That's exactly how it would work. It isn't any more confusing than what's currently happening - using 1000 for the storage space, 1024 for the cache, and displaying the number incorrectly.;)
It's only confusing, to me at least, because harddisk manufacturers changed how they measure and market storage space.
If they want to make absolute sense of it, they have to get RAM manufacturers onboard for labelling their DIMMs in GiB.
RAM manufacturers have and should continue to use base 1024 to express memory. RAM was always made with a base of 1024. 64K, 128K, 512K. I don't recall if it was Bill Gates who once asked who would ever need more than 512K of RAM. I still recall 64K being a lot of memory and cassette tapes were used for mass storage.
Think of the bright side. Nobody will pick up a 1.5TB HDD and wonder why they only have 1.4TB.:)
That's the dark side not bright side, you have less storage than you thought not more, and it wouldn't be a problem if manufacturers based units on 1024.
You have a 1.5TB disk with a 32MiB cache is how it will work.
If anything with computers, since memory and storage is based on 1024, that should remain as it is and units with a base of 10^3 should be the ones changed.
Whether that's a good thing, or a bad thing, I don't know.
I consider it good as I got sick and tired of Windows crashing, freezing, and other bugs. Once in a while I've have a problem with my Mac, occasionally Finder will freeze, but it's nothing like the trouble I had with Windows. Months go by without my Mac troubling me but I had trouble monthly if not weekly and weekly if not daily with 3 out of 4 Windows PCs I've had.
That was just the title, if you had read the post I linked to you would have seen it was about more than just jpegs. The person asking the question wants to know what file format photos should be stored in.
Oh, and jpg as well as jpeg are short for jpeg2000. Heck, people including myself abbreviate slashdot as "/.".
One nice touch about file size oreporting in OSX is the way it handles related files. I mean when you have an image there is a very good change there is also a hidden file containing a thumbnail for the file. The size of this hidden file is added to the size of the normal file in the finder.
Thanks for that, I didn't know. I can empty trash then delete 1 photo and empty trash again and it will tell me more than one file is being emptied. Thing is that happens with other files too such as html files. So perhaps the extras are hidden files I didn't know about.
Frankly, once you're up in the triple digits, there's no longer any point converting to the smaller units. If you've got a 400 GB file and are worried about individual megabytes, it's time to drag out bzip2 -9 anyway.
A photograph doesn't compress very well and still retain details.
But those same binary measurements will be required for stuff like RAM, and working with binary numbers. I'd just like to see them removed from our storage subsystems.
How is that going to work? I've got a 1.5TB disk to install in my PC and it has a 32MB cache. Should both the disk and the cache use units of 1000 or should 1000 used for the disk and 1024 for the cache? If that's done wouldn't it confuse people? And if 1000 is used for the cache then won't that confuse people because RAM installed on the mobo still uses 1024?
Canon or Nikon? The Canon I linked to shoots up to 29 seconds of HD, 1080p, video. But I'd rather have the EOS-1Ds Mark III because it's built more like a tank, it can take abuse and being dropped.
You're saying that the display convention of bytes is more important than actually saving gigabytes of disk space?
No, I'll probably still buy Snow Leopard. Because disk space is important to me. I replaced the 160GB disk in my MacBook Pro with the biggest drive I could find, a 320GB drive my Mac says is 298.1GB.
Except when they don't, like floppies, CDs, DVDs, BluRays, HDDs, dial-ups speeds, networks or any of the many other places where they don't.
Oh really? All these technologies use fuzzy and not binary logic?;-)
We need both and we need clearly defined units for both. That's why I now say use kB = 1000 where it's correct.
Like you say why not use kB for 1000 bytes and KB for 1024 bytes, in the same way b means bit and B byte? Although I don't think it's any sort of standard I have seen them used that way. Visually it should be fine, any problem will be oral. However that has been dealt with, at one tyme I read for visually impaired students and when I came across something like that I'd say something like "capital B byte". Or "start bold byte end bold" for text in bold.
Personally I'd vote for 1000, since it's just easier for most people. That way they could easily know that 1001 1MB files do not fit on a 1GB USB stick and all the world would be consistent.
And it's easy to tell that 1001 1MB files can fit on a 1024MB drive.
If you're talking about saving as a tiff or something, then yeah, those file sizes can blow up pretty big. But even most pros don't do that anymore because it's wildly inefficient - there are just better file formats to use except in certain specific types of situations.
Many stock agencies require photos in certain formats. Some require jpeg others require tiff, some compressed some uncompressed. Myself, I want to keep the original file in raw then save a copy I can edit as a tiff. Then if needed save as jpeg as well. Actually the camera I linked to, and many others, can save photos in 2 or 3 formats at the same tyme.
