PDA

View Full Version : Anyone annoyed by SSD being smaller than advertised?




JodyK
Nov 2, 2010, 09:30 PM
OK gotta rant for a second. I have looked at the capacity of every iPod, iPod touch, iPhone and iPad that I have owned and none of them had the advertised size space capacities.

Example my wives 16GB 3GS says 14.3GB, my 16GB iPhone 4 has 14GB even (12 1/2 % short!!!!!!) and my 64GB iPad 3G has 59.2GB.

NOW I broke down and bought a 11 inch MBA 1.4 with 64GB storage and what do you know IT'S SHORT!! 60.32GB

5.75% short!

I have let this slide on my mobile devices. I didn't really care on the iPods, iPad as I way over purchased there and I am a little more mad about the iPhones. This is a computer if anything advertise it as a 60GB and under promise and over deliver.

I know how sensitive people can get over things like this. I am honestly surprised this hasn't came up in a media buzz / class action sort of a way. I am not sure I am class action type mad but am greatly upset / disappointed that this can continue to be the norm (say its X then it is 5-13% less).

FLAME on people. Tell me how it's not a big deal. Tell me how stupid I am for bringing it up. Tell me they are all over provisioned.



paolo-
Nov 2, 2010, 09:32 PM
OK gotta rant for a second. I have looked at the capacity of every iPod, iPod touch, iPhone and iPad that I have owned and none of them had the advertised size space capacities.

Example my wives 16GB 3GS says 14.3GB, my 16GB iPhone 4 has 14GB even (12 1/2 % short!!!!!!) and my 64GB iPad 3G has 59.2GB.

NOW I broke down and bought a 11 inch MBA 1.4 with 64GB storage and what do you know IT'S SHORT!! 60.32GB

5.75% short!

I have let this slide on my mobile devices. I didn't really care on the iPods, iPad as I way over purchased there and I am a little more mad about the iPhones. This is a computer if anything advertise it as a 60GB and under promise and over deliver.

I know how sensitive people can get over things like this. I am honestly surprised this hasn't came up in a media buzz / class action sort of a way. I am not sure I am class action type mad but am greatly upset / disappointed that this can continue to be the norm (say its X then it is 5-13% less).

FLAME on people. Tell me how it's not a big deal. Tell me how stupid I am for bringing it up. Tell me they are all over provisioned.

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

spinnerlys
Nov 2, 2010, 09:32 PM
It's especially strange since Snow Leopard uses the base 10 to report file and HDD sizes, thus 64,000,000,000 bytes are 64GB and not 59.6GB like all the other OSs report, as they use base 2 reporting.

http://guides.macrumors.com/Hard_Drive_Size_Discrepancy


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

Snow Leopard disregards the GibiByte.

Corndog5595
Nov 2, 2010, 09:34 PM
All your mobile devices are marketed in MB/GB, but Windows (and Mac OS 10.5 and lower) calculate things as MiB/GiB but label them as MB/GB. If you are on Snow Leopard, drive sizes should be accurate to manufacturer specifications.

Also, it's formatted, so that uses up some space. Imagine opening up your MBA to find out its memory isn't partitioned :eek:

Scippy
Nov 2, 2010, 09:37 PM
It's especially strange since Snow Leopard uses the base 10 to report file and HDD sizes, thus 64,000,000,000 bytes are 64GB and not 59.6GB like all the other OSs report, as they use base 2 reporting.

http://guides.macrumors.com/Hard_Drive_Size_Discrepancy




Snow Leopard disregards the GibiByte.

That is because apple finally changed their calculating system so it would more accurately represent the amount of GB's you are actually getting. Like you said, they switched to base 10.

JodyK
Nov 2, 2010, 09:40 PM
OK if I take your replies at face value. Then the % that they are off would be uniform across different platforms. I am 5.75% on a 64GB ssd in the MBA but 12.5% off in a 16GB iPhone 4.

wirelessmacuser
Nov 2, 2010, 09:42 PM
Not annoyed at all - It's normal boys and girls.

