Gadget lust

[trixtah]

One terabyte. USB2. $AU1200.

OMFG.

Actually, I've noticed a trend where terabytes etc are expressed as 1000GB, when of course, they should be 1024GB. What do we call them then? Metric terabytes?

Comments

[damned-colonial.livejournal.com]

Marketing terabytes.

[damned-colonial.livejournal.com]

*ponder* ... you know, that's not actually that cheap.

I have a 250GB disk that I bought for about $230 almost a year ago, and a case I chucked it in that cost me $50. I have a second 250GB disk sitting idle because I need a) to take it into the office and fsck it, as I can't figure out how to do that to an ext2 disk under OSX, and b) get a case for it, or else keep swapping back and forth. But the point is that I have half that storage for approx half that price, albeit taking theoretically twice the USB ports.

A terabyte's just not as big as it used to be. I'd fill it in a matter of days with DVD rips for vidding.

[the-s-guy.livejournal.com]

Marketing has used metric denominations solidly ever since the kilo/mega/giga/tera/etc prefixes were officially redefined in 1999 to be metric by the international Electrotechnical Commission. The redefinition became a full IEEE standard last March. Marketeers also used metric before '99, because they're weasels.

About the only items which still use the old meanings for the words are RAM chips.

[tygerr.livejournal.com]

Eh, 1000 or 1024 is pretty irrelevant, really--ALL the whoosis-byte labelling is fictive. You're doing *well* if you get 90% of the listed capacity as genuine usable space, so I just use the label capacity as a ranking method: I might not know how much it'll *really* hold, but 1 TB is bigger than 750 MB and smaller than 1.2 TB.

It's kind of like the temperature ratings on sleeping bags. I can guarantee you I'll freeze my a** off if I'm in a -10C-rated bag on a -10C night, but at least I'll be warmer than if I were in a 0C bag.