Snow Leopard (10.6) does use Base 10

[rpp3po]

I think you're almost there though!

I think you are almost there, completely backpedalled from false and baseless claims to expressing your "opinion".

It wasn't long ago that people who bought computer hardware expected values in base2 (because that's how the computing world turned) and were surprised to find that they were in fact base10.

It depends on who is to blame. HD manufacturers who label a disk with 100,000,000 bytes to contain 100 M bytes or an operating system that reports exactly the same byte count as 95,4 M bytes for no better reason than that it made sense during 64 kB RAM times to do so.

Consumers today seem to have forgotten that it was a dishonest and possibly illegal practice or have simply given up.

Maybe in your world. "Dishonest and possibly illegal", that's laughable!

You and many other consumers never questioned why in hell the well-defined SI prefixes, that are accepted everywhere should have a totally different meaning when used as prefixes of byte counts.

The HD manufacturers and now Apple just restored sanity. If Apple had heard to people like you, which they usually don't do (that's why they are so innovative), this could have went on (and worsened) forever.

To say it in Ford's words: “If I’d asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have said a faster horse”.

 

[Animalk]

I think you are almost there, completely backpedalled from false and baseless claims to expressing your "opinion".



It depends on who is to blame. HD manufacturers who label a disk with 100,000,000 bytes to contain 100 M bytes or an operating system that reports exactly the same byte count as 95,4 M bytes for no better reason than that it made sense during 64 kB RAM times to do so.



Maybe in your world. "Dishonest and possibly illegal", that's laughable!

You and many other consumers never questioned why in hell the well-defined SI prefixes, that are accepted everywhere should have a totally different meaning when used as prefixes of byte counts.

The HD manufacturers and now Apple just restored sanity. If Apple had heard to people like you, which they usually don't do (that's why they are so innovative), this could have went on (and worsened) forever.

To say it in Ford's words: “If I’d asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have said a faster horse”.

I have not backed off any of my claims. They all stand still and so does my opinion.

Baseless claims? backpedal? I've rebutted (with explanations) all of your claims so far one by one and you come back with just that. You've jumped from one end of the topic to the other. I've stayed in one place. You're failure in understanding is not my problem. I don't even know why I bothered to try and make it simpler for you as you gave early indications of selective reading.

You are arguing that they should not use the international system prefixes for base2 notations. Fine, I have no problem with that.

Congratulations, you've missed the point again.

You have no idea who I am or what I do and yet resolve to making claims that Apple is innovative because they don't listen to people like me? I don't know why I am even bothering to tell you this given you've proven you're eagerness to resolve to such cheap statements but I happen to work closely with Apple monday through friday. The IPhone and IPod touch are doing well don't you think?

The problem is that memory and processing power should always use those prefixes (or any other) with base2 in mind. That is my point. Anything else is your wild imagination. The wording of the prefixes is just details.

I have nothing more to add.

Edit: Ford also stated that his customers can have a model T in any colour they want as long as its black. He sure knew what they wanted.

 

[Cinder6]

You think HD manufacturers did it to "restore sanity"? That's a laugh. They did it so they could claim they had more storage than what your operating system would actually report. They did it for more money, plain and simple.

The fact that only the Finder reports sizes in base 10, and nothing else (at least, not the more user-visable apps; I haven't tried Disk Utility), is what's so bad in my mind. The OS is inconsistent. That is stupid.

Good thing I can use Path Finder, which does things the Right Way.

 

[Animalk]

You think HD manufacturers did it to "restore sanity"? That's a laugh. They did it so they could claim they had more storage than what your operating system would actually report. They did it for more money, plain and simple.

The fact that only the Finder reports sizes in base 10, and nothing else (at least, not the more user-visable apps; I haven't tried Disk Utility), is what's so bad in my mind. The OS is inconsistent. That is stupid.

Good thing I can use Path Finder, which does things the Right Way.

It's a relief to see that at least someone understands my take on this topic. Thank you.

 

[paulsalter]

The fact that only the Finder reports sizes in base 10, and nothing else (at least, not the more user-visable apps; I haven't tried Disk Utility), is what's so bad in my mind. The OS is inconsistent. That is stupid.

