Snow Leopard (10.6) does use Base 10

[Cinder6]

I'm sorry, "gibibyte", "mebibyte", etc. are all stupid. And you only ever see people on Wikipedia using the terms. The Giga- and Mega- prefixes are hardly used in conventional SI units anyways (when was the last time you heard about gigameters? Even the power company reports everything as kilowatt-hours, not megawatt).

The real question is--is part of where Apple got the "6GB freed" figure?

Either way, I'm changing it as soon as I figure out how, or just continuing to use Path Finder.

 

[mrkgoo]

I'm sorry, "gibibyte", "mebibyte", etc. are all stupid. And you only ever see people on Wikipedia using the terms. The Giga- and Mega- prefixes are hardly used in conventional SI units anyways (when was the last time you heard about gigameters? Even the power company reports everything as kilowatt-hours, not megawatt).

The real question is--is part of where Apple got the "6GB freed" figure?

Either way, I'm changing it as soon as I figure out how, or just continuing to use Path Finder.

But kilometres is used.

It isn't about what is used - it's about what is simpler and what is more accurate and precise (afterall if someone has 299,343,242,424 bytes, I can more accurately say that that is 299.3 GB than I can say in GiB or whatever). It's the way the metric system works. Giga-, mega- etc are suffixes with defined values - why change them for computing?

 

[clmason]

But kilometres is used.

It isn't about what is used - it's about what is simpler and what is more accurate and precise (afterall if someone has 299,343,242,424 bytes, I can more accurately say that that is 299.3 GB than I can say in GiB or whatever). It's the way the metric system works. Giga-, mega- etc are suffixes with defined values - why change them for computing?

Um, they already *were* changed (or used differently rather), like 50 years ago. Unless you have a time machine.

 

[paragonj]

This is a bunch of ridiculousness. Computers are binary systems. Binary systems operate in base 2 and should display size information in base 2.

 

[clmason]

This is a bunch of ridiculousness. Computers are binary systems. Binary systems operate in base 2 and should display size information in base 2.

Exactly! That's my 10 cents.

 

[Cinder6]

But kilometres is used.

It isn't about what is used - it's about what is simpler and what is more accurate and precise (afterall if someone has 299,343,242,424 bytes, I can more accurately say that that is 299.3 GB than I can say in GiB or whatever). It's the way the metric system works. Giga-, mega- etc are suffixes with defined values - why change them for computing?

When does somebody tell you you have 299,343,242,424 bytes? They'd just say what their operating system says. Before, it was nice that they all said the same thing. Now Apple ruined that.

Furthermore, it's kind of ironic. The biggest argument the metric system has going for it is that it's easier to remember, since everything is base 10. It's easier to remember the multipliers for binary sizes than it is metric sizes. 2^30 is easier to remember than 10^9.

If anyone should fix how they report data, it's the hardware manufacturers.

EDIT: The other problem with this is there is now a disparity within the OS itself. Since all the UNIX utils still report size/space in the correct way, Finder and the CLI tools are now out of sync. Lucky for me I do most of my file handling in the Terminal anyways.

 

[clmason]

If anyone should fix how they report data, it's the hardware manufacturers.

Damn straight! It might even benefit them, how much flack have they gotten over the years for this? You don't see RAM vendors doing this, or SSD vendors, and it's not hurting them.

 

[mrkgoo]

.

Furthermore, it's kind of ironic. The biggest argument the metric system has going for it is that it's easier to remember, since everything is base 10. It's easier to remember the multipliers for binary sizes than it is metric sizes. 2^30 is easier to remember than 10^9.

I'm pretty flabbergasted.

1,073,741,824 is easier to remember than 1,000,000,000 ?

Now I'm not sure if the binary way has any application in the computing/programming world, but metric is the standard for the scientific.

Noone says how many bytes something has. That's not the point. But if someone says 123 GB, you should know how many bytes it has.

