Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Data Storage Government Media Music The Courts News

Creative Sued for Base-10 Capacities On HDD MP3 Players 528

Dorkz brings news of a class-action settlement from Creative Labs over the capacity of their HDD MP3 players. Evidently they calculated drive capacity in base-10 (1,000,000,000 bytes per GB) instead of base-2 (1,073,741,824 bytes per GB). The representative plaintiff is entitled to $5,000, and everyone else who bought one of the HDD MP3 players in the past several years gets a 50% discount on a new 1GB player[PDF]. They can also opt for a 20% discount on anything ordered from Creative's online store. Creative has made available all of the necessary legal forms. Seagate lost a similar lawsuit late last year.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Creative Sued for Base-10 Capacities On HDD MP3 Players

Comments Filter:
  • Re:50%? (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 02, 2008 @12:37AM (#23271142)
    They should use those definitions because they are definitions. A kilobyte is not 10^3 bytes, so they should not say it is. For memory sizes, K = 2^10, M = 2^20, G = 2^30, T = 2^40. If the manufacturer actually put 2^30 bytes in a 1 GB product, the packaging of that product could remain the same, the average customer would not be any more confused, geeks would be satisfied, and no body would go wtf? when they plugged in their drive and it says it is 954 MB.
  • by Tangamandapiano ( 1087091 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @12:53AM (#23271234)
  • Re:50%? (Score:3, Informative)

    by i.of.the.storm ( 907783 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @01:33AM (#23271440) Homepage
    Yeah, 32 bit OSes can't see the full 4GB due to the way memory addressing works. Check wikipedia or something for more info.
  • Re:50%? (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 02, 2008 @02:16AM (#23271638)
    Or http://xkcd.com/394/ [xkcd.com]
  • Re:50%? (Score:3, Informative)

    by i.of.the.storm ( 907783 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @02:28AM (#23271698) Homepage
    No, 32 bit OSes can address 4GB TOTAL memory, that's including graphics RAM and various caches. Thus, the total RAM addressable by a 32 bit OS is somewhere around 3-3.5GB depending on the configuration of the computer.
    This forum post explains it in greater detail, people were asking this so often that they eventually just stickied the post. http://www.maximumpc.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=71236 [maximumpc.com]
  • What? (Score:2, Informative)

    by mosb1000 ( 710161 ) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Friday May 02, 2008 @02:34AM (#23271736)
    The plaintiff is the one who is wrong, any idiot who knows anything about numbers should know that. A gigabyte is exactly one billion bites, hence the name "Giga". How can you win a case centered around a claim that is so obviously false?
  • Re:50%? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Graff ( 532189 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @02:38AM (#23271752)

    I was under the impression that 2x4s are, in fact, actually 2in by 4in when cut wet, but shrink to the standard size when seasoned.
    Partially true. A 2x4 is rough cut to 2" by 4", then is dried (seasoned) and planed (smoothed), reducing its dimensions to approximately 1.5" by 3.5". The shrinkage due to drying and the material removal due to planing is what reduces the boards to their current commonly-found dimensions.
  • by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Friday May 02, 2008 @09:53AM (#23273868) Journal

    The metric prefixes predate OSes by a long time and as the GP pointed out, they are very well established. Computers decided to coopt kilo and use it to mean 2^10 instead of 10^3 since they were close.

    Even computers didn't do this at first. The first computers with storage capacities large enough to bother with prefixes used base 10 units. The first ever hard disk drive (IBM 350) had a capacity of five million characters. 5 MB, base 10. That was consistent with the units used by the machine it was built for (IBM 305 RAMAC), which had a 3500-character drum memory, plus a 100-word core memory buffer. Notice, all multiples of 10, not two.

    The first computer to seriously use base 2 in its memory sizing and addressing (the IBM System/360, IIRC), didn't show up until ten years and a half-dozen generations of hard drives later. The drives still used base 10 notation for their capacities, though, both because that was the established notation and because there wasn't (and isn't!) any engineering reason to use base two. Unlike inside the computer, where CPU memory addressing makes it very convenient to have power-of-two memory sizes, inside the hard drive there is no reason to use such strange units. Similarly, all data communications technologies measure bandwidth with base 10 units.

