Snow Leopards most fundamental change went mostly unnoticed

Discussion in 'macOS' started by rpp3po, Aug 29, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rpp3po macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2003
    Location:
    Germany
    #1
    Apple redefined the Gigabyte from 1073741824 to 1000000000. Finally!!! I'm into computer science since over two decades and that never made sense.
     
  2. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #2
    There is a massive thread with much bloodshed on this already.
     
  3. nick9191 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Britain
    #3
    They did it because newbies keep installing hard drives and wondering where some of their space is, "I bought this 320gb and it's only giving me 298gb".

    I don't care what anyone says, it's not correct.
     
  4. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #4
    This is just a visual change, the physical size is still the same
     
  5. TuffLuffJimmy macrumors G3

    TuffLuffJimmy

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
  6. Aranince macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #6
    If that doesn't make sense...then you're really not into computer science.
     
  7. macfanboy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    #7
    this didnt go unnoticed

    EDIT: does ITUNES report iphone and ipods as their respective sizes? for example, does it show 16 GB instead of 14.7 GB?
     
  8. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #8
    Isn't it still the same amount of space storage wise, just reported differently?
     
  9. grodgers macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    #9
    Exactly...
     
  10. bobrik macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2007
    Location:
    Prague, Czech Republic
    #10
    No. It makes great sense in CS to count in powers of 2. But it makes no sense to call 1024 with prefix (kilo) which already means 1000.
     
  11. rpp3po thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2003
    Location:
    Germany
    #11
    Bllsht! It used to make sense 20 years ago to build 1024 byte RAM cells instead of 1000 byte RAM cells. And it also used to make sense to call such a RAM cell a one kilobyte RAM cell. What's the advantage of this arbitrary choice for hard disks? Their sizes never aligned to power of 2 sizes anyway. Their capacity was limited by the number and size of platters and their density. Their were not build in blocks of power of 2 sized elements.

    If you are into computer science you will be certainly able to tell? Which calculation, algorithm, or alignment issue would be at all affected if kilo, mega, giga, and terabyte sizes for hard disks would be counted in base 10 increments?

    Oh, I see there's actually already the mentioned 9 page thread and this 3 page thread, where I have just posted a more detailed answer. Hardly "unnoticed".
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page