I've got a 16GB iPhone 3G and am considering going to an 8GB...can anyone with an 8GB model tell me how much 'Capacity' is shown on the iPhone summary screen in iTunes? The 16GB shows 14.64GB and I didn't necessarily think that the 8GB would be just half of that.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
True 'Capacity' of 8GB iPhone
- Thread starter acousticbiker
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
7.08 here as well. I really wish I could sell stuff like memory people do. Must be a racket to sell only 7/8 of what you promise. Glad my car isn't missing half a tire.
7.08 here as well. I really wish I could sell stuff like memory people do. Must be a racket to sell only 7/8 of what you promise. Glad my car isn't missing half a tire.
Better check your spare tire ... compact spare = 4 1/2 tires!
.
The drives are 8gb and 16gb's, but computers show it differently. Same way that my Seagate 750gb is listed as a 698gb drive. It's because manufacturers use decimal hard drive sizes, while computers use binary, resulting in a size mix-up.7.08 here as well. I really wish I could sell stuff like memory people do. Must be a racket to sell only 7/8 of what you promise. Glad my car isn't missing half a tire.
well i can see 7.04 gb dont know what it is variable. It must be same. Still lets see what are the opinions of other members.
Yeah, but why doesn't the iPhone box say 7.07 GB on it? There are 2 numbers that are both right, yes. But why don't they print the more USEFUL number on the box?
There is no good reason why they don't, except that people put up with **** like this all the time so companies think they can get away with it. And they do get away with it, so I'm sure it will never change.
Because it has 8GB of flash memory, but that has to contain the OS. Would you expect an iMac with a 500GB hard drive to say 488GB on the box (setting aside the continual complaints about the "real" capacity of hard drives)?
Agreed. It's like buying a furnished 2000 sq. ft. house and complaining that the furniture covers some of the floor.
Yes! Why shouldn't it?
Why should I care about a number that means nothing to me? When I buy something I want to know "how much stuff can I put on it?"
Why shouldn't THAT be the number on the box? I have yet to see a SINGLE good reason why they tell me a number that means nothing instead of the number that is useful to me.
You give no reason, and the guy beneath you gives a house analogy which is also no reason. Does anyone have a REAL reason why "8 GB" is more useful than "7.07 GB" on the box?
Yes. Because 8GB is the capacity of the memory on the device. You honestly expect them to repackage every iPod every time an update to the OS takes a little more or less room? "
Have you never purchased electronic devices that contain an OS before? It's always been this way. Always.
This discussion has occurred before. TheBrainMcClain has stated it correctly. The capacity of the iPhone is listed in billiions of bytes. The 8GB iPhone has 8 billion bytes and the 16GB iPhone has 16 billion bytes.
Computers recognize storage capacities in binary and as such the following applies when a computer shows capacities:
1KB = 1024 bytes
1MB = 1024 KB
1GB = 1024 MB
1TB = 1024 GB
and so on.
There are some groups that are pushing to have memory shown as binary bytes and as such referred to in the following fashion: KiB, MiB, GiB and TiB etc.
Do I agree? Not really but the point is that those complaining are fighting a losing battle. When you buy HDD's they are advertised the same way. A 250GB hdd is 250,000,000,000 bytes not 268,435,456,000 bytes (which is what it would have to be to show up as 250GB on your computer).
Computers recognize storage capacities in binary and as such the following applies when a computer shows capacities:
1KB = 1024 bytes
1MB = 1024 KB
1GB = 1024 MB
1TB = 1024 GB
and so on.
There are some groups that are pushing to have memory shown as binary bytes and as such referred to in the following fashion: KiB, MiB, GiB and TiB etc.
Do I agree? Not really but the point is that those complaining are fighting a losing battle. When you buy HDD's they are advertised the same way. A 250GB hdd is 250,000,000,000 bytes not 268,435,456,000 bytes (which is what it would have to be to show up as 250GB on your computer).
No.
First of all, it'd be like the builder's square footage differed from the realtor's in that the builders counted outside house dimensions and the realtors exclude walls and stairwells, etc. in their measurements.
