In other words, HDD manufacturers uses BASE-10 for marketing while RAM and NAND use BASE-8. both are factual depending on how you look at it.
Hmm, actually, I'm not sure how NAND is measured (from a technical standpoint). RAM is actually binary because of the way it's addressed (computer circuitry only knows 1s and 0s). It's just that when they got up to the "massive" memory size of 1024 bytes, someone noticed that it was close to 1000 and decided to [mis]label it a kilobyte. A 2.4% discrepancy, so no big deal.
Then when I put in 4 x 256 kB (1024 byte) RAM sticks into my Mac IIsi , I was sitting pretty with 1024 kB of RAM. Again, 1024 is close to 1000. So it must be a megabyte! Only now the discrepancy is 4.9% (1024x1024=1,048,576)!!
So it's not the hard drive space that is getting measured incorrectly, it's the RAM!
Anyone know how NAND is addressed? Is is binary like RAM, or arbitrary (ie, dependant on the formating) like hard drives?
Meanwhile, Montreal law student David Bitton is peeved at Apple for what he claims is misleading marketing. When he found that his new iPod nano came out-of-the-box with only 7.45 GB of available capacity rather than the 8 GB advertised, he sued.
I guess there's nothing like establishing yourself as a laughingstock in the legal community before you even get your law degree.
David Bitton, three years from now:
"Why, yes, I think I'd be an asset to this firm."
"I see. Now, looking over your C.V., I see that you brought suit against... Apple, Inc... for what?"
"Well, you see, the hard drives on their iPods..."
"That will be all. Don't call us. We'll call you."
By the way... 8GB refers to the amount of storage inside the device. Apple never claimed that an 8GB iPod would offer 8GB of storage for your music/videos/whatever.
By the way... 8GB refers to the amount of storage inside the device. Apple never claimed that an 8GB iPod would offer 8GB of storage for your music/videos/whatever.
Try reading my earlier posts. The 8 GB is referring to the amount of space available to the guy to use for music/videos/whatever. A very small amount is used for the iPod OS and "formatting", but to one decimal place, this guy has 8 GB available to use.
No, I am *seriously* suggesting that Apple quotes file sizes in GiB.
Or have a user-selectable preference to show GB (being 10^9) or GiB (being 2^30) numbers.
But the current situation of having GiB numbers and calling them GB is not, IMHO, acceptable.
I just think we've been using GBs for so long now, it would be totally confusing to the public at large if they started calling them GiBs instead, when only geeks know the difference. I don't think it's a "problem" that needs to be addressed.
Anyone know how NAND is addressed? Is is binary like RAM, or arbitrary (ie, dependant on the formating) like hard drives?
Well, the 8 GB iPod nano uses flash, doesn't it.
It would seem that we have the answer. Flash works like HDDs, not RAM, so the space available on flash advertised as having 8 GB capacity is 8 GB (8,000,000,000 bytes) or 7.45 GiB (also 8,000,000,000 bytes).
I just think we've been using GBs for so long now, it would be totally confusing to the public at large if they started calling them GiBs instead, when only geeks know the difference. I don't think it's a "problem" that needs to be addressed.
But people are already confused. Better to treat people like adults rather than to insult their intelligence, and assume they're all too stupid to understand.
Yes, in the short term there would be come confusion, and in the long term confusion would not disappear entirely. But it would reduce to a level lower than it is now.
Do you deny that purchasing an HDD advertised as having 500 GB storage, only to have your OS tell you it's only 465 GB is confusing? Wouldn't it be better for the OS to say either:
That it's 500 GB, and report all file sizes in GB (1,000,000,000 bytes)
That it's 465 GiB, and report all file sizes in GiB
But people are already confused. Better to treat people like adults rather than to insult their intelligence, and assume they're all too stupid to understand.
Yes, in the short term there would be come confusion, and in the long term confusion would not disappear entirely. But it would reduce to a level lower than it is now.
