On 11/3/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Nick Morrott</b> <<a href="mailto:knowledgejunkie@gmail.com">knowledgejunkie@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I completely agree with your points. I'm not singling hard drive<br>manufacturers out in particular, but the general inconsistency that<br>exists, and that HDD manufacturers appear to be the most obvious 'odd<br>man out'.
</blockquote><div><br>I disagree that they are the obvious odd man out. Physical storage media have often used the prefixes correctly (or at least more correctly - the old 1.44MB floppy is actually 1.44 * 1000 * 1024 bytes - it's not like the inconsistency has arisen suddenly). Companies use them correctly when referring to network speeds and CPU speeds. You speak as if the whole industry other than hard disk manufacturers use the terms consistently. They don't. Essentially only RAM capacities and the size figures reported by some OSes use the incorrect definition.
</div><br>Where inconsistency exists it should be resolved by choosing the correct alternative. AFAICS there is no good reason to choose to continue to use the incorrect definition just because some of the industry has always done so in the past. Suing the companies that are using the term correctly is certainly not the right way to go.
<br><br>As far as I'm concerned the HD manufacturers have done nothing wrong: they are using the terms accurately. They are not being misleading and even go so far as to point out the definition they are using. Beyond that it is up to the consumer to understand the specifications of the gear they are buying. Caveat emptor and all of that.
<br><br>Cheers,<br>Steve<br></div><br>