It is possible to use base 2 measurements in Snow Leopard by replacing Snow Leopard's Finder with the Finder from Leopard. There are issues and QuickLook does not work at the moment but here are the detailed instructions: http://sites.google.com/site/snowleopardbase2/
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Instructions to make Snow Leopard use Base 2
- Thread starter Rhapsody
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is the correct way to calculate binary values. Snow Leopard still calculates the amount of system RAM in base 2. This simply makes the RAM value of GB equal to the file and HD values of GB. Either way, let's not debate whether base 2 or base 10 is correct but use this thread for those who wish to use base 2 and hopefully convince Apple to at least give us a proper option.
ANSI/IEEE said:
Frankly who cares?
It is only Finder showing base-10. Open up terminal if you must know what the base-2 size is. iTunes and QTX also report in base-2.
It is only Finder showing base-10. Open up terminal if you must know what the base-2 size is. iTunes and QTX also report in base-2.
Lets see, so according to ANSI/IEEE 'kilo' is defined as 1000 or 1024 on a computer. Sure, that's not confusing at all...not to mention a nice consistent way to describe a unit that is used by everyone.
I don't know the full story, or so made that definition of 'kilo' on a computer to start with, but I side with hard drive manufacturers, they used the proper SI meaning of 'kilo' from the beginning, and OS' vendors simply decided to use the sizes of KiB, MiB, GiB, TiB etc but represented them as KB/MB/GB/TB because it probably aligned better with RAM manufacturers who produce RAM in lots of 2, because it's easier to double the size when they manufacture.
So RAM is still being reported in Base2 because that's how the manufacturers market it. Hard drives/flash drives are marketed in Base10 and thus they should be reported in the OS as Base10.
I don't know the full story, or so made that definition of 'kilo' on a computer to start with, but I side with hard drive manufacturers, they used the proper SI meaning of 'kilo' from the beginning, and OS' vendors simply decided to use the sizes of KiB, MiB, GiB, TiB etc but represented them as KB/MB/GB/TB because it probably aligned better with RAM manufacturers who produce RAM in lots of 2, because it's easier to double the size when they manufacture.
So RAM is still being reported in Base2 because that's how the manufacturers market it. Hard drives/flash drives are marketed in Base10 and thus they should be reported in the OS as Base10.
BARF! exactly. apple changing in the first place is stupid, but copying some 10.5 stuff into 10.6 is even more ridiculous and completely unnecessary...
Were you really basing some mission critical application on the finder's file size calculation? haha. if so, LULZ!!
And like gibbz said, underneath, OS X is still base-2. no question there.
This has nothing to do with marketing, although the Base10 used by disk manufacturers is (Base10 seems bigger than Base2 and that is good for sales).
Granted, you are not old enough to remember, but early computers did everything in Base2, and it was all called kB, MB, etc. Only recently (1998), some dipstick felt it was confusing to use kB etc for a Base2 system and introduced KiB, MiB, etc.
Computers are binary and hence use Base2. As a result, kilo means 1024. If simple people can't get that, that's really their problem. Base10 on computers is to satisfy the ignorant and the stupid masses.
so then your 320 GB hard drive is only 298. Might want to update your signature if you feel that way.
Nah, cause nobody understands harddisks with 298GB. But at least I am not one of the hordes of people whining about why their 320GB hdd is only giving them 298GB when they look at it in finder.
I think you answered your own question.
If everything else still reports Base 2 (specifically iTunes), then if I have 350MB's of space left on my Apple TV and I have a new TV episode to put onto my Apple TV, Finder will tell me this is 367MB's (in Base 10) making me think I don't have enough space on my Apple TV for it, when in fact I do.
I'm not debating whether Base 2 or Base 10 is correct, but saying that we shouldn't be using Base 10 at all unless everything in OS X used it.
At the least, Apple should give us an option to choose.
I have uploaded a Quicktime X screen-cap on how to change the Finder back to base 2 without breaking Quicklook functionality.
This is a major fail on Apple's part. If they could make it consistent across the entire OS, I would be a bit happier, but the fact that Finder is base 10 and everything else is base 2 just makes things confusing, and I wish Finder would revert back to base 2. That said, I'm not going to replace system files from Leopard, that's just asking for trouble.
It takes a really ignorant person to suggest that the standard definition of kilo is 1024. You don't change the definition simply because you're talking about a computer. Kilo means 1000 in the metric system, THATS the standard.
So wait ....
I've been putting in 1,024 grams of flour into all my big group cooking when recipes called for a kilogram!
I've been putting in 1,024 grams of flour into all my big group cooking when recipes called for a kilogram!
Hmm?
Bits have a binary state (on or off), but that doesn't mean the whole system has to be base 2, or counted in binary.
A byte is made of 8 bits (each with 2 states, granted), but that doesn't change the counting of the bytes themselves. 10 bytes is still 10 bytes. 100 bytes is still 100 bytes. 1000 bytes is still a thousand bytes. And if you want to express that same idea (1000 bytes) in the short form, you can use "kilo" to replace the "1000" - aka the kilobyte.
Same goes for mega (million) and giga (billion).
We just need to average it, and convert all computer to use my new system called "base computer" which will make 1GB = 1012MB. Then everyone will be happy.
Clear as mud.
Clear as mud.