Available storage space?

[gentlefury]

so if you mount it to a Mac it will in fact say you have 64GB but on a windows machine it will say about 60GB

But a file that is 1 MB on a computer that uses (2^10) measurements will be 1 048 576 bytes on a computer that uses the (10^3) measurement. So in the end you can store the exact same amount of data, no matter which computer you use.

Right, it's a matter of perception. They decided to do that because people don't understand the conversion..and since HDDs are now rated in GBs people get confused when they buy a 500GB hard drive and see it actually only has 488GB (because they didn't buy a 500GB hard drive they bought a 500,000MB hard drive...as stated in the fine print.)

Now that drive will come up as 500GB...you haven't actually gained anything you are just viewing it differently.

Like when people installed SL the first time a lot of people thought they gained about 30GB of space....it was all in how it was displayed...SL was a little slimmer than leopard...but only by a couple GB.

 

[Guillaume]

Exactly

SL was a little slimmer than leopard...but only by a couple GB.

It's noteworthy that a couple GB is still significant for an OS that is between 5 and 10 GB in the first place.

For those wondering, Snow Leopard managed to be slimmer than Leopard by compressing a lot of data from the OS (such as the standard applications - ie. Mail, Calendar, etc.).

In modern computers, it's faster to load smaller compressed data to RAM and uncompress it there than load a bigger amount of data to RAM.

That's because CPU speed (doing the uncompression) has increased dramatically over time, whereas hard drive speed (from where the data is loaded- the more data you load, the more time it takes) has been pretty much the same for a few years now.

 

[gentlefury]

Exactly

SL was a little slimmer than leopard...but only by a couple GB.

It's noteworthy that a couple GB is still significant for an OS that is between 5 and 10 GB in the first place.

For those wondering, Snow Leopard managed to be slimmer than Leopard by compressing a lot of data from the OS (such as the standard applications - ie. Mail, Calendar, etc.).

In modern computers, it's faster to load smaller compressed data to RAM and uncompress it there than load a bigger amount of data to RAM.

That's because CPU speed (doing the uncompression) has increased dramatically over time, whereas hard drive speed (from where the data is loaded- the more data you load, the more time it takes) has been pretty much the same for a few years now.

Yup...I am still very happy with Snow Leopard...it was a major step forward....

 

[Finnedog]

most is the operative word here

So yes, I think 64GB will definitely be enough for most people. [/QUOTE]

I have never met a computer I could not clutter up, I am sure the iPad will be no different.

 

[Guillaume]

Oh definitely, I'm the same. I have about 1.5 terabytes of data right now. But on mobile devices such as the iPad, it's all about choosing what you're putting on there

 

[AEAJR]

If looking at the 32G version of iPhone is any indication.

Itunes reports available capacity - any user installed data is = to about 29.3G meaning that much of the OS etc is about 3Gig of data.

I want to be sure I understand this. You are saying that the iPad, as it comes from the store with 32 GB would have about 3G of OS and standard software with 29.3G as free space for data and new apps?

Do I have that right?