File and disk sizes in OS X

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Nightfox, Nov 17, 2013.

  1. Nightfox

    Nightfox Guest

    Has anyone noticed that Apple's OS X reports file & disk sizes differently than
    the norm for other OSes? Some time ago, when I had a Mac, I noticed that OS X
    reports file & disk sizes using multiples of 10 (for instance: 1,000 bytes =
    1KB and 1,000,000 bytes = 1MB). That's different from what most other OSes use
    (1,024 bytes = 1KB and 1,048,576 bytes = 1MB). The result is that OS X reports
    file & disk sizes differently (for files 1KB and greater) - The sizes that will
    appear in OS X are larger than what will appear in other operating systems.

    Does anyone have an idea of why Apple would do that? The only reason I can
    think of is perhaps they think it's more natural to think of file sizes that
    way, or perhaps to go along with hard drive manufacturers who started reporting
    their drive sizes that way some time ago. But I think it would cause
    confusion, since it's different from how other operating systems report file &
    disk sizes.

    Nightfox
    --- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.102
    * Digital Distortion - Beaverton, Oregon, USA - telnet://digitaldistortionbbs.com
    Nightfox, Nov 17, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nightfox

    Paul Guest

    Nightfox wrote:
    > Has anyone noticed that Apple's OS X reports file & disk sizes differently than
    > the norm for other OSes? Some time ago, when I had a Mac, I noticed that OS X
    > reports file & disk sizes using multiples of 10 (for instance: 1,000 bytes =
    > 1KB and 1,000,000 bytes = 1MB). That's different from what most other OSes use
    > (1,024 bytes = 1KB and 1,048,576 bytes = 1MB). The result is that OS X reports
    > file & disk sizes differently (for files 1KB and greater) - The sizes that will
    > appear in OS X are larger than what will appear in other operating systems.
    >
    > Does anyone have an idea of why Apple would do that? The only reason I can
    > think of is perhaps they think it's more natural to think of file sizes that
    > way, or perhaps to go along with hard drive manufacturers who started reporting
    > their drive sizes that way some time ago. But I think it would cause
    > confusion, since it's different from how other operating systems report file &
    > disk sizes.
    >
    > Nightfox


    If developers used IEC notation when appropriate, this
    would all be rigorously reported. As it is, you have
    to use your "math fu" to figure out what units
    they might actually be using.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibibyte

    In other words:

    Use GB when you mean 1000**3
    Use GiB when you mean 1024**3

    Screen printouts must use the right labels, for all the
    numbers to add up.

    And some of this was tied up in truth-in-advertising
    court cases. Screwing around, cost them money.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/06/28/western-digital-settles-hard-drive-capacity-lawsuit/

    HTH,
    Paul
    Paul, Nov 17, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Joe
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,257
  2. cc

    file sizes and capacity of CF cards

    cc, Dec 19, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    445
    Bill Hilton
    Dec 19, 2003
  3. Marful
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    868
  4. why?
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    770
  5. why?
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    575
Loading...

Share This Page