Good thing I can use Path Finder, which does things the Right Way.

FYI: Disk Utility uses base 10 also

Just trying out Path Finder myself, looks like I will purchase soon

 

[powerbook911]

I think this was a very strange decision by Apple.

Yesterday I was going to burn a DVD with files. Finder told me one thing, and Toast told me another thing. What a mess.

The generic user must wonder what on earth is going on.

 

[iZoom P5]

I've been following this for a since the first word came out and the only thing that I was excited about was finally getting to see my iPhone showing as 16GB. Needless to say that iTunes still shows up as 14.28GB, but you can't normally see it in the finder anyway. I'll check to see how the iPod classic reads and update this post.

 

[rpp3po]

I think this was a very strange decision by Apple.

Yesterday I was going to burn a DVD with files. Finder told me one thing, and Toast told me another thing. What a mess.

The generic user must wonder what on earth is going on.

That's something you can really reproach Apple for! When they decided to change reporting of sizes from base 2 to base 10 they should have changed everything and not just parts. Toast is a bad example since it is not made by Apple, but not even all Apple apps show coherent behavior.

DVDs have also always been base 10. Burning is actually going to be easier from a base 10 reporting OS. But of course it should be consistent throughout the whole system.

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.

Adventurous logic. For a 500GB (=500 billion bytes) drive the accumulated error of base 2 notation vs. SI notation is already 36.87 GB (= 3.687 billion bytes). I guess that's far enough before the decimal point.

So the only possible explanation for this change is Apple is bending to the will of their hardware suppliers.

Nothing but mental conspiracy theory.

For this to be acceptable, all hardware (like flash and hard disks) should have an the exact base10 size as is stated on the packaging. A hard disk that states 500GB on the box must have an actual 500 base10 gigabytes size.

That's exactly the case, for at least a decade. A 500GB hard disk has always at least 500,000,000,000 bytes, no exceptions. That you think that could not be the case, makes it obvious that your brain is definitely tangled up regarding this. If you claim now you didn't mean that, that's what is called "backpedalling".

Until the hardware manufacturers cease to build in base2 and declare the same value in base10 on the packaging, ...

Same pattern, you claim now that you knew all along that drives cannot be build in either base 2 or base 10 (but only have a finite number of bytes) - but your posts speak another language.

What's funny is you think that I truly mean hardware manufacturers build in base2 or base10!

Yeah, right.

I have not backed off any of my claims. They all stand still and so does my opinion.

Baseless claims? backpedal? I've rebutted (with explanations) all of your claims so far one by one and you come back with just that.

What's refered to as base 2 notation in this thread isn't really base 2 anyway. Base 2 with regard to hard disk sizes basically means that for every SI prefix (like 1000, 1000000, etc) you don't use the prefix itself but the closest number that is a power of 2. When you plot a graph of the powers of 2 you see that this works quite good with small numbers, but that the average distance from a SI unit to the next power of 2 value increases substantially as numbers get larger. Also this method hasn't any resemblance to how computers work internally. They neither use base 2 kilo, mega, giga bytes nor base 10, but just bytes or so called words at varying length. Units like kilo and mega, wether expressed as base 2 or base 10 are just used for human interfaces, to make it easier readable. Thus the choice of base 2 or 10 is arbitrary and should be chosen according to what's easier for humans. The machine doesn't care. Which I have explained already a couple of times here, but some seem to have difficulties to comprehend it.

AnimalK, you haven't given one coherent argument why byte sizes should be reported in base 2 units, besides it would always have been like that (which isn't even entirely true), computers would work like that (they work in base 2 BUT NOT base 2 kilo, mega, and giga bytes!) and your mental conspiracy theory (which is entirely not in the right ballpark). How about something more conclusive?

 

[heatmiser]

This is garbage. I upgraded today and finally stumbled upon an Amazon review explaining why Finder said I had 198 GB free while iStat said 184.6. Considering reverting to my Leopard backup.