Do you deny that purchasing an HDD advertised as having 500 GB storage, only to have your OS tell you it's only 465 GB is confusing? Wouldn't it be better for the OS to say either:
That it's 500 GB, and report all file sizes in GB (1,000,000,000 bytes)
That it's 465 GiB, and report all file sizes in GiB
I agree 100%. I've always felt this way, but have always been afraid to say it - it seems blasphemous to suggest something so damn reasonable!
I just can't believe people can be stupid enough to sue for that.
HDs, RAM, Flash are all measured the same way. They all use a binary representation (1 or 0). The discrepancy lies in using scientific prefixes such as Giga (10^9) vs a the binary counterpart gibi (2^30).
2^30 / 10^9 = 1.0737...
8GB * (1Gi / 1.0737G) = 7.45GiB (...and thats what the computer should report)
Do you deny that purchasing an HDD advertised as having 500 GB storage, only to have your OS tell you it's only 465 GB is confusing? Wouldn't it be better for the OS to say either:
That it's 500 GB, and report all file sizes in GB (1,000,000,000 bytes)
That it's 465 GiB, and report all file sizes in GiB
The definitions of GB vs. GiB are confusing too. How many people know what that means? When marketing decided to use BASE-10 the size of drives were minimal and the differences were also minimal. What needs to be done is for marketing to use BASE-2 across the board if stating "1GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes" is not clear enough to prevent a lawsuit.
I always figured that the people pushing the "i" notation are not the people that you want to humor. I know what it means, I know "better", but there are better or more interesting things to worry about. It's certainly a lot more nerdy than I care to get, kind of like the Kirk vs. Pickard arguments. Multiply that message by an order of magnitude or two for those suing based on ignorance of what the box says.
Apple Insider (and its fellow influential Apple blogs) would do a great service for all satisfied Apple users and stockholders were it to publish the names, addresses and emails of these petty tort abusers and their counsel. This would permit users to inundate these ethically challened people with suitably worded emails. It might not fix the problem but it would feel really, really good.
That would most likely constitute harassment and there could be some serious penalties for that.
Well it's a good thing Apple is being taken to task for this! I'm outraged that my 16gb iPod only has 14.8 gb usable space when my brand new $200 Zune has 30.0 gb of space as advertised! What a great deal for a great player! And my new Western Digital 250gb external hard drive has 250.0 GB of space too. But my Apple hard drive in my iMac only has 232.76 GB of space because it's made by Apple. Why is apple ripping us all off? I don't understand!!!
(Note: The statements above do not actually reflect any of what I believe, nor to they reflect reality)
Every week now, it's been happening so long I've forgotten when it started, there has been a new lawsuit against Apple.
I am wondering if there is not an ulterior motive somewhere. Is this a "death by 1000 cuts" campaign being waged against Apple?
Just for the sake of argument, I'm not saying this is true, but I hope that Microsoft is not out recruiting potential lawsuits and subsidizing them. Kinda like the paid blogging campaign.
If not Microsoft, then maybe Universal. They are definitely slimy enough, and they are really peeved at Apple's digital download dominance.
Just my conspiracy theory for the day. It's probably just a sign of the times of this entitlement generation.
I just can't believe people can be stupid enough to sue for that.
HDs, RAM, Flash are all measured the same way. They all use a binary representation (1 or 0). The discrepancy lies in using scientific prefixes such as Giga (10^9) vs a the binary counterpart gibi (2^30).
2^30 / 10^9 = 1.0737...
8GB * (1Gi / 1.0737G) = 7.45GiB (...and thats what the computer should report)
While we are in agreement with the definitions of giga vs. gibi, I will point out that HDs and RAM are not measured the same way. Hard drives (and floppy drives) are not and never have been measured using the binary notation. It's not a marketing gimmick. Yes, they were storing kilobytes (as in 1024 bytes) because that's how the computer's memory was measured, but when they told you how many kilobytes they were storing it's always been straight-up decimal math. Basically, how many of the little buggers can I squeeze on the platter.
