To make things more confusing, there’s a goofy formula which tells you the actual capacity of a given advertised capacity. A drive advertised as 1 TB will always have exactly 1,000,204,886,016 bytes. It helps to have consistency, but nobody seems to knows where the formula came from.
Interesting.
The OS uses 1024 and the drive manufacturers are using 1000.
Which is why a 1TB drive shows 931GiB of capacity. (1024 GiB =1 TiB, 1024MiB =1 GiB, 1024KiB =1MiB, 1024 Bytes =1KiB) but the drive manufacturers using SI prefixes doing 1000 Bytes =1 KB, 1000 KB = 1MB, 1000MB = 1GB, 1000GB = 1TB.
Thus the discrepancy.
And it gets more complicated when we get to the metadata and filesystem structure. So, you technically never get to store 931GB, I wonder what the (average) ratio of metadata to data is? 3:1?
The problem arises when the OS uses GiB but labels them GB, like Windows does.
Look at Mr. “100 IQ” over here
128 IQ*
The old GiB vs GB
Bootlickers will then argue it’s cool that the manufacturer screws you out of almost a hundred gigs.
The manufacturer is labeling the drive correctly as 1TB (1000GB, 10^(12)B). It’s Microsoft that incorrectly labels it as 931GB; it’s actually 931GiB (931 * 2^(30)B). A Mac will correctly show 1000GB and a Linux machine will correctly show 931GiB.
Linux uses the unit defined by your locale, it may vary
Told you guys.
since it’s 69GB it’s not cool, it’s nice
They should just be requires to use consistent units of measurement.
That’s your OS using base 2 units and calling it TB. The drive ships with 1TB.
I really love how this really applied to basically everything, the more you know about Linux for example – the most you are happy that something worked instead of asking HOW it works
I’m talking to you, RAM memory!
FML you’re telling me I need Random Access Memory Memory now? 😩 Never getting a new pc.
is there something wrong with RAM on windows? iirc this was one of the things that worked normally for me.
Removed by mod
