too small and reducing their potential infringment collections by $300,000,000 per user. In other news SCO has announced that their patent portfolio includes all uses of the term giga- in referance to both base 10 systems and base 2 systems.
  • by wo1verin3 (473094) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:03PM (#6999434) Homepage
    From the Article:
    >>For example, when a consumer buys what he
    >>thinks is a 150 gigabyte hard drive, the
    >>plaintiffs said, he actually gets only 140
    >>gigabytes of storage space. That missing 10
    >>gigabytes, they claim, could store an extra
    >>2,000 digitized songs or 20,000 pictures.

    In other news, the RIAA is going the way of minority report and has started a new pre-download offensive.

    The RIAA is now hunting children down and suing parents over the potential songs that could be stored in the extra 10GB missing on 150GB hard disks.
  • Fine Print (Score:3, Funny)

    by someguy456 (607900) <someguy456@phreaker.net> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:05PM (#6999447) Homepage Journal
    So now we're going to see fine print saying "Warning: actual byte conversions may vary" !
    • Re:Fine Print (Score:3, Informative)

      by OverlordQ (264228)
      It's already there on every hard drive box, it says something along the lines of "The Manufacturer considers 1GB to equal 1000MB"
  • by winkydink (650484) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:06PM (#6999455) Homepage Journal
    The lawsuit asks for an injunction against the purportedly unfair marketing practices, an order requiring the defendants to disclose their practices to the public, restitution, disgorgement of ill-gotten profits and attorneys' fees

    So, a bunch of lawyers get obscenely rich and 2 years from now we all get a $5.00 coupon toward the purchase of a new disk.

  • by DevNull (6840) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:06PM (#6999464) Journal
    17" monitors, with 15.7" viewable?
    Ya, I have an 11 inch... but you can only see 6.
  • by weston (16146) <westonsd@can n c e n t r a l.org> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:07PM (#6999468) Homepage
    Anyone who can understand that there's a difference between deciding a KB is 1000 bytes vs 1024 bytes should also know better than to make this into a lawsuit. I'll bet the motivation isn't even so much to screw consumers as to avoid confusing them. Once your average american on the street groks the metric system, explaining that we're working with multiples of 2^10 instead of 10^3 isn't going play well.

    If you're really in a tizzy about this, just invent the distinction "binary GB|MB|KB" and "decimal GB|MB|KB" and stick with that.
  • What about... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ADRA (37398) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:11PM (#6999508)
    those hard drives that are sold as 80gb drives, but have 20GB partitions allocated for the OS 'backup'. That's my pet peave. Luckally I don't buy systems with that 'feature'

    If PDA manufacturers can get sued for it, why not their desktop counterparts?
    • gotta love (Score:3, Interesting)

      by _avs_007 (459738)
      those systems that ship with 128mb or more of memory, but in the fine print says part of it is shared with the Video Card.

      I remember a long time ago my IBM PCjr had 128k of memory, but 16k of it was shared with the display card, such that only 112 was available. Consequently, many PC software apps that required 128k of ram didn't work. Thank god for the sidecar memory expansion kit :)
  • From NIST... (Score:5, Informative)

    by wirelessbuzzers (552513) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:15PM (#6999548)
    From NIST [nist.gov]
    Unit Prefix Abbreviation
    2^10 kibi Ki
    2^20 mebi Mi
    2^30 gibi Gi
    2^40 tebi Ti
    2^50 pebi Pi
    2^60 exbi Ei

    Examples and comparisons with SI prefixes

    1 Kibit = 2^10 bit = 1024 bit
    1 kbit = 10^3 bit = 1000 bit
    1 MiB = 2^20 B = 1 048 576 B
    1 MB = 10^6 B = 1 000 000 B
    1 GiB = 2^30 B = 1 073 741 824 B
    1 GB = 10^9 B = 1 000 000 000 B
    In particular, 20 GB = 18.6 GiB. So, they're telling the truth, albeit in a not-so-honest way; it's really the disk info page that's lying.

    It's also worth noting that EXT2 and some other UNIX-based filesystems reserve a certain percent of the space; this makes their available capacity smaller for non-root users.
    • Re:From NIST... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Arker (91948)

      No, they are lying. NIST probably isn't lying, technically, because of lack of requisite intent, but they're wrong here.