Oh, and tiff retains more detail than some other formats, which is important to some. Some photographers at photo.net prefer tiffs while others like DNG. Here's a thread on JPG/JPEG vs. RAW vs. DNG".
If 10% makes a life-or-death difference, you should have done what Animaether suggested - buy the next size up.
I bought the biggest size drive I could afford.
Re: photography do you go out knowing that you have the capacity for (say) 100 photos and plan your shooting based on that precise figure? I don't see how changing cards 5 shots early is going to be a big inconvenience.
I shoot film not digitally then scan my film for digital files. I can't afford a DSLR, 35mm digital SLR, now. And I have several rolls of film in my camera bag.
Which version of Windows are you talking about? There would seem to be a "Size on disk" field in the properties dialog of at least XP and 7, and I'm pretty sure it's been there in several older versions.
All versions of Windows that I know of report file size as the amount of space used on the disk, if a file is 1 byte over the cluster size it reports the whole cluster. OS X does the same but I think HFS+ uses smaller cluster sizes. I know when I transferred my files from my Windows PC to, first my Linux PC then my Mac, the actual disk space used shrunk.
I am tempted, once all my apps are patched for Snow Leopard, to partition the hard drive to be able to dual boot Mac OS X and Debian GNU/Linux.
Yea I'm running Leopard on my MacBook Pro now, and may install Snow Leopard, and I'm thinking about installing Ubuntu Studio. I already have the harddisk partitioned into 3 partitions, one for OS X, one for Ubuntu Studio, and one for the user home.
1,000,000,000,0000 bytes, or
1,099,511,627,776 bytes.
You may not care but I do. The 1.5TB drive I thought I bought shrunk to 1.36TB once I installed it. I lost 10% of the capacity I thought I bought.
Either number is "big enough that I won't be filling this thing up anytime soon".
You may not but pro photographers and I can. The DSLR camera I want to get, the Canon prosumer model EOS 5D Mark II has a 21.1 Megapixel sensor than can put out a 60MB raw file. Process it and edit in Photoshop and the file could be 500MB.
Here's an article, "Sizing for Alamy", Alamy is a microstock photography website, for photographers that brings up the issue of whether 1MB equals 1024KBs or 1,000,000 bytes.
Because as far as disk space occupation goes, that file may as well be 16KB.
OS X reports disk space better than Windows, Finder reports a 2.5MB file as taking 2,572,834 bytes of disk space. And it depends on what file system the disk uses and the size of the clusters. The smaller cluster, the minimum file sizes can be, the less space is wasted.
At least OS X used to report disk space better, but with this change to Snow Leopard it's no longer true.
How quickly you calculate that to 4TB? 15TB? 492TB?
When I buy, er bought, a 1.5TB drive I wanted it to be 1.5TB not 1.36TB. I lost 10% of my storage capacity. I buy big drives because capacity is important to me, if it didn't I'd buy smaller ones.
I was thinking of upgrading to Snow Leopard, paying $30 to upgrade sounded good to gain disk space and speed. Snow Leopard doesn't need as much disk space and is faster, but now I'm not sure. Especially as I'm planning to dualboot OS X with Ubuntu Studio.
I never think that 1 terabytes = 1 048 576 megabytes.
I do, er did. After buying 3 external HDDs, one 500GB, one, 750GB, and one 1.5TB and seeing storage shrinkage I started examining the documentation to see how terms are defined.
I worked at Circuit City once and as part of the interview they asked me if there had been any incidents of shrinkage (or something, I can't remember what exactly they said, this was ten years ago...) at any of the places I had worked...
On shrinkage and employee theft I recall more than 20 years ago several months after I was hired to work at a convenience store another business bought the company I worked for. All of us employees were called into a meeting where we were told none of us would lose our jobs. A couple of weeks later we were called in for another meeting. At that meeting we were told the manager were being transfered to another store and being demoted to assistant manager while the rest of us were fired. They detailed why, one of the biggest reasons was shrinkage. Now here's what bothered me, they had the record broken down by tyme period of losses and the worst period of shrinkage was before I was hired. I pointed that out but they said it didn't matter, I was still fired.
So I concluded despite the letter they intended to fire a lot of employees anyway. They lied about not firing people because they wanted to hire and train new people before the current ones quit.
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly how it would work. It isn't any more confusing than what's currently happening - using 1000 for the storage space, 1024 for the cache, and displaying the number incorrectly. ;)
It's only confusing, to me at least, because harddisk manufacturers changed how they measure and market storage space.
If they want to make absolute sense of it, they have to get RAM manufacturers onboard for labelling their DIMMs in GiB.
