When will OS X use KiB, MiB, GiB??

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 53
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Except that the lawsuits are rooted exclusively in the ignorance due to the misreported units.



    60GB drive = accurate. It is advertised as 60GB, it is 60GB. No problems.



    The problem is *because* it is reported as GB, and not GiB, in the Finder, so when the user sees the size, they think they've been lied to, when they haven't.



    Moving to GiB would *solve* these inane lawsuits. There's never been any deception on what the drive will hold, only a mismatch on reporting how big it is, leading to an incorrect perception that the drive is somehow smaller than advertised.
  • Reply 22 of 53
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    That's true, but doesn't matter to the folks doiung the suing. Even when you are right it is expensive to defend yourself.



    The TV and monitor tube size lawsuits were exactly the same thing. The tubes all measured what the manufacturers said they did, but some ya-hoo won because that wasn't the same size as hole in the plastic mask on the bezel. After several $10's of millions in judgements during the late '80s everyone says "viewable" and measures the hole in the mask, even though the tube is still 2" bigger than that.



    It's not like anyone was cheating anyone, it really was a 17" tube in that chassis sold as a 17" monitor. Basic physics and engineering drove the fact a 17" tube can only provide a 15" undistorted image. But the ya-hoos still won in court. Crap like that make every business skittish, let alone a situation where an ignorant idiot can win ridiculous $$ by complaining that its not their ignorance that is the problem, it is the dark industry conspiracy taking money from the little guy. Cha-ching, jury finds for the little guy like them because they didn't understand the math either. Therfore it must be a conspiracy, and OBTW triple the punitive damages for that conspiracy word.
  • Reply 23 of 53
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Except that if they move to reporting GiB, kiB, etc in the Finder, everyone's drives will suddenly look *bigger*, not smaller. Who's going to sue for that? No one.



    I can't help but think that any "You were *lying*!" suit would get thrown out so damned fast that it would make everyone's heads spin. I'd like to think so at least.
  • Reply 24 of 53
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    How about it's a Finder preference under the Advanced tab?
  • Reply 25 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Placebo

    How about it's a Finder preference under the Advanced tab?



    Great idea. Make it user-selectable. But the question remains, which to set is as default? The current system or new system?
  • Reply 26 of 53
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Except that if they move to reporting GiB, kiB, etc in the Finder, everyone's drives will suddenly look *bigger*, not smaller. Who's going to sue for that? No one.



    I can't help but think that any "You were *lying*!" suit would get thrown out so damned fast that it would make everyone's heads spin. I'd like to think so at least.




    No, the Finder already reports in XiB, they would have to move to producing drives in XiB to make that happen. Any decimal magnitude converted to binary XiB representations will have a smaller number.



    1 MiB = 1024 x 1024 = 1,048,576 B

    1 MB = 1000 x 1000 = 1,000,000 B = 953,674 iB



    and it only gets worse...



    1 GiB = 1024 x 1024 x 1024 = 1,073,741,824 B

    1 GB = 1000 x 1000 x 1000 = 1,000,000,000 B = 931,322,574 iB
  • Reply 27 of 53
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hiro

    No, the Finder already reports in XiB, they would have to move to producing drives in XiB to make that happen. Any decimal magnitude converted to binary XiB representations will have a smaller number.



    I don't see how that differs from Kickaha's statement.
  • Reply 28 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    I don't see how that differs from Kickaha's statement.



    The number part is already correct, they don't change to one way or other, it's just the label part thats wrong, in Finder I mean. To force manufacturers to change their counting policy so that it's worse for them is an another thing.
  • Reply 29 of 53
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hiro

    No, the Finder already reports in XiB,



    But *LABELS* it as XB. That's the problem.



    Quote:

    they would have to move to producing drives in XiB to make that happen. Any decimal magnitude converted to binary XiB representations will have a smaller number.



    Right. Which is what they do *NOW*.



    Quote:

    1 MiB = 1024 x 1024 = 1,048,576 B

    1 MB = 1000 x 1000 = 1,000,000 B = 953,674 iB



    and it only gets worse...



    1 GiB = 1024 x 1024 x 1024 = 1,073,741,824 B

    1 GB = 1000 x 1000 x 1000 = 1,000,000,000 B = 931,322,574 iB




    And that's precisely my point. You buy a 60GB drive. You plug it in. The Finder tells you it's only 55.8GB. You think "OMG! I got ripped off!"



