Solving The Riddle Of Spatial Anomalies

[Kati Compton]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=581&ncid=581&e=4&u=/nm/20030918/tc_nm/tech_computers_suit_dc' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...mputers_suit_dc</a><br /><br /></div>When is a 256MB SD card not a 256MB SD card?<br /><br />When manufacturers use an "alternative" form of math. For as long as I can remember, storage such as hard drives and flash cards have been marketed counting 1,000,000 bytes as one megabyte, when computers actually consider it to be 2^20 bytes, or 1,048,576 bytes. In other words, your 256 marketing MB SD card is actually about 244 real MB (less any space needed by the file system).<br /><br />On PPCT we get a lot of users asking about this, confused when their device reports a capacity different than they thought they purchased. Is there anything that can be done about this? Well, somebody is trying. A class-action lawsuit has been filed by a number of computer users, seeking to force manufacturers to provide restitution, surrender any profits made by these practices, and to be more honest in packaging.<br /><br />Are any computer users going to get significant money from this? It seems like the only ones to monetarily benefit from class-action lawsuits are lawyers. But it would certainly be nice if capacities had to be listed properly so buyers would know what they're getting.

[bbarker]

Are any computer users going to get significant money from this? It seems like the only ones to monetarily benefit from class-action lawsuits are lawyers. But it would certainly be nice if capacities had to be listed properly so buyers would know what they're getting.
I doubt we'll get more than a discount coupon on our next hard drive. Normally I resent class-action lawyers making tons on their lawsuits that don't really benefit consumers in any measurable way. But this has irritated me long enough that I'd be glad to see the lawyers make their millions.

Now we need to address gas prices that end in nine tenths...

[doogald]

For goodness sakes. People moan about waste-of-time lawsuits all of the time. This sounds like a perfect example. It's not like there is some must-be-adhered-to international standard for measuring data. I could easily see an argument in court that the prefix "mega" means "thousand", not 1024 squared.

[GoldKey]

But, don't most drives etc have a disclaimer as to what a megabyte means?

[Wes Salmon]

For goodness sakes. People moan about waste-of-time lawsuits all of the time. This sounds like a perfect example. It's not like there is some must-be-adhered-to international standard for measuring data. I could easily see an argument in court that the prefix "mega" means "thousand", not 1024 squared.
True it's not an international standard but I think this case is more about truth in advertising than international standard.

They are selling a computer product, in computer terms "megabyte" means 1,024,576 bytes yet they are labeling their product based on a definition that only storage companies use.

It's certainly not an end of the world type issue, but it's certainly not an honest way to label your product either.

The same was true for display manufacturers who would rate a monitor's "size" by the diagonal measurement of the glass. Even if the picture tube and/or casing made an inch all around unviewable, they still sold the monitor based on the size of the glass. They got sued (rightfully so) and now have to advertise the "viewable size" along side their bogus size. i.e. 17" Monitor - 16.1" viewable.

Unfortunately sometimes it takes some lawyers making a ton of money for the consumer to benefit in the long run. Just as the case with the monitor issue, I think this is another one of those times.

[dean_shan]

But, don't most drives etc have a disclaimer as to what a megabyte means?That's what I thought. They always say that when you format it you lose data or somting like that.

[Kati Compton]

They always say that when you format it you lose data or somting like that.
This is a separate issue. Your file system takes up a little room. The point is that the bytes weren't even there to begin with.

It's been a while since I've seen a hard drive box, so maybe there are disclaimers now. But really, they should call a meg a meg, rather than using a metric inconsistent with anything that might use the drive.

[Sslixtis]

About time someone did something about this shady marketing ploy!

I'm not a big proponent of lawsuits, but this is just plain false advertising. It's like selling someone a pound/kilogram of something and then basing the weight on Jupiters gravity, when they know very well no one uses that "Standard" but them. :evil: :twisted:

[maximus]

Next thing you know, someone will file a class-action against the gasoline pump station, because when purchasing a gallon, they only get 0.998 gallon ... when purchasing a 8 oz coca cola, they only get 7.98 oz ....

