21 Jan
1999
21 Jan
'99
5:32 p.m.
<RANT> There ain't no sech thing as a 1.44M
disk. The IBM style of HD
3.5has 2 sides, 80 tracks per side, 18 sectors per track, and 512 bytes
per sector. If you multiply that out, you get 1.406 HONEST Megabytes
(1048576). The only way to get 1.44 out of that is to creatively
redefine a Megabyte to be 1024000 bytes. That leaves IBM in the position
of claiming that a megabyte of memory is 1048576 bytes, but that a
megabyte of disk space is 1024000 bytes! If IBM ran a donut shop, how
many donuts would there be in a dozen??? </RANT>
Hmm... then why does a chkdsk a: on a '1.44' drive and disk return
the following:
- - - - -
1,457,664 bytes total disk space
512 bytes in 1 directories
1,185,792 bytes in 20 user files
271,360 bytes available on disk
512 bytes in each allocation unit
2,847 total allocation units on disk
530 available allocation units on disk
- - - - -
You had better check *your* math!
2 * 80 * 18 * 512 = 1474560
Sure looks like at least 1.44 Mb to me!
Megan Gentry
Former RT-11 Developer
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Megan Gentry, EMT/B, PP-ASEL | Internet (work): gentry!zk3.dec.com |
| Unix Support Engineering Group | (home): mbg!world.std.com |
| Compaq Computer Corporation | addresses need '@' in place of '!' |
| 110 Spitbrook Rd. ZK03-2/T43 | URL: http://world.std.com/~mbg/ |
| Nashua, NH 03062 | "pdp-11 programmer - some assembler |
| (603) 884 1055 | required." - mbg |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
22 Jan
22 Jan
6:33 a.m.
><RANT> There ain't no sech thing as a
1.44M disk. The IBM style of HD
>3.5has 2 sides, 80 tracks per side, 18 sectors per track, and 512 bytes
>per sector. If you multiply that out, you get 1.406 HONEST Megabytes
>(1048576). The only way to get 1.44 out of that is to creatively
>redefine a Megabyte to be 1024000 bytes. That leaves IBM in the position
>of claiming that a megabyte of memory is 1048576 bytes, but that a
>megabyte of disk space is 1024000 bytes! If IBM ran a donut shop, how
>many donuts would there be in a dozen??? </RANT>
Not to stick up for IBM, but the fact is that most drive
manufacturers use 1000000 bytes to represent a megabyte since
that will yield a larger XXXMB value than using 1024000 (a
thousand K's) or 1048576 (a K worth of K's). Just check the specs
of any manufacturer to see.
On a side note, I had always understood that a megabyte was the
latter (a k k's). After all, why would we suddenly switch from our
nice little power of 2 representation at a megabyte over to the evil
world of decimal? It would be way weird to say that 16MB RAM !=
16MB disk storage.
George
7:27 a.m.
New subject: ReLiability of wrong media (was: is out of 5-1/4" diskettes
<Pedantic>
Before going any further, answer, AND WRITE DOWN YOUR ANSWERS, to the
following questions:
1. What is a "megabyte"?
2. How many bytes are there in a "megabyte of memory"?
3. How many bytes are there in a "megabyte of disk storage"?
OK, you didn't really write them down, but we'll continue anyway.
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Megan wrote:
Hmm... then why does a chkdsk a: on a '1.44'
drive and disk return
the following:
1,457,664 bytes total disk space
You had better check *your* math!
Thank you. I HAVE. We are both capable of arithmetic. How many bytes
are in a "Megabyte"?
2 * 80 * 18 * 512 = 1474560
That part is
RIGHT!
Sure looks like at least 1.44 Mb to me!
Interesting! How many bytes do YOU have in a "Megabyte of disk"?
IF you had 1,000,000 bytes per "Megabyte" (like Sam), then
1474560/1000000 => 1.474560 Megabytes, ABOUT 1.47, NOT 1.44!
AND, the last time you bought a "Megabyte of memory", you got 1.048576 Meg!
[Sam: what books WOULD you consider to be "authoritative"? Mmmmm PANCAKES!]
IF you had 1046576 bytes per "Megabyte" (2^20, 1K K, ...) then
1474560/1048576 => 1.40625 "HONEST Megabytes".
