Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Have a look at Path Finder

It looks very good, using the trial now

It costs money but it displays file sizes how they used to be

Seems to be a very good replacement for finder
 
So when we supposedly save "6GB" of space with Snow Leopard, was that based on Base 10 or Base 2. =)

There is a space savings regardless of which number system is being used. There is much detail about this in the ars technica article: http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/3

The lack of PPC executable code and some form of compression account for the bulk of the space savings, I believe.

Also in regards to the base 10 / base 2, I'm a comp sci guy. While I don't agree with the change they've made, it's not the end of the world either.
 
doesnt matter

the industry has defined a gigabyte to mean in base 2 over the last 30+ years, regardless what the prefix means

What industry? The computer industry, because hard drive makers have been using base 10 now for years and so what apple did is use base 10 like them, so in theory it should be less confusing to the average person.

Personally, I'm in the camp that apple should not have screwed with this and it will make things more confusing because there will be differences across platforms and many people in IT understand the concept but its less about us, and more about marketing. They wanted to increase/enhance the savings over leopard and this was a lazy way to do it.
 
What industry? The computer industry, because hard drive makers have been using base 10 now for years and so what apple did is use base 10 like them, so in theory it should be less confusing to the average person.

Furthermore, giga has meant 10 to the power of 9 since at least the 40s.

So, ya .....
 
Here's a real world problem:
You would like to download (or copy) a large file from online or windows (or anyplace that will list the size using the old convention). Let's say your small storage device (usb drive or the like) has just just enough space by a few megabytes, but the file won't fit, because you have been told the size in two different formats.

Also, I think I will find it rather annoying, being a computer engineer, and having always known the 1024 convention, to suddenly be the idiot who doesn't understand the size of files anymore!

How so? if you plug your flash into windows it will tell the size in 1024,not 1000, so either I don't understand your example, or you are wrong. your drive will show more space but the files on it also would take more space, so the % of used/free space should be the same? :confused:
 
If I were Apple, I'm not sure I'd make the change, but by the same token, I don't see the problem. For every computer geek that knows a 1TB drive is really a 976,562,500 megabyte drive, there are a dozen people who don't. Using base 10 is one step to make computers "for the rest of us."

mt

You mean 1 TB = 1,048,576 megabytes.
 
Go to google and type in

1 TB to megabytes
1 TiB to megabytes.

A "tera" of bytes is a trillion bytes (1,000,000,000,000).

A "mega" of bytes is a million bytes (1,000,000).

A "kilo" of bytes is a thousand bytes (1,000).

A "kilogram" of flour isn't 1,024 grams of flour, for example. Just saying. Not trying to start a fight or anything. *shrug*
 
thanks vader, I'm thinking I'm gonna do that.

Also, thanks everyone else for answering my question and not getting off topic about what is "right" and what is "wrong."
 
I don't think it is worth worrying about. The change in Snow Leopard makes thing less confusing to the majority of people who buy computers. I can't tell you how many times people have asked where the other Gigabytes have gone on their 1TB hard drive.

I don't care how confusing it is for those of you who are computer engineers and how much not knowing the new file systems dents your poor egos. Computers (Macs especially) are not made for computer engineers. They are made for people. Any shift that makes it easier for people to understand their computers better is, in my opinion a plus.

I don't know how to change it back, however I think it is better that Apple make it harder to do so in order to avoid confusion and speed up the conversion process to the metric system.
 
So now how many people are going to ask you why their flash drive is "bigger" on Snow Leopard than Win7? How about when using MobileMe? What about when someone takes a 2GB (or GiB or whatever the hell you want it to be) file from SL and copies it to a mac running Leopard? Wont that be more confusing than just leaving it the way it was?
 
While I don't agree with the change they've made, it's not the end of the world either.
I agree - though I think the reasoning they have (making it more accessible to the average user) is solid. I do believe they should make 100% proper use of the SI prefixes and the binary prefixes though.

GiB when talking about RAM, kB when talking about 1000 bytes on disk, GB when talking disk size, KiB when small files show up as "4 KB on disk" (since 4096 = one block, not 4000)...
 
According to Cocoatech's Twitter account, they've changed Path Finder to behave like Finder wrt filesizes in the latest beta. No word on if it's a setting that can be changed; I've asked.
 
According to Cocoatech's Twitter account, they've changed Path Finder to behave like Finder wrt filesizes in the latest beta. No word on if it's a setting that can be changed; I've asked.

Thanks for the warning, was about to purchase Path Finder, will hang off for a bit till this is confirmed
 
ok guys, what if I wanted to download something from the internet. Lets say its size is 1GB as stated on the website.

By saying 1GB, 1024mb of data will be substracted from the total of my hard disk if its based on how SL counts it. This will be very confusing for the avg consumers who do not know anything about the base 10 base 2 thingy. Since they were only expecting 1000mb of space erased off.