      In computer science, a kilobyte 2^10 bits, a megabyte 2^20 etc. Always has been, always will be.

      This isn't contradictory to the SI use, our words are very often used in very different ways in different contexts. Is a megalopolis a million cities? A megalomaniac a million maniacs? Of course not. People of normal intelligence shouldn't really have to have this explained to them.

      In the

  • by Cyberllama (113628) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:16PM (#6999560)
    I mean, who decided you could do this? My 120 gig drive is really only 112 gigs. If I sold gasoline for 1.29 a gallon, then put a little footnoot on my sign that said "*Gallon is used to mean 32 oz" you better believe I'd be sued. You can't just redefine things like that -- its deceptive. How many people buy 120 gig hard drivers not realizing they're really only getting 112 gigabytes?

    Also, as a side note if anyone else is looking to sue someone, ice cream manufacturers recently reduced the amount of ice cream in their half-gallon containers rather than raise the cost. Despite the fact that thye no longer actually contain a half gallon, they are still clearly labelled "half gallon" on the containers (Though the ounces are properly listed, and anyone who knows how many ounces there are in a gallon knows they're being shortchanged).

    Deceptive marketting practices make baby jesus cry. . .
    • I mean, who decided you could do this? My 120 gig drive is really only 112 gigs.

      No your 120 Giga (as in billion) byte hard drive is 120 billion bytes. You're thinking that Giga is a base 2 unit, when it's a base 10 unit.
    • Your 120 gig hard drive is 120 gigbytes, as advertised. That translates to about 112 gibibytes. The companies who are misrepresenting the size of drives are the ones who write software that use "gigabyte" to mean "gibibyte".

      Consider my newest hard drive. Western Digital, who manufactured it, says it's 120GB. Windows 2000, written by Microsoft, tells me it's 111GB. Wieghing in the fact that it's slightly over 120,000,000,000 bytes, it's apparent to me that Western Digital is right and Microsoft is wro

      • by cje (33931) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @10:45PM (#7000608) Homepage
        A gibibyte? Jesus. I'm aware that these are standard SI terms, but at some point you've got to let common sense step in.

        My production server at work has 24 gigabytes of RAM, by which I mean it has 24 x 1,024 x 1,024 x 1,024 bytes of RAM. I assume that you would claim this machine has 24 gibibytes of RAM, or that your desktop has 512 mebibytes of RAM, or that this particular object module is 72 kibibytes in size, then? If I started throwing around terms like that, people would look at me like I had gone completely batshit.

        "megabyte" and "gigabyte", as they pertain to computer storage, have always been based off of multiples of 1024. This is different than the traditional meanings of these prefixes, but that's a separate issue (and it's hardly new; they've been around for more than fifty years.) What is new is how HDD manufacturers have silently discarded the existing meanings in order to artificially inflate the size of their media. This is a phenomenon that has come about only in recent years (i.e., in the past 5 years or so.) The fact that these manufacturers protest "But look! Technically, we're right!" is not particularly meaningful to me. 40 MB hard drives used to be 40 x 1024 x 1024 bytes. 512 MB of RAM is still 512 x 1024 x 1024 bytes, the same as it's always been. And you claim that "HD makers redefined squat?"

        Another obvious example of this is CD-R versus DVD-R. A Yellow Book CD has a capacity of 650 MB, by which I mean 650 x 1024 x 1024 bytes, which is well above 650,000,000 bytes. DVD-R, on the other hand, which is advertised as a 4.7 GB medium, can only hold ~4.35 GB as gigabytes have traditionally been interpreted. So you've got one interpretation for CD-R, and another for DVD-R.