I guess it's all moot really. I welcome this change, but then I'm familiar with metric. Base 2 makes sense to me as well (as in of course I can do the calculations), but I don't see the relevance for people, just because computers work in that.

 

[Cinder6]

I'm pretty flabbergasted.

1,073,741,824 is easier to remember than 1,000,000,000 ?

Now I'm not sure if the binary way has any application in the computing/programming world, but metric is the standard for the scientific.

Noone says how many bytes something has. That's not the point. But if someone says 123 GB, you should know how many bytes it has.

I guess it's all moot really. I welcome this change, but then I'm familiar with metric. Base 2 makes sense to me as well (as in of course I can do the calculations), but I don't see the relevance for people, just because computers work in that.

I didn't say that 1,073,741,824 is easier to remember than 1 billion. I said that 2^30 is easier to remember than 10^9. 2^10 == kilobytes, 2^20 == megabytes, 2^30 == gigabytes. It makes more sense than 10^3 == kilobytes, 10^6 == megabytes, and 10^9 == gigabytes.

And technically speaking, you do know how many bytes you have when I say 30GB. You know that I have 30 * 2^30 bytes, just like you know I have 30 * 10^3 meters when I say I'm 30KM away from you.

 

[Thomas Harte]

This is a bunch of ridiculousness. Computers are binary systems. Binary systems operate in base 2 and should display size information in base 2.

Yeah, and I'm not going to waste good computer cycles on assembling code when I could do it with pen and paper. Anyway, 640kb is enough for anyone. And what's the point of a GUI — they're just for children; computers are numerical systems. Numerical systems operate exclusively on numbers and should display all information as numbers. Anyway, OS X must be rubbish because it doesn't even have a defrag program. What really annoys me here in the UK is when I go into a shop and they pretend there are 100 pennies in a pound — everyone knows there are 240.

 

[clmason]

Yeah, and I'm not going to waste good computer cycles on assembling code when I could do it with pen and paper. Anyway, 640kb is enough for anyone. And what's the point of a GUI — they're just for children; computers are numerical systems. Numerical systems operate exclusively on numbers and should display all information as numbers. Anyway, OS X must be rubbish because it doesn't even have a defrag program. What really annoys me here in the UK is when I go into a shop and they pretend there are 100 pennies in a pound — everyone knows there are 240.

This is a pointless argument. The definition of gigabytes, kilobytes, etc were established long ago when computers had very little memory and it made sense to do everything in base 2. It's stupid to try to change it now because it's so widely used.

It's the same reason we still have 60 seconds in an minute, 60 minutes in an hour and 24 hours in a day. This was established thousands of years ago. Sure, some people have proposed a new "metric" time system, but really, that's pretty dumb. We have a system that works, and that everyone knows.

Same thing with gigabytes, megabytes, etc. Every single computer system in the world, past and present uses the same definition of these. Only the few computers setup to run Snow Leopard in the past few days do something different.

Edit: Note, this is different than the argument for moving from the US imperial system to metric measurements. The US system is inconsistent and mathematically troublesome. Both base 10 and base 2 systems are consistent and easy to use in calculations. If computer sizes were based on odd numbers like 765 bytes to a kilobyte and 998 kilobytes to a megabyte and 1402 megabytes to the gigabyte, then I would agree it should be changed.

 

[Freyqq]

the base 2 system is the standard of which all other OS are based. Changing it now confuses more people than it helps.

 

[clmason]

the base 2 system is the standard of which all other OS are based. Changing it now confuses more people than it helps.

I think they'll end up backing away from this. I can already see the complaints coming in. User has a USB key that reports one size at work (Windows, or older Mac OS) and a different size at home. WTF?

 

[JFreak]

A gibibyte is 1,024 mebibytes. A gigabyte is 1,000 megabytes. It's not an "idea". It's Apple finally telling us the truth.

This "gibi" is rather new concept; from the dawn of time, computers have always calculated in base-2 thus storage sizes have also been calulcated accordingly.