[jnunn]

I do not believe that this is a frivalous lawsuit. If a vendor claims three significant figures (i.e. 256) but only delivers on one (i.e. 244) of a quantity that is understood by the user then that is false representation. Certainly the quantities are small (i.e. less than 5%) but the spirit of truth in advertising has been violated.

The important point is that the vendor is using (i.e. abusing) a term that is commonly understood by the consumer to have a different meaning. That is shady and should be stopped in my opinion.

[DualShock]

But, don't most drives etc have a disclaimer as to what a megabyte means?

If you look at a hard drive box, it says that their "definition" of a gigabyte is "1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes". (I've also seen this in Dell's ads.) What they don't tell you on the box is that the operating system uses a different definition. I think this is where the confusion comes in. If the drive mfr tells you that the OS represents a gigabyte differently, and that the size reported by the OS would be smaller than what it says on the box, then there wouldn't be a problem.

[apeguero]

Hurray for the people that took the initiative. I hope something positive comes of this, like, when a manufacturer advertises their product to have x number of megabytes then that product will actually have that amount - period.

I just recently returned a 512mb CF card to Microcenter because when I used the card the actual storage was 485mb. That was too much of a difference for me (27mb). I returned it out of disgust. I recall having this conversation with the Microcenter clerk, something about hoping someone would sue these manufacturers to get them to label these properly.

It's nice of them to print a disclaimer claiming that they use one number (1000) to measure storage space and that everybody else uses another (1048). Meanwhile they charge us for 1048 instead of the 1000. Not fair in my book. Plus that gap does start making a big difference when you get up to the big drives like 120gb. That drive would actually be around 114gb. In that case we are being cheated out of about 6gb of space... :devilboy:

PS remember a while back when a similar suit was filed against Monitor manufacturers for not being honest with the actual size of the screens in their monitors? You can't give these manufacturers an inch because they'll just keep taking more and more.

[Rok]

What actually baffles me is not that they (manufecturers) are doing it, but how this is possible at all. While I see it as perfectly logical that a hard drive can have just about any capacity, I thought that chips used in memory cards were actual computer capacities (i.e. 2 to the power of something). For instance (AFAIK), 256 MB DIMM has the actual capacity of 2^28 bytes, that is 268.435.456 bytes. So if it is based on four physical chips, each of them is 64 MB in computer terms, that is 67.108.864 bytes.

How come flash memory chips are different in this regard? Or are they different at all? And if they are not, how is it possible that a 256 MB flash card has an actual capacity of about 244 MB? It would only make sense if it was composed of, say, 4 MB actual chips, and they put three less inside. But they sure as hell aren't based on chips this small, are they?

Can anyone please elaborate on this?

Cheers,
Rok

[JonathanWardRogers]

If you look at a hard drive box, it says that their "definition" of a gigabyte is "1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes". (I've also seen this in Dell's ads.) What they don't tell you on the box is that the operating system uses a different definition. I think this is where the confusion comes in. If the drive mfr tells you that the OS represents a gigabyte differently, and that the size reported by the OS would be smaller than what it says on the box, then there wouldn't be a problem.

The problem is not a "different definition". Companies are not allowed to make up their own "definitions" when advertising. Can you imagine if that were allowed? We'd have "fat free" products containing 100g of fat because that particular manufacturer or producer uses a definition of "fat free" that includes anything containing 150g of fat and below! :roll:

[DualShock]

Companies are not allowed to make up their own "definitions" when advertising.

I distinctly remember Maxtor putting on their box "Maxtor defines a GB as..." when giving the 1,000,000,000 byte figure.