RAM manufacturers have and should continue to use base 1024 to express memory. RAM was always made with a base of 1024. 64K, 128K, 512K. I don't recall if it was Bill Gates who once asked who would ever need more than 512K of RAM. I still recall 64K being a lot of memory and cassette tapes were used for mass storage.
Think of the bright side. Nobody will pick up a 1.5TB HDD and wonder why they only have 1.4TB. :)
That's the dark side not bright side, you have less storage than you thought not more, and it wouldn't be a problem if manufacturers based units on 1024.
Falcon
You have a 1.5TB disk with a 32MiB cache is how it will work.
If anything with computers, since memory and storage is based on 1024, that should remain as it is and units with a base of 10^3 should be the ones changed.
Falcon
Whether that's a good thing, or a bad thing, I don't know.
I consider it good as I got sick and tired of Windows crashing, freezing, and other bugs. Once in a while I've have a problem with my Mac, occasionally Finder will freeze, but it's nothing like the trouble I had with Windows. Months go by without my Mac troubling me but I had trouble monthly if not weekly and weekly if not daily with 3 out of 4 Windows PCs I've had.
Falcon
anything
That was just the title, if you had read the post I linked to you would have seen it was about more than just jpegs. The person asking the question wants to know what file format photos should be stored in.
Oh, and jpg as well as jpeg are short for jpeg2000. Heck, people including myself abbreviate slashdot as "/.".
Falcon
One nice touch about file size oreporting in OSX is the way it handles related files. I mean when you have an image there is a very good change there is also a hidden file containing a thumbnail for the file. The size of this hidden file is added to the size of the normal file in the finder.
Thanks for that, I didn't know. I can empty trash then delete 1 photo and empty trash again and it will tell me more than one file is being emptied. Thing is that happens with other files too such as html files. So perhaps the extras are hidden files I didn't know about.
Falcon
To stay consistent we should also redefine "byte" as 10 bits not 8.
Falcon
Does that mean dividing by 8 is a bug too? Shouldn't bytes be defined as 10 bits not 8?
If not you're not being consistent.
Falcon
Frankly, once you're up in the triple digits, there's no longer any point converting to the smaller units. If you've got a 400 GB file and are worried about individual megabytes, it's time to drag out bzip2 -9 anyway.
A photograph doesn't compress very well and still retain details.
Falcon
My car is all metric. I just have to go back to the old system when communicating with others.
I have and use both imperial English and metric and don't have a problem with either. I've even used 16p and 8p but no metric nails.
Falcon
But those same binary measurements will be required for stuff like RAM, and working with binary numbers. I'd just like to see them removed from our storage subsystems.
How is that going to work? I've got a 1.5TB disk to install in my PC and it has a 32MB cache. Should both the disk and the cache use units of 1000 or should 1000 used for the disk and 1024 for the cache? If that's done wouldn't it confuse people? And if 1000 is used for the cache then won't that confuse people because RAM installed on the mobo still uses 1024?
Falcon
Canon or Nikon? The Canon I linked to shoots up to 29 seconds of HD, 1080p, video. But I'd rather have the EOS-1Ds Mark III because it's built more like a tank, it can take abuse and being dropped.
Falcon
You're saying that the display convention of bytes is more important than actually saving gigabytes of disk space?
No, I'll probably still buy Snow Leopard. Because disk space is important to me. I replaced the 160GB disk in my MacBook Pro with the biggest drive I could find, a 320GB drive my Mac says is 298.1GB.
Falcon
Because computers work in powers of 2.
Except when they don't, like floppies, CDs, DVDs, BluRays, HDDs, dial-ups speeds, networks or any of the many other places where they don't.
Oh really? All these technologies use fuzzy and not binary logic? ;-)
We need both and we need clearly defined units for both. That's why I now say use kB = 1000 where it's correct.
Like you say why not use kB for 1000 bytes and KB for 1024 bytes, in the same way b means bit and B byte? Although I don't think it's any sort of standard I have seen them used that way. Visually it should be fine, any problem will be oral. However that has been dealt with, at one tyme I read for visually impaired students and when I came across something like that I'd say something like "capital B byte". Or "start bold byte end bold" for text in bold.
Falcon
Personally I'd vote for 1000, since it's just easier for most people. That way they could easily know that 1001 1MB files do not fit on a 1GB USB stick and all the world would be consistent.
And it's easy to tell that 1001 1MB files can fit on a 1024MB drive.
Falcon
If you're talking about saving as a tiff or something, then yeah, those file sizes can blow up pretty big. But even most pros don't do that anymore because it's wildly inefficient - there are just better file formats to use except in certain specific types of situations.
Many stock agencies require photos in certain formats. Some require jpeg others require tiff, some compressed some uncompressed. Myself, I want to keep the original file in raw then save a copy I can edit as a tiff. Then if needed save as jpeg as well. Actually the camera I linked to, and many others, can save photos in 2 or 3 formats at the same tyme.
