We’ve always felt that hard drive manufacturers were dirty crooks because of their use of fake math to make drives sound bigger than they actually are. Here’s a quick refresher for those who need it: Because digital information consists of 1’s and 0’s (two possible settings), digital architecture revolves around powers of 2. Long ago, when nomenclature was setup for measuring data the term kilobyte was adopted to represent 2 to the 10th power bytes (base 2, aka real math). The problem here is that 2^10= 1024 and when laymen hear the root “kilo” they think 1000 which is 24 byes less (base 10, aka fake math). So, if you have a 500,000,000 byte drive, base 10 math would call that a 500GB drive, but base 2 math would call that 476.8GB.
We understand why hard drive manufacturers use the base 10 system; larger sounding drives sell better. Now we find out that OSX 10.6 Snow Leopard is using base 10 math to calculate storage space. While base 2 math is the standard storage measurement for operating systems it may at first be difficult to understand why Apple would change to a base 10 system. But think about it once more, doesn’t Apple have a lot to gain if all the storage-containing-hardware they sell sounds bigger than it actually is?
[via Gizmodo]
Update: Force Snow Leopard to calculate storage in base 2 [via Gizmodo]
Tragic. 151 comments latter, no advancement. Worse than Vietnam… Question answers itself, but there is still a shit storm over splitting hairs, semantics, and watching paint dry. Everybody knows 1024 is your standard configuration. Everybody knows manufacturers use base 10 to make their drives look bigger. End of story. This thread should be deleted, it is simply too sad to read anymore. This is so maddening that I think I will plant a hotdog and watch it grow into a tree. An action possibly more fruitful than this crap.
Wow, I’m suprised at the 5 pages of ignorant comments posted here.
Like it or not, computers are base 2, not base 10. It doesn’t matter what the laymen knows about computers or not. Base 2 comes down to on or off on a switch inside the computer.
1111 b2
2^0 + 2^1 + 2^2 + 2^3 = 15 not 1,111
@tMH
1111b=15d not 1,111d. And the way you calculated your answer is not how you convert a binary number into a decimal number or even vice versa.
@Rollyn01
tHM’s method works fine for converting 1111b2 into a decimal number.
a_(n)*b^(n)+a_(n-1)*b^(n-1)+…+a_1*b+a_0 =(decimal # from any base)
a is the value in a given place (0 or 1 for binary), b is the original base (2 for binary), and n is the number of digits -1.
@EEBME121
If n is the number of digits -1, wouldn’t your equation evaluate the digits with the wrong exponents?
i.e. bit 7 would be evaluated with the exponent for bit 6 as in a_(6)*2^(6)
Or are we leaving that msb for parity/carry/sign?
@Rollyn01
In your example, the binary number 1000000 is equal to 1*2^6 and 1 is the 7th bit in the number. 2^6 = 64 and 1000000 = 64 in decimal.
Similarly, 1111 = 1*2^(4-1)+ 1*2^(3-1)+ 1*2^(2-1)+ 1*2^(1-1)= 8+4+2+1 = 15.
@EEBME121
I see where the this went wrong… You stated that “n is the number of digits -1.” I took it that you meant that n is being subtracted by 1 for each digit’s place. It’s ok. Lets just go this route…
n = lenght(number)
a = 0
b = base
d(x) = digit(x) <– a function
For F = n to 1 Step -1
a = a + d(F)*b^(F-1)
Next F
Can we agree on this?
I would like to thank everybody who supports this technicality on behalf on the hard drive companies. I would also like to point out that no matter how technically “correct” using base 10 math is they are still using it to make more money off you.
The thing is
1 KB = 1000 bytes
1 KiB = 1024 bytes
KB = kilobyte
KiB = kibibyte
Nice one Bob, very enlightening. You just solved the whole debate (facepalm)
I would say instead to repeat the Kb/KB vs Kib/KiB once more go and have a drink !
Cheers.Happy X-mas
If you measure bytes in counts of 1000, you’re doing it wrong. You can call 1024 bytes a traditional “KB” or a new-school “KiB”. But measuring in 1000 is misleading and unnatural. It’s like saying you have 1.66666… sets of six toes. It sounds like you have more toes than having one set, but in the latter case you’re using a counting system that makes sense. Since bytes come in groups in sizes of powers of two, you use a power-of-two system to count them.
You guys are nerds period. I’m astounded that this is even a thread. total F’ing nerds.
Oh snap! Nice post, but these comments make me feel like I’m in the top 95th percentile…
why memory units does not conform to metric prefixes?