4.37 GB DVDs show up in SL as somewhere around 4.69 GB (IIRC), but they still burn correctly.
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.
A Look at WWDC 2009 Build of Snow Leopard
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
4.37 GB DVDs show up in SL as somewhere around 4.69 GB (IIRC), but they still burn correctly.
Regarding Finder:
@intel: You're completely right about these two BUGS: moving across devices can lead to data loss. Renaming operation getting interrupted from updating thumbnails. I think of the first I've heard that it's finally fixed in Snow Leopard.
But regarding your personal problems with Finder:
I don't have these problems and it appears in your 3 years on the Mac you haven't found out about command-option-I
Regarding this 10-base issue:
thanks, ibwb, you've helped me change my mind in the most sensible way!
@intel: You're completely right about these two BUGS: moving across devices can lead to data loss. Renaming operation getting interrupted from updating thumbnails. I think of the first I've heard that it's finally fixed in Snow Leopard.
But regarding your personal problems with Finder:
I don't have these problems and it appears in your 3 years on the Mac you haven't found out about command-option-I
Regarding this 10-base issue:
thanks, ibwb, you've helped me change my mind in the most sensible way!
It makes perfect sense to the end user. The system needs to know about Base 2, but the user doesnt.
Its still the same size regardless of base to or base 10 or base 16 or base whatever. THe number of bytes have not changed, but now it can more easily digested by the average person.
Storage manufactures (not just for HDDs, but Apple does the same thing with their Flash sizes, which still represents in base 2) did this for marketing reasons, but as the drives get larger the discrepancy gets larger and more and more people (even those who are in computing for work) seem to not know where the capacity went. Often I hear its from formatting but that doesnt account for many GB of space disappearing.
Being able to change it would be nice, for those so inclined, but since they also list the bytes its not really a big deal to figure it for those wanting to be cool with base 2. I would like them to get rid of the JEDEC standard altogether in favour of the SI standard of KiB/MiB/GiB/TiB for things like RAM, which would leave the SI standard of base 10 of KB/MB/GB/TB for base 10. It really does make a lot more sense.
It causes no problems. The system still works in base 2, but that 1TB the typical customers buys now says 1TB when installed, not 931GB. Which each new capacity increase this issue gets more pronounced. The consumer doesnt need to work in base 2, that is for the backend, not the user. Nothing has actually changed, the bytes are still the same.
Noooooooooooooo.
Or, at least, that's what I thought at first (that they were giving in to hard drive manufacturers' labeling scheme and potential consumer confusion). But then, like another poster, I realized that with storage space and file sizes increasing and increasing, the mental conversions we often make between kilobytes, megabytes, and gigabytes (and terabytes...) become exponentially more erroneous the greater the size we're dealing with.
For example, 1000 bytes (1 KB) / 1024 bytes (1 KiB) =~ 98%, but 1000000000 bytes (1 GB) / 1073741824 bytes (1 GiB) =~ 93%, and it's only going to get worse.
The only bad thing is that this will occasionally be different from some users' expectations if others (Microsoft, application developers, etc.) don't follow suit, but it has the advantage of making questions such as "How many 5 MB JPEGs can I fit on my 512 MB flash drive?" questions a lot easier to answer without busting out a calculator or dealing with risky decimal approximations.
maybe it's just because "Mebibyte" and "Kibibyte" sound somewhat odd?
Oh, well if it sounds odd then we should just continue to use the exact same term to mean two similar things but with completely different measurements because clarity makes no sense if it sounds odd.
Actually, it is not. Computer memory is the only area where the letters K, M and G have been incorrectly used to mean 1,024, 1,024 x 1,024 and 1,024 x 1,024 x 1,024. If you want these meanings, the correct abbreviations are KiB, MiB and GiB. See for example http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
No matter what, we will have fewer complaints from unsuspecting computer users who buy a 500 GB drive and when the OS displays 465 GB, they think someone is cheating them.
Where does the system need to know about base 2? I think the system doesn't actually care. At the lowest level, you will have a byte offset relative to the start of the hard drive; that needs to be translated into a platter/track/sector number, which is quite complicated because the number of sectors per track is different from track to track. There is no need for binary arithmetic at all.
What problems would it cause? I remember wasting lots of time because Disk Utility didn't even agree with itself about the meaning of "GB". If everyone agrees on the same thing, that can only help.
Also, with respect to file sizes, on your own computer, there will be no problems as the entire system will report in base 10. So it's not like only the hard drive will be base 10. CDs and DVDs will report base 10, file sizes will be reported in base 10, flash drives will be base 10. So there won't be any confusion until you're jumping across platforms.
While this is the right way of doing things, I think it will still be a hard pill to swallow, unless the industry is already in agreement (and this will be a feature in Win 7 as well?)
