The angry thread

[Snowwolflair]

The descriptions are correct and they are wrong.  The capacity on the packaging is the number of memory cells, but to make them work about 10% of the memory is used to control the card to make it work with your computer.  So they cannot be done as incorrectly described, but the should state the Memory data storage capacity which they avoid doing.

[emjaybee]

You will always find Mick that storage devices never have the full 512, (or whatever), something do with ..... I don't know ..... but they never do have full capacity. 

I'm aware of that but they should be clearly marked 'nominal', or 'this product guaranteed will fall short of its description' or some such like

Fer...
...it's like dealing with my parents.

Yes, the capacity of the device is as listed. Once you format it for whatever you need it for it then has a "file system" for want of a better description which, in itself, takes up a bit of room.

 

It's like the "it hasn't got a key, how do I open the door?" all over again!

 

[emjaybee]

The descriptions are correct and they are wrong.  The capacity on the packaging is the number of memory cells, but to make them work about 10% of the memory is used to control the card to make it work with your computer.  So they cannot be done as incorrectly described, but the should state the Memory data storage capacity which they avoid doing.

Too many big words David, just remember...

[Newportnobby]

The descriptions are correct and they are wrong.  The capacity on the packaging is the number of memory cells, but to make them work about 10% of the memory is used to control the card to make it work with your computer.  So they cannot be done as incorrectly described, but the should state the Memory data storage capacity which they avoid doing.

Although my post was somewhat tongue firmly in cheek, thank you for explaining that as I was unaware of it (the 10% bit) and for at least agreeing with me about wrong descriptions of the products. Of course, nothing will change

[PaulCheffus]

Hi

It also depends what unit they use to describe the capacity. Sometimes they are described as 1000 bytes per Kilobyte for example but when you use it, it will actually be 1024 bytes per Kilobyte which is the true size of a Kilobyte.

Before anyone mentions they are usually in Gigabytes these days I've done the above for simplicity.

Cheers

Paul

[Yet_Another]

Interestingly, the ISO definition of kilo is 1000, so 1000 bytes in a kilobyte. However, a kibibyte is 1024 bytes. Generally, if you read the tiny text on the back of the packaging, it has a load of waffle to explain away their disingenuous mendacity that refers to both kibi- and kilobytes (or, indeed, gibi- and gigabytes).

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/kibibyte#

I think you can probably blame the UN for this marketing opportunity.

[Newportnobby]

Hells teeth!!
What have I started?  

[martyn]

Hells teeth!!
What have I started?  

Dunno, but it's byting you back....

Martyn

[Bealman]

It all started with binary, Mick. You can blame computers. 0 or 1, yes or no, true or false, black or white 

[Snowwolflair]

The descriptions are correct and they are wrong.  The capacity on the packaging is the number of memory cells, but to make them work about 10% of the memory is used to control the card to make it work with your computer.  So they cannot be done as incorrectly described, but the should state the Memory data storage capacity which they avoid doing.

Too many big words David, just remember...

To bang the stones together 

[stevewalker]

Hells teeth!!
What have I started?  

Dunno, but it's byting you back....

Martyn

No, just a nybble (4 bits/half a byte for those that don't know).