        Now, you can crow about SI units all you want, and you can go around talking about how many mebibytes of RAM your laptop has and how many kibibytes this e-mail attachment consumes, but if you don't see that there has been a recent redefinition of standard computer terminology by media manufacturers to hype their products, then you are being either naive or deliberately obtuse.
    • by iggymanz (596061) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:44PM (#6999804)
      actually, it's we computer people who invented the very FALSE notion that 120 gig is 120 x 1024 x 1024 x 1024. We redefined (being lazy S.O.B.'s) the meaning of gig from its true meaning of 10^9 to 2^30, mega from 10^6 to 2^20, kilo from 10^3 to 2^10. So now marketers find it to their advantage to use the TRUE meaning of the word and you cry "lies"? The majority opinion of science and engineering votes against us.
    • Does this also have something to do with the recent reduction in size of software boxes, like PC games? It used to be that software was packaged in cardboard boxes that were 8" x 10". Heck, my Ultima: Ascention dragon edition is 12" x 15" (friggin HUGE!). Now the boxes are more like 5" x 7".

      They're just trying to rip us off, I tell ya. We're not getting all the software we paid for!
  • by EmpNorton (124581) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:17PM (#6999566) Homepage
    Car, truck, and motorcycle represent their motors rounded usually to the nearest 100. My 1100cc motorcycle is actually onlt 1085cc. Isnt this sort of behavior rampany? Are 50mg pills always 50mg? Certainly 2x4 lumber is not actually 2x4. I would think making everything absolutely accurate would simple confuse the average consumer.

    This just seems silly.
    • If you were going to sue the automakers, at least sue them for making the Speedomoter and/or fuel gage inaccurate.

      I read an article Consumer Reports a while back saying the european makers are the worst when it comes to the speedo reading a speed that is higher than what you are traveling. I remember it saying that for post 1995 cars, GM had the most accurate speedos with dead-on readings at 60 and overstated by 1mph at 100mph, followed by Toyota and Honda which overstated the speed by 2 at 60mph and 5 mph
  • Apple... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by myrdred (597891) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:18PM (#6999585)
    Heh, I remember when Apple actually did it THE OTHER way. I was trying to look up a Maxtor 4.0 GB HD that shipped in one of my macs, and could not find any mention of such a hd. The Apple specs clearly said it was 4.0 GB. But it turned out that Maxtor classified these as 4.3GB, whereas apple used the 1024 size cound, rather than the 1000 that maxtor used. Heh.
    • by quacking duck (607555) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:57PM (#6999909)
      According to the Mac Secrets book, a decade ago Apple shipped systems with monitors listed with the correct size--if it was 12" viewable, it was marketed as 12" instead of 13" like everyone else in the industry did. From a marketing standpoint of course consumers thought they were getting better value on the monitor.

      So Apple went with the flow and started marketing 12" monitors as 13". And for a time it was good.

      Until the industry got slapped with a deceptive advertising suit or something. But rather than market it CORRECTLY, now more ink is wasted when ads are printed with disclaimers, like "* 18.1" viewable" on 19" CRT screens.

    • Re:Apple... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by green pizza (159161) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @11:50PM (#7000991) Homepage
      Apple used to label their monitors that way too. At one point Apple sold 12", 16" and 19" monitors (the same monitors their competitors called 14", 17", and 20"). AFAIK, Apple only ever labeled one of their monitors a 15", they generally referred to that size as 13" or 14".

      Then there's the goofy... there was a time when Apple's imaging software used a fixed partition size. So if they ran out of hard drives from vendor X, they would just use the same exact partition on a larger drive from vendor Y...... so rather than getting a 4.0 GB Seagate, you may actually have gotten a 4.5 GB Quantum with a single 4.0 GB partition.
  • by El (94934) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:23PM (#6999621)
    As long as they tell you their "20GByte" drive is actually 20,000,000,000 bytes unformated (which Maxtor does), then I don't see the problem. I was under the impression that every hard driver manufacturer used a multiplier of 1000 instead of 1024, in which case it is pretty hard to call this anticompetive behaviour. In fact, it is just the opposite -- every manufacturer was forced to use this definition to avoid unfavorable price/size comparisons with other vendors.
  • by The Master Control P (655590) <<ejkeever> <at> <nerdshack.com>> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:25PM (#6999636)
    Can you say "frivilous lawsuit?" We've got the RIAA, the "Patriot" act and SCO out there, and they're suing over 1000 vs 1024? My thoughts:

    * If you actually know what 2^10, 2^20, etc is, you already know enough to see if the manufacturer means 1000 or 1024.
    * If you don't, you're not going to notice a few percent difference.
    * The average moron falls under number 2.