    What happened is that 60GB = 55.8GiB, but the Finder is calling them GB. Which is wrong. It's simply mislabeled.



    If they would simply change the little string 'GB' to 'GiB', to at least let the user know that there's been a change of measurement, it'd help. The number wouldn't change at all, but there'd be a cue to the user that something else was going on.



    Now, if they chose instead to report drive sizes in actual GB, the number would only go *up*.



    Either way, it's a win for the user. They either have more information, or they don't see a discrepancy. Right now it's just fubared.
  • Reply 30 of 53
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    OK, now I see what you are saying and while I agree on the correctness of it, I guess I have a much lower opinion of Joe Sixpack's ability to note or care about the subtle difference.
  • Reply 31 of 53
    mannomanno Posts: 5member
    Almost TWO years later, sad to see the problem still remains. Linux has already moved to the new IEC prefixes. Let's hope the upcoming Leopard at least supports this. Kickaha, you explain the current problem straight to the point. It IS a label problem. No recalculations are needed.



    You buy a 200 GB drive. You plug it in. The Finder tells you it's only 186 GB. You think "OMG! I got ripped off!"



    What happened is that 200 GB = 186 GiB, but the Finder is calling them GB. Which is wrong. It's simply mislabeled.



    Labelling is correctly will help all our next generation kids and is a longterm solution. Please, Apple/Microsoft make the change to your Operating Systems.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post


    But *LABELS* it as XB. That's the problem.





    Right. Which is what they do *NOW*.



    And that's precisely my point. You buy a 60GB drive. You plug it in. The Finder tells you it's only 55.8GB. You think "OMG! I got ripped off!"



    What happened is that 60GB = 55.8GiB, but the Finder is calling them GB. Which is wrong. It's simply mislabeled.



    If they would simply change the little string 'GB' to 'GiB', to at least let the user know that there's been a change of measurement, it'd help. The number wouldn't change at all, but there'd be a cue to the user that something else was going on.



    Now, if they chose instead to report drive sizes in actual GB, the number would only go *up*.



    Either way, it's a win for the user. They either have more information, or they don't see a discrepancy. Right now it's just fubared.



  • Reply 32 of 53
    amoryaamorya Posts: 1,103member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Manno View Post


    What happened is that 200 GB = 186 GiB, but the Finder is calling them GB. Which is wrong. It's simply mislabeled.



    Labelling is correctly will help all our next generation kids and is a longterm solution. Please, Apple/Microsoft make the change to your Operating Systems.



    Words like Gibibyte sound stupid. Originally, Gigabyte was correct for the 1024 megabyte measure. Then someone somewhere decided "ZOMG, someone might confuse this with the metric system" and decided the computer word should be renamed. If the new names had not sounded so ridiculous they might have had a chance...



    Also, the MacOS Dictionary widget reports Gigabyte to mean:



    a unit of information equal to one billion (10^9) or, strictly, 2^30 bytes.



    So I guess the dictionaries are wrong too? Gibibyte, for the record, is not in there.





    Amorya
  • Reply 33 of 53
    jonnyboyjonnyboy Posts: 525member
    one on hand, manufacturers should care because the "surprise" disappoints less informed users, but in practice i think the manufacturers already have those disappointed users' cash, reducing the care...
  • Reply 34 of 53
    mannomanno Posts: 5member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Amorya View Post


    Words like Gibibyte sound stupid. Originally, Gigabyte was correct for the 1024 megabyte measure. Then someone somewhere decided "ZOMG, someone might confuse this with the metric system" and decided the computer word should be renamed. If the new names had not sounded so ridiculous they might have had a chance...



    Also, the MacOS Dictionary widget reports Gigabyte to mean:



    a unit of information equal to one billion (10^9) or, strictly, 2^30 bytes.



    So I guess the dictionaries are wrong too? Gibibyte, for the record, is not in there.



    Amorya



    Yes the dictionaries are wrong. They have to be updated. For latest information refer to

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefixes



    HDD Manufacturers are taking advantage of this situation. They are legally correct in what they are doing. When they say 200 GB it indeed has 200 billion bytes.
  • Reply 35 of 53
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,200moderator
    I wish they'd change all the advertising to match the actual size you get. DVDs should be advertised as 4.4GB instead of 4.7GB. If someone new to DVDs wants to know if their hard drive data collection will fit on x number of DVDs, the number 4.7GB is totally useless. It's a meaningless value, which doesn't help anyone.