    The argument that HDD manufacturers label drives with base 10 capacity in order to mislead buyers implies that at some point they did use base two. If not in their published capacities, at least in their internal calculations. That is simply not the case. The logical units for engineers designing HDDs to work in are base 10. They design a drive and then pass the specs on to marketing, in the natural units. I suppose marketing is guilty of not telling the engineers "Wait a minute, it may make sense for you to work in base 10, but modern computers will divide the space up in power-of-two block sizes, so we should advertise it on that basis, to be honest to our customers, even though it'll make our drives look smaller than all of our competitors', since they're using the traditional measure."

    The situation is a little less clear for flash memory devices, though, since they're directly addressed by CPUs, just like DRAM, and are therefore usually constructed in power-of-two sizes. Choosing to construct a device sized in powers of 10, against industry norms, so that you can advertise it as 1 GB while saving a few bucks is arguably underhanded.

    I think the real answer is quite clear: Device manufacturers should be required to use correct units on their capacity statements, either GB or GiB. It is not beyond the capacity of the average person to understand that these are different, and that GiB is a little bigger than GB. I know the binary units piss off a lot of slashdotters, but, really, they just make sense. I can't figure out how anyone can think it's a good idea to use ambiguous units and then try to guess which meaning is intended.

  • by Z34107 ( 925136 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @12:44PM (#23276356)

    "Gibi" is a prefix invented by Wikipedia. For those of you who have been foiled, I supply a conversion chart. [xkcd.com]

    Some people are angry that their precious SI prefixes were usurped. I'd say "understandably angry," but I'm afraid it's not. Memory has been measured in kilo-mega-giga-tera-et al. since at least the time that IBM made PCs, and probably since 5000 years ago when Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church every Sunday.

    Case in point: Go to newegg.com's memory page [newegg.com]. See any memory modules sold by the "gibibit"? Consult your motherboard manual; I doubt they'll support a 512 mebibit SDRAM stick, but it maybe, just maybe might support that 512 MEGABYTE module.

    Gibi? Might as well measure memory in millionths of a square furlong chip area times a density coefficient.

    Remember booting any computer made since the '70s? The BIOS POST would always report memory in "K" - which God^H^H^HIBM did not intend to mean metric kirbybits or whatever nonsense.

    Moderators, I humbly suggest modding any "gibi" references as "troll." It's what's right for America!

  • by avoision ( 622708 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @02:33PM (#23277876)
    Binary addressing makes sense for RAM, since there's a certain number of addressing lines and it would be a waste for some of the lines to not be fully used. But for hard drives (and flash drives) with 512-byte sectors, it does not make more sense than any other addressing scheme. My hard drive has (thanks to fdisk -l), 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 3,648 cylinders, which gives 8,225,280 bytes per cylinder or a total of 30,005,821,440 bytes. Those are the logical numbers, not the physical ones, but that only helps my point; that a given mass-storage device's capacity is an arbitrary number of 512-byte sectors. In this case, I paid for 30,000,000,000 bytes and I got that and a little extra. So anybody's lawsuit should only be able to extract money for the difference between the stated number of gigabytes and some integer times 512 bytes (but this is moot, since they always add extra like in the case above).

    Furthermore, for the past two thousand years, the greek prefix giga has meant one billion. Just because we have binary computers doesn't mean we should change that for the purposes of lawsuits.

    Lastly, you know damn well after reading the fine print on any mass storage device in the last 10 or 15 years that it says that when the listed capacity is x gigabytes, that means x * 1,000,000,000 bytes. And that fine print is on the outside of the box, so you know before you buy.

    The National Institute of Standard's has suggested that for the useful binary numbers (2^10, 2^20, 2^30), we use the different prefixes KiB, MiB and GiB to show that they refer to the binary versions. See NIST's recommendation [nist.gov] on this.

    I'm happy to buy my ram with capacity listed in GiBs and my hard drives with capacity listed in GB or GiB, but let's not confuse the two prefixes.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 02, 2008 @09:31PM (#23281578)
    Gibi is not invented by wikipedia, it's proposed by IEC: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html. The SI prefixes are not usurped and never will be.

    K doesn't always mean 1024 even in computers. When you say the computer in the 70s booted in K, I don't think you remember right. There's some huge history I read a while back, you can google if you want.

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Working...