Time for those who _are_ surprised to learn about storage, how it's calculated, and how much is used by the factory pre-load of OS X and Included Software.

Then suddenly, it will all make sense to you... :)

rkmac
Nov 2, 2010, 09:44 PM
OK if I take your replies at face value. Then the % that they are off would be uniform across different platforms. I am 5.75% on a 64GB ssd in the MBA but 12.5% off in a 16GB iPhone 4.

If you are reading the iPhone 4 space out of iTunes, then it is the actual amount minus the phones operating system (iOS). That stuff actually takes up space by the way :p

Scippy
Nov 2, 2010, 09:44 PM
OK if I take your replies at face value. Then the % that they are off would be uniform across different platforms. I am 5.75% on a 64GB ssd in the MBA but 12.5% off in a 16GB iPhone 4.

No

"The difference between units based on SI and binary prefixes increases as a semi-logarithmic (linear-log) function—for example, the SI kilobyte value is nearly 98% of the kibibyte, a megabyte is under 96% of a mebibyte, and a gigabyte is just over 93% of a gibibyte value. This means that a 300 GB (279 GiB) hard disk is indicated only as 279 GB. As storage sizes increase and larger units are used, this difference becomes even more pronounced. Some legal challenges have been waged over this confusion such as a suit against Western Digital.[5][6] Western Digital settled the challenge and added explicit disclaimers to products that the usable capacity may differ from the advertised capacity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte

JodyK
Nov 2, 2010, 09:48 PM
Also, it's formatted, so that uses up some space. Imagine opening up your MBA to find out its memory isn't partitioned :eek:

I understand and that is a good point. I formatted a 500GB 7200 RPM drive in my MBP and it was at 499.76 after that. It was close to being right on the money. It is .24 off or .00048%!

Explain that one!

This is in a Apple Product 15 inch MBP, Apple shipped drive, Apple OS.

If Apple knows that all their flash drive stuff comes short OR shows short according to you guys then why would they claim a number they can't show?

runnin17
Nov 2, 2010, 09:49 PM
Is this really a topic????

I am forever amazed at the inability of people to use google :rolleyes:

elwood58
Nov 2, 2010, 09:52 PM
OK gotta rant for a second. I have looked at the capacity of every iPod, iPod touch, iPhone and iPad that I have owned and none of them had the advertised size space capacities.

Example my wives 16GB 3GS says 14.3GB, my 16GB iPhone 4 has 14GB even (12 1/2 % short!!!!!!) and my 64GB iPad 3G has 59.2GB.

NOW I broke down and bought a 11 inch MBA 1.4 with 64GB storage and what do you know IT'S SHORT!! 60.32GB

5.75% short!

I have let this slide on my mobile devices. I didn't really care on the iPods, iPad as I way over purchased there and I am a little more mad about the iPhones. This is a computer if anything advertise it as a 60GB and under promise and over deliver.

I know how sensitive people can get over things like this. I am honestly surprised this hasn't came up in a media buzz / class action sort of a way. I am not sure I am class action type mad but am greatly upset / disappointed that this can continue to be the norm (say its X then it is 5-13% less).

FLAME on people. Tell me how it's not a big deal. Tell me how stupid I am for bringing it up. Tell me they are all over provisioned.

This is either a post based on profound ignorance, or you are actually trying to start a flame war over nothing. I get your comments on portable devices, but your sig lists an impressive list of "Pro" gear from Apple, for you to just now be figuring out the logic behind drive capacity reporting.

spinnerlys
Nov 2, 2010, 09:53 PM
Is this really a topic????

I am forever amazed at the inability of people to use google :rolleyes:

Me too, though I normally provide a link or two and add the search terms I used to find them. Just to add to my superiority complex and Sid the cussing rabbit can kiss by custom testicles. If you know what I mean. ;)

Off to bed now, but I am eager to see, what all these posts about proper "HDD capacity reporting" will accumulate to, as the new MBA comes with Snow Leopard and somehow I have read somewhere, that that OS uses the number ten to calculate its storage, thus a drive with 69,000,000,000 bytes will be reported as 69GB HDD. Though I might be wrong. And smug in all places.





