Timeline for How is it possible that they used to type "Mb" when they meant "MB" in printed computer magazines in the 1990s?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 4, 2020 at 10:35 | comment | added | eagle275 | Not wanting to start a debate - but as far as I know at least the currently used OS behave similar - some even "wasting" more space for administrative structures (Inodes and mft and so on ) But I haven't seen a single OS reporting more space than the drive manufacturer claims (excluding compressed file systems ) | |
| May 4, 2020 at 10:32 | comment | added | I'm with Monica | @eagle275, yes, but all manufacturers do that consistently. The entity at wrong here is, technically, your operating system, for displaying the unit as "GB", when it is actually showing "GiB" numbers. There are systems that - correctly - display the same number with the correct unit. Windows (in any version) is not one of them, afaik. | |
| May 4, 2020 at 8:31 | comment | added | eagle275 | NO .. I feel cheated by all hard-drive manufacturers advertising x GB or x TB and then receiving less capacity ... and they always "excuse" by writing some BS about your OS may display differently ... while they just wanted to use the bigger number as advertising factor and at the same time safe money. | |
| May 2, 2020 at 16:07 | review | First posts | |||
| May 2, 2020 at 17:28 | |||||
| May 2, 2020 at 16:06 | history | edited | Peter Ridgers | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 96 characters in body
|
| May 2, 2020 at 16:01 | history | answered | Peter Ridgers | CC BY-SA 4.0 |