Then came the greedy storage vendors who wanted to market bigger numbers, thus they invented the base-10 calculations that the rest of the universe are using, making it possible to report bigger numbers and still tell the truth (that lies in the small text).

Most people do not even know what is a base-2 number, so the current trend is to get rid of it altogether, and Apple is doing just that. We old-skool people just have to adjust our thinking, that's all.

After all, a "giga" means 10^9 therefore "gigabyte" should be 10^9 bytes, thus 1000000000 bytes, which the Apple Finder is now reporting. This is easier to explain to computer-illiterate people, and I welcome the change.

SI units are great. If only you imperialists would agree

 

[Cinder6]

Edit: Note, this is different than the argument for moving from the US imperial system to metric measurements. The US system is inconsistent and mathematically troublesome. Both base 10 and base 2 systems are consistent and easy to use in calculations. If computer sizes were based on odd numbers like 765 bytes to a kilobyte and 998 kilobytes to a megabyte and 1402 megabytes to the gigabyte, then I would agree it should be changed.

This is about to get really tangential... I like the concept of the metric system, but my problem has always been with the sizes of the values themselves. I've always thought that feet were good in size--not too large and not too small. Saying one person is 5 feet tall and another is 6 feet tall gives you a good idea of the differences between them.

The metric system, on the other hand, seems to have some pretty lame sizes. Most people don't bother with intermediates, like deka, so we're stuck with the huge disparity between centimeters and meters, meters and kilometers. Often, it seems the accepted unit is either way too big or way too small.

And saying someone is 1.52 meters, compared to another person that is 1.83 meters, doesn't lend itself well to giving a good representation of the difference in height between them. I know it's all about ratios, but saying "wow, 0.3 meters!" just doesn't do justice to the fact that person #2 is a full foot taller.

Okay, I'm getting off that tangent. I don't expect that view to be popular, either, so you can save your breath about how stupid I am

 

[JFreak]

And saying someone is 1.52 meters, compared to another person that is 1.83 meters, doesn't lend itself well to giving a good representation of the difference in height between them. I know it's all about ratios, but saying "wow, 0.3 meters!" just doesn't do justice to the fact that person #2 is a full foot taller.

It's all about the point of view. I myself cannot natively understand what 5 feet means, until I calculate "five times 30 cm --> 1.50 meters", but that's because I've become so used to base-10 units (which are easier because *all* units are base-10 and nothing arbituary such as "pint" or "pound").

And for what it's worth, we do not calculate height differences in zero-point-something meters. In your example's case we would say 30 centimeters (30cm). Yes, that would be one foot for you (whicn would be simpler) but let's say one person is 1.80m and another person would be 1.78m -- difference being 2cm. Would you say the height difference is 0.8 inches or 3/4 inches or would you just round it to 1 full inch?

Once you understand the goodness of metric base-10 system, physics will become so much easier

 

[clmason]

This is about to get really tangential... I like the concept of the metric system, but my problem has always been with the sizes of the values themselves. I've always thought that feet were good in size--not too large and not too small. Saying one person is 5 feet tall and another is 6 feet tall gives you a good idea of the differences between them.

The metric system, on the other hand, seems to have some pretty lame sizes. Most people don't bother with intermediates, like deka, so we're stuck with the huge disparity between centimeters and meters, meters and kilometers. Often, it seems the accepted unit is either way too big or way too small.

And saying someone is 1.52 meters, compared to another person that is 1.83 meters, doesn't lend itself well to giving a good representation of the difference in height between them. I know it's all about ratios, but saying "wow, 0.3 meters!" just doesn't do justice to the fact that person #2 is a full foot taller.

Okay, I'm getting off that tangent. I don't expect that view to be popular, either, so you can save your breath about how stupid I am

Well, it's funny you mention that. I live in Canada, so I'm used to the metric system and learned it when I was young. I definitely agree it's a better system overall, but in practical use, a lot of people in Canada still use the old units for two things: human weight and height.