AND, the last time you bought a "Megabyte of memory", you got 1.000 Meg.
If you had 1024000 bytes per "Megabyte", then 1474560/1024000 => 1.44
Megabytes! But could you please explain how you arrive at 1024000 as the
size of a "Megabyte"? Do you use the same number for memory? If so, then
the last time you bought a "Megabyte of memory", you got 1.024 Meg! And
your 64 Meg computer has 65.536 Meg of RAM! If you use different numbers
of bytes in a "Megabyte of disk" than you do in a "Megabyte of
memory", do
you work for IBM? How many doughnuts are in a dozen [Mmmm. doughnuts]?
How many in a "baker's dozen"?
There are legitimate arguments for using 2^20 (1048576).
There are legitimate arguments for using 10^6 (1000000).
Is there any legitimate reason to use 1024000? And to use it selectively
for diskettes, but to use a different value (1048576) for memory?
OB_10-year: for 20 years we struggled with companies that claimed that
THEIR computer was better than the competition, because THEIRs had 65.5K
of RAM. Now that we've finally won the battle of how many bytes in a
"Kilobyte", we are LOSING the battle of how many bytes are in a
"Megabyte".
--
Fred Cisin cisin(a)xenosoft.com
XenoSoft http://www.xenosoft.com
2210 Sixth St. (510) 644-9366
Berkeley, CA 94710-2219
7:48 a.m.
New subject: ReLiability of wrong media (was: is out of 5-1/4" diskettes
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
IF you had 1,000,000 bytes per "Megabyte"
(like Sam), then
1474560/1000000 => 1.474560 Megabytes, ABOUT 1.47, NOT 1.44!
AND, the last time you bought a "Megabyte of memory", you got 1.048576 Meg!
[Sam: what books WOULD you consider to be "authoritative"? Mmmmm PANCAKES!]
They sure are yummy!!!
I see your point now. Can I take my foot out of my mouth?
OB_10-year: for 20 years we struggled with companies
that claimed that
THEIR computer was better than the competition, because THEIRs had 65.5K
of RAM. Now that we've finally won the battle of how many bytes in a
"Kilobyte", we are LOSING the battle of how many bytes are in a
"Megabyte".
Well by golly we must reclaim the megabyte by boycotting companies that
abuse it like that horrid IBM!!
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always being hassled by the man.
Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 01/15/99]
8:14 a.m.
New subject: ReLiability of wrong media (was: is out of 5-1/4" diskettes
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Sam Ismail wrote:
Sure! But who'll supply the pancakes?
Every previous time that I have ever ranted about 1.4M, people
have responded by quoting IBM or the disk box. THIS group responds with
arithmetic and logic.
BTW, FDISK.EXE uses 1048576 for Megabyte.
There is some justification for 1,000,000, and a "Megahertz" is, indeed
1,000,000 hertz. But I don't like to use 1,000,000 for bytes, and it
doesn't fit the "1.44" either.
There MIGHT BE a justification for the 1024000 number. I've never heard
it, but would be very interested.
How about people who state that "Megabyte" != "megabyte"? Are those
really two different units of measure?
[apology: I failed to include a </pedantic> tag at the end of my last html.]
[Sam: what
books WOULD you consider to be "authoritative"? Mmmmm PANCAKES!]
They
sure are yummy!!!
I see your point now. Can I take my foot out of my mouth? Well by golly we must reclaim the megabyte by
boycotting companies that
abuse it like that horrid IBM!!
THAT is something that we are all more likely to agree with! If IBM ran
a doughnut shop, how many WOULD be in a dozen??
--
Fred Cisin cisin(a)xenosoft.com
XenoSoft http://www.xenosoft.com
2210 Sixth St. (510) 644-9366
Berkeley, CA 94710-2219
8:36 a.m.
New subject: ReLiability of wrong media (was: is out of 5-1/4" diskettes
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
There MIGHT BE a justification for the 1024000 number.
I've never heard
it, but would be very interested.
I'm sure its 1000K, or 1000 * 1024 = 1024000 bytes. As lame a definition
as can be.
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always being hassled by the man.
Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 01/15/99]
12:56 p.m.
