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.
iPod 6Gb or 5.67GB?
- Thread starter carandall
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I know this seems irrelevant, but most of the reason why it's 5.7gb and not 6gb is explained at the bottom of this post:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/2398948/
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/2398948/
It's because manufacturers mix up gigabytes (1,000MB = 1GB) and gibibytes (1,024MiB = 1GiB).
The terms kilo, mega, etc mean 1,000, 1,000,000 etc. So a megabyte is equal to 1,000 kilobytes, which is 1,000 bytes.
A gibibyte is 1024 mebibytes, which is 1024 kibibytes and so on.
Your iPod Mini has 6GB of storage, which is less than 6GiB. Obviously, some will be taken up by the iPod software, but not much.
The terms kilo, mega, etc mean 1,000, 1,000,000 etc. So a megabyte is equal to 1,000 kilobytes, which is 1,000 bytes.
A gibibyte is 1024 mebibytes, which is 1024 kibibytes and so on.
Your iPod Mini has 6GB of storage, which is less than 6GiB. Obviously, some will be taken up by the iPod software, but not much.
Just like when you're computers hard drive is smaller than what is advertised, when the iPods hard drive is formatted to be used, it loses some space. It's normal.
I feel I need to add an answer to SpookTheHamster's post as I work for the said manufacturer of carandall's mini's drive.
I issue is the education of the consumer. It has been seen that the average consumer will not bother (note I said 'will not', not cannot) to learn that a megabyte is indeed 1024k, and not 1000. So it is easier to market by effectivey rounding off that 1024 to 1000, so the computer, being literal will show the actual 1024(k)x1024(mb)x1024(gb), being smaller than advertised. It's not really being dishonest, just allowing for the slop in definition that happened in industry by de-facto.
It's a marketing/education/properllerhead thing. And I know the folks around here would prefer to say it right, the problem is "everybody is doing it".
Remember the screen measurements of CRTs? That was TRUE dishonesty. <-(did I just make a funny?)
I issue is the education of the consumer. It has been seen that the average consumer will not bother (note I said 'will not', not cannot) to learn that a megabyte is indeed 1024k, and not 1000. So it is easier to market by effectivey rounding off that 1024 to 1000, so the computer, being literal will show the actual 1024(k)x1024(mb)x1024(gb), being smaller than advertised. It's not really being dishonest, just allowing for the slop in definition that happened in industry by de-facto.
It's a marketing/education/properllerhead thing. And I know the folks around here would prefer to say it right, the problem is "everybody is doing it".
Remember the screen measurements of CRTs? That was TRUE dishonesty. <-(did I just make a funny?)
Counterfit said:
Taken from your own link:
As a result, there is no unambiguous notation for decimal multiples of bits and bytes.