Ah, there they are.

Scippy
Nov 2, 2010, 09:54 PM
Is this really a topic????

I am forever amazed at the inability of people to use google :rolleyes:

Tell me about it.

To the OP: We have already explained why the size space varies. If you don't want to believe us, fine. But next time, why don't you actually do some research before trying to make a conspiracy theory. If anything, you should be blaming the hard drive manufacturers as they are the ones who are actually making the drives.

fuzzielitlpanda
Nov 2, 2010, 09:54 PM
It is standard industry practice. There is nothing wrong with your products.

JodyK
Nov 2, 2010, 09:55 PM
Look! Just saying how can my plain jane platter HDD show 499.78 as it's capacity and the other stuff which are all SSD show alot less.

To the poster that commented about the OS taking up space I realize that. I am not stupid. But the MBA showed capacity of 60.32GB and is currently showing 48.51 available! The 60.32GB is total capacity not counting OS ... 48.51 is what's left. I did the software updates and installed the flash plug in. Nothing else.

Durious
Nov 2, 2010, 09:59 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

I want my 5 minutes of reading this thread back lawsuit!! :P

potentpotable
Nov 3, 2010, 01:11 AM
I am incredibly annoyed that manufacturers and retailers (like WD, whom I still buy from, admittedly) still blatantly advertise different calculated capacities.

But I've given up on caring.

Chundles
Nov 3, 2010, 01:21 AM
I am incredibly annoyed that manufacturers and retailers (like WD, whom I still buy from, admittedly) still blatantly advertise different calculated capacities.

But I've given up on caring.

They don't. You buy a 320GB drive, you get 320 billion bytes.

Rodimus Prime
Nov 3, 2010, 01:30 AM
There will always be variables on HD size on the same HD between reformats.

I have a 120gig in my desktop. Over the years I have reformat that drive 4 or 5 times and everything time it was reported back different size. Now all of them have been in a range of 3-4 gigs.
Hardware never changed. The OS was XP. The larger the hard drive the bigger the variances between reformats.
On something like the iPod a certain amount of the flash memory is going to be held in reserve for when sectors go bad that it can be replaced by something else.

Lifequest
Nov 3, 2010, 01:36 AM
The Thread should be:
Is anyone annoyed by me being annoyed by SSD being smaller than advertised?
:D

bcaslis
Nov 3, 2010, 01:52 AM
OK gotta rant for a second. I have looked at the capacity of every iPod, iPod touch, iPhone and iPad that I have owned and none of them had the advertised size space capacities.

Example my wives 16GB 3GS says 14.3GB, my 16GB iPhone 4 has 14GB even (12 1/2 % short!!!!!!) and my 64GB iPad 3G has 59.2GB.

NOW I broke down and bought a 11 inch MBA 1.4 with 64GB storage and what do you know IT'S SHORT!! 60.32GB

...


So, let me get this right. You get a 64GB flash iPad then a 64GB flash MBA and the MBA shows a tiny bit more storage than the iPad and you are both surprised and mad?

:confused:

Seriously. A life. Get one. :D

potentpotable
Nov 3, 2010, 01:55 AM
They don't. You buy a 320GB drive, you get 320 billion bytes.

But for an HD to show up at 320GB on your computer, it must have a capacity of over 320 billion bytes, no?

Cerano
Nov 3, 2010, 02:02 AM
its a fact that drives always smaller than advertised. seriously. the OS takes up space

weckart
Nov 3, 2010, 03:08 AM
FLAME on people. Tell me how it's not a big deal. Tell me how stupid I am for bringing it up. Tell me they are all over provisioned.

Too many people replying above misunderstanding the issue. Yes, all SSDs have some element of over provisioning otherwise they would quickly slow down, with or without TRIM.

