Talk:Disk Overhead

Necessary

I agree with the proposal. The article about Disk Overhead is a duplication about something discussed on the article about HDD. 189.11.190.115 (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, as the title of this article is misleading. The discrepancy between advertised capacity and real capacity is wholly in the the difference between using 1000 or 1024 as the multiplier. Manufacturers use 1000 because it ends up making the drive sound bigger on paper. OS's use 1024 because it's right. "Disk Overhead", the amount of space on a drive taken by partitioning data and file system overhead, is negligible on HDs over 100MB,and the fact that it has it's own page in Wikipedia (which supports the notion that it is the reason your disk looks smaller than the manufacturer said it would) only serves to promote ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.27.1.3 (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.107.3.212 (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this Article

It is redundant and misleading, it should be deleted. If no one protests, I'll do it in a week or so. If anyone knows how to flag the article for deletion, please do so Tom94022 (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to have the merge. Adam Hillman (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote and merged the content on OS overhead into Hard disk drive#Capacity measurements per the delete and merge comments on this talk page. The decimal vs. binary measurement is already covered the the HDD article as the major reason for capacity differences. This is in preparation to submitting this article for WP:PROD deletion as duplicative and not sufficient for a stand alone article. Removing Merge tags from both articles as well. Note that this has been Merge tagged since March 2008. — Becksguy (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]