 

[Dany M]

This is garbage. I upgraded today and finally stumbled upon an Amazon review explaining why Finder said I had 198 GB free while iStat said 184.6. Considering reverting to my Leopard backup.

Because the number is different? You didn't lose or gain any data, it is just the OS is reporting the space you have in a different way.

 

[heatmiser]

Because the number is different? You didn't lose or gain any data, it is just the OS is reporting the space you have in a different way.

I know the data is the same, but I find it nonsensical to use an OS that counts file sizes differently from every other mainstream OS in existence, including the OS it purports to succeed. It's like living in the US and buying a new car that only comes with km/h instead of mph on the speedometer.

 

[Animalk]

rpp3po, it hurt me to write this more than it will hurt you to understand. And no, not because my brain is all tangled up like you so kindly pointed out.

Forgive me if my kindness and etiquette in this post seem to mirror your own.

So I made what I expect to be my final rebuttal to you're cyclic mental spaghetti. I made a nice collage of everything. So whenever you have a rebuttal to any of my statements so far in this thread, just find its spot in here and start reading from there. This saves me from having to consistently talk you through the mental circles you are running(fumbling?). If something doesn't make sense to you, read it again. Stick to this plan and you will eventually get it (I hope for your sake).

If the answer to any one of your replies can be answered by the contents of this post, I will not even bother posting. I'm that tired of you.

Adventurous logic. For a 500GB (=500 billion bytes) drive the accumulated error of base 2 notation vs. SI notation is already 36.87 GB (= 3.687 billion bytes). I guess that's far enough before the decimal point.

You don't get it. And its not called error either. The amount stays the same, it is simply a matter of notation. You're confused still I see. You have the correct numbers, but your conclusion is flawed. Sadly the big picture still escapes you.

Nothing but mental conspiracy theory.

Try educated and informed guess.

That's exactly the case, for at least a decade. A 500GB hard disk has always at least 500,000,000,000 bytes, no exceptions. That you think that could not be the case, makes it obvious that your brain is definitely tangled up regarding this. If you claim now you didn't mean that, that's what is called "backpedalling".

Do you realize that you are actually agreeing with the pillars that support my point but refuting the point itself? Again?

Same pattern, you claim now that you knew all along that drives cannot be build in either base 2 or base 10 (but only have a finite number of bytes) - but your posts speak another language.

Are you on drugs?

What's funny is you think that I truly mean hardware manufacturers build in base2 or base10!

One must separate between the intent and execution of the hardware manufacturers and that is what I am referring to in that case.

On top of that, your last paragraph shows you completely misunderstood my post and took things for their literal meaning where you shouldn't.

All of what you said is taken for granted (which means I know its true and I'm not even going to bother to bring it up) within my post.

I've reread my posts to see if I was maybe incorrect or unclear about something but their is nothing to change.

My reply to you is my first post in this thread.

Suggestion: I think you are not understanding me at the right level of abstraction/scope.

Up until Snow Leopard, you're computer reported the values in base2 to you. Up until now, hardware manufacturers have been reporting to you in base10 since they made their dishonest switch.
One last time:
Walk into any electronics store and count how many hard disks say what base they are talking in. We've come to accept the past dishonesty of the hardware manufacturers and people like you take that for granted. A Gigabyte was first and foremost in base2. The metric/SI system is base10 by definition and has no implication on the base2 domain. Simply put, SI doesn't apply. I believe you already have the Wikipedia link for that. It seems to confuse you that they borrowed the same names for their naming order. That is another story.

You are arguing that they should not use the international system prefixes for base2 notations. Fine, I have no problem with that.

Congratulations, you've missed the point again.

The problem is that memory and processing power should always use those prefixes (or any other) with base2 in mind. That is my point. Anything else is your wild imagination. The wording of the prefixes is just details.

I have nothing more to add.

Yeah, right.

Scary. You're more small minded than I thought.

Oh look a smiley face. Can you at least agree with me that this is a smiley face? How many are their? Actually wait, don't tell me. I don't want to know.