Oh, and tiff retains more detail than some other formats, which is important to some. Some photographers at photo.net prefer tiffs while others like DNG. Here's a thread on JPG/JPEG vs. RAW vs. DNG".
Falcon
If 10% makes a life-or-death difference, you should have done what Animaether suggested - buy the next size up.
I bought the biggest size drive I could afford.
Re: photography do you go out knowing that you have the capacity for (say) 100 photos and plan your shooting based on that precise figure? I don't see how changing cards 5 shots early is going to be a big inconvenience.
I shoot film not digitally then scan my film for digital files. I can't afford a DSLR, 35mm digital SLR, now. And I have several rolls of film in my camera bag.
Falcon
Which version of Windows are you talking about? There would seem to be a "Size on disk" field in the properties dialog of at least XP and 7, and I'm pretty sure it's been there in several older versions.
All versions of Windows that I know of report file size as the amount of space used on the disk, if a file is 1 byte over the cluster size it reports the whole cluster. OS X does the same but I think HFS+ uses smaller cluster sizes. I know when I transferred my files from my Windows PC to, first my Linux PC then my Mac, the actual disk space used shrunk.
Falcon
I am tempted, once all my apps are patched for Snow Leopard, to partition the hard drive to be able to dual boot Mac OS X and Debian GNU/Linux.
Yea I'm running Leopard on my MacBook Pro now, and may install Snow Leopard, and I'm thinking about installing Ubuntu Studio. I already have the harddisk partitioned into 3 partitions, one for OS X, one for Ubuntu Studio, and one for the user home.
Falcon
The problem is that mac users don't know how to use a computer ... ergo, they are mac users.
ie Macs are for those who use computers, they don't require an advanced degree or Microsoft certification to keep running.
Falcon
1,000,000,000,0000 bytes, or
1,099,511,627,776 bytes.
You may not care but I do. The 1.5TB drive I thought I bought shrunk to 1.36TB once I installed it. I lost 10% of the capacity I thought I bought.
Either number is "big enough that I won't be filling this thing up anytime soon".
You may not but pro photographers and I can. The DSLR camera I want to get, the Canon prosumer model EOS 5D Mark II has a 21.1 Megapixel sensor than can put out a 60MB raw file. Process it and edit in Photoshop and the file could be 500MB.
Here's an article, "Sizing for Alamy", Alamy is a microstock photography website, for photographers that brings up the issue of whether 1MB equals 1024KBs or 1,000,000 bytes.
Falcon
Because as far as disk space occupation goes, that file may as well be 16KB.
OS X reports disk space better than Windows, Finder reports a 2.5MB file as taking 2,572,834 bytes of disk space. And it depends on what file system the disk uses and the size of the clusters. The smaller cluster, the minimum file sizes can be, the less space is wasted.
At least OS X used to report disk space better, but with this change to Snow Leopard it's no longer true.
Falcon
How quickly you calculate that to 4TB? 15TB? 492TB?
When I buy, er bought, a 1.5TB drive I wanted it to be 1.5TB not 1.36TB. I lost 10% of my storage capacity. I buy big drives because capacity is important to me, if it didn't I'd buy smaller ones.
I was thinking of upgrading to Snow Leopard, paying $30 to upgrade sounded good to gain disk space and speed. Snow Leopard doesn't need as much disk space and is faster, but now I'm not sure. Especially as I'm planning to dualboot OS X with Ubuntu Studio.
Falcon
I never think that 1 terabytes = 1 048 576 megabytes.
I do, er did. After buying 3 external HDDs, one 500GB, one, 750GB, and one 1.5TB and seeing storage shrinkage I started examining the documentation to see how terms are defined.
Falcon
"The Terminal".
Falcon
I worked at Circuit City once and as part of the interview they asked me if there had been any incidents of shrinkage (or something, I can't remember what exactly they said, this was ten years ago...) at any of the places I had worked...
On shrinkage and employee theft I recall more than 20 years ago several months after I was hired to work at a convenience store another business bought the company I worked for. All of us employees were called into a meeting where we were told none of us would lose our jobs. A couple of weeks later we were called in for another meeting. At that meeting we were told the manager were being transfered to another store and being demoted to assistant manager while the rest of us were fired. They detailed why, one of the biggest reasons was shrinkage. Now here's what bothered me, they had the record broken down by tyme period of losses and the worst period of shrinkage was before I was hired. I pointed that out but they said it didn't matter, I was still fired.
So I concluded despite the letter they intended to fire a lot of employees anyway. They lied about not firing people because they wanted to hire and train new people before the current ones quit.
Falcon