Re: Snow Leopard...
- From: Barry Margolin <barmar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 22:25:38 -0400
In article <020920091850212417%nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
nospam <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <barmar-2C87A9.21353902092009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Barry
Margolin <barmar@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
They now use the definition that disk manufacturers use when referring
to disk space. That makes things less confusing.
or more confusing, because if you download a file, the reported sizes
will be different and you may not know if you successfully downloaded
all of it.
If you want to check that, you should look at the size in bytes, not
mega or gigabytes. When it displays the larger units, it's rounding off
no matter which definition it uses, and this is no use when you need
precision.
but if both sides use the same round-off algorithm, they should match.
apple may be technically correct but it's not going to match anything
else.
Why would both sides use the same round-off algorithm? You might copy
from a server with 4K block size to a client with 1K blocks. If you
copy a file that's 2000 bytes long, it will say 4K on the original
system, 2K after the copy, but that doesn't mean anything was lost.
Get Info display the size in both ways. For instance, I just checked a
text file, it said "4 KB on disk (1,991 bytes)". Which of those numbers
are you going to care about if you want to be sure if you got the whole
file?
in that case it's rounded up to the disk's block size, but how many
people are actually going to do that versus looking at the number in
finder? not that finder's ability to report accurate file and folder
sizes ever worked properly, but that's another rant.
If you're checking file size to ensure that it was transferred
correctly, why would you even think of looking at anything but the
precise file size?
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
.
- References:
- Re: Snow Leopard...
- From: Theo van Riet
- Re: Snow Leopard...
- From: Barry Margolin
- Re: Snow Leopard...
- From: nospam
- Re: Snow Leopard...
- From: Barry Margolin
- Re: Snow Leopard...
- From: nospam
- Re: Snow Leopard...
- Prev by Date: Re: Snow Leopard...
- Next by Date: Re: Snow Leopard...
- Previous by thread: Re: Snow Leopard...
- Next by thread: What Happened to QuickTime in Snow Leopard?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|