    I mean, this is practically the *meaning* of a trivial lawsuit. No one will get anything from this except a bunch of scummy lawyers (Not that all lawyers are scum; it's just that the scum get more attention)

    Personally, I think that when the law code is so convoluted, long, cross-linked, and full of antique, useless waste that you can make millions of dollars interperting it for others, it's time to do a serious code audit.
  • by fredrikj (629833) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:25PM (#6999637) Homepage
    A lot of people here have claimed that the *bi prefixes are SI standards. They aren't. They're IEC standards.
  • by DaBj (168491) <dabj AT dabj DOT net> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:34PM (#6999710) Homepage Journal
    "That missing 10 gigabytes, they claim, could store an extra 2,000 digitized songs"

    "Your honour, we couldn't download as many songs from kazaa as we hoped when we bought the drives."
  • by G4from128k (686170) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:34PM (#6999712)
    This whole powers of 1000 vs. powers of 1024 for sizes is silly. The disk makers report capacities based on powers of 1000 (standard SI definition of mega, giga, etc.) and the OS reports sizes based on powers of 1024. Presto chango, a brand new 200 GB (GB = 1000^3) drive reports that it has 186 GB (GB = 1024^3) of space after formatting.

    Why can't the OS report all sizes in MB, GB, etc. instead of MiB, GiB, etc.? Are the coders so lazy that they insist on using a bit shift operator to divide by 1024, rather than actual division by 1000? Are we so stuck with the legacy of powers of two that we can't change things now?

    Seems like a simple patch to the OS would have everything reporting based on powers of 1000. As a side benefit, I'd get my "missing" 14 GB of space back on that new firewire drive.
  • by cpeikert (9457) <cpeikert@alum[ ]t.edu ['.mi' in gap]> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:39PM (#6999760) Homepage
    In a nasally, whiny voice:

    "D'ja ever notice how disk manufacturers are using 10^9 as 'giga' instead of 2^30? I remember back when we useta get a true 1024 multiplier for every step up the metric prefix ladder. 'Course, then every megabyte would set you back $20, but it was a full 1048576 bytes you were getting, and that was something you could count on. Nowadays it seems as if every swindler out there is trying to lowball his numbers, just to save a little magnetic coating. And don'tcha hate it how you have to get up seven times every night to go to the bathroom, and your joints ache from leaning down to pick up the toilet seat? And how nobody likes to listen to an old codger whine about insignificant crap like how big a megabyte really is? I'm a sad, lonely old man."
  • Argh! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by OrangeHairMan (560161) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:54PM (#6999880)
    1000 MB != 1 GB

    YES IT DOES! It's 1024 MiB that equals 1 GiB. 1000 MB is a perfect way to describe 1 GB.
  • by pair-a-noyd (594371) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @09:28PM (#7000132)
    Let's go after them about monitor (and TV) sizes. This shit about a 17" monitor (or whatever) is bullshit. Sure the tube is 17" OUT OF THE FUCKING BEZEL! Then they put in small print * 15.2" viewable *

    KMFA you buttholes! How about plastering the TRUE viewable area all over the box.

    I'm so bloody sick of all these deceptive practices. Just like gasoline, $1.49 and 9/10. Like you can buy gas in 9/10's of a cent at a time. It's a RIP OFF scheme. You lose 1/10 of a cent each gallon you buy. They GAIN 1/10 of a cent each gallon you buy. Over the long haul they haul tons of $$$$ to the bank..

    Everyone has to be a thief these days..

  • by Greyfox (87712) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @09:29PM (#7000144) Homepage Journal
    If they win, all hard drive owners will get a certificate good for 2,000,000 bytes and the lawyers will get $5,783,774!
  • by Xenex (97062) <xenex@opinionstic[ ]om ['k.c' in gap]> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @09:54PM (#7000340) Journal
    At the bottom of each [apple.com] one [apple.com] of [apple.com] their [apple.com] product [apple.com] pages [apple.com], it states:
    1GB = 1 billion bytes; actual formatted capacity less.

"Marriage is low down, but you spend the rest of your life paying for it." -- Baskins

Working...