WARNING: History lesson ahead...
That 3.5 inch double-density floppy you used to have? 800 kB (720 if you were a DOS user ) ...nothing binary about that number. And if you really want to get technical, that 720 kB disk stored the information in sectors. Each sector held 1 unit (1 kB). There were 80 tracks on the disk and each track had 9 sectors mapped (80x9=720 sectors). 80 and 9...a few more non-binary numbers. And I'm sure if they could have squeezed 10 sectors per track, they would have. Oh wait, Apple did...thus the 800 kB floppy. And when they figured out a way to get 18 sectors/track, you got the 1.44 MB HD (that's high density for you young folks out there who don't remember floppies, not high definition) floppy. Yes, folks, 1440 sectors, 1440 kB. It was NOT a 1.40 MB floppy that you'd get if you used binary math!
So the real problem is that RAM manufacturers incorrectly used the metric prefixes. The fact that my 1 GB of RAM in my Mac is really 1,073,741,824 bytes is misleading and false advertising. I tried filing a class action lawsuit against RAM manufactures and computer makers for giving me more RAM than they said, but I can't get anyone to take my case.
If Congress would change the law and look how other countries handle it (law suits, that is), this would be a non issue.
Ever heard of one of those crazy law suits taking place in Europe? I haven't. Wonder why?
If I am not mistaken that kind of law suit in Germany would be handled as follows:
You sue somebody for 1 million Euros. The court determines that you are right and will reward you with 250.000 Euro. That means you LOST the case by 75%. That means out of your 250.000 Euros you will pay 75% of the legal fees of the opposing party and 75% of the court fees.
Meanwhile, Montreal law student David Bitton is peeved at Apple for what he claims is misleading marketing. When he found that his new iPod nano came out-of-the-box with only 7.45 GB of available capacity rather than the 8 GB advertised, he sued.
While we are in agreement with the definitions of giga vs. gibi, I will point out that HDs and RAM are not measured the same way. Hard drives (and floppy drives) are not and never have been measured using the binary notation. It's not a marketing gimmick. Yes, they were storing kilobytes (as in 1024 bytes) because that's how the computer's memory was measured, but when they told you how many kilobytes they were storing it's always been straight-up decimal math. Basically, how many of the little buggers can I squeeze on the platter.
Your right. Electronic based media is measured in binary, while magnetic and optical based media is measured using the decimal system. I thought HD manufacturers used decimal cause it yielded a higher number...lol. Good to know, thanks.
Comments
In other words, HDD manufacturers uses BASE-10 for marketing while RAM and NAND use BASE-8. both are factual depending on how you look at it.
Hmm, actually, I'm not sure how NAND is measured (from a technical standpoint). RAM is actually binary because of the way it's addressed (computer circuitry only knows 1s and 0s). It's just that when they got up to the "massive" memory size of 1024 bytes, someone noticed that it was close to 1000 and decided to [mis]label it a kilobyte. A 2.4% discrepancy, so no big deal.
Then when I put in 4 x 256 kB (1024 byte) RAM sticks into my Mac IIsi
So it's not the hard drive space that is getting measured incorrectly, it's the RAM!
Anyone know how NAND is addressed? Is is binary like RAM, or arbitrary (ie, dependant on the formating) like hard drives?
Meanwhile, Montreal law student David Bitton is peeved at Apple for what he claims is misleading marketing. When he found that his new iPod nano came out-of-the-box with only 7.45 GB of available capacity rather than the 8 GB advertised, he sued.
I guess there's nothing like establishing yourself as a laughingstock in the legal community before you even get your law degree.
David Bitton, three years from now:
"Why, yes, I think I'd be an asset to this firm."
"I see. Now, looking over your C.V., I see that you brought suit against... Apple, Inc... for what?"
"Well, you see, the hard drives on their iPods..."
"That will be all. Don't call us. We'll call you."