    If I have an itunes collection of 59GB of songs, I'd like to know whether or not it will fit on a 60GB ipod. Now granted, there are minor formatting requirements but there is absolutely no reason to use the sizes we are using now because in practical terms, they are meaningless numbers.
  • Reply 36 of 53
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Marvin, read back in this thread for the explanation, but...



    That DVD *is* 4.7GB, but only 4.4GiB. It's the Finder that is screwed up, by reporting GiB as GB. The numbers, when given proper units, are precise, and meaningful. Applying the wrong unit screws it all up, however, as you noted.



    Amorya, I'd think the fact that people *are* confused on a regular basis ("OMG! Where did my drive space go!?" <- How many *dozens* of times have seen that thread here?) is proof enough that GB and GiB should not be combined into one term. The CS people f*cked up, plain and simple, when they used the base10 names for base2 values. Yeah, it was a notation of convenience, but it was a lazy and sloppy use of it. There's no reason why we need to perpetuate that error. It's already an established standard, as IEEE 1541. It's been around since 1999. It's just as silly to stick with this, as it is to stick with English units and not go metric.
  • Reply 37 of 53
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    I wish they'd change all the advertising to match the actual size you get. DVDs should be advertised as 4.4GB instead of 4.7GB. If someone new to DVDs wants to know if their hard drive data collection will fit on x number of DVDs, the number 4.7GB is totally useless. It's a meaningless value, which doesn't help anyone.



    If I have an itunes collection of 59GB of songs, I'd like to know whether or not it will fit on a 60GB ipod. Now granted, there are minor formatting requirements but there is absolutely no reason to use the sizes we are using now because in practical terms, they are meaningless numbers.



    I want the reverse. 10^9 is way easier than 2^30.



    For example, what is 10^9? 1,000,000,000. What' 2^30 without using a calculator?



    I want DVD's and hard drives to remain being sold in metric gigabytes, not gibibytes, and for computers to switch over.
  • Reply 38 of 53
    mannomanno Posts: 5member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post


    I want the reverse. 10^9 is way easier than 2^30.



    For example, what is 10^9? 1,000,000,000. What' 2^30 without using a calculator?



    I want DVD's and hard drives to remain being sold in metric gigabytes, not gibibytes, and for computers to switch over.



    Oh I see. So in Finder you would like to see the HDD size 200 GB as 200 GB, in Roxio Toast you would like to see the CD size as 734.0032 MB, not as 700 MiB, and DVD size as 4700 MB not as 4482.26 MiB, etc. Is that right?
  • Reply 39 of 53
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Manno View Post


    Oh I see. So in Finder you would like to see the HDD size 200 GB as 200 GB, in Roxio Toast you would like to see the CD size as 734.0032 MB, not as 700 MiB, and DVD size as 4700 MB not as 4482.26 MiB, etc. Is that right?



    I'm now confused. Possibly.
  • Reply 40 of 53
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,200moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post


    Marvin, read back in this thread for the explanation, but...



    That DVD *is* 4.7GB, but only 4.4GiB. It's the Finder that is screwed up, by reporting GiB as GB. The numbers, when given proper units, are precise, and meaningful. Applying the wrong unit screws it all up, however, as you noted.



    I was meaning to still use the GB name. I think that if GiB was used, it would confuse people in the same way that effective pixels vs pixels in digital cameras does. Since the 4.7GB number is practically useless when computer data is involved, the packaging could change to saying 4.4GB and that way it complies with the conventions used in operating systems.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gregmightdothat


    I want the reverse. 10^9 is way easier than 2^30.



    For example, what is 10^9? 1,000,000,000. What' 2^30 without using a calculator?



    I want DVD's and hard drives to remain being sold in metric gigabytes, not gibibytes, and for computers to switch over.



    This could also work but I think that it would freak people out if the size of every file in every system suddenly changed. I think you mean that instead of a DVD showing up as 4.4GB, that it would show as 4.7GB. This change would have to be done across current and older platforms and this could cause a lot of problems. I think most people already look at 4.7GB on DVD packets and convert it to 4.4 in their head so changing future packaging wouldn't be nearly as big an issue.



    We use base 10 arithmetic both ways because it's only what the GB actually denotes that's the issue. So for example, using base 2 or base 10, if I have a 1GB file and divide it by two, I get a 500MB file, it's just that a 1GB file in a base 10 system would not be a 1GB file in a base 2 system.
Sign In or Register to comment.