Anyway, I saw a URL at Maxtor's knowledge base. It's a ridiculously long URL with a session ID probably embedded in it, so I'll post how to get to it.

www.maxtorkb.com
click on search the hard drive knowledgebase
choose "search by answer ID", then type in 420

Apparently 2 standards bodies defined a GB as 1 billion bytes. But again, they don't explicitly make a distinction as to what they call a GB and what OS's call a GB, until you click on the "binary conversion" link at the bottom. It's buried in the knowledge base. Like I said before, they should alert the user on the box that the values will be different, rather than just saying what value they (the HD maker) uses to define a GB.

[Rok]

The problem is not a "different definition". Companies are not allowed to make up their own "definitions" when advertising.

The problem is that their definition is essentially correct - 1 MB is 1.000.000 bytes (based on a metric system prefix). It's the computer industry in general that has it false (yes, there are several practical reasons for this, but it is false nonetheless). Like it or not, it's the truth. So the class-action suit probably won't have any success here - the manufacturers are clearly labeling their products already. The only thing that was demanded of them in the similar lawsuit regarding CRT sizes was to clearly label the actual viewable size.

In the end, the only one gaining profit from this - as usual - will be lawyers. :evil:

Cheers,
Rok

[Jacob]

The problem is not a "different definition". Companies are not allowed to make up their own "definitions" when advertising.

The problem is that their definition is essentially correct - 1 MB is 1.000.000 bytes (based on a metric system prefix).

But computers have always been based off the binary system - and from what I understand the only reason they used those prefixes was not because they actually wanted to fit into the metric system, but because they were convenient.

If the computing industry standard is that 1MB is > 1000,000 bytes then that's the standard - period and the metric system isn't quite relevant just because the computing industry borrowed the prefix. Maybe they should change the prefix?

[Janak Parekh]

If the computing industry standard is that 1MB is > 1000,000 bytes then that's the standard - period and the metric system isn't quite relevant just because the computing industry borrowed the prefix. Maybe they should change the prefix?
They're working on it, I think. There's the new term, "mebibytes", contracted as "MiB". It's been developed by NiST, and is explicitly from a power of 2.

--janak

[doogald]

This is Seagate's explanation (http://www.seagate.com/support/kb/disc/bytes.html).

Really, I just don't see this winning in court. I suppose that it's worth a try, but I wonder which lawyer would take this on if the odds were that a judge would never rule in their favor.

[aroma]

Next we should sue McDonalds because if their Quarter Pounder isn't actually 1/4 pound when you get it! I know you might say that they have a disclaimer stating that the 1/4 weight is prior to cooking, but hey, they shouldn't be allowed to do that. They say they are selling me a 1/4 burger and by golly when I get that burger it should be 1/4 pound! Where's my lawyer??? :takethat:

[dbrown]

They're working on it, I think. There's the new term, "mebibytes", contracted as "MiB". It's been developed by NiST, and is explicitly from a power of 2.

mebibytes.. is that pronounced "maybe-bytes"? :twisted:

[Jacob]

They're working on it, I think. There's the new term, "mebibytes", contracted as "MiB". It's been developed by NiST, and is explicitly from a power of 2.


Not a bad idea.. but the MiB = Men in Black jokes will just be horrible. :cry:

[PetiteFlower]

The point of this is not to get money for the people filing the suit, the point is to let the hard drive and storage card industries know that we are really annoyed when we buy something that says 30 gigs but our computer tells us it's only actually 28.8 gigs--that's a HUGE difference! It's deceptive, and a lawsuit is the most powerful thing that consumers can do to say "We're mad and we're not going to take it anymore!" So I think this is a good thing. It's not frivolous at all. If my SD card had 256 megs instead of 244, I could fit another CD worth of music on it!

[ctmagnus]

imo, just another case of the computer literate vs the computer illiterate ;)

How many people know that a 1.44MB floppy is actually 2MB? But in this case, manufacturers advertising the unformatted capacity are the exception.

[JonathanWardRogers]

The problem is that their definition is essentially correct - 1 MB is 1.000.000 bytes (based on a metric system prefix). It's the computer industry in general that has it false (yes, there are several practical reasons for this, but it is false nonetheless). Like it or not, it's the truth.

Ah, but that is not the truth. I don't care whether the initial definition was stupid or not, it is the definition and has been since the inception of the term "megabyte". I agree that it is stupid to use the same prefix, but that's what they did. The storage companies changed the definition to their own (more literally accurate) "definition", but changed it nonetheless. That, in my opinion, makes their definition wrong.

[Rok]

Ah, but that is not the truth. I don't care whether the initial definition was stupid or not, it is the definition and has been since the inception of the term "megabyte". I agree that it is stupid to use the same prefix, but that's what they did. The storage companies changed the definition to their own (more literally accurate) "definition", but changed it nonetheless. That, in my opinion, makes their definition wrong.
This isn't about definitions at all - it's about written and accepted standards. Unfortunately, the metric prefixes are defined as a standard (and have been, most of them, for more than two centuries). And it doesn't mean rat's ass if the entire computer industry is using the term as they themselves defined it - at least it doesn't matter in court. I just wanted to say that this class action will likely not suceed at all.

BTW, this doesn't mean I believe what they're doing is OK - I only pointed out they have enough backing to do so.

But to say that difference between 30 GB and 28.8 is HUGE (as one user pointed out) is rather silly. I mean c'mon - (disk) storage is so cheap these days that two or three percent doesn't matter at all. And even if it does matter to someone - for personal or any other reason - the difference is by no means huge. Whether or not it actually warrants attention is another matter.

The only people that genuinely seem to be upset about all this are the ones that actually know what's going on - which is a bit surprising, in a way. You know you ain't getting 80 GB when you buy 80 GB drive - so why do people complain? It's all neatly labeled and explained. If it were actual size, it would also cost a bit more. So what would we gain?

Just my $.02

Cheers,
Rok

[Rob Alexander]

Next thing you know, someone will file a class-action against the gasoline pump station, because when purchasing a gallon, they only get 0.998 gallon ... when purchasing a 8 oz coca cola, they only get 7.98 oz ....

If someone's pump is intentionally set to shortchange customers, even by a little, then they should be made to stop. It may only be a little bit per person, but collectively they may be stealing millions of dollars from their customers. Similarly, if Coca-cola skimmed 0.02 oz of product from each and every bottle, it would be worth many millions of dollars collectively and they should be required to stop. (Of course, not every bottle will be identical, but if they're labelled 8 oz then they should average 8 oz, not 7.98 oz.)

I really hate class action in principle, but I also recognize that it's the only means our society has provided for dealing with things like this. It's a tough one for me, trying to decide whether I dislike the lowlife lawyers more or the sleezy hard drive companies, but in the end, the hard drive companies must be made to stop this misleading behavior. If this is how we have to do it, then we'll just have to do it this way.

[Rob Alexander]

Next we should sue McDonalds because if their Quarter Pounder isn't actually 1/4 pound when you get it! I know you might say that they have a disclaimer stating that the 1/4 weight is prior to cooking, but hey, they shouldn't be allowed to do that. They say they are selling me a 1/4 burger and by golly when I get that burger it should be 1/4 pound! Where's my lawyer??? :takethat:

That's a bit different. As long as the 1/4 pounder was genuninely a 1/4 before cooking, then you're not really being lied to. This analogy fits better with the point that your useable MBs are less after installing the directory and formatting information than when the drive is empty. That is, it's the preparation for use (formatting or cooking) that reduces the useful size of the product.

But this redefinition of MBs is more like if McD's put a disclaimer on their boxes saying their 1/4 pound burger is based on a system in which one pound = 15 oz.