EDIT: I just learned that the CD standard is base 2 reporting, but I still think that SL will show it in base 10. So we will have the issue we currently have, but just with CD's instead of Hard Drives and DVDs.
While this is the right way of doing things, I think it will still be a hard pill to swallow, unless the industry is already in agreement (and this will be a feature in Win 7 as well?)
EDIT: I just learned that the CD standard is base 2 reporting, but I still think that SL will show it in base 10. So we will have the issue we currently have, but just with CD's instead of Hard Drives and DVDs.
Eh, blocking? System components changed, Machinima - its a large, point release of an OS. Give the software developers time to update their software.
They sold us a beta test with 10.5.0 for $129. This one should be relatively plain sailing.
Still, the smart money is on waiting for 10.6.1 before you buy.
You have GOT to be kidding.
Wait, no it makes perfect sense to suggest that two competing companies would create similar products without influencing each other.
That is NOT what I said! Please try to read and then re-read my post, then reply. I did not say that - I said it is POSSIBLE that two companies can develop the same idea concurrently - period. And do I think Apple and MS stole the finder option from each other? NO! THAT was what I said.
Please - do not put words in my mouth. Do I think MS stole anything from Apple for W7? Possibly - but it is more likely that they were developing the same or similar technologies concurrently. THAT is what I said. So what if they 'borrow' an idea - that is NOT theft - especially given the different spin each take on the 'borrowed' technology. As was said in the movie 'Pump Up the Volume' - "all the good ideas has been thought-up - so what is the world left with?". The same holds true in the computer and software business as it is a giant incestuous pool of shared genetic material - all the same basic ideas modified and updated with new features here and there - nothing more, nothing less. When is the last time you have actually seen a REVOLUTIONARY computer advancement? Not EVOLUTIONARY advancement but REVOLUTIONARY...
OS X is nothing but a fancy GUI over BSD - although a very, very good GUI with many great advancement and updates - but it is at the core BSD. What is Windows? It still uses technology based on Windows 2.X and 3.X. It still uses arcane DOS commands and overlays - although with many more refinements and updates.
Anyway - please do not put words in my mouth - I can do that quite well for myself - along with all the associated problems that occur when I speak!
D
I do not dispute that - but they are fundamentally changing the way and value of that measurement. It does not imply the intrinsic value has changed -just the method by which it is displayed. I did a poor job of making my point (which I often do - according to my wife and children) - but in reality they are changing the 1024 to 1000 therefore invalidating the 'standard' way or communication that form of measurement. That is all.
I DO understand what you are saying and I DO understand base 10 versus base 2 - but when you change the ACTUAL value of 1024 to 1000 to make thing easier for the customer is just plain silly - sort of like not allowing my sons baseball team to 'win' in the local rec league because it might 'hurt the feelings' of those on the receiving end of that loss - so they just do not keep score any longer thus allowing everyone to be a winner - silly, huh? That is why I think the swap from the recognized (generally) unit of measurement of 1024 to the generally NOT recognized value of 1000 is dumb - but not something that will decline civilization - just the dumbing-down of society.
D
Does that mean the upgrade from Leopard really only frees up 5.8 GBs of space rather than 6?
lol, good question
Like I said in the other thread about the Base 10 thing, as long as Apple provides a way to switch OS X's reporting of data sizes back to the truthful Base 2 method (i.e. by changing a value in some obscure .plist), I've got no problem. It's only if they insist on having it only report dishonest information that I'll be ticked.
I'm really excited for this release. I can't wait. I'll definitely be getting the family pack since I have more than one mac at home.
All of this discussion has also got me thinking that maybe this is why Windows Explorer in Vista doesn't show things as M(sic)B or G(sic)B, but only as KB. In a twisted way, it makes sense to me now more than ever. I had actually been looking for a way to change it back, but with my newfound understanding, I will be leaving it as is.
Of course, when I get my Mac, I will just be leaving it.
Of course, when I get my Mac, I will just be leaving it.
Base 2 is dishonest, not base 10
IMO, they've gotten rid of the dishonest base 2, and are using the globally accepted definition of "kilo/mega/giga/tera" et al.
Kudos to Apple for honoring standards.
IMO, they've gotten rid of the dishonest base 2, and are using the globally accepted definition of "kilo/mega/giga/tera" et al.
Kudos to Apple for honoring standards.
I'm not a coder by any stretch of the imagination but couldn't the change to base 10 have something to do with future development of the ZFS filesystem ?
7 pages of people discussing base 10 vrs base 2...wacky!
SNOW LEO HAS NO FONT SMOOTHING OPTIONS. The one default makes the fonts on my display look very poor.
I will not upgrade if Apple does not fix this glaring omission.
SNOW LEO HAS NO FONT SMOOTHING OPTIONS. The one default makes the fonts on my display look very poor.
I will not upgrade if Apple does not fix this glaring omission.