Class Action Suit Against Western Digital

Did anyone else get an email regarding this suit against Western Digital? I can't believe someone actually sued them over this. Basically it boils down to WD measuring a gigabyte differently from how microsoft (or other OS producers) does. I would assume that WD measures the storage capacity of their hard drives just like every other hard drive manufacturer.

So, as a Class Member, I can sign up to participate in the settlement which would entitle me to some free software for backup and recovery if the settlement is approved. But honestly....I'm opposed to the entire suit and doubt seriously that I will participate. Sounds to me like someone is just trying to find a way to get some money out of a large corporation. Rediculous.

 

If the difference between gibibytes and gigabytes was made clear right from the start, none of this would have happened. Personally, I think that while it's inconvenient getting a few percent less than promised, it's not a big deal - certainly not worth filing suit again a manufacturer for!

Besides, this is a very grey area. The technical definition of an actual gigabyte is 10^9 bytes, which is exactly how drive manufacturers measure it. It might make their drives seem bigger, but it's still one gigabyte by the SI prefix - hardly deceptive marketing. If anything, the software manufacturers should get it stuck to them for displaying the base 2 measurement of 2^10 bytes to the user as one gigabyte.

Either way, if this goes through, the other hard drive manufacturers will have to change their system post-haste...

 

Well I could certainly be wrong but I believe KB, MB, GB and TB should all use the base2 derived measurement, after all computers use base2 (binary) instead of us human's base10 (denary). 1024 bytes = KByte; 1024 KByte = 1MegaByte; 1024 Megabyte = 1 GigaByte; 1024 Gigabyte = 1 TeraByte etc. 1000 may seem a fair approximation but in these days of GigaBytes and TeraBytes it can be pretty significant. 1TByte using the denary approximation is 1x1000x1000x1000x1000 = 1,000,000,000,000 bytes when the actual size of that is 1,000,000,000,000 / 1024 / 1024 / 1024 / 1024 = 0.91TB (ie. it lacks 114.5GByte, much bigger than the entire capacity of the biggest previous generation WD Raptor). 1TB is actually 1x1024x1024x1024x1024 = 1,099,511,627,776 bytes.

I believe the only exception to this is when measuring networks and ROMs where bits are used instead of bytes (8 bits = 1 byte). That's presumably because these used to be so slow/small that counting them any other way would have been rather futile ... and probably a little to do with making them sound bigger/faster. They should use a lower case 'b' to denote bit rather than byte (eg 64Mb = 64Mbit not 64MByte) but this seems to have been lost over the years.

When it comes to HDs there's no excuse in my mind, 1000 is simply used as an intentional approximation of 1024 which has to be used for optimal binary storage. That's just to make HDs sound bigger than they really are, there is no logic behind it. AFAIK no other area of computing uses that approximation. Before slapping on the cuffs it is important to realise that it is not just WD but all HD manufacturers for over a decade. Some HD manufacturers do put the approximation in small writing on their HDs and literature, a sign they were concerned of potential lawsuits. Lawsuits have certainly been filed for less and I could see either decision as both fair and just myself (so long as WD aren't singled out).

PS. With all that there's bound to be a silly mathematical error somewhere, but you get the point.

 

I agree with you Austin. Even though it'll make for easier calculations for joe-public, it's still not really correct to adjust a counting system just because it's a touch more convenient. It's still the way things should be measured considering that's how the drives are made in the first place.

 

This abosolutely ridiculous. Suing a HDD becase they are short-changed 24 megs for every gig? That person needs to get a life.

 

I would like to see HD's measured in actual storage. just have them change how its calculated.

 

it is sorta ridiculous and anyone technical enough to get in a fit and sue over this is technical enough to know about this and catch it in the first place. Here's a wiki that really points it out, and it even answers why floppy diskettes came in 1.44 MB sizes.

binary prefixes