So, I know I'm 6 feet 2 inches tall. I couldn't tell you off the top of my head how many centimeters that is. No one measures anything else in feet though. I weight about 185 pounds. Again, don't know what that is in kilos. However, it's *only* for personal weight, everyone uses metric for stuff you buy at the grocery store.

Then, of course, there's the immortal pint.

 

[JFreak]

Then, of course, there's the immortal pint.

Yep. Brits are furious when they're served the "euro-pint" (50cl, half litre) because they've used to 0.568 litres. Strange enough, "half-pint" is 25cl which is half euro-pint, but let's just allow Britons some strange oddities

 

[knweiss]

It's not confusing, it's easier - it's the metric system.

I agree that it could make sense. But I have a problem with the fact that "GB" sometimes mean this and sometimes that. If Apple really wants to use base 10 for "GB" they should use "GiB" for base 2 units (e.g. RAM). But they should not use "GB" for both.

 

[Brien]

I'd prefer if Apple allowed us to choose. We could have it display in GB, GiB, or both.

 

[Fuchal]

Yeah, and I'm not going to waste good computer cycles on assembling code when I could do it with pen and paper. Anyway, 640kb is enough for anyone. And what's the point of a GUI — they're just for children; computers are numerical systems. Numerical systems operate exclusively on numbers and should display all information as numbers. Anyway, OS X must be rubbish because it doesn't even have a defrag program. What really annoys me here in the UK is when I go into a shop and they pretend there are 100 pennies in a pound — everyone knows there are 240.

And no one's going to buy a $400 MP3 Player. Apple is crazy.

 

[clmason]

And no one's going to buy a $400 MP3 Player. Apple is crazy.

Hey, it was $600 in Canada!!! Thank god the exchange rate has improved since then!

 

[Thomas Harte]

This is a pointless argument.

It was fun to type though. And a lot less pointless than "people's expectations matter less than the way computers work internally".

Yep. Brits are furious when they're served the "euro-pint" (50cl, half litre) because they've used to 0.568 litres. Strange enough, "half-pint" is 25cl which is half euro-pint, but let's just allow Britons some strange oddities

Xenophobia does not make a very compelling argument.

 

[Animalk]

I'm very unhappy with this change. It is the hardware manufacturers who should be obliged by law to describe memory in base2. Computer theory is based on base2 mathematics and it is counterproductive to do anything different.

Ofcourse the most important thing is that memory is reported using the same base notation across the board from top to bottom. Wether a user is told hat he has 1 base2 gigabytes or 1.024 base10 gygabytes changes nothing because his knowledge of the underlying computational math is not required and quite unecessary. If you have 10 ten dollar bills or 20 five dollar bills, it doesn't matter. You still have the same total. The switch from base2 to base10 cannot escape this and thus makes it nothing more than a perspective change.

So why go through the bother, and computational waist, of transitioning back and forth from base2 notation to base10 notation when the user gains nothing. Wether you have 3.64 gigabytes or 3.95 gigabytes doesn't change a damn thing from the user perspective because all digits past he decimal represent a ratio of a complete base2 or base10 unit. That means the computer is already rounding things out for he user and he has no clue that the memory is base2. Only when we count in bits and/or bytes does the base2 notation somewhat reveal itself but only when comparing to a higher order notation like megabyte, gigabyte, etc.

So the only possible explanation for this change is Apple is bending to the will of their hardware suppliers. Those guys like to cheat by talking in base10 but walking in base2 if you know what I mean. This also avoids Apple any possible consumer complaints and possible legal action against them because of the hardware manfacturers dishonnesty.

I wrote this All on my iPhone. I should get an acheivement or something

 

[EggWhite]

Also, if we are going base 10 shouldn't we do it for the ram too? Why is my 3GB of ram still showing up as 3GB.

This a bad move and I hope there is some way to reverse it.