The way I understand the discrepancy between how many GBs of space recovered is the reporters aren't factoring in that Snow Leopard changes the way the size of disks are reported.
So when someone states they recovered 24 GBs and the next person reports 17 GB recovered they're wrong. The larger the drive, the more people are going to think they're recovering. People need to factor in now the size of their drive. Before, a 250 GB drive had only around 230 GBs reporting as it was reporting true space by bytes. Now, Snow Leopard will report the drive as an actual 250 GBs as it's actually calculating differently!
So people should all recover around the exact same 7 GBs of space. The rest of the "gained space" isn't truly gained but rather just a factor of the disk reporting difference in Snow Leopard. Even the supposed "tech expert" journalists who reported the gained space couldn't figure out that they're not really gaining 24 GBs but around 7 GBs and the rest is due to how Snow Leopard calculates a GB!
Wouldn't we all think the "expert" journalist to explain/understand this better?
So when someone states they recovered 24 GBs and the next person reports 17 GB recovered they're wrong. The larger the drive, the more people are going to think they're recovering. People need to factor in now the size of their drive. Before, a 250 GB drive had only around 230 GBs reporting as it was reporting true space by bytes. Now, Snow Leopard will report the drive as an actual 250 GBs as it's actually calculating differently!
So people should all recover around the exact same 7 GBs of space. The rest of the "gained space" isn't truly gained but rather just a factor of the disk reporting difference in Snow Leopard. Even the supposed "tech expert" journalists who reported the gained space couldn't figure out that they're not really gaining 24 GBs but around 7 GBs and the rest is due to how Snow Leopard calculates a GB!
Wouldn't we all think the "expert" journalist to explain/understand this better?