GiB

(Which one do they want to call "GiB"?) wrote about it about 10 years ago.

Discussions: Message List - root 2009

This translates to about 9.3 GB 'real' savings, which still outperforms the classical 6-7 GiB expected savings.

Snow Leopard Reports Hard Drive Capacity Correctly (In Base 10) | Lifehacker Australia 2009

I went from 63 GiB (base 2) free space to 77 GB (base 10) free space.

Snow Leopard Reports Hard Drive Capacity Correctly (In Base 10) | Lifehacker Australia 2009

While this leads to less customer confusion, I'm of the opinion that we should disambiguate KB vs KiB, but still use KiB/MiB/GiB for storage on boxes and on computers.

Snow Leopard Reports Hard Drive Capacity Correctly (In Base 10) | Lifehacker Australia 2009

Likewise, measuring hard drive capacity in GB as opposed to GiB is technically correct, but misleading.

Snow Leopard Reports Hard Drive Capacity Correctly (In Base 10) | Lifehacker Australia 2009

My free space went from 63 GibiBytes (GiB, base 2) to 77 GigaBytes (GB, base 10).

Snow Leopard Reports Hard Drive Capacity Correctly (In Base 10) | Lifehacker Australia 2009

That gives me a change from 67 GiB free space to 77 GiB free space, or around 10 GiB more space.

Snow Leopard Reports Hard Drive Capacity Correctly (In Base 10) | Lifehacker Australia 2009

The proper solution is to change the units in OSes to GiB, not change the calculation to correct GB.

Snow Leopard Reports Hard Drive Capacity Correctly (In Base 10) | Lifehacker Australia 2009

That's still over the Snow Leopard 6-7 GiB average savings.

Snow Leopard Reports Hard Drive Capacity Correctly (In Base 10) | Lifehacker Australia 2009

Storage space should be reported as binary prefix sizes: KiB, MiB, GiB, TiB.

Snow Leopard Reports Hard Drive Capacity Correctly (In Base 10) | Lifehacker Australia 2009