At 20:39 -0300 on 06/26/2006, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote about
Re: Western Digital Loses Class Action-Reply by July 15th f:
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 06/26/2006
at 03:51 PM, "Pommier, Rex R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
So let me see if I get this straight. Western Digital sold disk
drives that they tagged as 80 GB. They used 1,000,000,000 bytes per
GB instead of the binary number. Somebody got confused and decided
to sue.
Why didn't the WD lawyers trot out the SI standard? This should have
been a summary judgement for the defendant.
I agree. GB is based on K=1000. The Binary (K=1024) Measure is given in GiB.
Or were they playing games with formatted versus unformatted?
You HAVE to list as Unformatted since the Formatted Capacity is based
on what Directory Structure you use (NTFS, FAT32, HFS, HFS+,
Unix/Linux Formats, etc.) as well as the Allocation Units (which
affect how much fits on a track, IIRC) and thus is variable.
Listing various Formatted Capacities in addition to the Unformatted
one is just a plus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