What's referred to as base 2 notation in this thread isn't really base 2 anyway. Base 2 with regard to hard disk sizes basically means that for every SI prefix (like 1000, 1000000, etc) you don't use the prefix itself but the closest number that is a power of 2. When you plot a graph of the powers of 2 you see that this works quite good with small numbers, but that the average distance from a SI unit to the next power of 2 value increases substantially as numbers get larger. Also this method hasn't any resemblance to how computers work internally. They neither use base 2 kilo, mega, giga bytes nor base 10, but just bytes or so called words at varying length. Units like kilo and mega, wether expressed as base 2 or base 10 are just used for human interfaces, to make it easier readable. Thus the choice of base 2 or 10 is arbitrary and should be chosen according to what's easier for humans. The machine doesn't care. Which I have explained already a couple of times here, but some seem to have difficulties to comprehend it.

The difference in numerical values doesn't mean anything. You got what you got. Notation is just notation. I believe you know that already. And by computer theory, I mean all computation theory and math. Everything the computing world is built on and runs in, is base2. Some of the most important algorithms in use today rely on key base2 mathematics to run at a reasonable speed because the underlying hardware is designed, one can say, in a base2 manner. Yes algorithms at the application layer. One only needs to look at the Intel instruction set for the basics. You're downplaying of the importance of the reflection on the part of the OS to relay its base2 connection to the hardware is shocking. To those who have no idea what were talking about, I am shocked by how much he doesn't know even though he sounds like he does.

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.

What's funny is you think that I truly mean hardware manufacturers build in base2 or base10!

One must separate between the intent and execution of the hardware manufacturers and that is what I am referring to in that case.

On top of that, your last paragraph shows you completely misunderstood my post and took things for their literal meaning where you shouldn't.

All of what you said is taken for granted (which means I know its true and I'm not even going to bother to bring it up) within my post.

I've reread my posts to see if I was maybe incorrect or unclear about something but their is nothing to change.

My reply to you is my first post in this thread.

Suggestion: I think you are not understanding me at the right level of abstraction/scope.

You are arguing that they should not use the international system prefixes for base2 notations. Fine, I have no problem with that.

Congratulations, you've missed the point again.

The problem is that memory and processing power should always use those prefixes (or any other) with base2 in mind. That is my point. Anything else is your wild imagination. The wording of the prefixes is just details.

I have nothing more to add.

The international system only applies to the base10 domain by definition anyways.

AnimalK, you haven't given one coherent argument why byte sizes should be reported in base 2 units, besides it would always have been like that (which isn't even entirely true), computers would work like that (they work in base 2 BUT NOT base 2 kilo, mega, and giga bytes!) and your mental conspiracy theory (which is entirely not in the right ballpark). How about something more conclusive?

Keep reading for more non-coherent-ness. If you somehow find yourself at the end of my post and have yet to find any thing coherent, start from the top.
Up until Snow Leopard, all memory in all operating systems is reported in base2 aggregates. What planet you live on?

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.

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.

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

Even though I'm certain you are confused rpp3po, and merely flatting your ego (whatever that means on the internet), I'm pretty much done arguing with you. You are obviously arguing for the sake of coming out on top in this debate no matter the implication. I'm OK with that, but I'm done playing along. Good luck on your conquest for forum supremacy.

 

[rpp3po]

The difference in numerical values doesn't mean anything. You got what you got. Notation is just notation. I believe you know that already.

Finally we can agree on something!

And by computer theory, I mean all computation theory and math. Everything the computing world is built on and runs in, is base2.

Well and base 16 (hex) and base 8 (octal). Additionally computation theory is usually completely ignoring base. Its results apply for all thinkable bases. But computer code usually is compiled in binary form, which is basically base 2. I can agree to that.

Some of the most important algorithms in use today rely on key base2 mathematics to run at a reasonable speed because the underlying hardware is designed, one can say, in a base2 manner.

Any algorithm can be converted to work equivalently with any base. Certain operations are faster if your hardware works with the same base. Multiplication by n is usually fastest on base n hardware, for example. So I can also agree that there are many operations with a tight relationship to base 2 hardware. Just your conclusions are false, there is still no relevant relation to displaying megabytes, gigabytes, and terabytes in base 2 fashion. I will demonstrate why later.

