Maybe it was 2 Tebibytes?
this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
879 points (96.8% liked)
memes
10393 readers
1784 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That would be 2.2 terabytes. You are on the right track though and metric system conversion is part of the problem. 1000GB != 1024GB. 1,024GB is correct while HDD manufacturers use 1,000GB, which is also correct, but still not equal to 1024GB. (I just confused myself thinking through the conversions, but you get the idea.)
The other part of the problem is hidden partitions used for recovery or performance. There are other things like FAT and such, but I don't know the modern file layouts these days. (Its probably the same as it always was, TBH.)
The space is usually, mostly, there. It's just hidden and preallocated.
Edit: Forgot about boot partitions as well. That's a thing. Additionally, I have seen more than one instance of someone doing 1:1 drive copies without adjusting the partitions for a larger drive. That is less common these days but probably still happens.
Ah, as I was typing it I was wondering if I had it backwards.
Bit tax
Did you forget to send in the mail-in rebate?
Use MacOS. Then it will say it’s 2TB