As a rule of thumb, if an SSD drive is advertised as 64GB, then expect 60GB. Others, like OCZ are a bit more honest and state the capacity as 60GB although clearly more has been placed on the drive for provisioning.

Whether the capacity overstatement is down to Apple or the flash memory manufacturer is anyone's guess.

re2st
Nov 3, 2010, 03:59 AM
Too many people replying above misunderstanding the issue. Yes, all SSDs have some element of over provisioning otherwise they would quickly slow down, with or without TRIM.

As a rule of thumb, if an SSD drive is advertised as 64GB, then expect 60GB. Others, like OCZ are a bit more honest and state the capacity as 60GB although clearly more has been placed on the drive for provisioning.

Whether the capacity overstatement is down to Apple or the flash memory manufacturer is anyone's guess.

I think this is the best answer. To those who flamed OP for being 'stupid' or 'ignorant', probably you, yourself, are being 'stupid' or 'ignorant'. Apple is using 10-base in storage calculation now, so the only plausible explanation is the fact that SSD formatting does take some space so it would reduce usable space to users.

M87
Nov 3, 2010, 04:33 AM
They had to remove some gigabytes to reduce weight.

KnightWRX
Nov 3, 2010, 04:44 AM
Too many people replying above misunderstanding the issue. Yes, all SSDs have some element of over provisioning otherwise they would quickly slow down, with or without TRIM.

As a rule of thumb, if an SSD drive is advertised as 64GB, then expect 60GB. Others, like OCZ are a bit more honest and state the capacity as 60GB although clearly more has been placed on the drive for provisioning.

Whether the capacity overstatement is down to Apple or the flash memory manufacturer is anyone's guess.

Seriously, all the people bashing the OP have no clue. This isn't the GiB to GB conversion, you are getting less space. Have you guys even bothered to look at your partition ?

In GiB :
$ df -h /
Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
/dev/disk0s2 113Gi 68Gi 44Gi 61% /

In GB :
$ df -H /
Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
/dev/disk0s2 121G 73G 48G 61% /

So the drive is not a 128GB drive, it's a 121 GB drive, at least according to the partition. If we look at the disk, the partition is made using the entire sector count, give or take 1, which doesn't amount to 7 GB :

$ sudo fdisk /dev/disk0
Password:
Disk: /dev/disk0 geometry: 14751/255/63 [236978176 sectors]
Signature: 0xAA55
Starting Ending
#: id cyl hd sec - cyl hd sec [ start - size]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: EE 1023 254 63 - 1023 254 63 [ 1 - 236978175] <Unknown ID>
2: 00 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 [ 0 - 0] unused
3: 00 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 [ 0 - 0] unused
4: 00 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 [ 0 - 0] unused

Finally, system profiler reports the drive as a 121 GB drive :

APPLE SSD TS128C:

Capacity: 121.33 GB (121,332,826,112 bytes)
Model: APPLE SSD TS128C

So everyone bashing the OP : you guys are wrong, he is right.

laksemand
Nov 3, 2010, 05:33 AM
My new 11" Air displays 120,99 gb on the Macintosh HD.

I was also very disappointed, as I am aware of the Snow Leopard allocation.

Mike Oxard
Nov 3, 2010, 05:45 AM
The advertised capacity of the computer should what is shown in the "Get Info" pane of the drive, that's the number we see when we use our computers, it's the only one that means anything to us. All the so-called justifications that people are coming up with that are to do with different ways of counting the capacity are just BS.

Normal people just want to know what they've got usable, and that they're not getting ripped off, they don't want to know that the seller is really clever and counts a different way from the rest of us. Eggs are eggs, if you buy six in a box, there shouldn't be five because the farmer counts in hexabloodydecimal or whatever. As to "doing research before you buy", what a load of crud, it says 64GB on the box, that's what should be in it.

fuzzielitlpanda
Nov 3, 2010, 05:48 AM
please report this scam and let us know how it goes

MikePA
Nov 3, 2010, 05:50 AM
So everyone bashing the OP : you guys are wrong, he is right.