Yes algorithms at the application layer. One only needs to look at the Intel instruction set for the basics. You're downplaying of the importance of the reflection on the part of the OS to relay its base2 connection to the hardware is shocking.

Take two arbitrary file sizes of 123454321 and 543212345 bytes. A computer represents these numbers as 1111010110111100001101110001 and 100000011000001100001100111001. Any computation with these two numbers will run at full base 2 speed. So what's happening now, when you want to display the file size in human readable form (for example kilo bytes) in the Finder? In the case of Snow Leopard the OS will divide above numbers by 1111101000 (1000). This will take less than 10 nano seconds. Humans usually don't understand the output of binary numbers so the number is also converted to base 10 (a decimal) before it is displayed.

There used to be a time, when division was an expensive CPU operation. So programmers wished to take a short cut and just wanted to divide by 1024 instead of 1000. Then you could use a cheap bit shift operation instead of a full division. Afterwards the results got converted to base 10 for display, just like in the case of Snow Leopard. It was off by 2.4%, but the calculation was cheaper. That's the whole story behind the base 2 notation tradition for storage (besides the design of RAM cells). Which isn't even "base 2 notation" in the strictest sense, because that would be all 1s and 0s. No, humans read a decimal, which is base 10, but converted by a base 2 based short cut.

Computationally the difference is irrelevant for at least a decade. Only the difference to SI units which was small with kilo amounts grows substantially as storage amounts get bigger, which is bad.

The international system only applies to the base10 domain by definition anyways.

A byte itself is a base 2 representation, but a number of bytes (a hard disk size is nothing else) not necessarily. It is usually expressed as a decimal (base 10) for humans. Using base 2 units would be fine for strings like 101011010100, but since we output base 10 decimals anyway, why not also use base 10 units??

Up until Snow Leopard, all memory in all operating systems is reported in base2 aggregates. What planet you live on?

Yes, reported as decimals, which are base 10 by definition, in base 2 aggregates. Pretty senseless. There have been many dead end developments in computer science, and many have been corrected since. Even when they used to be quite popular. The design of the Pentium IV was such a dead end for example. Intel dumped it completely and started over with something better.

Apple took a one time opportunity to end aggregating base 10 units with base 2 variants of base 10 SI units. It makes total sense, even if it is hard to understand.

 

[Sunnzy]

Alright I couldn't care less who's correct or who's wrong... I just want to use base 2 in Finder, how do I do it?

 

[iGuardian]

I'm glad they did this. It's like when we moved to metric; there was some confusion on the way but in the end it's simpler.

 

[paulsalter]

I'm glad they did this. It's like when we moved to metric; there was some confusion on the way but in the end it's simpler.

I would agree if this was a change everyone was doing, but the way its done just makes it a mess and more confusing, even apple dont use the same measurement in all its apps.

The only metric change I can remember was when we changed petrol from Gallons to Litres.
The way apple has done this its like most petrol stations still using gallons, a couple are using litres, but they havent changed all the pumps to this so some still use gallons, how easy would this be to keep track of how much fuel you use, the only thing you know is that your tank is full or empty.

If this change is for the future, atleast give an option so people that want consistency between apps/other os's and the internet can change back until everyone is on board with this change

 

[gnasher729]

I understand they are sick of users complaining that their 320 GB hard drive is only 298 and such, but all OSes have the same issue (which is really the fault of the hardware vendors.) This will make things even more confusing. I don't mind if they keep this as default behaviour for regular users, so long as they make it an option.

I'm still curious whether this is done in Snow Leopard Server, since it has a very difference audience.

The official definition is 1 GB = 1 billion bytes = 10^9 bytes.
And 1 GiB = 1024 x 1024 x 1024 bytes = 2^30 bytes.

"G" means the same whether you are measuring frequencies (1 GHz = 1 billion hertz), power (1 GW = 1 billion watt), data transfer speed (1 GBit/sec = 1 billion bit per second) or storage size (1 GB = 1 billion bytes). Just because some computer programmers didn't understand these units is no excuse.