By the way... 8GB refers to the amount of storage inside the device. Apple never claimed that an 8GB iPod would offer 8GB of storage for your music/videos/whatever.
By the way... 8GB refers to the amount of storage inside the device. Apple never claimed that an 8GB iPod would offer 8GB of storage for your music/videos/whatever.
Try reading my earlier posts. The 8 GB is referring to the amount of space available to the guy to use for music/videos/whatever. A very small amount is used for the iPod OS and "formatting", but to one decimal place, this guy has 8 GB available to use.
No, I am *seriously* suggesting that Apple quotes file sizes in GiB.
Or have a user-selectable preference to show GB (being 10^9) or GiB (being 2^30) numbers.
But the current situation of having GiB numbers and calling them GB is not, IMHO, acceptable.
I just think we've been using GBs for so long now, it would be totally confusing to the public at large if they started calling them GiBs instead, when only geeks know the difference. I don't think it's a "problem" that needs to be addressed.
Anyone know how NAND is addressed? Is is binary like RAM, or arbitrary (ie, dependant on the formating) like hard drives?
Well, the 8 GB iPod nano uses flash, doesn't it.
It would seem that we have the answer. Flash works like HDDs, not RAM, so the space available on flash advertised as having 8 GB capacity is 8 GB (8,000,000,000 bytes) or 7.45 GiB (also 8,000,000,000 bytes).
I just think we've been using GBs for so long now, it would be totally confusing to the public at large if they started calling them GiBs instead, when only geeks know the difference. I don't think it's a "problem" that needs to be addressed.
But people are already confused. Better to treat people like adults rather than to insult their intelligence, and assume they're all too stupid to understand.
Yes, in the short term there would be come confusion, and in the long term confusion would not disappear entirely. But it would reduce to a level lower than it is now.
Do you deny that purchasing an HDD advertised as having 500 GB storage, only to have your OS tell you it's only 465 GB is confusing? Wouldn't it be better for the OS to say either:
That it's 500 GB, and report all file sizes in GB (1,000,000,000 bytes)
That it's 465 GiB, and report all file sizes in GiB
But people are already confused. Better to treat people like adults rather than to insult their intelligence, and assume they're all too stupid to understand.
Yes, in the short term there would be come confusion, and in the long term confusion would not disappear entirely. But it would reduce to a level lower than it is now.
Do you deny that purchasing an HDD advertised as having 500 GB storage, only to have your OS tell you it's only 465 GB is confusing? Wouldn't it be better for the OS to say either:
That it's 500 GB, and report all file sizes in GB (1,000,000,000 bytes)
That it's 465 GiB, and report all file sizes in GiB
I agree 100%. I've always felt this way, but have always been afraid to say it - it seems blasphemous to suggest something so damn reasonable!
HDs, RAM, Flash are all measured the same way. They all use a binary representation (1 or 0). The discrepancy lies in using scientific prefixes such as Giga (10^9) vs a the binary counterpart gibi (2^30).
2^30 / 10^9 = 1.0737...
8GB * (1Gi / 1.0737G) = 7.45GiB (...and thats what the computer should report)
I look at the back of my iPod box and it says: 1GB=1 billion bytes; formatted capacity less.
Oh, snap. Perhaps he should read his box.
Do you deny that purchasing an HDD advertised as having 500 GB storage, only to have your OS tell you it's only 465 GB is confusing? Wouldn't it be better for the OS to say either:
That it's 500 GB, and report all file sizes in GB (1,000,000,000 bytes)
That it's 465 GiB, and report all file sizes in GiB
The definitions of GB vs. GiB are confusing too. How many people know what that means? When marketing decided to use BASE-10 the size of drives were minimal and the differences were also minimal. What needs to be done is for marketing to use BASE-2 across the board if stating "1GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes" is not clear enough to prevent a lawsuit.
