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.
iPod 60gb ipod actual capacity?
- Thread starter MyAppleWorld
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My 60Gb Photo claims to have a total capacity of 55.8Gb in it's about screen. I don't have a 30 or 80 to check...
That's formatted HFS+ by the way. You may get a different available capacity if you format FAT for Windows.
That's formatted HFS+ by the way. You may get a different available capacity if you format FAT for Windows.
i don't have a 60 gb, but usually the real capacity is about 93% of the stated size. so id say its about 55.8Gb. and for the 30gb it'd be 27.9 gb and for the 80gb it'd be 74.4gb.
Look at it this way: People define 1KB as 1000 bytes, but computers define it as 1024 bytes. Not much of a difference when people used to use KBs as much as we use GBs, but it really adds up the higher the capacity. At 1TB, we're already losing ~70GB due to the discrepancy. 
Yep, the computers are wrong. The 60GB iPod has a capacity of 60,000,000,000 bytes which is 60GB. Giga is an SI prefix that only relates to multiples of 10^9. Using it for binary measures such as on computers is an incorrect use of the term Giga.
There are appropriate binary terms for the corresponding capacities. 1024 bytes is one kibibyte (KiB).
60GB = ~55.88GiB but because computers use the incorrect terms you appear to lose about 7% of your space. The only space you lose is due to formatting and pre-installed stuff which is much, much less than 7% of the drive's stated capacity.
One of two things should happen, computers should start using the SI prefixes appropriately so that a 60GB iPod would show a capacity of 60GB (minus the few proper MB of formatting/pre-installed apps and games etc) OR they must report the capacities of connected drives using the correct binary terms so that a 60GB iPod would display a capacity of 55.88GiB when viewed on the computer. This latter approach should be combined with an education campaign to make consumers aware that they aren't actually losing any space.
The drive manufacturers are using the correct prefixes. Where they say 60GB they mean 60 proper gigabytes. It's the computers that are wrong.
There are appropriate binary terms for the corresponding capacities. 1024 bytes is one kibibyte (KiB).
60GB = ~55.88GiB but because computers use the incorrect terms you appear to lose about 7% of your space. The only space you lose is due to formatting and pre-installed stuff which is much, much less than 7% of the drive's stated capacity.
One of two things should happen, computers should start using the SI prefixes appropriately so that a 60GB iPod would show a capacity of 60GB (minus the few proper MB of formatting/pre-installed apps and games etc) OR they must report the capacities of connected drives using the correct binary terms so that a 60GB iPod would display a capacity of 55.88GiB when viewed on the computer. This latter approach should be combined with an education campaign to make consumers aware that they aren't actually losing any space.
The drive manufacturers are using the correct prefixes. Where they say 60GB they mean 60 proper gigabytes. It's the computers that are wrong.
The computer isn't wrong. The sizes of a [Kilo/Mega/Giga/Tera/...]Byte were defined as 1024 Bytes/Kilobytes/Megabytes/Gigabytes back when computers were first invented. Much, MUCH later, the terms were redefined by HardDisk manufacturers so they could get to a certain 'magic size' faster. A bit after that, the HD manufacturers got sued for misrepresenting the size of their drives, so now we see their definition printed on the box. At some point after that, the SI standards body redefined the size of a Kilo/Mega/Giga/Tera/...Byte to match what the HD manufacturers said it was.
Technically the definition has been changed, but the only people who actually use the new definition are the storage-device manufacturers.
Technically the definition has been changed, but the only people who actually use the new definition are the storage-device manufacturers.
Sorry mate, SI prefixes have been around a lot longer than computers. They came out of the time when the metric system was being defined with units such as the kilogram and the kilometre, milligram and millilitre. The use of SI prefixes to denote units that are not multiples of a thousand, million, billion etc. is incorrect.
Computers should be using the correct binary storage terms Kibibyte, Mebibyte, Gibibyte etc.