Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
<snip>
> First, note that when say "G/bit," you presumably mean
> Giga*bytes*. A 5.58 gigabit drive would not hold Windows XP.
<snip>

Shenan Stanley wrote:
> Actually... I believe you could get Windows XP and quite a bit
> more on a 5.58GB drive.

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> Sure. I agree, but I didn't say otherwise. Please reread what I
> said: "A 5.58 gigabit drive would not hold Windows XP." Note that I
> said "gigabit" (which is what he mistakenly said), not "gigabyte."
>
> 5.58 gigabits is about .7 gigabytes. That was the whole point of my
> paragraph you quoted above.

My bad. Sorry.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

On Mon, 5 May 2008 13:49:18 -0500, "Shenan Stanley"
<newshelper@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> <snip>
> > First, note that when say "G/bit," you presumably mean
> > Giga*bytes*. A 5.58 gigabit drive would not hold Windows XP.
> <snip>
>
> Shenan Stanley wrote:
> > Actually... I believe you could get Windows XP and quite a bit
> > more on a 5.58GB drive.
>
> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> > Sure. I agree, but I didn't say otherwise. Please reread what I
> > said: "A 5.58 gigabit drive would not hold Windows XP." Note that I
> > said "gigabit" (which is what he mistakenly said), not "gigabyte."
> >
> > 5.58 gigabits is about .7 gigabytes. That was the whole point of my
> > paragraph you quoted above.
>
> My bad. Sorry.


Not a problem, Shenan. As I thought, you simply misread it.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup