![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Can anyone explain to me why a disk can be advertised as 750 GB, but when put into the system, I am told that it is a 621 GB drive?
Seriously. Even if I grant that when they convert up, each time it's by orders ot 1000, instead of 1024 as it should be, and I do the appropriate division, we're still talking a conversion rate that would put me at closer to 698 GB. Still, that's a pretty huge chunk to lose to formatting, anyway you look at it.
Grrrr.
It's either a loss of 18% of advertised space to the file structure, or a loss of 11%. Either way, I think that's pretty much BS. I suspect those disks are not really what they are advertised as, no matter which way you think about it. Yes, yes, I know that the vendor stressed multiple times that the disk space we were purchasing was based upon the RAW disk. But you could provide reasonable estimates of what the space we would end up with, instead of just empasizing total raw disk space every time in the discussion.
Bah!
Seriously. Even if I grant that when they convert up, each time it's by orders ot 1000, instead of 1024 as it should be, and I do the appropriate division, we're still talking a conversion rate that would put me at closer to 698 GB. Still, that's a pretty huge chunk to lose to formatting, anyway you look at it.
Grrrr.
It's either a loss of 18% of advertised space to the file structure, or a loss of 11%. Either way, I think that's pretty much BS. I suspect those disks are not really what they are advertised as, no matter which way you think about it. Yes, yes, I know that the vendor stressed multiple times that the disk space we were purchasing was based upon the RAW disk. But you could provide reasonable estimates of what the space we would end up with, instead of just empasizing total raw disk space every time in the discussion.
Bah!