Apple Insider (and its fellow influential Apple blogs) would do a great service for all satisfied Apple users and stockholders were it to publish the names, addresses and emails of these petty tort abusers and their counsel. This would permit users to inundate these ethically challened people with suitably worded emails. It might not fix the problem but it would feel really, really good.
That would most likely constitute harassment and there could be some serious penalties for that.
(Note: The statements above do not actually reflect any of what I believe, nor to they reflect reality)
I am wondering if there is not an ulterior motive somewhere. Is this a "death by 1000 cuts" campaign being waged against Apple?
Just for the sake of argument, I'm not saying this is true, but I hope that Microsoft is not out recruiting potential lawsuits and subsidizing them. Kinda like the paid blogging campaign.
If not Microsoft, then maybe Universal. They are definitely slimy enough, and they are really peeved at Apple's digital download dominance.
Just my conspiracy theory for the day. It's probably just a sign of the times of this entitlement generation.
I am wondering if there is not an ulterior motive somewhere. Is this a "death by 1000 cuts" campaign being waged against Apple?
Hmmmmm..... interesting.....
I just can't believe people can be stupid enough to sue for that.
HDs, RAM, Flash are all measured the same way. They all use a binary representation (1 or 0). The discrepancy lies in using scientific prefixes such as Giga (10^9) vs a the binary counterpart gibi (2^30).
2^30 / 10^9 = 1.0737...
8GB * (1Gi / 1.0737G) = 7.45GiB (...and thats what the computer should report)
While we are in agreement with the definitions of giga vs. gibi, I will point out that HDs and RAM are not measured the same way. Hard drives (and floppy drives) are not and never have been measured using the binary notation. It's not a marketing gimmick. Yes, they were storing kilobytes (as in 1024 bytes) because that's how the computer's memory was measured, but when they told you how many kilobytes they were storing it's always been straight-up decimal math. Basically, how many of the little buggers can I squeeze on the platter.
WARNING: History lesson ahead...
That 3.5 inch double-density floppy you used to have? 800 kB (720 if you were a DOS user
So the real problem is that RAM manufacturers incorrectly used the metric prefixes. The fact that my 1 GB of RAM in my Mac is really 1,073,741,824 bytes is misleading and false advertising. I tried filing a class action lawsuit against RAM manufactures and computer makers for giving me more RAM than they said, but I can't get anyone to take my case.
Ever heard of one of those crazy law suits taking place in Europe? I haven't. Wonder why?
If I am not mistaken that kind of law suit in Germany would be handled as follows:
You sue somebody for 1 million Euros. The court determines that you are right and will reward you with 250.000 Euro. That means you LOST the case by 75%. That means out of your 250.000 Euros you will pay 75% of the legal fees of the opposing party and 75% of the court fees.
Makes a lot of sense to me.
Apple sued over iPod storage capacity claims
Meanwhile, Montreal law student David Bitton is peeved at Apple for what he claims is misleading marketing. When he found that his new iPod nano came out-of-the-box with only 7.45 GB of available capacity rather than the 8 GB advertised, he sued.
And this is coming from a professions that is one of the least trusted. http://www.lexisone.com/balancing/articles/090006i.html
And the same holds true in Canada. http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3333 where politicians are regarded just above car sales persons.
Lest we forget, the most highly respected American Presidents were those who never stepped to the bar. The majority of the rest were lawyers.
While we are in agreement with the definitions of giga vs. gibi, I will point out that HDs and RAM are not measured the same way. Hard drives (and floppy drives) are not and never have been measured using the binary notation. It's not a marketing gimmick. Yes, they were storing kilobytes (as in 1024 bytes) because that's how the computer's memory was measured, but when they told you how many kilobytes they were storing it's always been straight-up decimal math. Basically, how many of the little buggers can I squeeze on the platter.
Your right. Electronic based media is measured in binary, while magnetic and optical based media is measured using the decimal system. I thought HD manufacturers used decimal cause it yielded a higher number...lol. Good to know, thanks.