So, the OP was right. He still doesn't have any more space on his SSD. I suggest he send his MBA back to Apple.

iEdd
Nov 3, 2010, 05:51 AM
Interestingly, I thought SSDs were quoted in GiB, so I was hoping I would get >64GB (ie. the reverse of what we are used to).

So yes, if the SSD is quoted as 64GB, and Snow Leopard reads in base 10, what is the reason for the discrepancy?

Pressure
Nov 3, 2010, 05:54 AM
One can only assume Apple is using that ~5,5% as Spare Area.

Spare area is used mainly for three purposes: 1) read-modify-writes, 2) wear leveling and 3) bad block replacement.

Which is quite important to keep the performance of the drive at an acceptable level over a longer period.

That doesn't change the fact that Apple should clearly have advertised the 128GB drive as a 120GB drive.

We do know for a fact that the 128GB Solid State Drive from Toshiba uses 4 x 32GB flash modules.

paolo-
Nov 3, 2010, 06:17 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A306 Safari/6531.22.7)

Before the forums were in maintenance yesterday I also found it was likely due to over-provisioning. The drive is of the advertised capacity it just keeps a certain part of it to keep itself in tip top shape. I found a thread on MR about it too in the mba section. I dont really want to look for it again.

bugout
Nov 3, 2010, 06:38 AM
Example my wives 16GB 3GS says 14.3GB, my 16GB iPhone 4 has 14GB even (12 1/2 % short!!!!!!) and my 64GB iPad 3G has 59.2GB.

You live in Utah by any chance?

macdim
Nov 3, 2010, 07:05 AM
The point is that Apple shouldn't be claiming 64 or 128 GB if their drive has some of that space allocated to garbage collection.

bcaslis
Nov 3, 2010, 08:11 AM
The point is that Apple shouldn't be claiming 64 or 128 GB if their drive has some of that space allocated to garbage collection.

It's not just Apple, it's everyone that supplies SSD (flash) drives.

jeznav
Nov 3, 2010, 08:43 AM
People.

SSD drives are different from Hard-drives. They have 'wear leveling' technology which a small section of the memory is reserved to extend life when a data sector fails to read/write at the physical level. Think of it as having and LCD monitor that repairs itself when there is a dead pixel. Of course, it wont repair forever, but that would take several writes to consume all of the reserved sectors. In this case, a 128GB SSD has a reserve of 7GB worth of data tiles(sectors) that replace the broken ones.

So 121GB is the actual raw usable data at the system level. Also memory chip is measured in powers of 2 not powers of 10. Snow Leopard now calculates drives as power of 10 so SSD capacities are affected by this.

A bare NAND chip's size is physically correct as stated by the manufacturer. As soon as you attach a NAND controller, a feature is turned on that will take part of the sectors for reserve. So I wouldn't blame the manufacturer.

As for Apple, it would be better if they just advertise storage space according how the system reads it. (60GB, 120GB, 250GB etc.)

weckart
Nov 3, 2010, 09:04 AM
It's not just Apple, it's everyone that supplies SSD (flash) drives.

Not everyone. My OCZ drive gives me pretty much what it states on the housing and packaging. YMMV.

CaoCao
Nov 3, 2010, 09:43 AM
OK gotta rant for a second. I have looked at the capacity of every iPod, iPod touch, iPhone and iPad that I have owned and none of them had the advertised size space capacities.

Example my wives 16GB 3GS says 14.3GB, my 16GB iPhone 4 has 14GB even (12 1/2 % short!!!!!!) and my 64GB iPad 3G has 59.2GB.

NOW I broke down and bought a 11 inch MBA 1.4 with 64GB storage and what do you know IT'S SHORT!! 60.32GB

5.75% short!

I have let this slide on my mobile devices. I didn't really care on the iPods, iPad as I way over purchased there and I am a little more mad about the iPhones. This is a computer if anything advertise it as a 60GB and under promise and over deliver.

I know how sensitive people can get over things like this. I am honestly surprised this hasn't came up in a media buzz / class action sort of a way. I am not sure I am class action type mad but am greatly upset / disappointed that this can continue to be the norm (say its X then it is 5-13% less).