New subject: ReLiability of wrong media (was: is out of 5-1/4" diskettes
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 483 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990122/6fbd9923/at…
8:55 a.m.
New subject: The "megabyte" discussion
At 11:14 AM 1/22/99 -0800, mostly Fred wrote:
Every previous time that I have ever ranted about 1.4M,
people
have responded by quoting IBM or the disk box. THIS group responds with
arithmetic and logic.
BTW, FDISK.EXE uses 1048576 for Megabyte.
I bought an IBM Deskstar hard disk that was rated at 810 Megabytes and it
had a note inserted into the packaging that had, IIRC, this to say about it:
Dear Customer,
The disk you have purchased holds 810,549,248 bytes when it
is formatted. Some programs will use the value of 1,048,576 bytes
as the size of a megabyte and will show this disk as having only
773 "megabytes" of storage, other programs will use 1,024,000 bytes
as the size of a megabyte and show the disk as having 791 or 792
megabytes. We don't understand it either, sorry for the confusion.
IBM Support
--Chuck
9:02 a.m.
New subject: The "megabyte" discussion
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Chuck McManis wrote:
I bought an IBM Deskstar hard disk that was rated at
810 Megabytes and it
had a note inserted into the packaging that had, IIRC, this to say about it:
Dear Customer,
The disk you have purchased holds 810,549,248 bytes when it
is formatted. Some programs will use the value of 1,048,576 bytes
as the size of a megabyte and will show this disk as having only
773 "megabytes" of storage, other programs will use 1,024,000 bytes
as the size of a megabyte and show the disk as having 791 or 792
megabytes. We don't understand it either, sorry for the confusion.
IBM Support
I can hardly believe IBM would put that last sentence in any of their
literature. Some jocular IBMers must've slipped that thru when the
corporate exec wasn't looking.
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always being hassled by the man.
Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 01/15/99]
8:53 a.m.
New subject: ReLiability of wrong media (was: is out of 5-1/4" diskettes
> OB_10-year: for 20 years we struggled with
companies that claimed that
> THEIR computer was better than the competition, because THEIRs had 65.5K
> of RAM. Now that we've finally won the battle of how many bytes in a
> "Kilobyte", we are LOSING the battle of how many bytes are in a
"Megabyte".
Well by golly we must reclaim the megabyte by
boycotting companies that
abuse it like that horrid IBM!!
Waht do you want ? Sell 64K, but call the price for 65.5 k is
bad, But isn't it a good thing to get 1.05 Meg, while you are
only paying 1 Meg ?
Hey, I call this a bargain !
Gruss
H.
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
3:34 p.m.
New subject: ReLiability of wrong media (was: is out of 5-1/4" diskettes
Sam Ismail wrote:
Well by golly we must reclaim the megabyte by
boycotting companies that
abuse it like that horrid IBM!!
Jerome Fine replies:
If you want to really complain, look at the optical disk drives produced
by Sony. I suggest that no one ever called a 180 KByte floppy drive
a 360 KByte floppy when you use a flippy (i.e. before there were
double sided floppy disk drives for the media which was double-sided in
almost all cases, but was ONLY used on one side when there was ONLY
one notch and pair of index holes - I presume most of those reading this
ridiculous thread now understand filppies - OK, I am guilty of making a
contribution also, but I just could not resist!) just because you could turn
the floppy over and use the other side.
Well, when Sony first brought out their 5 1/4" magneto-optical media which
was double sided, BUT the drive was ONLY single-sided (there was
about 300 MBytes formatted or about 325 MBytes unformatted per side
of the platter), the drive was stated to have a capacity of 650 MBytes because
the platter could be manually removed and turned over to access the other
side to look at the other 300 MBytes when it was re-inserted into the drive
(which could see ONLY 300 MBytes at a time). So while IBM may have
fudged by a percent or two, Sony just went ahead and doubled the drive
capacity - as if all single sided 180 KByte drives were instantly converted
to 360 KByte drives by using a flippy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
RT-11/TSX-PLUS User/Addict
8:09 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1398 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990122/52caa3d8/at…
25 Jan
25 Jan
2:07 a.m.
