|
Originally Posted by Bobsf40
|
When I refered to it as a cost issue, I meant that they could get away with giving us less memory and still call it 1GB, even though so many of us are used 1024MB. The general public on the other hand has no idea how a computer actually counts.
I always just felt a bit ripped off, thats all
|
Again, it's not a cost issue - it's your FAT tables which contribute to the 'less than 1GB' problem, as well as the fact that most everyone refers to a gig as 1000MB, rather than 1024MB - although the card would come with 1024MB anyways. The fact that your 1GB card shows 973MB available is due to the fact your FAT tables will take up more space, the bigger the memory device gets, and that there are two tables there for redundancy, so if one table gets corrupted you don't lose everything on that storage card. A lot of disk-recovery programs use data from both tables to do their repairs, after all. There's also the minimum cluster size to consider here, which will affect the amount of usable space you have left after writing in some files.
For example, I have a 4GB microdrive - that 4GB microdrive provides 3898.33 usable storage space, even though it technically has around 4096MB of storage; the rest goes to the FAT tables. Even if the actual capacity of the drive was 4000MB, I'd still have lost the remaining space to the file structure as well as the size of clusters used in formatting the drive - the bigger the minimum cluster size, the more usable space I lose, as even a 1KB file would be the same size as the cluster, which could get up to 32KB with FAT32.