FLAME on people. Tell me how it's not a big deal. Tell me how stupid I am for bringing it up. Tell me they are all over provisioned.

That missing space is
a) formatting (not much taken up)
and
b) the OS Image that allows the really fast waking, IIRC that's about 4GB

KnightWRX
Nov 3, 2010, 10:02 AM
That missing space is
a) formatting (not much taken up)
and
b) the OS Image that allows the really fast waking, IIRC that's about 4GB

No. Others that have stated it is for wear-leveling are right. It's not for the OS image because the drive doesn't present this extra space to the OS at all. See my post.

Don't make stuff up, if you don't know, don't try to post speculation when all has been detailed already. It makes you look like all the guys on page 1 that bashed the OP saying he was wrong because of the GiB to GB factor when it clearly hasn't been an issue since Snow Leopard.

re2st
Nov 3, 2010, 10:49 AM
So, the OP was right. He still doesn't have any more space on his SSD. I suggest he send his MBA back to Apple.

Now this is even worse than those who said the OP is wrong. At least they had arguments, even if they were wrong. This is just blatant ignorance.

Caolan96
Nov 3, 2010, 12:16 PM
yeah, i understand the OP's frustration, basically apple should advertise it as 60GB, 120GB etc.

Then again, do you really care about a few GB's? After all, it is to keep your SSD performing at it's best.

KnightWRX
Nov 3, 2010, 01:20 PM
yeah, i understand the OP's frustration, basically apple should advertise it as 60GB, 120GB etc.

Then again, do you really care about a few GB's? After all, it is to keep your SSD performing at it's best.

I doubt anyone is returning their MBA in light of this. Pointing out something is one thing, I don't think the OP was majorly pissed. He did use "annoyed" in the title not "anger that rival's that of the gods!".

People like MikePA just can't see the world as grey. Everything needs to be black and white. If it's not white, it's black. Hence his comment that went a bit overboard.

MikePA
Nov 3, 2010, 01:54 PM
People like MikePA just can't see the world as grey. Everything needs to be black and white. If it's not white, it's black. Hence his comment that went a bit overboard.
I don't need you to, nor want you to speak for me. Yes, only an elitist can see the finer shades of gray when it comes to computing space on an SSD. Pedantry at its finest.

KnightWRX
Nov 3, 2010, 03:38 PM
I don't need you to, nor want you to speak for me. Yes, only an elitist can see the finer shades of gray when it comes to computing space on an SSD. Pedantry at its finest.

Then why did you suggest the OP's only recourse was to return his MBA ? You know, you can be annoyed by a feature of a product, but still overall be happy with it. Shades of grey and all...

At least do apologize for your out of place comment.

ImperialX
Nov 3, 2010, 03:44 PM
To the people who are flaming the OP, have any of your realized why SSDs in Macs don't show obvious signs of degradation even when Mac OS X doesn't support TRIM? Chew on that for a bit.

iEdd
Nov 3, 2010, 04:08 PM
No. Others that have stated it is for wear-leveling are right. It's not for the OS image because the drive doesn't present this extra space to the OS at all.

This kinda reminds me of the threads back in the day where people would ask why their 250GB HDD was showing up as less. After numerous posts explaining the difference between 10^9 and 2^30, someone would always chime in with "it's because of formatting".

MikePA
Nov 3, 2010, 04:18 PM
Then why did you suggest the OP's only recourse was to return his MBA ?

Sarcasm. I don't waste time whining about things I can't, or won't, change.

re2st
Nov 3, 2010, 04:35 PM
Sarcasm. I don't waste time whining about things I can't, or won't, change.

Some people are chronic apathist, indeed

applefanDrew
Dec 17, 2010, 06:07 PM
What kind of flash storage is used in the new MBA? Like manufacturer...

Toshiba?

And1ss
Dec 17, 2010, 06:18 PM
@ OP, LMAO.

That is all.