Oh I see. So the fact that 1024kb actually equals
1048576 bytes dosent matter, because you're defining a Mb as 1024Kb, not the number of bytes is containins.

So each layer has a kind of reset factor compared with the actual number of bits involved.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 11 Mar 2013, 12:19, 2 replies, latest was 12 years ago)

Aaaah, which explains why when you buy a 32Gb SD card
you actually only get about 29Gb of storage because the 29Gb is the actual number of bits available, not the number of "bytes"
(Bazongaloid, Mon 11 Mar 2013, 12:20, Reply)

There you go.

( Kroney, Mon 11 Mar 2013, 12:22, Reply)

No.
That's because the quoted size is the raw amount of user data in the flash chips which is less than the actual amount of data since flash chips contain additional non-user data to protect blocks and store status information but less than the amount that the user will see since the file system and operating system will add an overhead and oh god this is tedious but everbody else is talking semi-informed shite and the nerd in me couldn't quite resist I'll shut up now kthx.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Mon 11 Mar 2013, 12:28, Reply)

you
all the careful trolling you carry out, and this you take seriously?

THIS?
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 11 Mar 2013, 12:30, Reply)

I had to write a driver for an [vendor erased] flash part at work last week because [manufacturer erased] are incompetent nobweeds.
It's a sore point. Like my penis.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Mon 11 Mar 2013, 12:32, Reply)

it's all over for you
the only solution is DYAAKY
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 11 Mar 2013, 12:34, Reply)

Okay clever clogs
but the amount you "lose" between the volume you see on the packet and what you get appears to be a bit proportional, so if it was just system storage surely that would be far less with a large chip rather than a small chip?

I'm genuinely curious, are you saying that the difference in bits between what we define as 1Gb and how many bits that would be if you started from 8 bits in 1 byte and had 1024Mb or whatever has nothing to do with the difference in perceived size?
(Bazongaloid, Mon 11 Mar 2013, 12:31, Reply)

Yeah, you've got it!

(PsychoChomp, Mon 11 Mar 2013, 12:32, Reply)

See the other answer.
Hard disk platters were always quoted in decimal (i.e. 1000 bytes to a kB etc) to make them seem slightly bigger until consumers got a trifle miffed. Flash memory wasn't really a consumer product until fairly recently so the numbers quoted were more "honest".
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Mon 11 Mar 2013, 12:35, Reply)

Nah, you've lost me know and I've stopped being curious.
I'm going to look at some tits instead.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 11 Mar 2013, 12:38, Reply)

looking down?

( The Light in Chains don't touch the Pope's boner, Mon 11 Mar 2013, 13:08, Reply)

And then you get into the whole difference between an
actual, physical measurement and the logical aproximation it actually is. It's all very complicated.
( Kroney, Mon 11 Mar 2013, 12:22, Reply)

no no no no no no
you never get into that.

EVER.

fucking hell man, there are people here.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 11 Mar 2013, 12:30, Reply)