New subject: thousend K (was: Reiability of wrong media (was: is out of 5-1/4" diskettes)
Tony's description:
Let's start with the '360K' disk.
It has 2 sides, 40 tracks, 9 sectors/track, 512 bytes per sector. The
total number of bytes is therefore 368640 bytes.
But since 1K = 1024 bytes, that's also 360K _exactly_. That's the
formatted capacity, including the space taken up for the root directory, etc.
Similarly for a '720K' disk. The only difference is that it has 80
tracks, so it's exactly twice as much storage. _Exactly_ 720K
Taken and agreed.
But the other sizes are more bogus... The '1.2
Mbyte' disk is 2 sides, 80
tracks, 15 sectors/track, 512 bytes/sector. That works out as
1228800 bytes.
Now, 1K = 1024 bytes, 1Mb = 1024*1024 bytes = 1048576 bytes.
So a '1.2M' disk can also be considered as storing 1200K or
1.171875Mbytes. That's a little less than 1.2Mbytes, strictly.
Right, and you just missed the chance to give the explanetion.
see below.
The '1.44Mbyte' disk has 2 sides, 80 tracks,
18 sectors/track, 512
bytes/sector. That's 1474560 bytes. It's also 1440Kbytes or 1.40625Mbytes
[...]
The only way to get the commonly-used names is to take
1Mbytes as
1024*1000 bytes. There is no justification for this at all.
Justification ? I don't know, but there's an explanation - we
need some techno archeology - in the AT manual, the 1.2M drive
is nominated as having 1,200 Kbytes of storage - and AFAICT
after digging thru old magazines, IBM didn't advertise it
as 1.2M, only as 5.25" HD. Also, IBM did advertise the 1.44M
drive only as 1440 K 3.5" HD drive - I found also several old
disks that state 1440 K formated capacity on the box and label.
So, my guess is a sinister group of iluminati managed to
twist the systems to keep the people controllable (of course
they are part of the government).
Of course there is also another explanation, where a typical
technical half literate marketing guy combined his old school
knowledge that 1000 k is 1 M with the number 1,200 K (or 1,440 K)
to produce the more easy to advertise 1.2M FD.
And according to Occams Razor, where, whenever two theories
exist that fit the problem, the simplest is right, #1 has
clearly the preference (Or do you think tecnical half literate
marketing people are more likely than iluminati ?).
Have a nice WE
H.
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
8:27 a.m.
New subject: thousend K (was: Reiability of wrong media (was: is out of 5-1/4" diskettes)
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1869 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990125/c01e05f0/at…
26 Jan
26 Jan
12:15 a.m.
New subject: thousend K (was: Reiability of wrong media (was: is out of 5-1/4" diskettes)
The only way to get the commonly-used names is to take
1Mbytes as
1024*1000 bytes. There is no justification for this at all.
Justification ? I don't know, but there's an explanation - we > need some techno archeology - in the AT manual,
the 1.2M drive
> is nominated as having 1,200 Kbytes of storage - and AFAICT
> after digging thru old magazines, IBM didn't advertise it
> as 1.2M, only as 5.25" HD. Also, IBM did advertise the 1.44M
> drive only as 1440 K 3.5" HD drive - I found also several old
> disks that state 1440 K formated capacity on the box and label.
I have an IBM Technical Directory here (a list of all
the PC manuals). It
lists a technical reference manual for '3.5-Inch 720KB/1.44MB Drive'. So
either IBM were just using common names for the device (which is most
unlike IBM), or that's what they called it.
If you want, I can scan th aprobiate pages I found.
I've also got plenty of disks that claim to be
1.44Mbytes.
'classic' disks ? or actual ones - in fact, I looked thru my
disks, and I found that the 1.44 term must have established
around 90/92 - I found no disk stating 1440 K that was labled
later than 1992.
Servus
Hans
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
10:02 a.m.
New subject: thousend K (was: Reiability of wrong media (was: is out of 5-1/4" diskettes)
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1087 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990126/ac46bab0/at…
9385
days inactive
9390
days old
16 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
cmcmanis＠freegate.com -
dastar＠ncal.verio.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
g＠kurico.com -
Hans.Franke＠mch20.sbs.de -
jhfine＠idirect.com -
mbg＠world.std.com