[Rob Alexander]

They're working on it, I think. There's the new term, "mebibytes", contracted as "MiB". It's been developed by NiST, and is explicitly from a power of 2.

mebibytes.. is that pronounced "maybe-bytes"? :twisted:

That's perfect; we should let the HD industry have that one. You have a 120 maybe-byte drive. Maybe you have them and maybe you don't. :lol: Good call! :!:

[Rob Alexander]

Ah, but that is not the truth. I don't care whether the initial definition was stupid or not, it is the definition and has been since the inception of the term "megabyte". I agree that it is stupid to use the same prefix, but that's what they did. The storage companies changed the definition to their own (more literally accurate) "definition", but changed it nonetheless. That, in my opinion, makes their definition wrong.
This isn't about definitions at all - it's about written and accepted standards. Unfortunately, the metric prefixes are defined as a standard (and have been, most of them, for more than two centuries). And it doesn't mean rat's ass if the entire computer industry is using the term as they themselves defined it - at least it doesn't matter in court. I just wanted to say that this class action will likely not suceed at all.


Nah, that doesn't fly. This isn't about the prefix 'mega' standing on its own. It's about a specific complete term 'megaBYTE'. The term 'mega' may have a standardized mathematical meaning when used in base-10 mathematics, but the term 'megabyte' has a specific (yet different) standardized meaning within the industry that created it. The 'mega' part of that word is consistently measured in the same numerical base as the 'byte' part of the word. Nothing else would make sense. And a court is not bound by the convention of ancient mathematicians anyway. Their principle issue will be whether or not consumers are deceived by this labelling. Perhaps their existing disclaimers will protect them -- that's possible -- but if they win, it won't be because of the historical basis of the term 'mega', it will be because the courts determined that the existing disclaimers are sufficient.

[JonathanWardRogers]

This isn't about definitions at all - it's about written and accepted standards. Unfortunately, the metric prefixes are defined as a standard (and have been, most of them, for more than two centuries). And it doesn't mean rat's ass if the entire computer industry is using the term as they themselves defined it - at least it doesn't matter in court. I just wanted to say that this class action will likely not suceed at all.


If courts were to use that line of reasoning, we would be in big trouble. Most of our words are made up of prefixes and suffixes having specific meanings in the languages from which they were taken. Pre-, con-, an-, in-, -ent, -ous, -ly, and so on and so forth. Most prefixes and suffixes are misused in many words and to use the literal meaning would change the definition of the word. That does not mean that the definition of the word is wrong, and I can't imagine a court deciding in favor of a bogus definition just because the prefix or suffix is misused. That isn't the way definitions work. A definition is a description of the standard meaning or usage of a word, not the transliteration of its parts.

[Rok]

That isn't the way definitions work. A definition is a description of the standard meaning or usage of a word, not the transliteration of its parts.

But we're not talking definitions here; we're talking about units (at least the defendants will likely claim so). Byte is a unit, and is currently being used by established (standard) metric prefixes (misused by entire computer industry sans storage companies, as it stands).

As I said, like it or not, I believe that the companies are already covered for this. They are not using a false unit to confuse the consumer (we both know they are, but they have a solid claim), and they already state on their product what the unit means. If you don't like it, that's your problem (and mine, since I don't like it either, BTW).

Are they taking the advantage to push up capacity number a notch or two? By all means.
Is this OK? No, it isn't.
Are they going to get away with it? I believe they will (especially when you consider other cases regarding IT in general, it appears that judicial system is pretty ignorant of technology, therefore more likely to let this slip).

Cheers,
Rok

[JonathanWardRogers]

But we're not talking definitions here; we're talking about units (at least the defendants will likely claim so). Byte is a unit, and is currently being used by established (standard) metric prefixes (misused by entire computer industry sans storage companies, as it stands).

Actually, we are talking about the definition of a unit, and not a metric unit. Nobody involved in defining the units kilobyte, megabyte, etc., (to the best of my knowledge) has ever said that the prefixes used have the same meaning with bytes as they do with meters or grams. These units are very well defined. The storage industry decided to make up their own definitions for these units, based on common usage of the prefixes in question. I can't see how a court would decide that a well defined unit of measurement can be redefined simply because the usage of an ancient Greek prefix is not standard. That, in my opinion, would require much more technical saavy than to determine that a standard definition of the unit in question was being ignored.