Re: floppy capacity question

[KILPATRICK@Tank.CYBERphile.co.uk (Richard)]

In article <4s42jg$e7h@blackice.winternet.com>, nathan@parka.winternet.com (Nathan Mates) says:
>
>In article <4s3voa$23@agate.xara.net>, Richard <rtk@scotborders.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <4s199s$ffa@news.pacifier.com>, jimbell@pacifier.com (jimbell) says:
>>>Tom Zuchowski <cd003508@interramp.com> wrote:
>>>>16-sector tracks and upped it to 140K.
>
>>God, now I'm getting really pedandtic. 143K!
>>OK, I'm going. Don't throw those rotten Apples at me!
>
>   If we're gonna have a war over who's pedantic, you've got a long
>way to go, kiddo. :)
>
>   143K? Only if you're a HD manufacturer or a brainwashed metric type
>who counts 1K as 1000, and 1M as 1000^2. Computers happen to use 1024,
>so the 140K figure is far more correct. A //e has 64K of memory, which
>is actually 65536 bytes, but it's sold as a 64K computer, not a 65K
>computer.
>
>   In other words, let's do the math: 256 bytes/sector * 16
>sectors/track 35 tracks/disk is 143360 bytes/disk. That number is
>fixed and correct for all normal disks (we'll ignore extra tracks that
>could be hacked in for now). 143360/1024= 140K in the computer sense
>of K, not the metric. 
>
>Nathan "Another fault of the metric system exposed :)" Mates

OKAY! This is what I like.to see. Apple always listed it as 143K (see
Apple ///), so that is what I use as a reference. After all, Apple
are what I'm documenting...

Good point though.

regards,
Richard