 

[paulsalter]

Thought this might be the best place to ask this

In my downloads folder I have a copy of iWork

473MB 473,003,998 bytes - this ties up with using base 10

When I look at sizes in my Applications folder
eg
iPhoto
430.8 MB 401,993,760 - I thought this would show 402 MB (approx)

 

[macdim]

The bottom line here is that it doesn't matter what base the numbers are calculated in, as long as they are the same everywhere. The amount of useable space on a hard drive doesn't change because of the number they give it. I think it is a problem that the number on the box and the number that the OS reports are different and Apple has done the right thing in making this change, BUT they went about in a half-assed kind of way by not making this a universal change in all their apps. Also, since it is a common problem in all OSes, I think it should have been a joint effort by both Microsoft and Apple so that all apps would adopt the change. Avoid consumer (non-enthusiast, mostly) confusion? Check

Arguing for or against base 10 or base 2 is ridiculous and useless. Consistency is key.

 

[iGuardian]

I would agree if this was a change everyone was doing, but the way its done just makes it a mess and more confusing, even apple dont use the same measurement in all its apps.

The only metric change I can remember was when we changed petrol from Gallons to Litres.
The way apple has done this its like most petrol stations still using gallons, a couple are using litres, but they havent changed all the pumps to this so some still use gallons, how easy would this be to keep track of how much fuel you use, the only thing you know is that your tank is full or empty.

If this change is for the future, atleast give an option so people that want consistency between apps/other os's and the internet can change back until everyone is on board with this change

Actually our change to metric in Canada would be a good example. We moved every unit of measurement, distance and length (effecting speed limits on roads and construction), heat, gallons to litres, and yes, it was a big mess. And not everybody did make the change right away. But we did it eventually. Somehow.

 

[studentism]

But we did it eventually. Somehow.

Because Canada is a governing authority that can say "we're switching to metric" and everybody starts stepping. Apple has no such clout over the industry, much less the field of computer science -- the best they can hope for is that EVERYBODY else will follow suit (and good luck getting *nix guys to do that).

 

[Amigalander]

How can we use base-10 byte counting without base-10 bit counting?
I demand bytes to be reassessed to have 10 bits!

 

[clmason]

Because Canada is a governing authority that can say "we're switching to metric" and everybody starts stepping. Apple has no such clout over the industry, much less the field of computer science -- the best they can hope for is that EVERYBODY else will follow suit (and good luck getting *nix guys to do that).

Hey, I'm from Canada, and I love Canada (and hell, I even love the metric system.) But this is *not* a fair comparison.

We switched to metric because we wanted a consistent measuring system that was based on powers (powers of 10, sure, but that wasn't the point.) Computer sizes are not the equivalent of feet, yards, miles, etc. As I mentioned before, if the number of elements in a byte, kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte, etc. were all different, yes, we should switch, but they aren't. Nobody wants 971 bytes to a kilobyte or 2032 kilobytes to a meg. Not a fair comparison.

This isn't a metric vs imperial debate, and don't try to bring us Canadians in on one side!

 

[Raptor007]

The bottom line here is that it doesn't matter what base the numbers are calculated in, as long as they are the same everywhere. The amount of useable space on a hard drive doesn't change because of the number they give it. I think it is a problem that the number on the box and the number that the OS reports are different and Apple has done the right thing in making this change, BUT they went about in a half-assed kind of way by not making this a universal change in all their apps. Also, since it is a common problem in all OSes, I think it should have been a joint effort by both Microsoft and Apple so that all apps would adopt the change. Avoid consumer (non-enthusiast, mostly) confusion? Check

Arguing for or against base 10 or base 2 is ridiculous and useless. Consistency is key.

Apple did the wrong thing. Hard drive manufacturers should have been forced to change their advertising to be accurate in the base-2 numbering systems that all computer operating systems have always displayed.

 

[wetrix]

Apple has done a shocking job of changing to base 10. iTunes 9 still reports capacities and file sizes in base 2 on snow leopard!