Unless everyone across the board starts complying to this standards, I don't know how this helps?
 
ok guys, what if I wanted to download something from the internet. Lets say its size is 1GB as stated on the website.

By saying 1GB, 1024mb of data will be substracted from the total of my hard disk if its based on how SL counts it. This will be very confusing for the avg consumers who do not know anything about the base 10 base 2 thingy. Since they were only expecting 1000mb of space erased off.

Unless everyone across the board starts complying to this standards, I don't know how this helps?

Yup,

This new way of calculating only works properly if everyone is using it (all os's, internet etc)

A Gig on the internet is based on base 2
A Gig on other os's is based on base 2
A Gig in SL is based on base 10
 
I am thinking that you almost need to know everyone's age who is in this discussion to have it really makes sense. I'll start by saying that I am not going to lose sleep over this, and I think it is nuts to alter SL to make it calculate things different than the way it was designed. I'd rather myself have confusion than the OS.

There are a couple of concepts going on in this discussion that are missing the point. Everyone is arguing about the definition of "giga" throughout this, and no one has looked at the definition of "byte". The reason that the way SL is now doing it is wrong, has nothing to do with "giga" and everything to do with "byte". I've worked in the computer industry for nearly 30 years, and other than disk manufacturers, no one has used based 10 because it makes no sense. The hard drive makers did the same thing that the display makers did... found a way to exaggerate the size of their product, so they did it. Display makers used to do the same thing prior to the LCD days.

So a "byte", according to the all knowing Wikipedia is, "most often consists of 8 bits in modern systems". Adding "kilo", "mega", "giga", and "tera" to "byte" yields a base 2 result, not a base 10 result. While the number of bits in a byte does vary, it is never "10", and this goes back to how computer storage is constructed. I worked in chip manufacturing plant for 5 years early in my career and it is ridiculous to even suggest that any thing in computer storage is, or has ever been, based on 10 anythings. All counting internally in computers is done in base 2. So the only conclusion I can make here is that Apple wants to match what the hard drive makers say the size of a drive is, so that is what they are doing. Since they sell drives with their systems, it may be simply a legal issue to try and avoid someone complaining legally that the space they have is now what was advertised. Whatever the reason, it is really awkward and silly for anyone that has been around computers for any length of time. If you try to count things up from bytes, it will completely get messed up every time.... can't get there from here. If you are a systems engineer putting together a storage farm for a big project, this is the kind of crap than can completely screw up project... of course I'm sure they are smart enough to figure out how to work around it.

And to respond to the reply that said the "rest of the world = microsoft"... um no. There are a lot of other companies that make computers and operating systems than microsoft. If anything, this is the kind of stunt I would expect microsoft to pull, more than Apple.
 
Here's a real world problem:
You would like to download (or copy) a large file from online or windows (or anyplace that will list the size using the old convention). Let's say your small storage device (usb drive or the like) has just just enough space by a few megabytes, but the file won't fit, because you have been told the size in two different formats.

Also, I think I will find it rather annoying, being a computer engineer, and having always known the 1024 convention, to suddenly be the idiot who doesn't understand the size of files anymore!

That won't have anything to do with it. I remember reading an article (can't find it at the moment) that stated even though a file might say 240MB in the old system, it still used 250+ bytes.. now with Snow Leopard, the file would be 250MB or whatever the actual byte size is. So file sizes are still the same in bytes, just how they're represented thats different
 
This sort of kills all the drive size problems people complained about ... aka, I bought a 500GB drive and it is missing 7%

Technically it isn't correct, but at least the Finder now matches the info printed on the side of the box.
 
I think the inconsistencies within Snow Leopard unnecessarily confuse people as well.

For example , in Mail.app theyre still using base2 to calculate sizes? The same in iPhoto, and other apps. Its only in Finder where base10 is used??
 
I think I just got a headache reading this thread.. :(

For me, the real villains are whoever originally decided to use the SI prefixes with base2 numbers! "1024, that's a bit like 1,000 isn't it? Let's call it a kilo, and forget the difference..". Grrrr...

I'd like to drop a 1 kiloton bomb right on their heads. That's 1024 tons. They asked for it. :)
 
ok guys, what if I wanted to download something from the internet. Lets say its size is 1GB as stated on the website.

By saying 1GB, 1024mb of data will be substracted from the total of my hard disk if its based on how SL counts it. This will be very confusing for the avg consumers who do not know anything about the base 10 base 2 thingy. Since they were only expecting 1000mb of space erased off.
Depending on file systems used, this 1GB file could end up taking up more or less than the 1000MB you expected anyways.

P.S. 1000mb is 1000 milli-bits, which I'm not even sure what that means.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.