Instructions to make Snow Leopard use Base 2

Discussion in 'OS X' started by Rhapsody, Sep 1, 2009.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    #1
    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/
     
  2. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    #2
    Why would you want to make your computer calculate something in a wrong way?
     
  3. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    #3
    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.

     
  4. macrumors 68020

    sidewinder

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Northern California
    #4
    Talking about bad ideas..........

    S-
     
  5. macrumors 68030

    gibbz

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Location:
    National Weather Center
    #5
    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.
     
  6. macrumors 601

    sammich

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    Sarcasmville.
    #6
    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.
     
  7. macrumors 6502

    jedijoe

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Location:
    Fort Collins
    #7
    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.
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #8
    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.
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    grockk

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    #9
    so then your 320 GB hard drive is only 298. Might want to update your signature if you feel that way.
     
  10. macrumors 68000

    paulsalter

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    Thanks for the tip, I might try this when feeling brave
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #11
    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. ;)
     
  12. macrumors G5

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #12
    Send a bug report to Apple then.
     
  13. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2003
    Location:
    Germany
    #13
    :D !
     
  14. macrumors G3

    Kilamite

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2003
    Location:
    Germany
    #15
    I have uploaded a Quicktime X screen-cap on how to change the Finder back to base 2 without breaking Quicklook functionality.
     
  16. macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #16
    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.
     
  17. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2003
    Location:
    Germany
    #17
    Yes, I would also prefer a all base 10 Snow Leopard over this hybrid crap.

    This thread already contains a blood shed discussion about why going base 10 actually makes sense.
     
  18. macrumors G3

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #18
    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.
     
  19. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    #19
    While I am not going to use Leopard's Finder just yet, I always like to know if there are any other way to make Finder report it in base2. I couldn't care less which one is politically correct, this is my computer I should have the choice.
     
  20. macrumors G3

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #20
    Do you have the choice in other operating systems?

    Honest question.
     
  21. macrumors 6502a

    Frosties

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Location:
    Sweden
    #21
    Good tip! But i think the best is to use a third party application and skip finder.
     
  22. macrumors 68000

    cellocello

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #22
    So wait ....

    I've been putting in 1,024 grams of flour into all my big group cooking when recipes called for a kilogram! :eek:
     
  23. macrumors G3

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #23
    Is there something compatible right now?
     
  24. macrumors 68000

    cellocello

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #24
    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).
     
  25. macrumors regular

    avediswolf

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Location:
    Ohio
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page