This would be vaguely analogous to the 1GB = 1 billion bytes measurement memory/drive makers use vs. the 1GB = 1024x1024*1024 bytes standard used by the OS makers. That's why 8GB "turns into" 7.45GB with nothing installed. Anyone who has ever purchased a drive or memory device knows this, or should. It'd be like wondering why your car which supposedly will go up to 160kph seems to top out at 100mph. Different way to measure.
The furniture analogy fits because the device is useless without an OS, just like a house without furniture. If you buy a house to use as a storage facility, you can use all the square footage. But if you want to live in it, you must devote some of it to furniture. Again, this is common knowledge.
It's been this way since at least the early 1980's. I suspect few people posting here remember much if any before that time, so it has effectively been that way for their entire lives.
ok ... let's see here.
First of all, this whole conversation is moot because, as StoneColdSober correctly pointed out, the 'discrepancy' exists due to the differences in counting kila/mega/gigabytes between the OS and physical structure of the drive. 'Technically' this thread has its answer and needs no further discussion.
However ... I just felt the need to "chime in" on your example because I just felt it didn't reflect the nature of the 'complaint'. If floor space is HDD space, furniture then would be apps/media, and the structure of the home would be the OS. Buying a 2000 sq ft home allows you to store 2000 sq ft of your own stuff, pretty simple - clearly you must agree here. From a layman's perspective, a 8 gig device should allow you to store 8 gigs of your stuff (much like in the house example). But instead, the "builder" (aka MS, or Apple, or whoever) is telling you that some "square footage" is being used up for other structure and other things (in addition to using a different measuring tape than you
).That's all .... no biggie.
Because, as I said, the OS varies in size from update to update, so there would be no way to ensure the number was right unless the OS never updated.
You would prefer "7.4506 x 1024 x 1024 X 1024 byte iPod Touch, with 0.326 x 1024 x 1024 x 1024 bytes currently used for the OS until it's updated" as the packaging?
"8GB iPod Touch" works a lot better for me. I know that means it has an 8 billion byte capacity, and I know that some of it will be used for the OS.
How is this any less useful? Do you walk around with the current size (in bytes) of the music collection you'd like to add, then wonder if each device has sufficient byte storage?
The OS is, in effect, an application. You're buying a device that you expect to actively do things as opposed to passively store data. You can delete the OS, in theory, and have just a USB flash drive. But, because people expect their portable music devices to, well, play music, they accept that some amount of it will be devoted to making the device work. Just like people realize that they'll have to have some furniture in the house.
I'm not talking about the OS at all.
I just realized I've been using that 7.07 GB number that someone threw out earlier without thinking about it. Sorry, that was confusing.
I'm really only talking about the formated size. That would be about 7.6 GB, right? That's what should be on the box and that doesn't change. So the OS has nothing to do with it.
Seens like you already got you answer.
This is also the case with iPods.
I believe the actual capacity for an 80GB iPod is like... 74.34 (something like that).
And I highly doubt that the iPod OS takes up over 5GBs.
I believe they should have advertised the 80GB as 75GB.
I think I may make a separate thread for actual capacities on hard drives.
AND I'm just curious, why would you want to downgrade from 16GB to 8GB?
This is also the case with iPods.
I believe the actual capacity for an 80GB iPod is like... 74.34 (something like that).
And I highly doubt that the iPod OS takes up over 5GBs.
I believe they should have advertised the 80GB as 75GB.
I think I may make a separate thread for actual capacities on hard drives.
AND I'm just curious, why would you want to downgrade from 16GB to 8GB?
If companies used 10 gig drives, used 2 gigs for OS and sold it to consumers as an 8 gig model - all of this would be avoided (at the expense of the manufactuer of course, which is why they don't do it)
Much in the same way, that I expect 2000 usable square feet in my home - not 1500 because "some amount of it will be devoted to making the [home] work"
(EDIT: for the record, I don't care about the "lost" space. I just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents)