> > > The only way to get the commonly-used names is to take 1Mbytes as
> > > 1024*1000 bytes. There is no justification for this at all.
> >
> > Justification ? I don't know, but there's an explanation - we
> [...]
> But you can't justify it's 10^3 * 2^10 IMHO.
As I said.
> > need some techno archeology - in the AT manual, the 1.2M drive
> > is nominated as having 1,200 Kbytes of storage - and AFAICT
> > after digging thru old magazines, IBM didn't advertise it
> > as 1.2M, only as 5.25" HD. Also, IBM did advertise the 1.44M
> > drive only as 1440 K 3.5" HD drive - I found also several old
> > disks that state 1440 K formated capacity on the box and label.
> I have an IBM Technical Directory here (a list of all the PC manuals). It
> lists a technical reference manual for '3.5-Inch 720KB/1.44MB Drive'. So
> either IBM were just using common names for the device (which is most
> unlike IBM), or that's what they called it.
If you want, I can scan th aprobiate pages I found.
> I've also got plenty of disks that claim to be 1.44Mbytes.
'classic' disks ? or actual ones - in fact, I looked thru my
disks, and I found that the 1.44 term must have established
around 90/92 - I found no disk stating 1440 K that was labled
later than 1992.
Servus
Hans
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
Received on Tue Jan 26 1999 - 05:15:24 GMT