The UMA graphics is fine unless you're doing CAD/CAM or high-powered
gaming. However it does mean that you're going to want to go to 1.5GB or
2GB even for Vista Home once you subtract the memory that the video card
If it's this one:
She got a 2.4GHz machine with 160GB SATA drive. For $498.00 (with 17" LCD
monitor, keyboard, mouse, DVD drive, VISTA Home Basic, a bunch of crap
Specifications on WalMart's web site include:
"256 MB shared graphics memory"
While I agree that the advertising is misleading it is common practice
to report installed memory as opposed to 'usable' memory.
Likewise for hard disks, where the size is often reported as unformatted,
which is completely useless, of course. Then depending on what file
system it is formatted in (NTFS for example) you get a big chunk devoted
to the file system and not available for your stuff.
Same thing could be said for FSB (front side bus) speeds and the like.
Once consumers became more computer literate and learned what 'numbers'
to shop for, manufactures built machines that 'looked' good.
Celeron. Need I say more?
So in this case I don't blame wally world.
No, there is no difference between formatted and unformatted disk
size (unformatted disk drives don't exist in the wild). The issue is
that disks are sold by the decimal megabyte (10^6 bytes) rather than
binary "megabytes" (2^16 bytes) as memory is.
What "same thing"?
Celerons aren't horrible anymore, unlike the original.
Of course not. WallyWorld doesn't know any more about computers than
the average reader of these groups. ;-)
hmmm, OK. But the consumer sees 300GB and gets 286GB, less is less
whatever the reason.
Same thing = putting forth 'good' numbers that are not really a true
indication of what you are getting.
Because people stopped buying them. Those old Celeron had some very
impressive MHz ratings, but ran like molasses. Same thing. :)
Hence the point, consumers learned just enough about the 'number' game
and advertisers took advantage of that limited knowledge to sell what
looked like impressive machines cheaply.
Old saying still applies: You get what you pay for (no matter how pretty
The units of measurement are often dependent on the object being measured.
Consider "K"(ilo) vs "M"(illi). Someone used to ordering paper (measured in
"M"s) who specifies he wants a machine with "512M" of memory will not get
what he's expecting.
It is the responsibility of the buyer to conform to the industry's standard.
No you're wrong again. Disks are indeed just blank platters until formatted
which is why when you buy a hard drive it does not say "for PCs only." You
can take any SCSI drive for example and use it in a PC, MAC, Unix, VMS, IBM,
Cray, Unisys or whatever - all sharing the same interface, all incompatible
file systems and drive formats and logical architecture. Depending on the
OS and the file system, there is loss due to allocation table overhead and
also due to the fact that under NTFS and most others such as FAT and FAT32
there are the same number of sectors per track. Very few OSs actually use
variable sector mapping. Oddly enough the old Commodore 64 was one. You
fit the same number of sectors on a center track as an edge track therefore
you lose more space at the outside of the disk. Picture a pie cut in
wedges. Originally, disk drives were actually drums for this very reason -
far easier to work with and the only way they could get any respectable
capacity - and where we get terms like cylinder from. The next factor is
the cluster size itself. Smaller clusters require more management but are
less wasteful. Larger clusters waste more space but are better for ECC and
For the sake of this discussion, NTFS has about a 10% file overhead. A 160
GB drive will format out to about 145-148 GB. The rest is just wasted space
and table space. This is a general rule of thumb as NTFS chooses the
cluster size based on the partition size. You can however, change that.
You can run NTFS with different cluster sizes but it introduces other
issues. As disk formats go, NTFS is one of the more wasteful. But it
really does not matter since the cost per gig is so incredibly low.
Wrong. Hard disk are formatted at the factory. They're non-
functional without formatting. I haven't seen a disk marked "for PCs
only" since the year of the flood.
File system <> formatting. The OS can install its own filesystem.
It *cannot* format a modern drive. Without formatting the hardware
has no clue how to access the drive - no index marks, no track marks,
no clocks, nothing.
No, modern disk have more sectors on the outside tracks (see: "zoned
recording"). The sectors are the same sized though. Variable
sectors aren't worth the overhead, given the size of disks these
bah.. unfamiliar with low level factory formatting I see.. (which really is
irrelevant to the disk size issue, they simply use a different definition of
a megabyte, manufacturers define it at 1,000,000 bytes, while the os works
only in numbers divisible by 8, starting at the kilobyte)
maybe this will help with the formatting
Low-level format is a necessity. If your drive wasn't low-level
formatted (which must be done at the factory), it would be unusable.
HIGH level formatting is what your computer does. That's writing the
OS to the sectors created by LLF.
To confuse matters, people are CALLING something they can do a LLF,
when it just writes 0 bytes to existing sectors. It's not a LLF at
None do. They use binary. Other bases (octal, decimal, hexadecimal,
etc...) do not exist within the computer, but are just ideas present
in the users' minds.
Maybe the number you're looking for is 1,048,576 which is 2^20.
Bullshit. It is *only* done at the factory as part of the
manufacturing process. The drive cannot function without the
formatting. That is, the user cannot LLF a modern drive. Speaking
of a drive's LLF is meaningless.
The LLF is done by specialized hardware. LLF is really a meaningless
concept on modern drives. There is no "unformatted size".
Nope. It's writing '0's to the disk. ;-)
Of course, sorta. The PDP-11 was an octal machine (three-bit op-code
fields), even some documentation and panel markings were in
hexadecimal. It's just as correct to call binary the figment of the
I'm not the one with the elementary arithmetic problem.
Apparently some really unusual definition of "bullshit".
You admit it's essential...
As I said.
Read your own writing...
Also strange. Something can't be both meaningless and essential.
Sure there is. Consider the density of stored information within a
sector, and apply that information to the entire surface(s).
Exactly what I said. Try reading before you try to disagree.
Which DOES NOT make it octal. It's just 3-bit binary (just like 394 is
a 3-digit decimal numeral, not base 1000). Octal is a HUMAN
representation of what's going on. Nothing to do with the computer
Actually those are alphanumeric characters. Hex is your
interpretation. Anyway, they're for people to read. Nothing to do
with what the computer is doing.
Wrong. Binary has a 1:1 correspondence with the computer's internal
data processing. No other base does.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.