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.
DVD Burning Question - Can't get advertised amount
- Thread starter mcmike100
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
mcmike100 said:
It's another case of the 1000 bytes in a kilobyte for Hard Disk (and clearly other media) manufacturers and 1024 for OS's, basically a 4.7GB DVD should hold 4.38GB.
It's not just Finder, the same is true of DVD burning apps on Windows (at least with the newest version of Nero) and Toast Titanium on Mac. I think it has to do with the fact that 4.7GB is not actually 4.7 gigs. If you're using 1MB = 1000B then the 24B can really carry over and become quite significant. Another example is an iPod mini 4GB being able to only hold about 3.7Gb of data.mcmike100 said:
EDIT: Quick fingers Eraserhead
It's worse than that since each factor of 1000 needs to be replaced with 1024 so a decimal 1 GigaByte = 1 GB = 1000x1000x1000 while the binary version used by the OS is 1 Gibibyte = 1 GiB = 1024x1024x1024. You end up overestimating the binary sizes by 7.4 % using the decimal numbers supplied by the media vendors...brepublican said:
I do wish the OS would ctually say GiB and not GB.
B
This is all early computer makers' fault
They should never have used SI prefixes for units of binary storage.
"Kilo" should only refer to a thousand of something, not 1024.
"Mega" should only be used for a million of something, 1048576.
This is where all the hassle began, the advertised space on your HDD, DVD etc is correct, 4.7GB = 4,700,000,000 bytes which is 4.7GB.
Unfortunately your computer works with storage in units of 2, for it a "Gigabyte" is 2^30 bytes which is incorrect, 2^30 IS NOT a Gigabyte.
The difference between what really is a Gigabyte (10^9) and what a computer calls a "Gigabyte" is about 7%.
Have a look at this Wiki page to see why computers and manufacturers should be using Binary Prefix Standards instead of SI standards.
Gigabyte? Not really...
They should never have used SI prefixes for units of binary storage.
"Kilo" should only refer to a thousand of something, not 1024.
"Mega" should only be used for a million of something, 1048576.
This is where all the hassle began, the advertised space on your HDD, DVD etc is correct, 4.7GB = 4,700,000,000 bytes which is 4.7GB.
Unfortunately your computer works with storage in units of 2, for it a "Gigabyte" is 2^30 bytes which is incorrect, 2^30 IS NOT a Gigabyte.
The difference between what really is a Gigabyte (10^9) and what a computer calls a "Gigabyte" is about 7%.
Have a look at this Wiki page to see why computers and manufacturers should be using Binary Prefix Standards instead of SI standards.
Gigabyte? Not really...
I can kind of see how this got started, since the difference was pretty small way back when--the extra 24 bits on a kilobyte wasn't a big deal. When you get up into the gigs, you start noticing it a lot more, though, and when we start getting into terrabytes, it's going to be a full 10% off--that's just silly.
If the OS vendors would just start putting GiB instead of GB, it would help, but they'd all have to start doing it to have any meaningful effect on the even moderately technically literate. Or they could just report atctual decimal GB and have everybody's files suddenly get larger, except again you've got literally decades of momentum behind the other system that's going to cause confusion.
Maybe we need another one of those lawsuits to force drive manufacturers to report in GiB like when the monitor manufactuerers were forced to actually put viewable area on CRTs. Yes, they always put a little disclaimer to avoid it, but you'd think just to avoid tech support calls somebody would be pushing to change this.
C'mon, Seagate, would it be so hard to say "500GB 7200.10 (465GiB OS capacity)" or something? It's no more confusing than saying "17" (16.1" vis) Monitor."
If the OS vendors would just start putting GiB instead of GB, it would help, but they'd all have to start doing it to have any meaningful effect on the even moderately technically literate. Or they could just report atctual decimal GB and have everybody's files suddenly get larger, except again you've got literally decades of momentum behind the other system that's going to cause confusion.
Maybe we need another one of those lawsuits to force drive manufacturers to report in GiB like when the monitor manufactuerers were forced to actually put viewable area on CRTs. Yes, they always put a little disclaimer to avoid it, but you'd think just to avoid tech support calls somebody would be pushing to change this.
C'mon, Seagate, would it be so hard to say "500GB 7200.10 (465GiB OS capacity)" or something? It's no more confusing than saying "17" (16.1" vis) Monitor."
Yep
Then let's change it NOW instead of letting it get worse and worse...what happened to truth in advertising?
In all honesty, we're not receiving what any REASONABLE person would expect they're buying...
At least food companies go by weight and not capacity (some contents may settle when shipped) so they can actually say you're getting X ounces of something.
Just a thought...
Then let's change it NOW instead of letting it get worse and worse...what happened to truth in advertising?
In all honesty, we're not receiving what any REASONABLE person would expect they're buying...
At least food companies go by weight and not capacity (some contents may settle when shipped) so they can actually say you're getting X ounces of something.
Just a thought...